Jump to content

Crossover mods for the AR4x


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well ... my memory did not serve me at all. Let's try that again: "... found it to increase from 0.75 to about 1."

sorry, neurons rot like foam.

John

Thanks for the correction John (and thanks for the PM). That's more in line with my findings (see post #12).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello David:

More than one issue in your above comments. First, AR apparently revoiced all their speakers in the late 1960s.

Some years ago, I had a pile of 4x tweeters and sent them to Roy. He had an equal-sized pile and paired them by output level as hi, medium, and low and returned same number to me as pairs. Since the units all have level controls, it did not make much difference which pair we used--loud or soft--as we could adjust the level control.

Personally, I would doubt that you could ever make a new crossover without level controls as a subsititute for any old AR speaker that used level controls in its original design. They were intended to deal with room and placement differences; today we have the added distraction of decades of variable level decay in any vintage AR speaker. I doubt that any one tweeter pair you might obtain would be at all representative. Also, the output near crossover (1,200 Hz) will come from both drivers, so wouldn't the change in crossover order affect the overall speaker's character in the octave near crossover?

Cheers,

John

Thanks John, for all of your useful information.

Sounds like three variables here: FG stuffing, woofer inductor, and tweeter level.

As to woofer stuffing that is independent of the crossover and people can choose whether they want tighter base from more FG or not. It won't impact the crossover range or any notion of flattest midrange balance, since there are a number of octaves between the woofer corner and the midrange we are playing with.

The inductor value, since it appears to be a revoicing (rather than a woofer correction) would need to match the value in my speakers if anyone wanted to build their own clone pair. I'll measure mine and see which it is. If it is the lower value #4 then someone wanting to achieve the same response could take off turns. Alternativley they might add turns if it goes the other way. It might be possible to trade the woofer external cap and resistor mods (at least their particular values) for the difference in inductance but someone else would have to do that experiment. I am modding the pair I have and can only guess what changes would be needed for a different starting point.

I think you are right about the need for a tweeter pot. I am happy to fix the treble level on a pair for myself, based on measuring and listening, but tastes will vary pretty widely on this and we are seeing a great range of variability in tweeter sensitivity.

Not sure what you meant by your last paragraph. Obviously the crossover order change is effecting the character there, that being the main intention. If you are worrying about crossover frequency shift with tweeter level, one of the curves above shows the effect to be largely a shelving down of response for the low sensitivity tweets, with no other side effects.

Regards,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Dave:

Thanks for your comments. No, I was not worried about crossover frequency change but whether a slope change in the network would change the character of the original (the ratio of power from each driver). But maybe that is what you wish to accomplish? Certainly Q does not affect sound in the crossover range.

In addition, some have worried about the ESR of a capacitor without regard for two issues--the frequency at which their meter measures ESR, and the role of the capacitor in the crossover. For example, the impedance of a 20 uF woofer capacitor is important in the octave near crossover, so if we measure ESR of an aging cap at 8 kHz, and find it has changed, it matters not. However, if it is measured at 1 kHz, and has changed, that is a different matter. Ditto for aging caps used at low crossover frequencies, that issue is changing dielectric absorption, not changing high frequency resistance.

Will be interesting to see your final results.

Cheers, John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening test: preamble

In the last weeks I’ve worked on an increasingly complex crossover revision for the venerable AR4x. From the series capacitor (1st order) stock network I’ve worked up to a third order tweeter network and even added an order to the woofer network. A number of you have asked about the sonic differences and so, at your requests, I’ve just finished a long session of listening to most of the variations that I had previously measured. In most cases I compared my # 2 system with the crossover internal, to the #1 system with various crossover iterations attached via external wiring. Finally I compared the fully modded #2 system to a Snell K5, a similar sized 2 way bookshelf unit that I designed 7 or 8 years ago.

