Jump to content

Replacement mids?


frankmarsi

Recommended Posts

Can anyone please tell me if I could use the #200032 upper midrange instead of the original #200028 driver in the AR-9.

I have a chance to buy two #200032 at a good price and would like to have back-ups, just in case I get carried away with the AR-9.

If there is a required modification of the X-over, what would it be?

I searched this forum, but haven't found any definite concrete answers.

Thanks for any suggestions.

fm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Frank,

I think that there must be a difference in two midrange aestherically identical if AR used 2 different part #. They were not stupid!

As far as I know the resonat frequency in these midranges is different. AR said that the ferrrofluid was put only in one side of the voice coil in tha AR 91/92/915/925 midrange and both sides in the AR 9/90 midrange  . The AR 58s midrange is a mistery.

As they are anatomically identical if you listen to them without any crossover network they sound Identical but in their real world (that is inside a crossover network) you'll listen to some differencies.

I listened to several AR midranges with a without a crossover network to evaluate their sonic differencies.

AR 3a (black grill 1976), AR 10Pi (silver grill 1978), AR 91 and AR 9LS midrange (unfortunately for you I do not have an AR 9/90 midrange) sound all identical if you connect them directly to an amplifier that is without any crossover network (be carefull not to blow  them!) but if you connect them to the same crossover network, they sound all different exept for the AR 91 and AR 9LS midranges that sound identical.

So, although all these midranges are anatomically identical or very similar, they sound differently when connected to the same crossover network because of their different resonant frequency and impedance curve.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be more precise, I connected all the above-mentioned  midranges to the same crossover network ( exactly an AR 10 Pi midrange crossover network) and using a switch I could listen to each of them alone. So I could compared their sound with the same crossover network.

The difference between AR 10Pi and AR 91/9LS midranges was remarkable. In this situation AR91/9LS midranges seemed almost "not to sound" compared to AR 3a/10Pi midrange.

The silver grill AR10Pi midrange (1979) was more efficient than the black grill AR3a one (1976).

As I have several midranges of each model, the differencies were not random.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big 'thank you' to all who have answered.

I'm asking because this week I bought a pair of 200028 mids and one was damaged in transit.

My fear is that the AR-9 mids will become more difficult to acquire in the future so I wanted assurance that I'd have a couple of spares.

Attached is an out of focus shot, but clear enough to see the dent that occured in transit.

I tried sucking it out with a straw with no sucess.

Used finger pressure at different angles, a big no go.

I then tried delicate poking with two blunt round stick like objects but, I'd poke one side and the other side would sink back in. Fearing damage, I refrained using that method.

I carefully tried the vacumm cleaner method , still no results.

As a last resort I vainly attempted the 'oral-method', afterwards washing my lips, and jaw with soap and alcohol.

Of course, contrary to what some may think, I don't suck in general terms, so consequently no results were realized with that un-Godly act either.

I didn't want to try the 'bent-pin' method of prying as I tried back in the '70s and it never really rendered good results.

Perhaps some one may have a clue, cause other than the oral displeasure of sucking an actual speaker, I'm stumped.

Luckily, the seller refunded me some of the price but, it was less than the full cost for the one damaged speaker, I can't blame him though.

I bet RoyC would want to disassemble it and try a rear method of pushing the dome from behind, if that's even possible.

In fact it appears to me that the dome material may also be distorted due to heat or prolonged pressure of the packing material or something pressing down and may be

a lost cause. This is why I was asking about the #200032 version.

And thank you ar_pro but, for some dumb reason on my behalf, I didn't see the link earlier that you provided while I was frantically searching, but even there no one is actually stating a strong definitive yes or no.

In fact I'm getting the impression that in a pinch, the #200032 can be used in the AR-9, I'm not certain though.

Any thoughts on that?

fm

P.S. I've been 'MIA' because this past year or so I've delved into the world of using moving coil cartridges and 'breaking-in' a few that I had bought.

I can report back on that in relation to how my LST's showed every difference from cartridge to cartridge.

It's been great fun and a good feeling of knowing that my speakers are still up to the task of showing minor differences from each of the cartridges.

