Jump to content

AR-4x competitive with today's best?


Steve F

Recommended Posts

I attended a very interesting BAS (Boston Audio Society) meeting on Sunday May 27th. It was a monitor speaker shootout where the “golden-ears” of the BAS compared and rated several small speakers, including some homemade speakers done by BAS members themselves.

We level-matched all the speakers, and the entire group listened to one speaker at a time (in mono) and rated each one on a variety of classical, vocal, and jazz music for bass quality, midrange, treble and “overall” sound quality, which was not necessarily a compilation of the B-M-T ratings.. The speaker group was then narrowed to a smaller group, then a final three, then two, then a winner. You can quibble all you want with the methodology, but the speakers were side-by-side when compared, and in very similar relationships to the room boundaries. We were in the far-ish field, about 10-15 feet away. It was a small conference room at BU, about 20 x 25, moderately damped. The room was fine.

The speakers included a BA HD-9, a Polk 30 II monitor, an RA labs MTM center speaker turned vertically on its end, an Atlantic AT-2 with its new H-PAS bass technology, a mint-condition AR-4x, a KLH bookshelf speaker from the ‘90’s, a Raidho 1C ($9k each, I’d never heard of this brand before), and a few homemade specials.

Turns out that the aging golden-eared geeks of the BAS liked the BA HD-9 and the Atlantic AT-2 the best. They were the two finalists. (I don’t know the actual winner yet. The results weren’t tabulated that night.)

But the star of the evening, without any doubt whatsoever, was the 4x. A pristine example--its cloth surround still sealed nicely and its FR confirmed as being spot-on--it was unfinished pine, painted white. S/N was 291k. My Dad had 4x’s that were S/N 365k purchased in July 1969, so this was probably from 1968. It sounded great. Very slightly reticent, great mids, strong, clean bass. Amazing that a 44 year-old speaker was fully competitive with the best of today. Yes, the AT-2 went a little deeper with its H-PAS and its 1 1/8" dome was a bit smoother, but the 4x was right in there. It made it to group 2, and was debated strongly about being in the group of three. The 4x's mids were just a bit uneven, due, no doubt, to the cost-conscious nature of its crossover. I'd love to hear the re-done crossover that Speaker Dave did, using the 4x's original drivers.

After hearing what I heard Sunday night, there is no question in my mind that the 1967-1978 ARs (the 3a and 5 onwards) were as good as we remember them being. It's not just 'fond acoustic memories.' The thing is, at the time--fed with restricted frequency- and dynamic-range LPs played on analog turntables with rumble and w&f--they didn't sound as good then as they do now.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Steve

I wrote a long time ago of my first buying a lemon system, brand names will not be mentioned.

A week after taking the system home I went and visited another local hifi dealer and listened to some of the 20 - 30 speakers they had on display.

It was a large room with a lot of smaller speakers against one long wall.

What I was hearing was very large clear speaker output from among that small speaker group.

The smooth sound and great dispersion made the speaker hard to locate, seeming to be about 4 foot square in size.

That large sounding speaker was the AR-4X, that a week earlier was made to sound so bad against what I did buy, I didn't buy them, I kicked myself.

I was carrying the Consumer Report's issue, where the AR-4X was, "the widest range loudspeaker they had ever tested".

It was amazing how that shyster salesman used his special selling technique to make the AR-4X's sound so bad.

The receiver that I did buy was, as the salesman looked around so that no one else would hear his secret, it's called, "McIntosh" in the U.S.

A new pair of AR-4X's was finally bought a few years later and we spent many, many wonderful hours enjoying them.

Since 1965 I have had the pleasure of hearing in my home AR-4X's, AR-3A's with and without the Microstatic Tweeter Array and Janszen 1-30 Electrostatic's together,

AR-LST's, NHT Super Zero's, KLH Twelves, Larger Advents, Dynaco A-25's, A-35's, and A-50's.