Am I biased? Of course I’m biased. I know that the 3rd order network measures considerably flatter than the stock network. I can remember the approximate response curves of each variant. So it wouldn’t be too hard to predict what the sonic balances of the various iterations are. You’ll just have to trust that my descriptions are “fair and balanced”. I will do my best to give useful descriptions of what is heard, in a manner that anyone can relate to. No nebulous “speed and timing” type descriptions but more how each speaker’s balance impacts a variety of instruments or the human voice. I’ll include a real time analyzer curve taken of each paring taken after I listened to the particular pair.

To keep things simple I picked one sampler disc that had a variety of classical and jazz tracks, all from the Delos catalog and all recorded by John Eargle (much missed). Four tracks were principally used for every comparison. For a symphonic work: Prokofiev, Three dances from Romeo and Juliet. A Haydn Piano Concerto for the sound of piano, a female soprano singing “Before I Gaze at You Again” by Loewe and Joe Williams a “Mean Old World” for a Jazz piece. I listen to plenty of rock music, at least 60s and 70 folk and geezer rock, but these particular tracks covered the bases well. Rock music would have gotten me more focused on the frequency extremes and output level issues. Rather, my focus in listening was for matters of balance and midrange neutrality, as this is what you would be striving for while finalizing a crossover.

The speakers were on tall stands and well away from the walls, driven by a Scott integrated amp of about the same vintage. I sat about 2.5 to 3 meters away on a listening axis about even with the top of the woofer. At that position the bass was smooth if a little light. With the chosen pieces bass was not a big factor and of course the crossover differences wouldn’t impact bass.

Please realize that the lowly stock AR4x will suffer some criticism, but we love it just the same since it will prove to have more potential then ever we could have guessed! I’d also note that the losers in these comparisons are frequently speakers that we would be perfectly happy to listen to music through. Comparison tests magnify the differences, while long listening sessions let us get used to the “personality” of a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stock network vs. 3rd order network

The stock tweeter network is a 20uf capacitor leading to the 15 ohm potentiometer, with the tweeter reverse phased from the woofer.

My notes ascribe a “shouty” megaphone quality, especially on the Joe Williams track, to the stock AR4x. On switching from the modified 4, especially on the piano piece, there was a strong nasal quality. Some times colorations can be described as contributing vowel sound qualities and the stock AR4 had an “aw” vowel quality. Massed strings playing in their upper registers sounded okay but Clarinet and woodwinds shared the nasal quality. After some minutes of listening to the stock 4 the balance was more palatable but the midrange prominence and a general treble dullness was always there. Immediately upon changeover, though, the nasalness was striking.

The modified 4 was clearly flatter in the midrange and had more upper harmonics more of an “eh” lower treble vowel sound, at least in comparison. My notes say “voice is sharp but not resonant.” “Piano has a slight split with the lower register warm and the upper register light”.

I brought my wife in to see if she would notice the differences and how she might describe them. All I said was “here are two systems, based on similar parts but both of which had been modified. Can you hear a difference?” We switched back numerous times between the two while listening to the Soprano singing Loewe. Finally she said: “I prefer the one on the left (the 3rd order network). It sounds crisper and wider.” “The one on the right sounds like a room with no drapes.” That seems like a pretty apt description of the resonant quality of the stock system.

The curves show the comparison of the two. The orange curve is stock and the green curve is the fully modified system.

post-102584-1269121518.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revised first order network vs. 3rd order network

I had previously found that a first order network worked a little better with the 20uf cap reduced to 10uf and tweeter changed to in-phase with the woofer rather than reverse phase. I adjusted the #1 system to that configuration and compared it to the 3rd order modified system.

The listening notes again concentrate on the characteristics of the system with the simple network. “Piano: dull, Soprano: dull, hollow. Saxophone projects” (3rd order system: “fizz on saxophone”). Symphonic music was a better match to this simply modified 4: “Strings in upper range good. Slight mid emphasis.” “Oboe bad, “aw” sound.”

By comparison the heavily modified 4 had “more edge to voice” but I noted that, in general, the differences between the 2 systems had been "cut in half" relative to the stark differences of the first pairing.

