Jump to content

Looking for replacement of AR9 speakers


fdormoy

Recommended Posts

Well, I was in a similar position several years ago but I hadn't actually got rid of my old ones. I went to several specialist hi fi shops and I was absolutely amazed. Amazed at the difference in quality between modern speakers and my old ARs. However, I was amazed at how awful the modern ones sounded compared to mine. The sales guy gave the speakers a great build up but even at a couple of thousand UK pounds, a few 6" woofers in a vented cabinet just don't cut it (in my opinion). The answer to that was "ah you need a subwoofer", but I mean really? Even with that it still just didn't have that laid back AR sound. The top end and mid sounded like it was produced by the tweeters and mid range rather than behind them. I have spent the time since restoring ARs, starting with my own. Best thing I ever did, they knock spots of modern kit, again, in my opnion. An ideal sound is so subjective of course. The point I am making is that if you really like the AR sound, you may not find anything comparable today, and some would argue that is a good thing, but not me I'm afraid.

Something else to be aware of - modern amps don't always sound great with old AR's, as I found out when I fortunately loaned a rather expensive amp which sounded so harsh with the ARs it was unbearable. Modern ears seem to prefer (or at least not complain about) harsh treble, booming bass and lots and lots of compression (don't get me started on that one!) rather than the "natural" transparent sound of the ARs.

In short, I think you may struggle to find something adequate but the reccommendation is to listen to anything very carefully before you buy. Listen to the whole thing, source, amp and speakers together, taking your own kit if necessary, or ideally audition in your own room. Always take a known source such as a cd you know well so that you can tell how good or bad the sound is from something you know well and know how it sounds on your kit.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why AR / Audiovix stopped producing high quality spekaers and produce junks now for iphone and other gadjets ?

They're manufacturing what they think will sell. "Modern sound" says less about modern manufacturers than it does about the tastes of modern consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought in 1978 a pair of AR9 speakers that I was extremely happy with. Excellent quelity.

But I gave them to my son an would like to buy an equivalent set sold today.

What is currently sold that would match or even exceed the quality of the AR9?

http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/Platinum-Series/Platinum-T8-Tower

http://www.stereophile.com/content/psb-platinum-t8-loudspeaker

or

http://www.revelspeakers.com/ProductDetails.aspx?prdid=18

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/706revel/index1.html

This pair of subs should help:

http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/uls15dualdrive.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought in 1978 a pair of AR9 speakers that I was extremely happy with. Excellent quelity.

But I gave them to my son an would like to buy an equivalent set sold today.

What is currently sold that would match or even exceed the quality of the AR9?

There is no equivalent to AR9. In some respects it represented the most extreme effort of a specific engineering philosophy which is not in vogue anymore. Is AR9 the best speaker AR ever built? By AR's own philosophy which changed over the years in some respects it was best in some ways, not best in others. AR9 has the best bass, better than two AR 12" speakers in separate enclosures together. It has an 8" LMR which turned it into a 4 way system. This was coupled ingeniously to the 12" drivers. This allowed improved performace of both the woofers and the dome UMR midrange by restricting them to frequency ranges where they work best. This allowed more of the drivers' power handling to be restricted to those ranges, especially valuable for the UMR. That allowed the tweeter to be crossed over at a higher frequency, 7khz instead of 5 obtaining similar improvement for it. It did not have the best high frequency dispersion of AR speakers, that distinction belongs to LST. Even AR3a/5, and 2ax had better hf dispersion.

You could conceivably configure other systems to be similar. Dayton has just introduced a new subwoofer with two 12" side firing AS woofers, their excellent RS315HFs and a 950 watt amplifier. Each costs about $1000 assembled, $850 as a kit. You'd need two. Crossed over at about 200 hz to an 8" or 10" 3 way system such as AR2ax, AR5, or their later AR variants and carefully equalized, the combination might be made to sound very similar to AR9. The 3 way system should have a paper AS woofer, soft dome midrange, and 3/4" soft dome tweeter with the widest possible dispersion. Selected tweeters by Morel even though they are 1" and Vifa 3/4" tweeters may come close. Morel has some small dome midrange drivers as well. Titanium, plastic, and Kevlar cone drivers should be avoided.