All points alert to any vinyl freaks like myself: Barnes and Boble in the last 3 weeks here in Jersey have installed a vinyl record display from which I purchased several 'jazz'

disks that I was lacking. Prices are similar to buying on-line, however, there is no fear of return problems and additional shipping costs to an on-line vendor in the event of warpage or defects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank -

Bill Legall can fix that dent: (215) 412-7700

Opinions vary on whatever differences might exist between the AR-9/90 upper mid, and the different model number used with the AR-91/92; without meaning to affirm or deny any previous findings or opinions, I've never been able to hear any difference between the 200028 and the 200032 when used in an AR-9.

As mentioned, there is a difference in the cosmetic ring, with the 200032 having a dark brown color, instead of black.

When did you flip over to AR-9's Frank?

You still have your LST stack, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 'ar_pro', I acquired the AR-9's in 2014, I even made a big deal here on this site, you had offered many tips yourself, as did others, thanks much for that.

They're still hooked-up but, not being used presently due to varied reasons which I may disclose with-in the next year.

And yes, oh dear in the 'highest' am I grateful that I still have my LST's and they're going very strong as usual. They amaze me to the hilt when ever I use them (often), and lately I've become 're-addicted' to them more than ever. And after all this time, they still along with their new input sources cause me to actually jump out of my seat in immense joy coupled with a shocking sense of musical reality stimulation. I must say that if E.V. and R.A. were still alive today, I'd be sending them letters of gratitude weekly.

I must also state, that it's the choice of phono cartridges that has really allowed the speakers to shine like never before. I'm dazzled by how well the speakers have lent themselves to every change I apply to them.

I can't reveal myself here too often cause I'm afraid that RoyC will come at me with some 12 gauge wire and whip me, cause he knows how lazy I am about restoring my LST's, years have gone by already, it's almost sad. It's must be a mental-block' I tell ya! In fact last night while conducting a straight four hour listening session, I became really mad at myself for not installing all that needs to be installed.

On a more pleasurable note;I have been so pleased just listening to my speakers but, I've been hampered by numerous set-backs preventing me from 'doing-the-right-thing'. However, I do peak in to see how the new re-enforcements are doing here lately.

I plan on looking ahead to the next year to finally getting around to so many projects that I've had no ambition or mental energy to get to, or time for that matter.

Once, I finally am able to, I will once again flood this forum with my usual diatribe and mind-less chatter but, for now I'm simply immersed in listening to music and the few new phono cartridges that

I've treated myself to.

For the record here is a little history to help understand, if that's humanly possible about my current 'head-space' and where I started.

1967: Shure M3D Cartridge

1970 Shure M55 '

1972 Shure M91ED "

1974 Shure V15 Type 3 '

1978 Stanton 681EEE

1979 New Shure stylus for Type 3

Huge lapse in time for numerous reasons, CDs, etc, etc.

2005 Shure Type IV with SAS stylus

2005 AT440MLa

2006 AT150MLx

2008 Denon DL-160

Another major lapse in listening time, but more of a holding pattern.

2013 Denon DL-301II

2013 Denon DL-304

Now it gets really good:

2014 Ortofon Rondo Blue

2014 Benz Micro ACE S L

2015 Ortofon Cadenza Blue

2015 Lyra Delos

The greatest thing is that my AR speakers have handled themselves extremely well in showing every difference for each cartridge that I tried.

Can this be labeled as extravagance?

Certainly to some folks but, being retired and with so much on my plate that I'm still 'handling' for many different reasons, I treated myself and I don't regret a single purchase.

Please don't hate me because I love to listen to my speakers and system whenever I can.

P.S.II Made an offer, waiting to hear about the #200032 mid ranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 11:09 PM, ar_pro said:

Opinions vary on whatever differences might exist between the AR-9/90 upper mid, and the different model number used with the AR-91/92; without meaning to affirm or deny any previous findings or opinions, I've never been able to hear any difference between the 200028 and the 200032 when used in an AR-9.

As mentioned, there is a difference in the cosmetic ring, with the 200032 having a dark brown color, instead of black.

Hello ar_pro

As I don't have an AR 9/90 midrange I couldn't include it in my listening test comparing 38 mm (1-1/2") AR dome midranges connected to the same crossover network.

Could you please compare the 200028 with the 200032 alone, that is without any other driver sounding?

