Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums

rl1856

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rl1856

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,764 profile views
  1. I have direct experience in this area. I have a restored Fisher 400 and have used it for several years with AR speakers. A Fisher 400 will deliver about 20-22wpc throughout most of the audio band, slightly less in the deep bass. I have used the following speakers with my 400: Dynaco A25, Polk Monitor 7, Acoustic Energy Aegis One, ADS L410, AR 92. The best sounding speakers were the Polk Monitor 7 and the AR92. The AR92 is an updated version of the AR5....10 inch woofer, dome midrange and tweeter, 8ohm impedance, and somewhat greater sensitivity than the 2ax/5. I used this combo in the family room of our summer vacation house in a moderately large space. I completely enjoyed the sound. Great bass (as expected), clean and clear midrange and treble. I enjoyed the imaging when in the sweet spot. However- maximum volume was just above moderate. Anything more and the combo sounded compressed and harsh. Within limits, the AR92 sounded the best of all of the speakers I used, there was a synergy that was not present with other combinations and the sound always brought a smile to my face. My recommendation would depend on how you will use the combination. If for low to moderate level listening then you should enjoy the sound. If you expect this to be your "only" system, or if you expect high volume levels you will be disappointed. Make sure your Fisher 400 has been restored...new power supply, coupling capacitors and rectifier at least. Note that you or your tech will likely have to adjust resistor values around the rectifier to be sure the new rectifier does not provide too much voltage. You can purchase a restoration kit from Ebay, and it shouldn't take more than about 3hrs for a qualified tech to install and test all new parts. Expect to pay more if you also want the tuner section aligned, and the phono section checked to ensure that it provides correct RIAA compensation. If you are lucky your 400 includes original Fisher branded Telefunken 12ax7 tubes ! 7868 output tubes are easy to find and relatively inexpensive. Good Luck and keep us posted.
  2. rl1856

    AR9LS FS

    Pair of AR9LS For Sale on a Facebook forum. $750 In Iowa, about 5hrs from Chicago. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1742722662620198/permalink/2542620959297027/?sale_post_id=2542620959297027 Not mine, and I have no relation to the seller.
  3. Article on the venerable and iconic AR-XA Turntable. But using a photo of a radically modified deck......
  4. rl1856

    AR-5 Frequency Response "Problem"

    I found the Sept 70 issue of Electronics World. Thank you. The AR3a was reviewed in by JH in the Jan 69 issue of the same publication. I have attached the relevant graph. Notice anything different between this curve, and the AR3a curve included in the graph at the top of this thread ?
  5. Another overpaid hack......irony of ironies is one of his reference speakers is a later version of the BBC LS3/5a....probably one of the most famous "box speakers with a dome tweeter".
  6. rl1856

    AR-5 Frequency Response "Problem"

    What if the issue was from the original curves JH created for the 3a ? Looking at the curves at the top of this post, both the 3a and 5 have about a 3db decrease centered at 2khz. What if his original measurement of the 3a did not have this dip, or if this dip was not as apparent ? A perfectly functioning 5 would in comparison exhibit the dip he described.... "These curves were made by Julian for EW magazine and published, although it’s not clear if these are the actual curves made for the test reports or whether these are additional curves made at some later date, just for interest’s sake." Different curves, recorded at different times *could* account for the differences cited. Note that JH said he measured 2 sets of "5", and found an identical dip. He did not specify having retested a 3a to verify previous measurements. Could be key. in what issue of EW did this graph appear ? Thanks !
  7. rl1856

    AR-3a vs. Original Large Advent

    Compared to AR 3a/2ax/5, the original large Advent was cheaper. Had almost the same deep bass response. Sounded better with rock music. Could handle more power when playing rock music. Marketing was designed to appeal to a younger buyer. Advent hit a home run with their first product.
  8. rl1856