Outside my home I also had the pleasure to hear Janszen 1-30's with Janszen woofers, KLH Nines, Quad Electrostatic's using an AR-3 woofer with an electronic crossover

that my brother had built from scratch from an Audio magazine article, Infinity Servostatic Ones, KLH Fives, Bose 901's, JBL Hartsfield, Klipshorn's, AR-3's, and many others.

The reason I wrote all this is because the AR-4X's have a very special place in my heart and I have the most fond memories of.

I rescued a few pairs several years ago.

They changed my hifi future forever as there was lot's of clunkers out there that I could have bought, including my first speakers.

The large image that was projected gave a larger and more real presentation.

As much as not everyone will like Consumer Report's magazine that was positive hifi guidance for me back then, better late than never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was very fortunate that my local hifi dealer in the 70's was one of the larger discount warehouses. Discounters loved AR, because in the years when manufacturers were able to dictate retail pricing through the "fair trade" laws, AR didn't. The dealer's "showroom" consisted of a series of shelves in their will-call waiting area that the staff played their personal music choices on as they worked. If you asked about the settings on the speakers, they would usually say something like "they're still at whatever the last person who listened to them left them at, go ahead and try them if you want." And of course I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would be interesting to have instead of a 4x, a 4xa,6,7,17,18,or 25 with the newer allison designed tweeter in the competition....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too was at that meeting. My "submission " was the Boston Acoustics HD 9. I submitted it ONLY to see how it would fare against today's "modern" designs. Full dislosure: I did the crossover circuit (voiced it) when I worked @ BA from 1988 to 2000.

But back to the AR-4x (I owned a pair of these as well). When I heard them at BU, they sounded very good to me. Nothing to distract me or make me cringe. I attribute this to it's "simplistic" two way design and superior drivers (especially for that time). Compaired to today's "equivalent" products of the same size, I would have to say it's as good or better than the majority of of what's currently sold (not factoring in price). If today's competitors "have an edge" over the 40 + year old AR-4x, it would have to be increased power handling and extended bass (ported designs) .

I was also very impressed with the Allison Center Channel. Despite placed "vertically" and smaller than most of the others. I liked it a lot .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a very interesting BAS (Boston Audio Society) meeting on Sunday May 27th. It was a monitor speaker shootout where the “golden-ears” of the BAS compared and rated several small speakers, including some homemade speakers done by BAS members themselves.

But the star of the evening, without any doubt whatsoever, was the 4x. A pristine example--its cloth surround still sealed nicely and its FR confirmed as being spot-on--it was unfinished pine, painted white. S/N was 291k. My Dad had 4x’s that were S/N 365k purchased in July 1969, so this was probably from 1968. It sounded great. Very slightly reticent, great mids, strong, clean bass. Amazing that a 44 year-old speaker was fully competitive with the best of today. Yes, the AT-2 went a little deeper with its H-PAS and its 1 1/8" dome was a bit smoother, but the 4x was right in there. It made it to group 2, and was debated strongly about being in the group of three. The 4x's mids were just a bit uneven, due, no doubt, to the cost-conscious nature of its crossover. I'd love to hear the re-done crossover that Speaker Dave did, using the 4x's original drivers.

After hearing what I heard Sunday night, there is no question in my mind that the 1967-1978 ARs (the 3a and 5 onwards) were as good as we remember them being. It's not just 'fond acoustic memories.' The thing is, at the time--fed with restricted frequency- and dynamic-range LPs played on analog turntables with rumble and w&f--they didn't sound as good then as they do now.

Steve F.

Steve,

This is an excellent report to bring to CSP, and it demonstrates what many of us feel about the AR-4x: a superior little speaker that established the standard of quality for small designs in the 1960s. It also demonstrates clearly that the top designs of a half-century ago are not far from today's designs—not as good, clearly, but close.