Curves for this pairing show much less 1200Hz bump but still a quick drop above that frequency and a low general level for lower treble. Instruments that straddle this transition are clearly going to be effected. This relative difference between mid level and treble level led to the mid emphasis and dull sound.

post-102584-1269121661.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd order without woofer shelving vs. full 3rd order network

For the third test I had connected my second 3rd order tweeter network to the #1 system, but not the extra 2 components that convert the woofer to a damped 2nd order network. By this point the differences are becoming minor and a preference is less consistent. From the notes: “System 1 (all mods but woofer network) darker balance, rich”. “Piano a little dull, sax nice, voice a little “shouty”. The fully modded AR4: “sax thin, better balance between fundamental and harmonics on Soprano.”

At this point the differences were still fairly obvious in a direct comparison but either system would probably sound fine in isolation. If you like a little bit of the classic AR balance then this version (#1,no woofer mod) would probably suit you well. It was really nice on symphonic music and had a nicely rounded quality to it. I thought the fully modded system sounded a little more neutral, but might be accused of having a bit of treble edge.

The curve shows the difference the second order woofer network addition makes. Orange curve is tweeter net mods only. The green curve has the woofer net mods as well. It pulls down the region from 800 to 2kHz or so by about 2dB. I wonder if pulling this down too much has left the 3kHz region a bit exposed (“Fizz on Sax”)

post-102584-1269121751.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AR4x with 3rd order network vs. Snell K5

Just to throw another system into the mix I did a final comparison between the fully modded AR4x and a Snell K5 bookshelf system. This was a fairly expensive unit with Peerless 6 ½” woofer and metal dome tweeter, a damped laminated baffle and sophisticated crossover. (Also a beautiful Rosewood cabinet made in our factory in Haverhill Massachusetts.) Of the Snell products we did in that era this was fairly successful and something I would offer up as a well balanced system.

From the notes on the fully modded AR4x #2: “A richness in the lower 100s. Nice overall balance. More ‘eh’ sound to treble.” On the K5: A little more mid emphasis.” “Reminiscent of previous comparison (somewhat like the 3rd order AR4 without the woofer additons).” “Piano slightly dull. More ‘ow’ sound.”

And finally a pink noise comparison: “More upper mid/lower treble” (on full mods AR4x) and More “polite” or recessed for the K5.

Note that the K5 has more bass extension but it gave up nearly 3dB of sensitivity to get it. The AR4 is not as insensitive as we would guess. In truth AR speakers were only low sensitivity relative to the 50s and 60s systems that preceded them.

The curves for the two speakers are surprisingly similar, with no clear trends to suggest either is superior. The flip flop of levels between 800Hz and 2kHz is probably what leads to the balance judgments but we are getting to the limits of what our curves can tell us.

Conclusions?

As I stated before, I have to admit to a heavy amount of bias in this test in that I had modified an AR4x to measure flatter and was likely to prefer it no matter what! Still, I believe the descriptions of the sonic qualities and the magnitude of differences that I have described are accurate and proportionate, and that other experienced listeners would have similar observations. I might tweak the 1kHz level up a tad and the 3kHz down a smoosh, but otherwise I think it is about right.

I think the end result is a very good speaker that I could happily listen to any type of music over without the system ever getting in the way. These are not exotic drivers by today’s standards yet the end result doesn’t have anything to apologize for. It really is competitive with modern systems of similar size and bigger systems would only surpass in areas of bass extension and output capabilities. So it meets my initial goal of being based on AR parts, still looking classic, but not sounding dated.

For those that have stuck with the thread this far: Bravo! Hopefully you have picked up a bit about the design process as some of us practice it. It is a bit science and a bit art, but no real magic is involved.

Its time for some others out there to try their own modifications and see if they like the results.

Regards,

David

post-102584-1269122186.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AR4x with 3rd order network vs. Snell K5

Dave, what's happening between 100 and 200 Hz? Both speakers show the same dip, and it isn't anywhere near the crossover point of the 4x. Is that a room effect? Does it play any role in your descriptions of the speakers' sound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, what's happening between 100 and 200 Hz? Both speakers show the same dip, and it isn't anywhere near the crossover point of the 4x. Is that a room effect? Does it play any role in your descriptions of the speakers' sound?