As crossover network you could use a simple 22 mf capacitor in series with the two midranges. Switching the signal between the two midranges you could hear the differences between them if there are real differences in resonant frequency as stated by AR.

It is a very simple test but it would finally solve a lot of doubts about the sonic differences between the 200028 and 200032 mids.

As I don't have a 200028 mid I didn't know that there was a cosmetical difference in the ring color. This could explain the different part#.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Luigi, but I no longer have the drivers to do a comparison.

As I recall, there have been three instances over the years when I've heard the AR-9 with a replacement midrange from the AR-91/92, and they sounded just fine to me.

I believe Roy C is very close to the mark in his assessment of these midrange drivers; it's also very possible that the part number change would be due to the different-colored trim ring.

I've attached a photo that clearly shows the brown color of 200032 ring.

post-100370-0-66780400-1439702683_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankmarsi wrote:

Now it gets really good:

2014 Ortofon Rondo Blue

2014 Benz Micro ACE S L

2015 Ortofon Cadenza Blue

2015 Lyra Delos

What a great collection of cartridges, not even counting the ones that came before!

What arms and turntables have you been using?

Anh thoughts on high/low cartridge compliance?

I've never really had a better cartridge than whatever the top Shure was, and they were almost always used with a low-mass SME arm of one sort or another.

I wound up flipping the Thorens TD-125 MKII that I bought last year, but I kept the SME 3009 arm and mated it with a direct drive JVC that needed some TLC.

After de-badging the plinth, it was shot with urethane paint & clearcoat, and the original motor assembly was re-installed.

The aged rubber feet were replaced with brand-new Technics SL-1200 feet, which were a perfect fit.

Finally, the arm was rewired with NOS parts, and mated with a nice Oxford Blue tonearm baseboard - veddy British!

Speed is right on the money, and there's been no issues with LF feedback..

Here's a photo of before & after.

post-100370-0-05266900-1439704840_thumb.

post-100370-0-20910500-1439704848_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 7:24 AM, ar_pro said:

I'm sorry, Luigi, but I no longer have the drivers to do a comparison.

As I recall, there have been three instances over the years when I've heard the AR-9 with a replacement midrange from the AR-91/92, and they sounded just fine to me.

I believe Roy C is very close to the mark in his assessment of these midrange drivers; it's also very possible that the part number change would be due to the different-colored trim ring.

I've attached a photo that clearly shows the brown color of 200032 ring.

Anyway, although in my comparitive tests I have clearly noticed evident differences between the different 1-1/2 midranges I largely share what RoyC has affirmed in another discussion on a similar topic.

in other words, if you do not have the original driver, an AR similar component is generally the best option you have to restore a pair of vintage ARs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As discussed in the thread referenced by ar_pro in post#4, the only engineering difference between the 028 and 032 mid-drivers was the original amount of ferro-fluid. The mid-drivers in the three-way speakers employed less fluid in order to achieve a lower crossover point with the larger driver.

In a perfect world with all of these 35 year-old drivers working to original specs, it appears that the 028 driver might not be fully suitable for use in the three-ways (AR-91, 92 and 58s) since it cannot reach down to 700 Hz; but that the 032 driver should work fine in the four-way towers (AR-9, 90) with perhaps only a smidgen of power handling compromise.

But these drivers are all nearly 35 years old, and performance differences based on original quantities of ferro-fluid are nearly impossible to discern. Evaporation? Leakage? What does happen to ferro-fluid over the decades? Practically speaking, based on aging and availability, these drivers should be considered to be interchangeable replacements for the various speaker models they were designed for.

Also wish to mention the third variant of this mid-driver - - - p/n 200044, found only in the three-way AR-58s, and fully identical in original performance to the 032 driver from the AR-91 and 92.

post-112624-0-01103900-1439733402_thumb. post-112624-0-45201100-1439733440_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear ar_pro, and others here.

I use two SL-120Mk1 tables as my main tables and a TD-125Mk1 as a running alternate. I like operating all three depending on which one I feel sounds best with each cartridge and table. This method is great fun!

Prior to and for many years I used a Tannoy/Micro-Seiki TM55, which was an excellent replacement for my AR-XA table from 1974 on. Gone were the flimsy tone arm, the acoustic-feedback and other uncomfortable habits the AR table displayed.