There is one thing, however, that should be noted about the AR-4x: CU tested the earliest iteration of the AR-4x in their May 1966 test. In this test, the magazine reported that the AR-4x was exceptional: "And the best of the lot, the AR-4x, handled these upper ranges as well as—and perhaps even a shade better than—any other speaker, no matter how big or expensive, ever put through its paces in our laboratory." The magazine testers went on to say, "Models within a group differ in the character of the sound they produce, but except for the AR-4x, which did seem a bit superior to the rest, we could say that one speaker was significantly better or worse than the others in its group." In the ratings, CU summarized the performance of the AR-4x, "The smoothest response in the test and, except for deepest bass (which was nevertheless judged satisfactory), one of the smoothest, widest-range loudspeakers ever tested by CU. Slight overemphasis in mid-range lent barely noticeable fullness to sound. A Best Buy."

Fast-forward to May, 1970, in which CU commented again on the AR-4x: "We found the current AR-4x somewhat different in its high-frequency spectral distribution from the 1966 version—but still of high overall quality." Also, I believe that to some degree other speakers—such as the KLH Seventeen—began to catch up with the AR-4x. In July, 1972, CU again tested compact speakers, and the AR-4x was again in the "High Accuracy" group, but by this time it had dropped to the tail-end of the top group. CU said, "Had smooth response slightly tilted downward toward the treble to 4500 Hz and moderate roll-off beyond 4500 Hz."

The point here is that the AR-4x began to taper off somewhat in greatness as time wore on, and the one used in the BAS comparison was likely one closer to 1970. Had the group used one with a much-lower serial number, the results might have been even better yet.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

Thank you for quoting from Consumer Report's, Tom.

I am an, on again, off again, subscriber since 1965.

Even though the AR-4X was an inexpensive speaker, especially at a discounter and in pine finish, there was considerable interest in them for many years.

They certainly were used as a reference at times, with all of it's warts and all.

With new kids on the block, EPI 100's, KLH Seventeen's, Dynaco A-25's, etc, etc. there was now similar sounding tweeters but not all the exact same.

Dispersion of the tweeter was very likely a very important influence in evaluating them.

After a few years of having AR-4X's I got the bug to go for the big daddy, the AR-3A's, and I never stopped until I had them.

There is no comparison between the two but having both in my home and when turning off the 3A's, there was no huge letdown with the 4X's.

I certainly would not be really disappointed if I could only live with one pair of speakers and it was the AR-4X's.

I also believe that Consumer Report's may have changed their testing procedure a few times.

I don't think that every ones opinion on CSP is the exact same as well.

There has likely been flame wars as to the best buy, bass, mids, highs, resistors, capacitors, speaker leads, wires, stands, room acoustics, sizes, etc, etc.

My brother stopped reading CR when they found a Canadian made, Marsland speaker, as their best.

In later years the reports were expanded and graphs were displayed.

As the years passed by I was more disappointed in their analysis because it was not my choices they made.

Shows you what I know.

I still try to educate myself with CR by at least reading about a subject or product of interest.

In my kitchen is a, GE Versatron toaster oven, over 35 years old, that was top rated way back then.

Not a hifi decision but at least good purchase guideline.

It is a good resource source for the average consumer, IMO.

If anyone wishes to see how CR's advice has been invaluable for some of my purchases, just email me, I don't think that CSP is the place for this type of

diiscussion or ?.

I bought myself a very special birthday present for my 65th birthday, I would like CR to publish that search, and not just in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if there was a marked difference in the actual measured and audible performance of the AR-4x over its production lifespan, especially in light of AR's almost fanatical attention to detail and the close tolerances they adhered to. While it is undoubtedly true (and to be expected) that there was some minor drift over time in the performance of the as-manufactured drivers and the very slight changes that were made to the crossover and stuffing, I'd be willing to guess that an early 4x would be a pretty darned good match for a late 4x.

Far more likely, in my view, would be the explanation that the 4x's 1966 performance was just so far ahead of the competition at that point, whereas by 1972, the 4x--with essentially the same performance--had slipped from a relative "phenomenal" to merely "very good-to-excellent" in comparison with its 1972 rivals. In 1972, there was the Smaller Advent and the EPI 100, both excellent speakers (as well as the AR-6), speakers that didn't exist in 1966.