As for "exceed the quality" that depends on what you mean by that. It seems that in this hobby/industry, everyone has their own definition of what better means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replacements for the AR-9

This is an interesting question. In order to best address it, I’d have to analyze what exactly it is about the AR-9 that I’d like to duplicate in a modern speaker.

The AR-9 was unlike any speaker before it, and certainly unlike any speaker since (except for the various AR-9xxx speakers that followed, through and including the TSW-910 of 1987). The original 9 (and its successors, to varying degrees) sought to tackle and solve some very specific loudspeaker issues:

1. Flat on-axis frequency response with low distortion and a “smooth” tonal character

2. Intentionally wide horizontal dispersion

3. Significantly deeper bass response than the single-12” woofer AR bookshelf speaker platform, without the overall system impedance dipping too low

4. Minimize destructive baffle reflections/near-field diffraction

5. Address the Allison Boundary issue

6. 4-way design to relieve the 12” woofers and dome midrange of out-of-optimal-bandwidth stress

7. Extremely high power-handling for near-live SPLs in large listening rooms

The -9 was successful in achieving all of these goals, which is the main reason why a properly-preserved AR-9 sounds as good—if not better—to many people than the vast majority of speakers on the market today, at any price.

No speaker that I’m aware of combines—and achieves—all of the above goals. There could be legitimate disagreement/discussion as to whether all of these targets are correct or even necessary, but the observation that no speaker today combines all the 9’s attributes is not in question.

So realistically, if one is going to “replace” the 9, you have to decide which of the list 1-7 above are really the most important to you, because you’re not going to get all seven.

Speakers like the B&W Diamond 800 will certainly go low, play loud and have a “smooth,” accurate, non-fatiguing tonal character. Same with the Aerial Acoustics Models 20T and Model 9. But the B&W and Aerial 20T are in the mid-$20k/pr. range. The Aerial 9 is ‘only’ $8800/pr, and has received uniformly great reviews as a fine-sounding loudspeaker: smooth, natural, and with a decent low end. I’ve never A-B’d it with the AR-9, but it’s doubtful if its four 7” vented woofers (113 sq. in total cone radiating area) could truly match the 9’s double sealed 12” woofers (157 sq. in cone radiating area, even allowing for AR’s “small” 12” woofer) for bass extension and lack of distortion—especially considering the 12dB/oct rolloff of the AR-9’s sealed alignment vs. the 24dB dropoff of the Aerial’s vented enclosure.

The Legacy Focus SE and Focus HD speakers are large columnar speakers with dual 12” vented woofers and 4-way designs that have received favorable press. I’ve heard them briefly, and they appear to be quality products. At $8800 and $7200/pr. respectively, they may be ‘in the hunt’ if the goals of a solid low end, well thought-out overall system design, and beautiful cabinetry are on your list. They have their design shortfalls, however, and are not necessarily going to hit the same targets that the AR-9 hit.

It’s going to be very difficult to replace the AR-9. I have a pair, and I’ve given this a lot of thought (obviously!). My goal is to always keep tabs on where I can obtain NOS replacement drivers and have them at the ready, and to attempt to avoid doing anything “stupid” with my 9’s.

If someone else has a real good solution to a full-range speaker (no separate subwoofer) that truly satisfies all the 1-7 items on the list—every one of them, not merely some of them, not merely most of them, not “I don’t think that number x is really important,” but really hits the mark on every single one of them, please let me know. I’m all ears.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just keep your eye on eBay, or Craigslist?

We've purchased two pairs of AR-9 systems, and 2 pairs of AR-90 speakers within the past couple of years.