To me, direct-drive was the way to go, then, and now. I do enjoy the TD125 for its slight mellow interpretation. Though it’s not too different sounding from the SL-120, and certainly isn’t ‘dark’ sounding.

Back in 2009, I purchased a SL-120 on a lark. When it first came out in 1972 or so, I felt it was just a cheap and desperate attempt for this new emerging company called ‘Technics’ and I just passed it by. And, although it was attractive and practical looking I didn’t have any faith in this new company. Little did I know that its simplicity of design was actually its grace.

But, using my Micro-Seiki in 1974 I felt I had the ultimate table until I started to enjoy the simple, clear-cut and effortless use of the SL-120. Its speed is always spot-on and it simply sounded better.

Shortly after I purchased a S.M.E. tone arm for it was one arm I lusted for when I became aware of the line as far back as the mid-sixties, even though they emerged on the market back in the mid-fifties.

In 2013 when I first used the Denon DL-301II, and Denon AU-320 SUT, I was floored by how good it sounded. On my AR’s, mids were more vibrant, highs more silkier, and bass was more realistic and better rounded with more ‘slam’. Shortly thereafter, I decided on the S.M.E. ‘Non-Improved’ as I was planning to use heavier cartridges in the future, I’m glad I did.

After a few months with the DL-301II, I bought the DL-304 because I found a close-out price. It had a slight bit of more separation between instruments and silkier highs but, the bass was not as ‘big’ as the DL-301II and overall I considered it a lateral move and not a move up. In fact it was like going from the AT-440MLA to the AT-150MLX, the 440 offering more bass and ‘punch’ than it’s higher priced brother.

In 2014 the sky opened up for me when I took the plunge and bought a Ortofon Rondo Blue. It offered a deeper and bigger-bass, and smoother highs with out sounding deficient in any way as compared to the DL-301II.

I couldn’t rest there either after reading the great reviews on the Benz-Micro ACE SL, I just had to try it. It offered even more separation between instruments and lots of ‘air’ and detail overall.

With a strong urge to learn and enjoy even more, I had to venture further into the world of moving-coil cartridges. Is it conspicuous consumption? Perhaps, but this is a hobby too.

Enter the Ortofon Cadenza Blue.

Playing the Salvatore Accardo version of Bach’s Concerto Per Violino on the Philips label (a rare and expensive used disk), and the Mozart Violin Concertos # 3&5 played by Itzhak Perlman on Deutsche Grammaphon, I was convinced that this is the best my system has ever sounded!

The high level of musical-realism with the Cadenza was better than anything I’ve used.

At this point, I felt that perhaps this was probably as high as I could go with my present set-up, or was it?

With all the talk about the Lyra Delos, I took that plunge also. I feel it’s excellent, approaches the Cadenza Blue but, it's not fully broken in yet and it's too soon to tell.

Hint: I saved much money on the last three cartridges by buying on-line over-seas.

Now because of all this system related excitement and craziness, I plan to settle down for a while. Gee, these cartridges aren't even fully 'broken-in' yet, I need more listening time!

By the way "stevef." your last topic was a welcome and refreshing change, as I feel listening should be the main objective when all is said and done, no matter what point or level one's system is at.

P.S. Sure, I’d like to have a ‘Brinkman’ table, a Ortofon Windfield or better cartridge, higher priced cables, etc. etc.

But, where does one rest and appreciate and enjoy what they already have? I've already gotten pretty carried away!

I may go one better with a different cartridge, or different SUT, or arm, but my AR speakers are staying till the end! And I still have to restore them completely along with others, please let's not go into it! I'm pretty much fed-up with my level of laziness and lack of ambition!

In terms of cartridge compliance, well that hinges on which arm you are using and the compliance rating of the cartridge you’d like to have. I prefer a higher compliance cartridge generally speaking and my selections reflect that. I have a large collection of used vinyl. And, although I use a VPI washer, a stiffer suspension cartridge may not be the ticket here. There's also my tone arm's bearings as they may not gel too well either.

All of the above mentioned cartridges range in around the same, about 12um. and are considered medium compliance.