The point remains, however: By 2012 standards, the 4x still sounds excellent.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve F,

Not meaning to take away from that testing by BAS on the mid-life AR-4x example, though I almost wonder if the earlier pair might have done even better. The differences would had to have been very slight, of course. But you are right: by the time the 1970s rolled around, CU was beginning to test better competitors and more competent speakers, and I suspect that CU's testing methodology had also evolved to the extent that they were not comparing apples-to-apples as far as testing technique was concerned. AR's attention to quality control was indeed fanatical, at least right up to the 1973 period when the "Old Guard" moved on and the "New Turks" moved in at Norwood.

Nevertheless, the very fact that the AR-4x did so well in this 2012 test is a wonderful testimonial to the design work of AR's Roy Allison and Chuck McShane (Villchur had input, but I don't know exactly how much other than "direction" and "guidance" to design a certain way)!

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the LvR demo with the Nickelodeon I attended around 1966, 1967 AR3s were flanked by AR4x. You'd never have guessed they were barely 1/4 the price. Very impressive I thought. Both speakers would have been helped if they had been at the same height as the Nickelodeon. As I recall it was on a table or shelf at least 3 or 4 feet high and the speakers were on the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The point remains, however: By 2012 standards, the 4x still sounds excellent."

Count me in as one who fully agrees with Steve's statement above. Even though I know nearly nothing about most of this past weekend's tested specimen speakers, this recent comparison at BU sounds quite interesting; still, I find the lengthy timeline between CU and the AR-4x of nearly equal interest. Like many of us, I suspect, my first real speakers were AR-4x's, and my purchase was hugely influenced by a Consumer Reports review near that time. Tom's mention of the 1966 and 1970 CU reviews got me thinking about which one influenced me, and I now suspect it was the 1970 article since my purchase was made in late 1971 (tweeter dates: 10.19.71).

This discussion also prompts two questions from me:

1. Despite the several different types of capacitors used, I was under the impression that the 4x remained a reasonably consistent kit-of-parts throughout its production. Mention is made of a change to the stuffing, but how exactly did the crossover (or other components) change during this speaker's years of production?

2. While digging through some file papers to ascertain my date of 4x purchase, I took a moment to peruse (for the umpteenth time) the February 1971 AR components catalog and it dawned on me that possibly, by this date, the AR-4x was the only speaker still being produced with a fabric surround on the woofer - - - is this true, or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to Q2, I have just aquired a pair of AR4xa's in teak here in UK. Don't know the production date but both units have cloth surrounds and seem to be original in every respect. Ser No's are 14643 & 14673. Planning to refurb and use in my workshop. Sound is pretty good after first audition but I noticed that the cloth surrounds seem to be porous and the 'three finger' push test prompts a pretty swift return. Looks like it's the Msound goop treatment first then.

Just an aside; I love this forum and it is a real privilege to read posts from the likes of Tom Tyson, etc. I am learning so much from all you guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread concerns the enduring qualities of the 4x speaker, but I guess it was me who cracked open the discussion to other vintage models with my question 2. I happen to own pairs or AR-4's and 4x's, and don't think I've even ever seen (or heard) a pair of the later model 4xa's.

My comment was, of course, referring to a catalog of U.S. production models, and did not take into account any variants that were produced at the Euro facilities (England and Holland, I believe), which had some significant differences from the American versions. I have attached below two pics of what I believe to be Euro verions of AR-4xa in teak, and you can see that one pic (the single speaker) has a fabric woofer surround while the second pic (pair) have foam surrounds. Similar to U.S. production, the Euro speakers seem to have different permutations within the same model number designation. Although I would not be surprised to learn of exceptions, I do believe that this rear-wired tweeter is very typical for the Euro version of the AR-4xa (as well as the AR-6 Euro and AR-7 Euro). You can see in the first pic that a flush oval-ish plug was used to fill in the space where the U.S. version would have the front wire connection. I suppose this suggest that some speaker parts were shared between continents, while others may have been proprietary.

I have also attached a third pic showing a pair with front-wired tweet and woofer with cloth surround (I think) and ribbed cone. Continent of manufacture? I dunno.

