Jump to content

fedeleluigi

Members
  • Posts

    199
  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,598 profile views

fedeleluigi's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Hello, Actually there is no extra inductor in the AR-90 because the AR-9 also has it! The AR-9 crossover schematic in the library is wrong. In my post linked below you can find the correct schematic of the AR-9 redrawn by me. https://community.classicspeakerpages.net/topic/11407-my-ar-9-capacitor-recapupgrade-project/?do=findComment&comment=137305
  2. It may be that before the capacitor replacement you didn't pay much attention to the sonic differences between the two speakers. Using the 8.2uf polypropylene cap in parallel with the midrange may have altered the damping and therefore the frequency response around the crossover frequency (with the tweeter). Without accurate measurements of both the capacitors you used and the recapped speaker it's hard to tell if the degradation you hear compared to the original speaker is real or not. In my experience frankly it has never happened to me that replacing the old capacitors in AR speakers made the sound worse. There is generally an improvement especially when the old capacitors are out of specification. Just follow the simple rules mentioned by Ken Kentor in the thread I linked. Personally, for AR speakers, I only use bipolar audio electrolytic capacitors (usually Bennic or M.D.L.) from reliable sources (unfortunately there are many fakes). I always measure them to select them. I never use the small bypass capacitors.
  3. Hello Marklone, To be more scientifically sure of this difference you should swap all drivers from one speaker to another. Actually the difference could depend more on some differences in the drivers (they are around 40 years old) than on those of the crossovers. You did well. In reality during the comparison the two speakers should "ideally" be in the same place in the room (as even the same speaker in two different places in the room will sound differently). Therefore, when making the comparison, I suggest you place the two speakers at least next to each other and swap their positions from time to time. Obviously the musical signal must be the same for the two loudspeakers and not the right/left one of a stereo signal. If you don't have the mono option on your amplifier you can use an RCA splitter on your source (CD player, etc) and use only the right (or only the left) signal for both speakers That wouldn't surprise me! The ESR of the capacitors may affect not only the attenuation of the driver and the crossover point (when placed in series) but also the damping operated by the crossover filter (when placed in parallel). In other words, the use of capacitors with ESR different from the original ones can compromise the target response of the speaker. Ken Kentor (kkentor) and David Smith (speaker dave), two leading speaker designers writing on this forum have pointed this out on different occasions in this and other forums. Read for example what Ken Kentor says in the thread below about replacing capacitors.
  4. Roy, thanks very much for replying and clarifying; As far as I know, after stopping in-house production of its 1-1/2 in. midrange (p.n. 200010-1), AR supplied a similar unit manufactured by Tonegen as a replacement part. Until circa 1990/early-1990s the part number of the Tonegen midrange was 1210010-1. Then the part number changed to 1210010-1A and this number was kept until the end of the production (around the mid 90's) of the drivers with screen and fiberglass pad in front of the fabric dome. The Tonegen 1210010-1 and 1210010-1A midranges were aesthetically practically identical and frankly I don't know what was the real reason for the change of the part number. BTW, in the same period also the Tonegen 12" woofer used as replacement part for AR-3a, LST, 10 Pi, 9, 9LS etc. changed its part number from 1-2100030B or 1210003-0B to 1210003-2A. As said, both of 1210010-1 and 1210010-1A midranges had the screen and fiberglass pad in front of the fabric dome like the original AR 200010-1 midrange. Later, before its final closure (which occurred around the mid-90s), Tonegen produced the latest 1-1/2 inch midrange (p.n. 1210010-3A). It was used both by AR as a spare part and by CELLO for its latest loudspeakers using Tonegen components (CELLO switched to Dynaudio drivers when Tonegen closed down). As said, the part number of this latest 1-1/2 inch midrange made by Tonegen was 1210010-3A. It was basically the same midrange as before but lacked the distinctive screen and fiberglass pad of the original AR 200010-1 midrange. So, it was the latest CELLO Amati, Stradivari Master and Grand Master and not the early ones to use the Tonegen midranges without screens (1210010-3A). The last picture shows this. Mark Levinson (who had founded CELLO Ltd. in 1984), one of the most skilled marketing strategists in the HI-End world, said that these latest AR midranges were an evolution and sounded better than their predecessors. Note that at the time no one (except industry operators) was aware of Tonegen and that the drivers used in these very expensive and made in USA loudspeakers were actually manufactured in the East by Tonegen itself. Personally, I think Tonegen was actually scraping the bottom of the barrel and had no more screens available for that type of midrange as they were closing down. In other words, as far as I know, the 1210010-3A was the midrange of the last batches that Tonegen supplied to AR (and CELLO) through AB Tech and that was used while stocks lasted. Obviously some vendors of AR replacement parts found themselves having both the old 1210010-1A and the new 1210010-3A in stock for some time. What I do know for sure is that, at some point, the official Italian distributor of AR (Arcona) stopped supplying the 1210010-1A midrange and started to supply only and exclusively the 1210010-3A midrange while stocks lasted. - - A young Mark Levinson with the early Cello Stradivari Grand Master using the Tonegen 1210010-1 or 1210010-1A midranges. Note the midrange screens and fiberglass pads.
