Jump to content

Which is the better speaker.........


DavidR

Recommended Posts

The AR-11 was very much within the AR-3/3a family of wide-dispersion performance, while the AR-91 reflected AR's thinking regarding the perils of lateral interference in upper-range drivers during the era when the AR-9 was king.

At one time or another, I've owned all of these systems, and I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.

My vote for best-looking would be the 3/3a, but the best-sounding might be the 91.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had both of these speakers, for several years each. I'm in general agreement with AR Pro's thinking.

The 11 was pretty much the 3a with the 5dB treble boost that the 3a always needed. Except with the 11, you didn't blow the tweeter.

The 91 was a bit 'darker' sounding than the 11. Not dull, not lacking in highs, but more closed, more focused, probably because of the Acoustic Blanket and all that nonsense. The 11 had the 3a's slightly "woody" midrange nasality, but ameliorated to a very significant degree by the 11's proper HF balance (that the 3a never had).

The 11 was a terrific speaker, but the 91 may be right up near the very top in terms of ultimate usable performance, good near AND far-field performance, reasonable size and price, that great 12" LF extension, etc. All things considered, the 91 did everything good that AR did good, and nothing really bad that AR ever did bad. You really can't find anything major to criticize about the 91.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for those two very good responses.

I should have added that I like Blues, Jazz (on vinyl) and 70s R&R. I like bass and except for the jazz like my music on the loud side. I have a pair of 91s I recently recapped and was thinking of getting some modest tube gear for them. My inquiry into the AR11 was it appears to have a bit more in the low end. Based on what you both have said this probably doesn't make a difference. Several have shown up on the auction site and I got curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had both of these speakers, for several years each. I'm in general agreement with AR Pro's thinking.

The 11 was pretty much the 3a with the 5dB treble boost that the 3a always needed. Except with the 11, you didn't blow the tweeter.

The 91 was a bit 'darker' sounding than the 11. Not dull, not lacking in highs, but more closed, more focused, probably because of the Acoustic Blanket and all that nonsense. The 11 had the 3a's slightly "woody" midrange nasality, but ameliorated to a very significant degree by the 11's proper HF balance (that the 3a never had).

The 11 was a terrific speaker, but the 91 may be right up near the very top in terms of ultimate usable performance, good near AND far-field performance, reasonable size and price, that great 12" LF extension, etc. All things considered, the 91 did everything good that AR did good, and nothing really bad that AR ever did bad. You really can't find anything major to criticize about the 91.

Steve F.

so since the drivers are the same, would you say the same about the 58S?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started a long thread a year or two ago about the 58s, where I opined that it was likely the "best" AR 12" bookshelf speaker of all.

The major differences between the 91 and 58s was that the 58 didn't have the Acoustic Blanket (a plus or a minus, depending on your point of view) and the 58 didn't have level controls. Some people think that the Verticals (92-91-90-9) sound better when the 1 1/2" dome is dialed back a little. I do use my 9's with the 1 1/2" UMR in the -3dB position.

But for raw FR, yes, I'd think the 91 and 58s would be pretty much identical.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so some think the 58S is a bit bright on the top end? when I do mine, and redo the grilles, I was thinking of going with a linen, which isn't quite as acoustically transparent as the original fabric. IIRC from Carl's testing, that will knock about 3db off the top end, with the phenomena starting ~2khz.....

will give it a try and see if I like it. half the caps should be here tomorrow, still have to order a few from madisound, and new surrounds....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so some think the 58S is a bit bright on the top end? when I do mine, and redo the grilles, I was thinking of going with a linen, which isn't quite as acoustically transparent as the original fabric. IIRC from Carl's testing, that will knock about 3db off the top end, with the phenomena starting ~2khz.....

will give it a try and see if I like it. half the caps should be here tomorrow, still have to order a few from madisound, and new surrounds....

AR crossovers typically switched series resistance in/out of the upper ranges to control output. Shouldn't be that difficult of a mod.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the OP focused his question on the 11 vs. the 91, but since the 58s has been mentioned, I'll just add a point that has been cited in other threads about these speaker models which I think is important. Besides, this discussion is mostly about variations and a progression of a speaker design which was being tweaked every few years: AR-11 (1977-79); AR-91 (1979-82); and AR-58s (1981-83), which all grew out of the heralded "3" series from 20 years earlier.

It is important to note that the AR-91 and the AR-58s are identical in terms of the basic components: same drivers, same coils, same capacitors, same resistors. Regarding published specs: same frequency response; the 91 has slightly larger cabinet volume; the 91 cabinet weighs one pound more; and the 91 retailed for $100 more (425 vs 325). I've found conflicting data on the 91's efficiency (87 and 90dB) while the 58s is published as 87dB, so this might also be identical. My opinion only - - I think the 58s is a far more attractive speaker, but I think it is also an inferior design for one simple reason: it has no tone controls.