    AR Turntable thread

    I use a AR-XA/Shure M97xe and a AR-ES1/ Shure V15vmr. I rebuilt the XA using the LA Audio Society pdf as a guide. I also read a great deal about the table, so I knew its limitations etc. As others point out, the weak points are the arm, and wiring. However the arm is not as bad as reported. Key is removal of the damping pin, and careful cleaning, rebuild and adjustment. Everything comes apart using jewelers screwdrivers. The teflon bearings screw out, and screw back in. Take your time when reassembling the arm. The bearings are easy to incorrectly adjust. One commenter posted that there is just one "correct" alignment for the bearing points, and that position seems to snap into place if you are careful. It took me 2 times to get it right, but once I did, alignment has been steady for several years. Arm is medium mass and suitable for most cartridges. After 45+yrs stock wiring can be brittle, and leads corroded. Single biggest improvement comes from soldering in new connection cables to the connection block under the chassis. Some go so far as to rewire the arm from headshell back. This is a tedious process. The stock headshell does not allow for cartridge alignment. There is a grub screw under the arm tube, near the pivot housing. This screw can be loosened, and the arm tube headshell assembly can be moved front to back for alignment, and rotated for azimuth as needed. Height is not adjustable. I have heard of others mounting a Technics or Pioneer S tube into the AR pivot housing. This would allow use of a universal headshell, and probably facilitate replacement of all internal wiring. I mounted a Shure M97 cartridge and checked alignment using a paper protractor. Alignment was correct. That was a surprise, so I rechecked using another method, and again, alignment was dead spot on. Great for me ! Further research brought out that AR recommended use of Shure cartridges and some theorized that AR adjusted arms at the factory for correct alignment with Shure cartridges. Maybe yes, maybe no. But it seemed to work for me. I acquired my ES1 about 15 years ago. Other than new oil and belts, it has been trouble free and continues to deliver great sound. Benefit of this table is it comes with a removable armboard, allowing for the installation of different arms. I have a Rega 300 arm and appropriate board on hand, and one of these days I will make the change. These are good basic simple tables that will rival most Thorens TD series if properly set up, and come close to a Linn if fully tweaked. A general summary is that an AR table will get you to the point of diminishing returns.
  9. rl1856

    I'm afraid it has happened?

    Given the value of vintage AR speakers, one could justify the cost of the MW tweeter. It appears to be an aesthetically identical drop in replacement. Performance characteristics have yet to be fully determined. It would seem that final judgment should wait until someone can objectively report how the tweeter sounds in circuit. One issue to consider is this tweeter will be compared to working original drivers. Working in the sense they pass signal and sound "ok". But over time drivers can deteriorate, and our hearing will adjust to slowly changing performance characteristics. How certain are we that a 45-50yr old tweeter still performs to original specifications ? If sensitivity has decreased, or HF extension is attenuated, then any comparisons may be invalidated. The new MW tweeter may be more sensitive and have differing HF extension and off axis performance, but it may also be closer to original specifications than currently working drivers. Just something to consider.
  10. rl1856

    Very early 3's on eBay-5K!! Yikes!

    You raise interesting points about this pr. If you look at one of the pictures, one can see the drivers through the grille fabric. They appear to me to be correct; at least for the mid and tweeter. Woofer is difficult to see. Having owned early AR3 prs before, I can attest to the fragility of the grille fabric. How can one remove the fabric without irreparably damaging it ? I suspect this is a concern for the seller....at least it would be for me. As for the cabinets, a skilled wood restorer can strip off the finish(es) to uncover the bare wood below and then refinish to match. And at that price, what's a few hundred extra to restore the outward appearance ?
  11. rl1856

    AR 5's: The bargain AR

    I have long felt that the AR5 is better balanced overall than the 3a. The 5 couples to a room better than the 3a due to less deep bass response. For all but recordings with extensive deep bass, the 5 sounds better and is easier to drive. 2AX vs 5 pricing may be due to familiarity. Back in the day the 5 was shunned because it was considerably more expensive than the 2AX, and now it is perceived as the baby brother to the 3a. Baby brothers, close cousins, derivatives etc tend not to be as highly valued as the original. This scenario plays out across multiple genres.....1st pressing vs 2nd pressing LPs; higher vs lower power amps/receivers from the same vintage and model line; etc etc.
  12. rl1856

    When greed and idiocy take charge.....

    Frank, Please take a look at the completed auction that closed at $3150 and the listing for the pair you referenced. You will immediately notice several differences. Seller 1 was in CA. Seller 2 is in Atlanta or the 29401 zip code area (Charleston SC). Pair 1 are consecutive serial numbers. Pair 2 are not, though they are close but extremely low. Pair 1 is in better condition overall judging by the pictures of the surfaces, seams and edges. Pictures are NOT identical, and are not even similar (fireplace and carpet for pr1, record cabinet backdrop for pr 2). As for the price- well the 2nd pair represents a rare opportunity for someone who cares about low serial numbers, or possibly owning one of the earliest documented pairs. Who would have thought the AR3 would become more valuable than the 3a ?
  13. rl1856

    AR-3F in AR-LST review

    I think Mr. Crabbe was trying to describe audible phase shifts and other anomalies due to multiple drivers in close proximity but at different angles to each other. This was a criticism of the LST design. Reading between the lines of the review, and examining the graphs included to show the effects of different attenuation levels does imply the response of the 3a was essentially "stepped" with a drop off between the woofer and midrange, then another drop off between the midrange and treble. It was the later that was considered to be the most egregious, and what European listeners wanted changed. Here is a link to a digital copy of the August issue. It is view only, and can not be downloaded. Though I suppose one can employ a screen capture, with the understanding that the content is copyright protected. https://issuu.com/magaread51/docs/hi-fi-ne-ws-au-g-ust
  14. I'll ask another way. I am curious to know of the lowest existing or documented serial number pr of AR3 speakers. Thank you.
×