All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Those look really nice - - drivers, cabs, grilles, thanks for the pics. Yours are even a little earlier than mine (which have tweeters dated from Jan. 1973). A single badge for yours will turn up in due time. Also, if you have decided to use shims , try to preserve the original dust cap so that the woofers maintain their distinctive look. It's not that difficult - - the cardboard is pretty stiff but a fresh #11 X-acto blade makes a clean cut. The wood grain on yours is very similar to what I've seen, and I agree, if I hadn't learned from this forum (historian Tom T, of course) that this veneer was birch (in disguise) I never would have guessed it. Just a suggestion, but an extra hour of investment here and there to snazzle up the "naked" appearance is well worth it, IMO. "After" pic of same speaker shown earlier is attached. Also, always a good idea to rotate woofers 180 degrees from original position.
  3. I was under the impression that early 7s were walnut stained birch. The grain on these is like no birch I have seen before. Here are some pictures of the tops. For some reason I can't upload the two pictures. Got it. If you look at the pictures of the tops, the grain on these is fairly open. If you click the picture and enlarge to full size, you can see the grain well. The s/n on these are 004837 and 004938
  4. Thank you, Gentlemen! I have bought surrounds from speakerworks before. To them I will go again. And I'll use shims Forgive what may be a naive question, but can you test caps while they are in the circuit? I was under the impression that they had to be fully isolated to test them. I was going to replace them with Daytons since I had the cabinets open. In my rush to start these, I didn't take before pics. Here they are with the cabinets almost done. And the ugly duckling baffle.
  5. Yesterday
  6. OK, I've been listening to these for a couple of months, with a very favorable impression. That said, I've also been able to detect a certain mudiness in the low end. This is primarily noticeable on acoustic bass, as in a jazz trio; it's like a slight loss of detail, with individual low bass notes smearing, and a very slight tendency to accentuate one note over another. Are there any opinions on how this may be addressed? Could it be an issue with stuffing? The 3a cabinets were stuffed with the amount of polyfill that AR had originally used with the AR-91; Tim Holl's paper on their design mentions that the cabinet had a "dense packing of internal damping material", and the 3a cabinet is certainly well-stuffed. Could this be too much for the 3a box? Ideas sought!
  7. Okay....got the picture thing worked out and wanted to show how they came out. Second one was easier to do once I got a system down. Speaker looks brand new.......:)
  8. This is a good vendor http://www.speakerworks.com/default.asp Personally, I would not go with PE because I believe (I could be wrong) their surrounds are pretty generic. I'd follow Roy's advice and get the Boston filled fillet type or the JBL. Nice find on the 7s! The real wood veneer is hard to find. And use shims! -Kent
  9. I do believe the vendor might indeed make a difference, but others will be able to advise you with more current info than I can - - I re-foamed a number of AR 8" woofers fairly recently with Bose/JBL foams I had purchased a while ago (can't remember exactly where offhand, but will continue to look into it) and I can attest that they fit very well and perform just fine, too. I do like the "fillet" shape of the BA foams, but I've never personally used them in the 8" size, which I suppose can be more challenging due to the radius being tighter than the 10-inchers I have used. Hopefully, others will chime in with their positive recommendations. I totally understand the notion of trying to combine a parts order - - most of the suppliers are fleecing us for S&H charges for a tiny package that weighs next to nothing. My pair had the typical "ugly duckling" look once when you peeked under the hood (see pic), but I've got them looking pretty snazzy now. The woofers had that little ring of solid goo that bridged the cone-to-surround joint, and along with the crumbling foams, it peeled right off like a string of rubber cement. Couple other detail items of note: the original blue Sprague 6uF 50V caps in mine (s/n 0058XX) did not require replacement; and the wood veneer on these is most likely birch species stained to appear much like walnut. Share some pics if you can - - we all like to see the rescued speakers, before and after restoration.