At first glance, it looks like these two crossovers couldn't possibly be related - - - the 91 (left) is so much more dense. But after comparing the schematics side-by-side, it is easily seen that the dense jumble at the center of the 91 x-o is simply the four resistors which augment the two switches for the mid and tweet.

It would be very interesting to see a pair of 58s speakers with off-white linen grille cloth, but counting on the grille fabric to contribute significantly to audible performance seems a bit misguided. Instead, an alternative suggestion to taming the reported "bright top end" might be to alter the 58s crossover to become identical to the 91 crossover and provide some real tone controls. Two switches and four resistors could probably be had for under ten bucks, and I believe the speaker would very much benefit from having these simple control features.

post-112624-0-85856900-1430526362_thumb. post-112624-0-68607600-1430526420_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have a pair of AR58S midranges so I am reading this discussion with interest. In terms of efficiency, 87 db/w is likely to be equivalent to 90 db/2.8v. AR-78LS is probably the last 3-way design using the same woofer as AR 91 and 58S. High Fidelity's review of AR-78LS says the sensitivity is 91 3/4 db/1m; 2.8-volt pink noise 250 Hz to 6 kHz.

BTW, I have been thinking using this excellent AR 58S 1.5" midrange with an ESS superbly clean Heil monopole tweeter for a no-compromise 700 to 20000 Hz mid-tweeter panel.

Review of AR-78LS from Steve F.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=8198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I have been thinking using this excellent AR 58S 1.5" midrange with an ESS superbly clean Heil monopole tweeter for a no-compromise 700 to 20000 Hz mid-tweeter panel.

I love that idea, ligs.

Since Parts Express began carrying the full-size ESS AMT dipole tweeter, I'd fantasized about using it with an AR-1; much in the manner of the old JansZen 130.

The AR-1 is so difficult to find (cheaply) in the wild, anymore, and PE has apparently stopped offering the AMT.

That dream now goes on the shelf next to my flying car and robot butler (sigh).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That dream now goes on the shelf next to my flying car and robot butler (sigh).

I want my hoverboard. Back to the Future Part II promised that in 2015.

And maybe the Flux Capacitor would be far superior to film caps (but you'd need a 1.21 gigawatt amplifier ;))

-Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion only - - I think the 58s is a far more attractive speaker, but I think it is also an inferior design for one simple reason: it has no tone controls.

I agree, ra.ra...

Another issue, and evidence of cost cutting, are the flimsy spring speaker wire connectors on the rear of the cabinet. I have worked on two pairs of 58s's in the past year, and they both have had broken connectors. The way the crossover board is set up, it is quite a job to disconnect virtually the entire crossover to replace them.

The 58s is easily my least favorite of all models using the AR-3a/11 type drivers. Imo, it was not one of AR's better products. They do, however, make excellent parts donors.

Attached is a photo of the connectors, and the photo ra.ra posted marked to show where they are on the 58s crossover board.

Roy

post-101150-0-93405100-1430592961_thumb.

post-101150-0-60039300-1430592991_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased my 58s pair without realizing they were without mid and high level controls. Another problem I discovered was a partially broken spring clip terminal that only works if I am careful in how I install the wire. I explored solutions to both issues. Along the way RoyC directed me to the interior of the box where I realized the effort to replace the connectors far outweighs what is gained unless the original connectors are not working. With regard the to mid level control, the easiest, quickest and most comprehensive solution by far is a 10 band equalizer, if existing equipment will allow the inline connections.

The equalizer is more expensive than the resistors and switches and may be not the preferred approach if one likes to do that sort of thing but it gets you to listening a lot quicker,allows you to account for the room acoustics more thoroughly and there are plenty of used inexpensive equalizers available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aadams, speaking as an experienced 58s owner, is correct about the suitability of the equalizer solution. Both he and Roy bemoan the short-sighted decision to use those cheesy spring-loaded terminals, as well as the difficult access to the crossover components mounted on the internal panel.

Having never personally seen the 58s, I cannot attest to the build quality, but some of the cost-cutting measures that appear in this series of AR speakers are confounding. Eliminating the critical tone controls (switches and resistors) must have been mostly about labor costs, since the parts costs were mere peanuts (remember: this product originally cost $325 per speaker). Same sentiment goes for those awful speaker wire spring terminals - - was this seen as any kind of improvement from the knurled nut on the machine screw? Yet, while saving pennies on several small but important components, at least most of this series of speakers featured the unnecessary plastic trim ring or foam external foam gasket on the woofer basket. Clearly, the '80's designers sought a more sophisticated marketability in making the "grill-off" baffle board appearance considerably more presentable than the earlier "classic" series that often had the lovely electrical tape barely concealing those delicate tinsel lead wires and the black driver sealant oozing out from the perimeter of the driver frame.