As for the goop on the woof surrounds, be certain that it is a substance which remains flexible after 'drying', and apply only as light a coating as is necessary for coverage.

post-112624-0-03061800-1338690855_thumb. post-112624-0-27196700-1338690936_thumb.post-112624-0-71810200-1338692550_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning Cosumer Reports: There has always been controversy about their testing methods and findings. I attended a joint meeting of the BAS (Boston Audio Society) and the A.E.S (Boston Chapter) held October 2011 in Boston. The guest was Sean Olive from the Harmon Group. Sean's assertion is that for the longest time, CR's measurement data and rankings was the INVERSE of how people ranked them during Blind Listening Test !

In other words: the higher the CR rating, the worst it sounded. The meeting summary has been wriitten and published in The Boston Audio Society's Spring 2012 issue : Volume 34, issue #1.

For more detailed information about this presentation, you can visit one of the many web sites that was listed in the BAS article.

(I'm too lazy and inept to give you accurate links. Others reading this post who have this info can feel free to provide it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerry, Sean Olive is the Director of Acoustic Research at Harman International. He was hired by and carries on the work of Floyd Toole. They both came from the National Research Council of Canada. The methods and goals of their efforts are for the most part the result of atempts to detemine what characterizes speakers the market likes best, not what is most accurate. As a result, it is hardly surprising that their conclusions would not coincide with Consumer Reports. Toole's contention is that he persuaded Consumer Reports that their methods are flawed and they no longer test or rate loudspeakers at least in part for that reason. Toole retired and wrote a book. You hear an extended interview about his views here;

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/14

Personally I consider most of Toole's work market research, not scientific research. His one contribution of real value I'm aware of is identifying how many and where to place subwoofers in a room to get the most uniform bass response. His conclusion, 4, one in each corner or 4, one at each mid wall. I have serious doubts about his other methods and conclusions.

Toole's best effort based on what he learned was the $16,000 per pair Revel Ultima Salon. It used three 8" rear ported woofers, a midrange, and a front and rear firing tweeter. Olive has developed the $22,000 Revel Ultima Salon II which is similar but using a single forward firing tweeter. I intend to hear this speaker at a dealer in the next few weeks to see how well it really works. It seems to have been a favorite of John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile Magazine who does not own a pair. He claimed he couldn't afford them.

Sean Olive posts on a web site called "What's Best Forum."

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/forum.php

I'm curious to see how this effort compares to my own. My ideas are entirely different from theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks sounminded. It's been a very long time since I read ANY magazine about audio. I do try to "stay in touch" with my "dwindling passion". My senior moments prevents me from remembering the Consumer Report era where I relied heavily on their rankings, but I distintly remember buying an ADC 303AX loudspeaker based on their ranking (thought it was a "best buy" at the time). I actually liked it more than some of the other New England Classics I've owned (and I've owned a LOT).

It IS "all about the music" afterall. Having spent a lifetime of reading, buying,comparing, testing and designing lousdpeakers, I want to get back to the "listening to music" part. No more "pissing contest" (I've engaged and started a few of my own) about who's "right" or "wrong" or what's "better". Still, I remain "curious" as to today's "state of the art' compaired to when audio was in it's prime.

I personally am VERY conflicted about today's "declining audiophile market". On the one hand, I'm dismayed by what's today's young listerner is missing by not having a "real" hi-fi system. On the other, I envy them because many of them listen to TONS of music on their "low-fi" devices (as opposed to spending their time finding that "sweet spot" or whatever audiophiles do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CT Audio Society will be holding a speaker shootout in Aug.

Out of curiosity, I plan to bring a pair of AR4x's to see how they fare. I'll report the results afterward.

Gerry, +1 on the middle paragraph of post #17!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beware ! When I cliked on one of the "links" put on by soundmined in post #16, my firewall indicated a "malicious attack" and blocked it. Unfortuanely, I can't remember which of the two links it was. Don't know if anyone else encountered this, or why it happened.

Anyway, I mentioned purchasing an ADC 303ax based on CR giving it a "best buy" recommendation. I also mentioned that i liked it even MORE than some of the AR "classics " discussed here and which I've owned. My preference was probabably due to my musical taste at the time: pop, rock, heck..even (especially ? "Disco" !