  10. Thanks ra.ra. Does the vendor make a difference? I see that Parts Express sells them. I have to order a bunch of caps, too, so one sales order would suit me. Peter
  11. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, I tend to re-foam using the shim method - - see AR-7 woofers re-foamed this past summer. Regarding foams, I've tended to follow Roy's recommendations as noted below. Apparently MSound is no longer conducting business, but these foams should be available from other vendors.
  12. I have found in general, limiting the picture size to 1000 pixels or less in the longest direction works out in most cases on most forums. I have photoshop, so it's easy to make the adjustment.
  13. Richard So services all the old ADS ferrofluid drivers all the time. I wonder if he does other brands too. I will ask him.
  14. Thanks guys and got her down to 49%.....:) I never knew there was a limit here and a lot of my recent pics were 2-3 MB. Will have to adjust camera to not be so big.
  15. Greetings, I picked up a pair of AR-7 last week for short cash. Sequential low s/n, real walnut veneer, foam surrounds, front wired tweeters. Spent the weekend doing the cabinets. I sanded down to bare veneer (up to 320 grit), applied 4 coats of Danish Oil (med. walnut) with 600 grit sanding in between. The cabinets are gorgeous! I have to refoam the woofers and have a couple of questions. I have done this before to speakers I did not really care about. Then, I used a 1.5 V battery to center the voice coils. Is there any reason to not use this method on these speakers? I would rather not cut the dust cap to shim the coil. Is there a preferred vendor for woofer surrounds. Would anyone happen to have a single AR-7 badge laying around? Thanks! Peter
  16. Looks like they were owned by Bill Russell! Roy's date will be confirmed by a date stamp on the interior wall of the cabinet if you happen to open them up.. Dude, we need photos!
  17. Not entirely "subjective." The BA MR 3-inch piston was exactly twice the diameter of the 3a's 1 1/2-in dome MR. so the BA would be non-directional to exactly one-half the frequency that the 3a's mid was. The 3a and 11 went to 5kHz, the BA went to 2500Hz, so their respective mids' directionality in their operating passbands were identical. Identical, in theory. In the actual system (not as a single driver on a flat baffle in an anechoic chamber), the 3a had a bit of a "horse blinder" from that intrusive picture-frame cabinet molding. The 11--benefiting from experience-- corrected that. The BA, of course, like any good modern speaker (once AR showed the way with the ADDs) had no horse blinders. So the VR-M90's near-field mid dispersion was a tick better (as a complete speaker system) in practice than the 3a's and identical to the 11's. This is objective, not subjective. Factual. The numbers are the numbers. Do I have graphs? No. Is this still a fact? Yes. The BA mid had a FAR of 175Hz, the AR mid 400Hz. Subjective? No Factual. The BA mid crossed over more than 2x over its FAR point, which meant it wasn't pushed into excursion-related distortion like the AR mid. Not "subjective." Simply better design practice. The BA mid could handle more power and never failed. We never replaced a single 3 1/2-inch driver while I was there, and several systems used it. That's sort of subjective, because I don't have AR's failure rate pct, but whatever it was, it was more than BA's 0%. I wish I had the BA raw driver FR curves. You'll just have to take my word for it, I'm afraid. Ruler flat. Perfectly uniform off-axis fall-off. Textbook driver, bullet proof, no failures, articulate and effortless. A driver that benefitted from 30 years' of hindsight and experience that the AR MR dome had paved the way. That the AR MR dome is still even in this discussion is an amazing tribute to its longevity and excellence. As long as diaphragm/coil/magnet speakers are still used, the Classic AR drivers will never be outclassed. But on a case-by-case basis, they can be outpointed. This is one of those cases. Steve F.
  18. Last week
  19. 1967...First year of production. Roy
  20. My nephew recently purchased these speakers with sequential serial numbers (3A 0654 & 3A 0655). Would anyone know the approximate build date?
