Okay, why do these little AR2 speakers have better bass than my Tannoys??

Well? I don't get it.


AR2-smaller speaker, smaller cabinet, more bass, tighter...seemingly more accurate bass. Very full sounding and punchy.

Tannoy Monitor Gold 12/Mallorcan cabs-larger speaker, larger cabinet, less bass in general, less bass and lower-mid definition, less punch, a little flabbier sounding.


When doing a quick A/B with these two speakers, I notice that the Tannoys are the winner of the two. This is because the Tannoys generally sound more accurate. They have a clear and open quality with fantastic imaging and a wonderful soundstage. Vocals sound extremely natural and very convincing...as do the guitars and just about everything else. However, next to the AR2, the bass is murky and shaved off. The Tannoys sound top heavy.

The AR2s have awesome sounding bass. Snares have that really tight, punchy sound that I absolutely love. Bass guitars are big and boomy, but certainly not artificial or excessively bloated. The speaker has a nice, rich balanced tone at all volume levels and seems to make everything sound good(a bad sign on one hand). However, what killed the AR2s for me is the boxy, chesty, sound that vocals have. The highs are poorly rendered in general, they lack the air and the extension of the Tannoys(and the Tannoys are rolled off!). Electric guitars seem blurry and one dimensional. Imaging is not as precise and vocals do not sound eerily close and life-like as they do with the Tannoys. One is tempted to crank the treble controls in an attempt to capture some of the smooth and airy, effortless qualities of the Tannoy high end....but doing so results in something that is for all intensive purposes, unlistenable. The highs become overly bright and fatiguing, rather than improving in accuracy or clarity.

But that dang bass! This really bugs me. Bass and drums on the AR2s sound SO good! Why can't there be a pair of speakers that sound and perform like my Tannoys in every way, but have the bass characteristics of the AR2?? This really makes me wonder what the AR2 would sound like with a real tweeter.

Another interesting note is that these AR2s sound infinitely better when they are placed horizontally, as they are intended to be. Set them up vertically and the sound definitely goes to pot. What I do notice about sitting them straight up vertically, is more focused imaging....but they then also sound unsophisticated, cheap, unbalanced, and grating in comparison to the nice thick sound of them lying on their sides. Sitting horizontally, though not revealing location as precisely as in the other configuration, the speakers do a much better job of disappearing and still do a decent job of creating a soundstage within the limitations of the speaker by design. To recap in simple terms:

A) Speakers placed in standard position, vertically, with tweeter on top results in tighter focus in terms of imaging. More convincing soundstage. Unbalanced sound and lo-fi sounding highs. If I heard these speakers like this for the first time, I wouldn't give them a second thought. Strange that I perceive them to sound so much different depending on placement of the tweeter, but I guess it makes sense.

B) Speakers placed in manufacturer recommended position, lying on their sides vertically, with woofer and tweeter parallel to one another. Sound is rich, pleasant, and well integrated. Bass guitars, drums, etc come to life, sound fast and fantastic, and seem like they're going to explode out of the speaker. I bet these AR2s would be the perfect speaker for listening to old dub reggae lps on! Imaging is still there, but the details are wider...larger, and more vague. For this reason, the soundstage is not as convincing.....though what is convincing is that the speakers do a wonderful disappearing act that doesn't exist when they are sitting the other way(A).

As always, comments and advice are welcome.

 

Acoustic suspension baby!!! The acoustic suspension design allows a lot of bass from a small package. The cabinet must be small, so that there is enough air pressure inside of the cabinet to pull the woofer back in. The cabinet is sealed air tight with putty. When the woofer moves out, the air pressure on the inside of the cabinet lowers drastically, causing the cone to be sucked back inside the cabinet. The woofer itself, when removed from the cabinet, is very compliant, it has no restoring force of its own. When installed in the sealed cabinet, the air is the restoring force, described above. Ported speakers must use woofers with very stiff suspensions, the stiff suspensions supply the restoring force in a ported speaker, therefore, the response is influenced by the spring. With the acoustic suspension design, response is linear, and undistorted. Acoustic suspension is a far superior design to ported designs, the only drawback, is they are inefficient.

Prix, The only reason your high frequency extension is lacking, and detail is laking, is due to power. Since we spoke last, I ran some tests of my own. I connected my AR-2's to an old receiver of mine, that is about 16 watts per channel. I had the same problems that you described. I then proceeded to connect them to a bit larger amp, a 50 watt per channel hafler. The problems disappeared. I have been using my AR-2's with a 125 watt per channel Adcom, for a few years now, and that setup sounds great. Power is the key to these speakers. While the AR-2 is a bit more efficient than the AR-3, it still needs a fair amount of power. AR said at least 15 watts for the AR-2, however, I would recommend at least 25 watts. If you have a more powerful amp, connect them to that, and see what you think. IMHO, these are the best two way speakers ever made. If I can find my AR-2 literature, I will post it.