I'm not sure where ADC (Audio Dynamics Corporation) originated from, but they also made phono cartridges as well. I'm guessing that their "sound" was somewhere midway between the "East Coast" and the "West Coast" philosophy debate at the time. What I do remember was that it had more "presence" compaired to the AR4x but not that smoothnes or "laid back" sound of the AR's.

As to my Boston Acoustics HD9 submission, I did it for the fun of of it. I was VERY surprised that it even got "approved" as a viable contestant. I submitted it because it met the physical size limits for all entrys and it was "novel" in the sense it was probably going to the only entry that used a 8'' passive radiator instead of a "real" woofer.

I've been listening to that HD 9 (a stereo pair) for some time now and find it "natural" enough for both TV/ DVD and CD music reproduction. It doesn't do anthing spectacularly well but does most everthing competantly. What the heck.... when I voiced it in the early 90's, it retailed for $340/pair and the only finish available was woodfrain vinyl !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve F, Gerry: it's evident that you most likely live in southern new england. If you're interested, you are welcome to attend the speaker shoot out as a guest. I don't think ours is as formal as BAS's. But it would be interesting to get your opinion on what you hear there. The meeting is being held is Westport, CT.

I would discourage bringing your speakers though as we usually have more than we can handle.

For some pics of past shoot outs, view the slide show at the CAS home page www.ctaudio.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Carl. Speaking only for myself and not Steve F. I find evaluating loudspeakers to be VERY "hard work" when It was my "day job". I was surprised to find it equally taxing when I did it "for the fun of it". So I think I'll pass on your upcoming "shootout" (at least for now). Thanks for the invite though !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where ADC (Audio Dynamics Corporation) originated from, but they also made phono cartridges as well. I'm guessing that their "sound" was somewhere midway between the "East Coast" and the "West Coast" philosophy debate at the time.

ADC was located in New Milford, CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks sounminded. It's been a very long time since I read ANY magazine about audio. I do try to "stay in touch" with my "dwindling passion". My senior moments prevents me from remembering the Consumer Report era where I relied heavily on their rankings, but I distintly remember buying an ADC 303AX loudspeaker based on their ranking (thought it was a "best buy" at the time). I actually liked it more than some of the other New England Classics I've owned (and I've owned a LOT).

It IS "all about the music" afterall. Having spent a lifetime of reading, buying,comparing, testing and designing lousdpeakers, I want to get back to the "listening to music" part. No more "pissing contest" (I've engaged and started a few of my own) about who's "right" or "wrong" or what's "better". Still, I remain "curious" as to today's "state of the art' compaired to when audio was in it's prime.

I personally am VERY conflicted about today's "declining audiophile market". On the one hand, I'm dismayed by what's today's young listerner is missing by not having a "real" hi-fi system. On the other, I envy them because many of them listen to TONS of music on their "low-fi" devices (as opposed to spending their time finding that "sweet spot" or whatever audiophiles do!

Hi there

ADC also produced the ADC 404 speaker system.

The cabinet is only about half the size of an AR-4x, but it feels just as heavy.

Stereophile had it listed in, I believe, group D, along with AR-4X's and perhaps KLH Seventeen way back when.

I did read somewhere, way back when, about a 4 channel setup with AR-4X's in the front channel and ADC 404's in the rear.

I rescued a pair off ebuy in mint condition a few years ago and then put them in storage.

Also, I bought a spare woofer and tweeter for them.

The ADC XLM cartridge was apparently an outstanding cartridge, I don't remember why it didn't sell too well.

I do remember the ADC 303 and later versions being well reviewed speakers.

If I remember right, they called it, "The Brentwood".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ADC XLM cartridge was apparently an outstanding cartridge, I don't remember why it didn't sell too well.

The original XLM was actually a very good seller in its target market, but it was a high end "boutique" kind of cartridge. With a compliance about 2.5X that of its main rival, the Shure V15, it was suited to a narrower range of arms. I had one on my AR turntable and it was pushing the arm to its limits. Things got better when the XLM II with slightly dialed-back compliance came out.