Yes, that is the floor bounce dip. The mic was about 3' 10" in front of the speakers. Tall stands had the systems about 3ft off the floor, so the dip frequency could be calculated from that. I tried the mic back at the listening position and at that resolution (1/6th octave) the dip is gone, replaced by lots of room effect wiggles that average out.

I didn't notice it in the sound (actually it didn't appear, as shown, at my position) but I did notice that the sound was a little "phasey" when I leaned back in the couch and a little clearer when I leaned forward. These were spatial effects and didn't seem to "overwrite" the frequency effects.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here is a schematic of the final network. Pardon the hand drawing, perhaps someone can do up a proper drawing?

In the end I have put the variable resistor back into the circuit as an aid to those with unequal tweeter sensitivities (a seemingly common problem) and also to let you "adjust to taste". Early on I found that just a series R (rather than potentiometer connection) suited the response shape I was trying to get, so the pot is connected differently than the standard AR configuration. The 10 ohm resistor around the pot reduces its total range and puts the expected 4 ohm value about 1/2 way along its travel.

From my adjusting I know that most of the component values are non critical, with the exception of the tweeter inductor. When I get a chance I'll measure the DCR of that choke and add that to the info. It was a fairly fine wire over one of the compressed dust cores, nothing special.

Note that my speaker pair have the 1.0 mH AR inductor. If you have the 0.8mH inductor you should add 0.2 in series. Also note that the tweeter polarity is reversed from stock.

Good quality low loss electrolytics will work fine. Please don't do anything silly like buying a film 50uF (just so you can put 6.8 ohms in series with it!). You can substitute 47 for the 50 and 20 for the 22, if that is what you find locally.

Let us know if you mod a pair and how it comes out!

David

post-102584-1270056594.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a nice PDF drawing of the final modified network, courtesy of Richard Lowe (thanks Richard!).

I need to explain that there is a little controversy over the woofer inductor. I've measured mine twice and get 1mh (or 0.99mH) with a digital meter. The AR lists show a number 4 inductor as 0.88 and the #5 as 1.2mH. I believe mine is a number 4 but the value is not to spec. If you are going to do the mod and have a #4 measuring 0.88, then don't worry about the exact value or adding inductance to up the value to 1.0, at least until we can see if there is a consensus about a possible third value. My system serial numbers are FX141819 and FX157677. It would be nice if others could measure their inductors and see if any serial numbers close to mine are 1.0 or 0.88. Those with a 1.2 can do the full mods as well but optimally the 50uf, 6.8 ohm combo might need a little adjusting (the 6.8R would probably increase). Hard for me to say without having the systems to try. (Zilch, what is your woofer and inductor stockpile like??)

Anyhow, here it is and have at it.

David

AR4x_Mods.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a nice PDF drawing of the final modified network, courtesy of Richard Lowe (thanks Richard!).

I need to explain that there is a little controversy over the woofer inductor. I've measured mine twice and get 1mh (or 0.99mH) with a digital meter. The AR lists show a number 4 inductor as 0.88 and the #5 as 1.2mH. I believe mine is a number 4 but the value is not to spec. If you are going to do the mod and have a #4 measuring 0.88, then don't worry about the exact value or adding inductance to up the value to 1.0, at least until we can see if there is a consensus about a possible third value. My system serial numbers are FX141819 and FX157677. It would be nice if others could measure their inductors and see if any serial numbers close to mine are 1.0 or 0.88. Those with a 1.2 can do the full mods as well but optimally the 50uf, 6.8 ohm combo might need a little adjusting (the 6.8R would probably increase). Hard for me to say without having the systems to try. (Zilch, what is your woofer and inductor stockpile like??)

Anyhow, here it is and have at it.

David

Nice drawing...