I have to admit that, now seeing the rear speaker terminals and the small-ish back panel cut-out, my suggestion to add two switches for tone control is not quite so simple. I still think the idea would be a really good modification, and probably one that I would explore for myself, but I now understand it would require a more extensive and creative re-assembly of the crossover components as well as some possible minor surgery to the rear cabinet panel with regards to wiring and carpentry in order to be able to manipulate the "modded" switches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance that the rear-panel cutout is the same size on both speakers?

Maybe replacing the AR-58s crossover board with one from an AR-91 might do the trick.

They're not very pricey - a pair sold a couple of weeks ago on eBay for $23.00, and I believe I paid about 30 bux for a working-condition set some time back.

Wire some new caps to the board while it's outside of the box & easy to work on, and then staple/glue it into place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want my hoverboard. Back to the Future Part II promised that in 2015.

And maybe the Flux Capacitor would be far superior to film caps (but you'd need a 1.21 gigawatt amplifier ;))

-Kent

Oh, believe me, it's been invented. The oil company's just got hold of it and buried it. :ph34r: Along with the transporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I have been thinking using this excellent AR 58S 1.5" midrange with an ESS superbly clean Heil monopole tweeter for a no-compromise 700 to 20000 Hz mid-tweeter panel.

I love that idea, ligs.

Since Parts Express began carrying the full-size ESS AMT dipole tweeter, I'd fantasized about using it with an AR-1; much in the manner of the old JansZen 130.

The AR-1 is so difficult to find (cheaply) in the wild, anymore, and PE has apparently stopped offering the AMT.

That dream now goes on the shelf next to my flying car and robot butler (sigh).

AR_pro,

Having giving this some thoughts and remembering the tweeter in NAL(New Advent Loudspeaker) actually responds to below 800 Hz. I thought it would be feasible to use AR-58mid/ESS Heil tweeter with the woofer of NAL for a quick try. The experimental crossover for the mid is very similar to that in AR 91 and 58. After tweaking the attenuation resistor values for a while I got a very listenable Advent-AR-Heil 3-way. The total system sounds very clean and I really appreciate the lack of distortion of AR mid and Heil tweeter.

I have also been listening to a different version of 3-way except the mid is from Monsoon MM700 planar speaker.

BTW, my AR 58 mid has some polystyrene foam particles on the dome surface due to the poor shipping practice of the person I purchased from.

post-119422-0-94256000-1431267300_thumb.

post-119422-0-82747200-1431267338_thumb.

post-119422-0-19883500-1431267372_thumb.

post-119422-0-55105500-1431267917_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very interesting experiment, ligs - how do you like the NAL's woofer as compared to the standard AR 12"?

Also, are you comfortable with the fixed-resistor setup? Would there be an advantage to including L-pads for adjustment?

I'd originally entertained the notion of combining the AR-1 with this version (attached) of the ESS tweeter; hoping to achieve a more extended frequency response, but without losing any of the natural character of that first AR speaker. It was possible to find bargains on the AR-1 - like $50/pair - but I haven't come across an unmolested & inexpensive AR-1 for years & years.

About your AR-58 midrange - try using high-quality sticky duct tape to pick off the foam particles.

If you carefully touch the tape to a foam particle, you should be able to pull it away from the dome - it takes patience, but it can be done.

post-100370-0-88328300-1431369617_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your interest again. NAL does play cleanly to 30 Hz at normal volume and it sounds quite neutral.

I have some high quality Ohmite resistors from Northcreek Music systems so I just used them for convenience. I have read using a resistor ahead of the crossover would not change the slope of the crossover.

Good luck with your pursue of AR-1 ESS combination. The existing discussions on ESS seem to consider the woofers in original ESS designs to be the major weak point, probably AR 1 would be a better choice than the vented ESS woofers:)

I have some sticky pad originally intended for trapping mice and I will try to lift the foam particles from the dome. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, mouse-trapping sticky sounds like very very sticky. I'd worry a little about trapping the dome and pulling it away. Suggest trying a few grades of less-sticky first. Like, start with masking tape, then go to cheap duct tape, then good duct tape if you must....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, mouse-trapping sticky sounds like very very sticky. I'd worry a little about trapping the dome and pulling it away. Suggest trying a few grades of less-sticky first. Like, start with masking tape, then go to cheap duct tape, then good duct tape if you must....

Agree! That mouse-trap stuff is gooey will probably leave gooey residue on the dome. Masking tape or painter's tape seems like a better choice.

-Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...