Factoring shipping costs and parts replacement/repair (foam surrounds & new caps, for sure) the AR-9 and 90 are still bargains - especially if they are exactly what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Replacements for the AR-9

This is an interesting question. In order to best address it, I’d have to analyze what exactly it is about the AR-9 that I’d like to duplicate in a modern speaker.

The AR-9 was unlike any speaker before it, and certainly unlike any speaker since (except for the various AR-9xxx speakers that followed, through and including the TSW-910 of 1987). The original 9 (and its successors, to varying degrees) sought to tackle and solve some very specific loudspeaker issues:

1. Flat on-axis frequency response with low distortion and a “smooth” tonal character

2. Intentionally wide horizontal dispersion

3. Significantly deeper bass response than the single-12” woofer AR bookshelf speaker platform, without the overall system impedance dipping too low

4. Minimize destructive baffle reflections/near-field diffraction

5. Address the Allison Boundary issue

6. 4-way design to relieve the 12” woofers and dome midrange of out-of-optimal-bandwidth stress

7. Extremely high power-handling for near-live SPLs in large listening rooms

The -9 was successful in achieving all of these goals, which is the main reason why a properly-preserved AR-9 sounds as good—if not better—to many people than the vast majority of speakers on the market today, at any price.

No speaker that I’m aware of combines—and achieves—all of the above goals. There could be legitimate disagreement/discussion as to whether all of these targets are correct or even necessary, but the observation that no speaker today combines all the 9’s attributes is not in question.

So realistically, if one is going to “replace” the 9, you have to decide which of the list 1-7 above are really the most important to you, because you’re not going to get all seven.

Speakers like the B&W Diamond 800 will certainly go low, play loud and have a “smooth,” accurate, non-fatiguing tonal character. Same with the Aerial Acoustics Models 20T and Model 9. But the B&W and Aerial 20T are in the mid-$20k/pr. range. The Aerial 9 is ‘only’ $8800/pr, and has received uniformly great reviews as a fine-sounding loudspeaker: smooth, natural, and with a decent low end. I’ve never A-B’d it with the AR-9, but it’s doubtful if its four 7” vented woofers (113 sq. in total cone radiating area) could truly match the 9’s double sealed 12” woofers (157 sq. in cone radiating area, even allowing for AR’s “small” 12” woofer) for bass extension and lack of distortion—especially considering the 12dB/oct rolloff of the AR-9’s sealed alignment vs. the 24dB dropoff of the Aerial’s vented enclosure.

The Legacy Focus SE and Focus HD speakers are large columnar speakers with dual 12” vented woofers and 4-way designs that have received favorable press. I’ve heard them briefly, and they appear to be quality products. At $8800 and $7200/pr. respectively, they may be ‘in the hunt’ if the goals of a solid low end, well thought-out overall system design, and beautiful cabinetry are on your list. They have their design shortfalls, however, and are not necessarily going to hit the same targets that the AR-9 hit.

It’s going to be very difficult to replace the AR-9. I have a pair, and I’ve given this a lot of thought (obviously!). My goal is to always keep tabs on where I can obtain NOS replacement drivers and have them at the ready, and to attempt to avoid doing anything “stupid” with my 9’s.

If someone else has a real good solution to a full-range speaker (no separate subwoofer) that truly satisfies all the 1-7 items on the list—every one of them, not merely some of them, not merely most of them, not “I don’t think that number x is really important,” but really hits the mark on every single one of them, please let me know. I’m all ears.

Steve F.

Hi Steve F,

I believe you would be hard-pressed indeed to find a modern-day replacement for the AR-9, particularly considering the many strict parameters you have set for the contenders. The bar is set high; however, there are several older speakers that you did not mention that would not cost too much, and which would compare very favorably with the AR-9.

The KEF R-107 or R-107/2 would easily fall into that category in most respects. Taking your parameters:

"Flat on-axis fr with low distortion and “smooth” tonal character"

The KEF 107 is very flat on axis, probably more so than the AR-9. It also is virtually distortion-free and exhibits an almost totally uncolored, natural sound, much akin to the AR-9.