  21. This is a interesting discussion, but it is more subjective than objective. Without frequency-response and power data on the BA midrange unit, there is no way to know how well that unit would actually compare with the 1½-inch AR-3a dome mid. It might actually outperform it, but we don't have hard data. "And it was a far superior performer at the lower end of its band" might also be true, but that is a subjective description and not a completely valid argument. Technically, of course, a low-resonance BA 3½-inch cone driver with a larger surface area—and likely an underhung voice coil—should perform much better at lower frequencies than the AR midrange. Nevertheless, the AR-3a midrange is uniform and very flat within its operating region of 575-5kHz, and our discussion was originally about dispersion and ultimately, power response. It's just that at the lower end of its operating range, the AR-3a midrange won't blow you out of the room. At normal levels, there is never a problem. It is also true that AR recognized the need for greater power-handling in the midrange, and raised the low limit on those drivers in the newer AR9, AR90 and so forth, to reduce the stress on the midrange. At 30˚ to perhaps 45˚ off axis, the 3½-inch BA cone midrange should do well within its range; however, beyond that angle, there is a question as to how it would perform compared with the AR dome midrange, and flat power response requires very wide dispersion at all frequencies. You have hit on one of the big differences between the early manufacturing processes and later, more automated production, when you described the "rejected" drivers at AR during production. The rejection rate of AR midrange drivers was not as high as you describe—the ¾-inch tweeters were—but it was obviously higher than speakers built with higher automation in later years. Although the 1½ MR used in the AR-3a was less "hand-made" than earlier drivers, it still was tested for any quality issues and rejected if it didn't meet certain standards. AR did have barrels of rejected drivers that were destined to be rebuilt and returned to inspection, but in later years, production methods greatly improved for the high-fidelity industry, for sure. In the end, the performance and quality of the product are what counted, and this required more QC intervention with the more hand-assembled speakers of the 50s-80s than later automated production. Time does "move on," but this is really not our discussion here. —Tom
  22. Very unexpectedly, I stumbled upon an orphan Smaller Advent yesterday, so I now have a good donor woofer (c.1976, 3.5 ohms) to cobble together the injured speaker mentioned in previous posts. This "new" one also has an excellent cabinet, grille, badge, and orange tweeter (and has the 4uF and 8uF cap crossover). I even dragged the bleepin' box home on the subway! I am already in possession of foams that I got from MSound a couple years back, and I'll probably re-foam all four woofers at the same time, but first a question. I know that the inner foam lip sits underneath the cone which makes gluing a bit more difficult, but since it is generally inadvisable (please confirm!) to slice up this unique dust cap to allow the use of shims, is there any recommended method to be able to position the cone height in order to ensure proper foam-to-cone and foam-to-basket glue attachments?
  23. That's true...sometimes. There have been major CSP SW upgrades over the years that have also contributed to the disappearance of attachments; much to the thread and poster author's (and searcher's) disappointment.
  24. Thanks, Carl. Sometimes when reading "older" threads, it is difficult to understand the entire content when following discussion that clearly references pics that seemingly no longer exist. In these cases, is it most likely that the original pics have already been deleted in the manner that you have mentioned?
  25. I just could not resist pulling out my AR 58 1.5” dome midrange/Ribbon tweeter combination from the basement and gave another audition. The bass is a pro version of JBL 14” Neo woofer (similar to that used JBL Synthesis 1400 Array), crossovered around 700 hz to AR midrange. Next to it I have JBL 104H-2 4” mid and 1” 035Tia Titanium tweeter used in JBL L100 T3. I have to say the AR combo has no lacking of mid or high and it has the same sparkling high as JBL when program calls for it. I admit AR is winning me over again.
  26. I cannot figure out how to help you clear up some space to post new pics, but your question is a very good one, and it prompted me for the first time to review my own status regarding the 200MB limit. I have been posting tons of pics to this site since 2011, and for comparison, my current total is up to 42% of capacity (84MB). My history does show that I have erroneously posted handfuls of images in the 1MB range or larger, but the size of the great majority of my images is consciously kept to below 100KB each, and always in jpeg format. I'm sure you'll get the help you need to continue posting pics, but in the meantime, it is a good time to remind members that it is normally not necessary to post pics with large file sizes, and for most instances, 100KB should be more than sufficient.
  1. Load more activity