EDIT: Here is the AR-2 lit. In order, page one thru four. Sorry for the bad quality, I quickly scanned them low res this morning for use here. Note, on the frequency response graph below, AR used the average 15 watt amp for testing, so the high frequency response falls off after 10k. AR even stated, that if you use a more powerful amp, the response will flatten, and extend to 17k, then drop off slightly, and continue to 20k. Prix, if you like the sound of the AR-2's 10 inch woofer, but still want more highs, try to find a pair of AR-2ax's. They are the same as the AR-2, except they are a three way system, with a dome midrange, and a dome tweeter. You would also like the AR-5, which is and AR-3a with a 10 inch woofer. AR offered pretty much all of thier 12 inch woofer models in a 10 inch version. With the 10 inch woofer, you lose a bit of bass off the extreme bottom, but the sound is tighter. The 12 inch woofer is nice, but it really needs a lot of power to get going, and without power, it can sound boomy.

 

There's a nice little lift at 60 Hz then a typical acoustic suspension roll off. Not much deep bass, but well tuned for rock music. Response appears to be really ragged around 10,000Hz.

 

The 12 inch AR woofers have a lot more low bass. If your looking for really extreme low bass, the AR-3a can do that for you! It has a 12 inch woofer. The AR-2 uses the smaller 10 inch woofer, so the extreme low bass is indeed lacking. However, when placed properly, the bass respons is improved greatly.

Also, as I stated in my previous post, the raggedness is eliminated with power.

 

Yes, that's about right. It was a matter of spouse approval though. In general (trying to be politically correct in my phrasing), the male may have been OK with large and efficient speakers but his partner was pretty attracted to those smaller boxes and pleased to get her living room back. And if it meant also replacing those large and ugly valve jobbies with a cute little solid state amp, that was another bonus. It was smart marketing by AR.

 

Wasn't it a cost issue? It was much cheaper to build those solid state amps. That's what I've always thought was the reason for the decline of tubes. However, this makes perfect sense as well!

 

Joe, I'm not using the low powered 299B that I had plugged in when I we spoke over the phone. I'm now using my Fisher X-202-B again, which is 30 wpc. Don't you think that's enough power for the AR2? If not, I'm gonna throw up my Sargent Rayment SA-5100 50wpc EL 34 amp and see what happens. In any case, I used to have an Adcom power amp like yours. I sold it because I didn't like it. As I recall....and this is a while ago, but as I recall it had a very bright, brittle, and hard sound and a TON of power...sort of like a Sansui 9090 or something. Anyway, I can see how an amp like this would be the perfect match for these speakers. It's a tough one, man. The highs are unacceptable, but the bass is totally addicting. What to do, what to do. I wonder if the highs suck so bad because the components are failing? Do you think new caps and pots would help? Also, why do these speakers sound so much better when placed on their sides?

 

I bought my AR3a speakers in 1974, still use them

I bought my AR3a speakers 30 years ago. ABout 10 years ago, I had the wooher foam replaced. The tweeters and midrange no longer work, so I use the AR3a speakers as subwoofers. I use a pair of NHT subwoofer amps to power the AR3a's.

As Prix mentioned, the bass from the AR3a speakers is really nice, very tight, very musical and deep. They are great sounding subwoofers for music.

John

 

Okay, vintage speaker fans....tell me, which other speakers have this type of punch in the bass? it's not really the low, low bass I'm craving. It's the punch and defintion. If anyone can recommend any units I should hear, I'm interested in exploring.

 

Prix,

I really like the defined bass of my recently acquired Klipschorns. I was listening to Quadrophenia yesterday and couldn't beleive how good Entwistle's BASS sounded. Very defined, punchy, almost like it was coming out of a horn? Man, all I could do was listen to that BASS and smile. Klipschorns are BIG, but they really do dissappear into the corners nicely. They take up less room than my recently departed La Scala's.

 

I tried Dynaudio drivers

I replaced the original AR tweeter and midrange with Dynaudio drivers that were very similar in design. To be honest, the overall sound was not very much different. I think the problem is as follows:

1. The baffle on the AR3a speaker is recessed about 1/4". This presents a diffraction issue.

2. The speakers are not mirror images.

3. The front baffle edges should be rounded to prevent diffraction.

4. The crossovers are old fasioned in design.


Like I mentioned in my previous post---they make great subwoffers.

John

 

I do not like modifying the original design. There is really no need to. It ruins the original sound. Modern tweeters usually sound like crap in the AR speakers. The crossovers were designed for the components in them.

 

30 wpc is ok, but try the 50, things will only get better! Yes, the Adcom's are great matches for the vintage AR stuff, plenty of clean power. Also, the new Adcoms, that use MOSFET outputs, as opposed to the old bipolar outputs. The MOSFETs are much smoother sounding than the bipolars.