John O'Hanlon and I compiled data for literally dozens of 4xs a few years ago. The era indicated by your serial numbers was well represented, and I have seen many 4xs since. I'm convinced AR never installed a 1mh inductor in a 4x on purpose.

Attached is the AR coil chart posted by Tom Tyson awhile back. Your 4x should have a #4 or #5 coil.

excel_coil_chart.zip

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Thanks for the schematic Dave, and more thanks to RoyC for plugging it into a computer. If anyone has sourced the parts could they share the details of suppliers and prices please?

the extra 0.10mH air coil inductor - parts-express have 14/15/18/20 gauge - which is best ?

also what is the source for an iron core inductor of 0.25mH / 250uH ? part-express don't go down that low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the schematic Dave, and more thanks to RoyC for plugging it into a computer. If anyone has sourced the parts could they share the details of suppliers and prices please?

the extra 0.10mH air coil inductor - parts-express have 14/15/18/20 gauge - which is best ?

also what is the source for an iron core inductor of 0.25mH / 250uH ? part-express don't go down that low.

I am restoring an AR4x using a Parts Express phenolic ring tweeter. I added a 2nd order high pass filter - cap followed by a coil - and used an air core .25mh, 18 gauge inductor from PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I am in process to restore my AR-4X. I would like to hear from people who have done this mod and tell where to get all of the parts.

So far, I've resanded the cabinets and applied boiled lindseed oil. It looks great now. I took the potentiometers and I tried to clean them. They are really broken and can not be repaired. I've heard that by passed the pot is an option as well but I wonder is mod is really really worth it.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone back to my starting point, AR4x, as the standard for essential listenability. They were 5 bucks, and they're still good. The screech of most two ways, like the Polk 10s, is mostly absent, and I will now upgrade the x-o to make them one of my reference tools for the tweaking I'm unable to resist. THANKS DAVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

I have just built two of  Dave Smith's March 2010 AR4X crossovers  (drawing and a schematic PDF a couple of posts back). The pair of AR4X I got from auction for $10 back in 2006, and they have sat in my basement since then. One of the Tweeters was blown and in March 2006 forum member RoyC got me a replacement in trade for some other old AR tweeters that wouldn't fit. If you are still here - thanks RoyC I am finally using that tweeter.

AR4X with the blown tweeter was serial number FX227334. The woofer had a Black paper cone with cloth surrounds, it had black gauze each side of the magnet and had 4X 2748  137 6903D stamped on it.  It was stuffed with Rockwool. It had the usual Brick 20uf wax capacitor and a number 5 coil inductor. The blown tweeter was dated Jan 31 1969.

AR4X with the working tweeter unfortunately had the serial number paper peeled or ripped off. The woofer had a Brown paper cone with cloth surrounds but the sides of the magnet had brown paper tape sealing them. I believe this tape was original from the factory as it had the date JAN 31 1969  stamped on the paper  ( see photos). It also was stuffed with Rockwool and had the same large 20uf brick wax capacitor and a number 5 coil inductor. The tweeter had the date Jan 28 1969 stamped on it.

It is a mystery to me why one woofer had a black cone, and the other a brown cone? If only the 2nd serial number was there !. 

I soldered up the components according to the schematic. I built the crossovers outside the enclosures on  4" x 8" x 3/8" board which I then placed into the enclosure and screwed on top of the old board alongside the Input contacts and AETNA POLLACK Pot hole. One problem I hit was that in the new position for the crossover, the original wires on the Tweeter and Woofer were not quite long enough. I disconnected the speaker wires from the Woofer Tweeter and obtained new wires that were slightly longer. Of course the new wires had to be in the original blue, red, green, yellow colors.  I dragged out of my basement an ancient tower PC that I had been meaning to scrap,  it had a good supply of 18 AWG wire in red, blue, yellow going to the power transformer.  The old PC power cord yielded another length in green. (see photos). Is 18 AWG thick enough ?  it works  great. 

Checkout the photo showing the solder and paste I used - out of an auction box, probably from the 1960's too. Solder had a 49c woolco sticker on it!.