"Intentionally wide horizontal dispersion"

The KEF 107 does not equal the AR-9 in horizontal dispersion, as it uses a 1-inch dome and a small, special midrange cone for the midrange. It performs well, and does image much better than the AR-9, but in dispersion, it falls short of the AR-9. In my view, the AR-9 is more “spacious” sounding than the 107 (I owned them both).

"Significantly deeper bass response than the single 12-inch AR bookshelf speaker"

Here the KEF 107 is superior to -- and easily exceeds -- even the AR-9. It uses two low-resonance, high-compliance 10-inch woofers mounted in a push-pull, mechanically coupled-together arrangement in individual, sealed enclosures (air suspension), coupled into a band-pass cavity that produces (with the help of the built-in equalization) flat energy with low distortion down to 18 Hz. It produces *far* more deep-bass energy than even the AR-9 in the 30Hz-and-below frequency range.

"Minimize destructive baffle reflections/near-field diffraction"

The KEF 107 has no significant baffle issues and, if fact, is probably better than the AR-9 in this respect. The 107 uses a small-sectional midrange/tweeter head assembly -- pioneered by KEF with the original 105 -- that minimizes diffraction. There is really a small front frontal cross-section in this design, less so than with the AR-9. The KEF 107 also uses an advanced Linkwitz-Riley 24 dB/octave 4-pole crossover which reduces lobing and phase-interference issues.

"Addresses the Allison Boundary issue"

The 107’s bass output exits at the top of the enclosure with a band-pass, steep-slope crossover of 175 Hz into the 4-inch midrange driver. I don’t believe the boundary-interference “suck out” affects the 107 particularly, as the output grill is fairly close to the boundary and the crossover frequency keeps the woofer out of the range that would be affected.

"4-way design to relieve the 12-inch woofers and dome midrange of out-of-optimal-bandwidth stress"

The 107 is a 3-way design, but the drivers are extremely rugged and are derived from professional models capable of high power. The 107 can easily handle peaks of 750-1000 watts due to its design.

"Extremely high power-handling for near-live SPLs in large listening rooms"

No problem. With my personal experience, I was able to drive the 107s to considerably higher listening levels, without distress, than with the AR-9s. I powered my 107s with a pair of Threshold Monoblock amplifiers, each capable of 600-800 watt peaks, and the KEFs always seemed to take everything well within stride. At live levels, any speaker can make the sound “uncomfortable,” simply because it is an assault on the ears in almost any circumstance to have live levels.

There are other examples: the NHT 3.3 is a very capable and very affordable speaker that can easily hold its own with the AR-9. It doesn’t have quite the wide dispersion throughout the midrange and treble, but it does disperse the sound well and has a remarkably "spacious" sound, in my view, while still delivering a very stable image (in the for-what-it's-worth department). The 1259 woofers need no introduction: they are among the best woofers ever designed, and they worked perfectly in the 3.3. Only one 1259 woofer can move nearly as much air as two AR-9 woofers, and the fc is about the same in both speakers. The B&W 801 Matrix is another excellent example of a speaker that can equal or even surpass the AR-9 in most respects except possibly for “spaciousness.” All-in-all, it is probably more "accurate" and "life-like," for lack of better descriptions, than even the AR-9, but it is a totally different approach to sound reproduction. Bass response with the equalizer is flat to around 20 Hz in the 801 Matrix version.

But these speakers are sometimes difficult to find at affordable prices, and they, too, are getting a bit “long in the tooth.” Replacement parts for them might be just as difficult to locate as for the AR-9, so there may not be any advantage to updating the AR-9 since you already have it well entrenched.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with all of Tom's suggestions, many of which are backed by his personal experience. I have always admired the KEF 107 series of speakers, and the NHT 3.3 has long been a favorite. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the "strange" cabinet dimension/appearance of the 3.3, that speaker could easily be at the top-of-the-list.