When I decided to switch to the older S.M.E. tone arms as I was aware that their total mass was about 12.5, (compared to my SME Improved arms at 9.5 gram weight) and that coupled with a 10.7 gram weight of the Cadenza Blue cartridge brings the arm pretty much up to its present limit.

That figure is still within the safe zone where I’d have no worries of the cartridge resonating in the groove.

If I were to use a heavier cartridge, my arm allows for a heavier counter weight and I’d use a heavier head shell.

To close I can't help but saying that no matter what external changes were made to my system in terms of other components, tables, cartridges, tape decks, tuners, etc., my AR speakers have always shined through as if indicating that the are the standard bearers, and you know what? There were for many years when they first came out considered the standard by which all others were measured. That folks is good enough for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Frank,

I think that there must be a difference in two midrange aestherically identical if AR used 2 different part #. They were not stupid!

As far as I know the resonat frequency in these midranges is different. AR said that the ferrrofluid was put only in one side of the voice coil in the AR 9/90 midrange and both sides in AR 91/92/915/925 midrange. The AR 58s midrange is a mistery..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

So, although all these midranges are anatomically identical or very similar, they sound differently when connected to the same crossover network because of their different resonant frequency.

Luigi

I believe the ferrofluid is on both sides of the vc in the 200028 for the AR9 and 90. I remember Carl saying the 200032 has half the resonance as the 200028 and I believe Roy said he has used the 200032 in rebuilds for the AR9 and 90s and he does not hear any diiference. I can tell you that the cossovers for the 200028 and the 200032 in their respective speakers are different and this is probably why ferrofluid is on both sides of the vc in the AR9 and 90 speakers.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=7847

Good luck Frank as the 200028's do not show up often on the auction site. Expect to pay almost double to get the 200028 vs the 200032.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Gents, the pair of 200032 mids situation went like this: Seller is asking $138. 'Or Best Offer'

I offered $100, he turned it down.

I offered $115. he let the offer run out of time and didn't reply at all. Methinks he's a smuck by any other name.

Reading all of the above replies, I'm getting cold feet about the 200032 drivers now.

I mean these were only going to be as spares packed away somewhere in a box.

I'd like to have the peace of mind knowing that I'd have spares, but it's obviously become an issue and this seller

is a newbie, so now I'm foreseeing problems again with dented domes and or cracked frames/bodies? I know from experience that heavy singular speakers

are difficult to ship, especially by inexperienced sellers.

Again, I'm forced to recall my father's constant words to me every time a problem arose with my Buick collection back in the 1980's and I quote:

"Hey Frangi, why don't you get rid of those old junk cars and buy something nice and new."

So, here I go again, I guess if you choose to take the old dirt road, be prepared to suck up some dust and trip and fall in the pot-holes.

P.S. In the mean time, I hit the old used record store again today, it wasn't supposed to be more than a 'drive-by', just a quick look-see.

Little more than an hour later, I walked out $110. poorer but, I bought some excellent, seemingly only played once classical labels, some European, some USA.

Where ever I choose to be, I find problems. I don't like putting any used vinyl record on my tables until I wash them first.

The record buying situation here has gotten out of hand and I'll tell you why. I presently have just over 6500 records. So far I've only managed to clean

about 1000. I don't want to spend my life cleaning records, as it can be laborious and back wrenching bending and slaving over

a hot record cleaning machine.

However I've researched this topic mucho and found a small production number machine that can clean 7 to 10

disks at one time. This sounds attractive, it doesn't cost $4,000. like the other vibrating ultra-sonic models that only do one at a time but, like I said, it's limited production and built by a sole individual.

That could prove to be even more problematic in the future with failure and possible break down of the machine.

With all of the concern, worry, and fuss that's involved in this hobby, when do I say enough already?

But oh, that love of music and listening to my system always pushes me on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank, I can only say that - barring a catastrophe - you might never need to replace any AR-9 drivers.

I can't ever recall seeing a burned-out 8", upper-mid, or tweeter; I have seen crushed domes, and damage to woofers that was most likely the result of operating them with failed surrounds, but that's not really the drivers' fault.

As long as your crossovers meet spec, and you don't have any terrible amplifier meltdowns, these are very robust speakers, and as trouble-free as one could ever hope.

That said, if you're feeling especially unlucky, just wait for the right drivers at the right price; but you'll probably never use them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...