samberger0357

Members
  • Content count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About samberger0357

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/11/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oakland, CA
  • Interests
    Vintage audio, records, jazz, pre war blues/country.

Recent Profile Visitors

706 profile views
  1. That's great.
  2. My 3's have serial numbers in the 30xxx area, and date to 1964. And as yours the mids are neutral, the overall presentation more natural. I know Roy does not put much credence in differences in caps, but I do feel that the NOS oil caps used in the 3's vs. the new polyprops and electrolytics used in the 3a play some role in the differences that I'm hearing. And of course as Roy pointed out there may very well be significant enough differences in the stuffing used in both speakers to influence the sound as well.
  3. Interesting. That's different from what I hear. Just the opposite, really. I prefer my 3's, but find them more laid back, and a little darker overall then my 3a's. As Roy has indicated, there could be any number of reasons for this, so I'm not concerned. Your's sound excellent, btw.
  4. The 8900a is direct coupled and easily drives my 3's without even getting much past warm. A fantastic receiver.
  5. They are indeed! After almost 2 years I still can't stop looking at them. The stuffing is an excellent thought. Would certainly make sense. I've been playing with positioning of my 3's, and now have them closer to the back wall, about 1-2" from it, and that has helped the situation even more. Thanks again for your valued input.
  6. Hi Roy, Thanks again for the advice. If you look a couple posts of mine back, you'll find a link to a Audiokarma thread that I provided on the restoration, not ny me, of the 3's that I eventually came to own. I believe you had some participation in the restoration as well. I wasn't the one who redoped the woofers so I don't know if the amount used was correct or not. I'm really not concerned because the bass response from the speakers is fine imo. But it is not as pronounced as the 3a's, which brought about my original comments. You have helped to clarify that the differences could be looked at as normal. So thank you!
  7. Thanks Roy. I'm hoping that the redoping that was done to the 3's was done correctly, and hasn't affected negatively the woofer performance. I suppose there is not much I can do about it at this point.
  8. Not long enough, unfortunately.
  9. The 3 woofers were redoped with the stuff that vintage-ar makes/sells on Ebay. I assume you know of it but if not do a search.My understanding is that it's pretty much the same as original. My concern would not be with the solvent, but how much was used. The foam surround was done by Carl of Carl's Custom Loudspeakers. Again, do a search if you're not familiar. FWIW, here is the restoration thread on Audiokarma for the speakers I now own: http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/ar3s-so-pretty-i-couldnt-resist.642340/page-4
  10. Thank you Luigi. Yes, I've read pretty much on the subject and those you've cited are very interesting Well that's part of the reason I started the thread. I have compared the speakers positioning the same and still detect a lower bass response from the 3a's then the 3's. Not drastic, and the 3's do provide very satisfying, realistic bass, but it's there. I wonder if it might have to do with redoping the cloth surrounds vs. new foam surrounds. It would seem that doping the cloth is less an exact science then simply adding new surrounds. I may very well be wrong, but it is my assumption. When doping, you could use too little or too much, which is not possible when just using new, replacement surrounds. I That's what I've heard. Hope to have a pair at some point.
  11. Thanks Liangshan. Just to clarify, I should've said that the title to my post is more or less rhetorical, in that I'm sure it "makes sense" that the speakers sound different. I mean, they're different speakers! And to be sure, I like that about them. And certainly, I'm not attempting for others to determine which is better, although if they want to pass along preferences that's cool. I'm simply trying to articulate my own experience, and some surprise, as to how different they do sound. I wonder back when the 3a went to a foam woofer, if the sound was much different to a '64 3(were they still using oil caps in the 3's at that point?)? Anyway, I'll look forward to hearing your speakers Lliangshan, especially with the ST70, as I would love to add an affordable tube amp for the speakers, especially the 3's. There is a set of Dynaco MKIII's in my area being advertised on CL that I've inquired about. Still waiting to hear back from the seller.
  12. Cause they do. My 3's date to '64, restored(not by me) with Russian oil caps, new ohmite pots, redoped woofers. The 3a's date to early 70's, restored(not by me) with caps that are electrolytic in the low section , a mix of polyprops in the mid section --large Axon with a Wima MKP bypass -- and an Erse polyprop for thetweeter, and refoamed woofers. One of the 3's has had some additional work and wiring after I had some issues(amp caused) with the woofer, and later the mid. The highs are a little less then the other. It doesn't really bother me much, and I have a separate channel treble control on my amp that allows me to make up for the small discrepancy. I love these speakers and they deliver a beautiful presentation, particularly with small chamber music and jazz. The 3a's are much more lively, and the bass is more pronounced. I know that most folks prefer the cloth woofer, and it does have a personality all it's own, but on mine the later, foam woofer of the 3a's go deeper. And the highs on the 3a's are sharp and clear, sparkling. Crisp. The 3a just sounds much more modern, for lack of a better term. They were restored more recently and it's possible that the caps are still being broken in, and perhaps that will lead to a little less crispness going forward. It's really something how different these speakers sound from each other. I suppose it's why I liked stacking them. They really complimented each other. That said, I'm preferring to use a smaller amp these days(McIntosh 1700) that sounds great with both pairs of speakers, but wouldn't have close the juice needed to drive both pairs simultaneously. I also have my 3's horizontal, about 24" off the ground, while my 3a's are on replica AR stands about 11" off the ground. No doubt, that could explain, at least partially, the bass difference. But I've used my 3's on the same stands and while the bass does go deeper as they're closer to the floor, it's still, seemingly, not as pronounced as the 3a's and their foam woofers. I suppose we can all theorize as to why they sound different, and that would be great. I'm always interested in others opinions and experience. I just thought it was interesting enough to document here.
  13. Mostly jazz, chamber classical, folk. Overall I opt for more acoustic stuff, and my 3's love it. But today, home alone I found myself blasting the 1st UK Procol Harum lp. With my puny McIntosh 1700 receiver the sound was incredible, filling up my rather small room. Maybe the best I have heard my 3's yet. Just sounded right.
  14. Just want to state the obvious. Roy and Kent, you guys are great. Those speakers are going to sing like no tomorrow. We are all lucky to have you here.
  15. Just to update, I now have my 3's horizontally placed, about 36" off the ground. I really like them this way. Considerably wider and deeper sound stage, and overall smoother presentation. They are about 10 feet or so apart, and I sit about 12 feet away. I've only had them like this for a short time, but I do think it's the best they have sounded since I got them.