The highs could suck, because of aging capacitors. The Chicago Industrial Condenser capacitors that AR used were military spec, and last practicly forever IF they are used continually. If they sit for a few years unused, it will take around 50-100 hours (depending on how long they have been sitting) of playing them, to reform the caps. Replacing them can be a good Idea (sometimes). I like to use Solen capacitors. However, if you do not need to replace them, dont. Its a pain in the rear to do, and the original ones are generally fine, unless they are leaking. Also, the pots on the back are most likely corroded. If they make noise and cut in and out when rotating them, its a good idea to replace them.

Prix, I am sorry to hear that your AR-2's are still not performing as desired. It is hard for me to relate to what you are experencing, because my AR-2's sound fabulous. They have very extended high end, and sound very detailed. Please phone me again if you have any more trouble. I am glad to help! Anything to restore a pair of sick AR's!

 

However, if the woofer is designed and built properly, for the size cabinent in use, it can have very low distortion. Also, AR used relatively SMALL woofers in thier systems, 8-12 inch. Unlike manufactures of the time such as Klipsch and Tannoy. So according to the source above, the midrange of the Klipsch will be poor because it is big, and since it is so big, it will not be able to maintain adequate dispersion patterns. Steve, whoever this friend is, should re consider what he wrote, he is contradicting himself!
(Sorry if I sound rude, I dont mean too! )

 

Did anyone here ever get to hear--or own--those BIG Acoustic Research's equipped with two 12" side-mounted woofers, an 8" midbass driver, an a dome mid/dome tweeter mounted on the same mounting plate?

Because waaaay back in 1983(?) I saw these at Pacific Stereo but they were hooked up to a small power amp that only had about 100w/ch & so kept shutting off every time I turned it up past muzak volume levels. I think they had an impedance of only 3 point something and placed a major burden on most amps.

BTW: while in college I couldn't afford the larger models in AR's or Advent's model line-ups, so I bought some Baby Advents to get some of that acoustic-suspension sound (and they still pissed off the RAs, despite having only 6.5" woofers. ). I kept them for 14 years until giving them to a buddy. Audiovox also supposedly owns the Advent name now--I hope they don't trash it.

 

Ah yes, the AR-9! It is a bottomless pit of power handling! The AR-9's are amazing! I would use no less than 150wpc on these babies!

Audiovox owns AR, Advent, and Jensen. They are all crap now!

Anyway, here is a page from the AR-9 manual.

 

The midrange comment could use some clarifying - to aid in the dispersion pattern (to avoid weird lobing/poor off axis response) a midrange that is large enough to handle the upper bass notes would be desirable to keep the large woofer (10" and up) from getting too far out of its "comfort zone" (a 12" woof really oughta be crossed over fairly low - 400 hz is comfortable, 800 is a stretch, up into the 1K zone and you're asking for unpleasant problems)...

 

My point exactly. The AR-3a, that had a 12 inch woofer, crossed over at 500cps. The 10 inch two way AR-2, crossed over at 1200cps. The AR-5, which is an AR-3a with a 10 inch woofer, also crossed over at 500cps. The AR speakers with 8 inch woofers generally crossed over around 1000cps-1200cps, depending on the model.

 

As for Klipsch - well, their approach also leads to some problems! Making a midrange horn that is smooth/covers a wide frequency range/goes down low enough is almost impossible (Paul Klipsch himself mentioned that he never could get it right in his Dope From Hope commentary). Making a midrange small enough to fit into a box like the Heresy was even tougher than the large horn settled on for the K-Horn. Dispersion paterns for the Heresy are pretty lumpy if I remember correctly - as mentioned above there's no free lunch when speaker design is concerned...

 

I agree!

I still think that a properly designed acoustic suspension system (such as the AR's) has more acurate response than a horn or ported design. They are small, so dispersion characteristics are good, they have high power handling, and distortion is very low. The only drawback is the lack of efficency, which is not a problem today with large amps both SS and tube.

 

Joe: Yep, that's the one! Except for the mid/tweeter array: the one I saw defitnitely had both domes on one large, gray rectangular plate & separated by only about a 1/2". AR made a big deal about this feature and for good reason too, since this got the speaker closer to a point-source, at least as far as the upper frequencies were concerned.

 

The original AR 3 had a 1000 hz midrange crossover - right smack where the ear is most sensitive. That changed as you noted (learning curve at work); the 10" crossing over that high into the midrange is far from ideal (is that the model with the pair of 3" cone tweeters?) The 8 inch crossing over that low would have pretty darned good polar response off axis, but nudging up the crossover point a bit to the 2K zone would be just enough away from the 1K extra ear sensitive zone and make the tweeter sigh in relief for not going so low. You'll have to forgive my AR knowledge as I useta build/rebuild speakers many moons ago and kept up with alla that stuff (Speaker Builders in my heap go back to Issue #1) - I'm a bit rusty...