Jump to content

Carl's AR-3a Super Mod...how does it sound? Who's done it?


Recommended Posts

I'm glad you at least plan to move it. I'm also hoping some Super-Mod owners spot this thread and contribute their un-solicited (at least from me) comments on the sound. I wasn't planning to add mine personally; simply because they would obviously be viewed as biased. All I'll say is the intent of the SM development was to preserve the original laid back sound of the 3a's but improve on the overall clarity and imaging thru the use of high quality, modern mids and tweeters.

You alude to a mod of the SM to "bring it's tonal balance in line with that of the original". IMHO, I'm not sure that's necessary since I've heard no feedback that the 'tonal balance' was changed with the SM. Let's not speculate on what may or may not have changed. Let the owners of the SM make that call.

I took it upon myself to ask my last SM customer what he thought of the sound now and as compared to his memory of the original 3a sound. Here was his response FWIW:

"Hi Carl,

One might say the sound is more forward, but it is not bright. It is good tone with a clear, well resolved modern sound. I should think with separate adjustments of the mid and tweeter one could achieve a good approximation of the originals. Particularly since the AR-3 sound was defined by the acoustic suspension woofer, and that is still present. I thoroughly enjoy them modded, yet they will be forever AR.

Regards,

Joel"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone suggested that a later model of speaker from the AR58 era might help.

I have 2ax, 3a, 3a improved, 58LS and 98LS. I prefer the sound of the 2ax/3a midrange, the 58LS and 98LS are a good deal brighter and more modern sounding but to my ears a little harsher, even with the crossover mods to tone things down a bit. They are all great speakers, all sound slightly different and in the end it comes down to what you prefer as an individual.

My take is that the deepest gut shaking bass comes from the 3a improved, but the most accurate bass comes from the 98LS (which is a 4 way and uses an 8" lower mid, so not a fair comparison really). Most accurate mid range is in the 2ax, and the clearest tweeter is in the 58LS/98LS.

Of course some of the drivers are the same across models, the crossovers make a big difference and even within models variance with crossover parts used occurs. In my experience, the room, furnishings or location within the room can sometimes make a bigger difference than switching models.

I could try and make a new hybrid of all the best bits, but I love the sound of each pair as they are, and I would not want to lose any one of them in the hope of making something that may sound better.

Just my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone suggested that a later model of speaker from the AR58 era might help.

I prefer the sound of the 2ax/3a midrange,

the 58LS and 98LS are a good deal brighter and more modern sounding but to my ears a little harsher, even with the crossover mods to tone things down a bit. They are all great speakers, all sound slightly different and in the end it comes down to what you prefer as an individual.

Hi there

A very interesting comment and comparison of the midrange drivers sound.

The 3A of course uses a different 1 1/2 dome driver.

The AR-2AX's used the cone tweeter with the fiberglass and mesh cover, at least during later production.

I have seen on a few occassions where there was no fiberglass under the screen, very likely early production.

Actually the same driver was used for the AR-4, early AR-1X, and early AR-2X's mid/tweeter driver.

Obviously AR researched their modifications to the OEM driver and what a success it became.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I've owned AR3a's, Allison One, AR10Pi and many others. ALL have their "pro's" and "con's" depending on what one is looking to achieve. In other words, no one speaker can be all things to all people. As others have said, room properties, speaker placement and source material can make any speaker brand/ model sound "better" than another just by manipulating those three variables. But "better" compaired to what? And how would you quantify this ?

I feel that making ANY changes that deviate from the designers's "original intent" in a significant way is NOT a "restoration" but a "re-design". In the real world, there are these things called "manufacturing tolerances". There are also "iterations" and "revisions" in the manufacturing process that attempt to keep each product rolling off the assembly line as "identical" as that "magic reference". As a former designer that began my career in the late 80's , it was tough to that then ! I can only imagine how difficult it was to do this when the "classics" were being developed and manufactured in the 60's.

So, whenever you make a "mod" (like substituting a "better" driver or "better" cap), what you're REALLY doing is changing how the driver "interacts" with the crossover, which determines the overall radiation pattern (directivity) and "frequency response" of the "first arrival" sound. It will also affect the impedance of the system, which may or may not change the way it "couples" to the amplifier used. The AR3a is notorious for it's very low and reactive impedance ; only the "better" amplifiers (those with a hefty power supply) of that era could do it justice.

As to "imaging" (a quality I personally desire), "mirror imaging" by itself won't get the job done unless tolerances are held "tight" AND the inheritant design is CAPABABLE of "imaging". I believe there is a necessary "trade-off" between a "tight focus" and "spaciousness". You can have a Bose 901 (which is inherently "mirror imaged") and manufactured to the tightest tolerances possible, and it STILL won't "focus" like a speaker designed with "tight imaging" as it's primary design objective.

Gerry S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...