But, as Tom notes, these speakers are all fairly old at this point, and restoring/maintaining them is no easy task. It's even possible that the 9--due to AR's more widespread popularity--might even be easier to get replacement parts for at this point than the others.

In any event, I interpreted the question of "AR-9 replacement" to mean what 'new' speaker would do the trick, not what '10- or 15-year-old' speaker would do the trick.

If the requirement is 'new,' then it's going to be very difficult.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with all of Tom's suggestions, many of which are backed by his personal experience. I have always admired the KEF 107 series of speakers, and the NHT 3.3 has long been a favorite. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the "strange" cabinet dimension/appearance of the 3.3, that speaker could easily be at the top-of-the-list.

But, as Tom notes, these speakers are all fairly old at this point, and restoring/maintaining them is no easy task. It's even possible that the 9--due to AR's more widespread popularity--might even be easier to get replacement parts for at this point than the others.

In any event, I interpreted the question of "AR-9 replacement" to mean what 'new' speaker would do the trick, not what '10- or 15-year-old' speaker would do the trick.

If the requirement is 'new,' then it's going to be very difficult.

Steve F.

Steve is exactly right: if the requirement is for a "new" replacement, it would be very difficult to find a current-model speaker to perform as well as the original AR-9. I digressed a bit with my recommendations!

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fairly low cost, high value solution:

Infinity Primus 363 - stuff the ports with a foam plug and crossover to subs:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/723780-REG/Infinity_P363BK_P363BK_6_5_3_Way_Passive.html

Review of the 360 version:

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/605infinity

http://www.stereophile.com/content/infinity-primus-360-loudspeaker-measurements

And a pair of the SVS SB12-NSD subs:

http://www.svsound.com/products-sub-box-sb12nsd.cfm

Happy Holidays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have quite a few sets of AR speakers, including ARLSTII's, AR9LSi's, and AR3a's. They all perform very well in my home theater system. However, I also have a pair each of Infinity Quantum II's and III's.

The Infinity Quantum II's have a single Watkins 12" woofer, a 5" Audax mid-bass, two soft-dome mids, and four EMIT tweeters. The Watkins 12" woofers in a cabinet just a little larger than the AR9's produces very strong bass that doesn't drop off significantly until 25 Hz. The midbass drivers do a very nice job on the lower mids. The two domed mids have very large magnet structures and sound very smooth. The EMIT's, besides sounding very smooth, have outstanding horizontal dispersion--much better than the AR tweeters in any of my systems. The one weakness of these Quantums is the reliability of the midrange domes. They tend to fail like the AR mid domes--the wires to the voice coil break between the stationary terminal and the moving anchor point on the edge of the dome.

So, I use the Quantum II's for my front left and right channels, ARLSTII's for the side surround, and AR3a's for the rear surround. The ARLSTII's, with their multi-facing tweeters work really well for surround speakers. I also use a pair of 15" Dayton Infinite Baffle woofers mounted in the floor with the basement as the backside of the enclosure. With the spacing of the left and right front speakers, there is no need for a center channel speaker. I've tried a Quantum III and an AR3 for the center, but prefer the results with no center channel.

I know this is an AR board, and I admire the performance of my AR speakers, but do not believe the AR9 can match the vintage Infinity Quantum speakers I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the price of a new pair of AR9's was, but, in the early '60's, AR3's were $450 a pair. This was a lot of money at that time, but not equivalent to $20,000 today for a pair of B&W's or equivalent high end speakers. So, buying a current pair of speakers to match the performance of the AR3 or AR9 was a pertinent question by the OP.