  5. Yes, it will. Measurements, if properly carried out, are always useful and, above all, objective. Thank you very much
  6. Roy, would you mind sharing these documents with the community? I do think that every member of this forum will thank you. Me first! Thank you
  7. In order to make things easier I attached Rlowe's files to this post. The 1027 file extention has been corrected. 1026.pdf 1027.pdf AR10pi-CircuitNotes Version 1.1 Sep2014 (1).pdf
  8. For those who want to restore the AR-10 Pi crossover, Rlowe's files can be very useful. He did an excellent work with the last update (AR10pi-CircuitNotes Version 1.1 Sep2014) and the 1026.pdf and 1027.txt files. You can download them from the old thread “ AR10Pi crossover schematics” : https://community.classicspeakerpages.net/topic/1520-ar10pi-crossover-schematics/?do=findComment&comment=58409 PS: Note that there is an error in the file extension of the 1027.txt file. After downloading it, in order to open it you need to change its extension from .txt to .pdf.
  9. 👍This is exactly what the magazines of the time (I posted previously) wrote!
  10. Thanks a lot Frank, Since CSP is the most important source of information in the world about Acoustic Research, whenever possible, I try to point out inaccuracies and errors. Unfortunately there are now many and unfortunately I don't have the time to intervene for each of them.
  11. Dear Adriano @Sonnar, I'm sorry for your "unscientific" beliefs but after more than one year I can scientifically prove that your supposed assumptions about the differences in the on-axis frequency responses between the AR-3 and AR-3a etc. are completely wrong. All this because, in one of my recent electro-acoustic books I've found (much to my surprise) the on-axis frequency responses of both the AR-3 and the AR-3a. But perhaps most important is that the measurements were performed by the same engineer (one of the best electro-acoustic engineers known) in an anechoic chamber. So these frequency response measurements can be absolutely compared (apples with apples as I told you in my previous posts). By examining them carefully, it is clear that the on-axis frequency responses are very very similar for both speakers. Both have an identical frequency response pattern with a similar (practically identical) high frequency roll off. Again, the on-axis frequency responses are really very very similar, indeed, taking into account the manufacturing tolerances, they could easily belong to two different speakers of the same type. The on-axis response of the AR-3a measured by Allison-Berkovitz in an anechoic chamber and that of the AR-3a measured by the author and reported in his book are superimposed. They are similar but not perfectly identical. The differences that can be observed between the two AR-3as are perfectly comparable to those that can be observed between the frequency responses of the AR-3 and the AR-3a. Room response is not reported. However, for reasons of physics, due to the different dispersion of the mid-range and high-range drivers (greater in those of the AR-3a) the power response benefits the AR-3a in in a reverberant room. In other words, when these speakers were new, the AR-3a had more "sparkling highs" and more open sound than the AR-3 in a common listening room. As the book is recent, for copyright reasons, I cannot post the graphics here. If you are interested in, please contact me and I will phoytocopy the image and send it by mail to you privately. Luigi
  12. The above statement that I posted is incorrect. I found a file of mine with the measurements of the masonite ring detected during some of my repairs. Here is a table with the measurements I found. The inner diameter I measured did change over the years. Obviously I did not measure 1,000 woofers to make statistics but I do think that the inner diameter changed after April 1977. I specify that as regards the measurement of the thickness of the masonite ring, 3 mm refer to the measure in mm shown in the AR drawing I posted some days ago (see above). Actually 1/8 in (shown in the AR drawing) are 3.175 mm and not 3 mm as shown in the same drawing, but I doubt 0.175 mm would change anything.
  13. The measurements of AR drawing I posted refer to the masonite ring for the 200003 woofers produced after April 1977, i.e. those used in the AR-10 Pi MKII and AR-11 MKII. Anyway you can see the previous measurement of the Outer Diameter (O.D.) in the "Revisions" of that drawing. See Revision E where they say that the O.D. was 11" i.e. 279,4 mm which is a similar measurement to the one you took. Unfortunately the inner diameter of the masonite ring for the previous older woofers is not reported in the revisions.
  14. The exact same thing happens to me. I've been writing on this forum since April 2002 but if I see my activity it only shows from 2016 as you can see in the picture below! - As in my posts I sometimes put some links to old or very old threads I could find some of my very old posts. For example you can see the picture and thread link of one of them below. It was written in 2003. So, why my old posts do not appear in my activity any longer contrary to a few months ago when they did appear? In other words if my very old posts do still exist, why my activity only shows posts from 2016? Picture of one of my posts written in 2003: its thread link:
  15. Here's the AR drawing of the masonite ring for the 200003 woofer manufactured after April 1977 (probably a few months later). With the introduction of the AR-10 Pi MKII and AR-11 MkII the 200003 woofer had some changes and also the masonite ring. In any case its inner diameter (9.80 in = 248,9 mm) and thickness (1/8 in = 3.175 mm) did not change.
×
×
  • Create New...