I considered a pair of 303's before I bought my 2ax's, but while the sound was very good I was put off by the fact that the grilles were non-removable and the drivers were epoxied into the cabinets as in early KLHs. That was back in the days when most audio gear was actualy serviced from time to time and I didn't want something that could never be opened and repaired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the LvR demo with the Nickelodeon I attended around 1966, 1967 AR3s were flanked by AR4x. You'd never have guessed they were barely 1/4 the price. Very impressive I thought. Both speakers would have been helped if they had been at the same height as the Nickelodeon. As I recall it was on a table or shelf at least 3 or 4 feet high and the speakers were on the floor.

Soundminded,

In the LvR demo with the Nickelodeon I attended around 1966, 1967 AR3s were flanked by AR4x. You'd never have guessed they were barely 1/4 the price. Very impressive I thought. Both speakers would have been helped if they had been at the same height as the Nickelodeon. As I recall it was on a table or shelf at least 3 or 4 feet high and the speakers were on the floor.

The Nickelodeon Live-versus-Recorded demonstration took place at the 1966 New York High Fidelity Music Show, and it featured the restored 1910 Seaburg Nickelodeon with AR-3s stacked beside it on sealed AR-3 cartons above the floor and an AR-4x on another stand or carton beside it. I heard this demonstration perhaps four or five times each day for the four-day Show, and each time I felt the reproduction of the AR-3 was almost (but not quite) perfect, particularly with the snares and the bass drum—both of which were very realistic. I listened intently with all of my concentration, eyes closed, and I could barely detect any differences. AR did this only at the 1966 New York Show, as other members of the Institute of High Fidelity Manufacturers were unhappy with LvR demonstrations during the normal exhibit hours.

The recorded music was done with the very fine Sony C-37A condenser microphones (AR had four of these microphones that were also used in the Fine Arts and Lopéz concerts) and into a carefully calibrated and aligned Magnecord 1028B tape recorder at 15ips. The output from the 1028B was fed into a Dynaco PAS-3X and a pair of Dynaco Mark IIIs. A few Ampex buffs (including AR's Fine Arts Quartet recording engineer Dave Jones) felt that the reproduction might have been better had Villchur used an Ampex 350 deck as with the Fine Arts and Gustavo Lopéz concerts, but it is doubtful. Except for the slightly higher hiss-noise level, the Magnecord 1028B is the equal of the Ampex 350 in frequency response, flutter, and distortion, so it' likely a moot point. However, Dave Jones and Villchur chose the Sony C37A over Neumann, Schoeps and AKG condenser microphones because it was superior in smoothness and flatness of response, especially throughout the midrange. It proved to be critical to the success of the Fine Arts LvR concerts. The Neumann had a slight peak at 7kHz, but the Sony was flat throughout that critical range.

The fact is that the Nickelodeon's belt-drive system would slip, and the instrument got out of tune—and did so during the Show—and the instrument was more difficult to reproduce than the ensemble tone of the Fine Arts Quartet. The belt-slippage problem plagued the instrument from the time Villchur purchased it from an upstate-New York antique dealer for $1500 in 1965—even after Villchur had it completely restored—yet despite the restoration the belt continued to slip after a few plays, and this affected the LvR performance to some degree.

Villchur also used a pair of AR-4xs, which did nearly as well as the AR-3. It demonstrated that the AR-4x, at about one-quarter of the cost, was close in quality to the top-of-the-line AR-3. This was a great testimonial to AR's design effort for the little AR-4x!

post-100160-0-47224900-1339177134_thumb.

Magnecord 1028B Tape Recorder used with the Nickelodeon LvR demonstration.

post-100160-0-42473800-1339177201_thumb.

1910 Seaburg Nickelodeon and AR-3 Speakers, 1966.

post-100160-0-83744400-1339177310_thumb.

Sony C-37A Condenser Microphone (type used for AR Live-versus-Recorded demonstrations

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...