The pots had a few faint bits of green on the wires inside.   I cleaned up with salt water and a toothbrush,  then after thorough washing and drying, used 000 grade steel wool on the contacts, then a spray with MG chemicals Nu-Trol control cleaner.

I used Mortite to seal the back of the Pots when I reinstalled. I used Mortite to seal the tweeter and woofer cutouts. ( see photos),

On this forum I had read about the  11oz mini-packs of fiberglass from Walmart. I picked up two packs.  Unrolled they are 4' ft. long 16" wide.  I ripped them into 4  12" x 16" pieces.   16" is just about the inside length of the AR4x.  One piece full length on right side,  one on the left side. one piece in half to the back of the crossover under the tweeter, the remaining piece in middle front under the woofer.  

I used the 000 steel wool on the cabinets, to which I then applied Bri-Wax.  The speaker grill cloths had a grimy appearance, but I thought I would have a go at cleaning them before resorting to buying new material.  I unscrewed the one ARX badge remaining, then took the grills still on the frames to the sink. I had warm water flowing from the tap,  wetted,  gave a couple of squirts of dish soap, then very lightly used a nylon scrubbing brush.  After about a minute each, I thoroughly rinsed them off,  then took the to dry in the sun. They look great. Well,  they are back to a clean tweedy beige look of the late 1960's. Could almost pass for new.

These 49 year old speakers are now alive again.  They sound magnificent.   That crossover design of Dave Smith's works like a charm.  I am playing Jazz on them now.  The saxophone and trumpets are clear and ringing -  Stan Getz knew how to blow a horn.  Yes I am using CD's !  It seemed that the sound got more and more 'body' after about CD number 2 was played .  I am now 3 days into using them for a couple of hours a day, and they are unbelievable.

Here are the photos - comments appreciated...  On the crossovers,  the Blue, Red, Yellow, Green wires of course will go to the Woofer and Tweeter.  The Orange goes off to #1 negative amplifier input. The white goes off to #2 positive amplifier input.

Many thanks to Speaker Dave and RoyC for their contributions

 

 

crossover1.jpg

BrownWoofer2.jpg

BrownWoofer1.jpg

BlackWoofer2.jpg

BlackWoofer1.jpg

crossover2.jpg

fibreglassETC.jpg

oldPC1.jpg

oldPC2.jpg

Mortite1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

and a couple more photos I forgot.  The crossover inside the enclosure, and a picture of the finished speakers. One with the grill cloth off to show you how ugly the mortite  looks, but the grill cloth hides it of course.   I wish I had take a before image of the grubby grill  cloth. It is like new now.

CrossoverPosn.jpg

finished.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

https://community.classicspeakerpages.net/profile/102584-speaker-dave/

 

 

Gorgeous, great project by a great person. This thread, re-read today is a great incentive to make some AR4x improved; over the years there have been all the updates of the project, illustrations, diagrams, comments by authoritative "Masters" in Acoustic Research as well as designers of this great manufacturer.
The achievements following this great project are also beautiful.

I decided, owning two very good pairs of AR4xs circa late 1969, early 1970, with all original components in very good condition and both excellent capacitors (one pair received a pair of new quality polyester capacitors), the other retains the original capacitors electrolytic, they also perfectly respect the original specifications.
I decided to update one of the pairs with the project defined and perfectly illustrated in the PDF.
I will not complete this project quickly, but I will update the progress of the work below.
The photos illustrate the 2 pairs well, one is worthy of receiving the improved crossover designed by SPEAKER DAVE.

ar4xm2.thumb.jpg.a659117c06ffa17b2559c0f08376090d.jpg

1969 PAIR

ar4xm3.jpg.76d63013d1cace877acd26885a4d00e3.jpg

1970 PAIR

ar4xm4.jpg.c042099d972d5ffa6376f1f76b20e620.jpg

The result would be a beautiful comparison between pair "A": AR4x and pair "B": AR4xi (improved crossover).

I'll also have to decide which AR4x pair will receive the crossover changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...