While in high school, I talked my parents into buying my first speaker system, an Electrovoice Aristocrat with a 12" 12TRXB. A kit built Arkay 12 watt amp drove it just fine and the Webcor record changer with GE cartridge made for a great system in 1956. But, in 1957, I heard the AR1/Janzen electrostatic combination at a Hi-Fi store. I was hooked on the "AR sound." But, as a high school student, paying over $200 for a loudspeaker system was out of the question. When the AR3's were introduced, $225 each was still too much money. So, I bought a pair of AR2a's for $89 each, a Dynakit Stereo 70 at $79, PAS3 Preamp at $55, and a Garrard RC-88 record changer with a Shure cartridge as soon as I could afford them (about 1963). I still use the AR2's today for my garage system---and people are astounded at how good they sound. These, and my dad's KLH6's that I inherited, are not on par with AR9's, but the same question could be asked---What would you buy today to replace these speakers that would perform as well or better?

As long as we can buy parts for our AR's, KLH's, Infinity's, and Advents, I think we will be content with their sound. No one has come close to "revolutionizing" the loudspeaker system designs created in the '50's and '60's!

By the way, what ever happened to the Stereophile magazine's review of a pair of restored AR3a's? I subscribed for a year after first hearing about the upcoming article and never saw it. Reading this magazine for a year did refresh my memory of why I don't like it, however. Their method of rating components is by cost. Amplifiers, speakers, turntables, and cartridges have to cost gazillions of dollars or they are not worthy of approval. The AR3a review would have been interesting, but I'm not sure it would have been objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, what ever happened to the Stereophile magazine's review of a pair of restored AR3a's? I subscribed for a year after first hearing about the upcoming article and never saw it. Reading this magazine for a year did refresh my memory of why I don't like it, however. Their method of rating components is by cost. Amplifiers, speakers, turntables, and cartridges have to cost gazillions of dollars or they are not worthy of approval. The AR3a review would have been interesting, but I'm not sure it would have been objective.

From what I know it will never appear in Stereophile. Pete is now with Absolute Sound so if it ever comes out that's a possibility. I can tell you that I restored another pair of 3a's after the pair I leant Pete. The second pair is noticeably better. Differences could be:

Learnings from first go around

Possibly just better driver condition though the first seemed very good

I kept the woofer oil can cap in second pair - first was replaced with Solens and I could kick myself for tossing the original

I bypassed the mid and tweeter cap with Russian Millitary 0.047 PIO bypass caps

I replaced and summed binding posts on second pair

I used NOS Ohmites on both pairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were looking at new the Revel's would be first on my list. I listened to them several years ago. Great sound and value.

But the low end response is like an AR speaker with an 8" woofer (AR38 for example); nothing like a AR9......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the low end response is like an AR speaker with an 8" woofer (AR38 for example); nothing like a AR9......

Those are dual 8" drivers and they are vented which greatly reduces the excursion requirement.

Not an AR9 but much closer than you might think. They are tuned in the low 30s which means

that they are designed to handle a lot of power there.

I would still suggest a pair of the SVS subs which are not too expensive and include amplifiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the low end response is like an AR speaker with an 8" woofer (AR38 for example); nothing like a AR9......

When restored to its original specs AR9 can produce window rattling wall shaking bass with ease that remains highly competitive even after all these years. The advantage of a well executed 4 way system over a 3 way system becomes obvious with AR9. All of the proposed alternatives suffer from the tradeoffs that must be made to get 3 drivers to cover 10 ocatves as though they were a single non resonant entity. IMO AR9s one serious shortcoming is its treble. That is why I re-engineered mine. When carefully equalized for the room it is installed in, and for each recording, it produces very accurate tonal representations of musical instruments, very clealy too. For me that is the number one objective of a high fidelty sound reproducing system, to reproduce the tonality of musical instruments accurately and distinctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For me that is the number one objective of a high fidelty sound reproducing system, to reproduce the tonality of musical instruments accurately and distinctly."

That's exactly what I've always thought a loudspeaker system should do. Somewhere along the way, manufacturers lost track of this goal. In fact, I often run across posts on audio forums where people actually state their preferences for "bright highs" or "accentuated bass" from their speakers.

It was obvious back in the early '60's when you listened to AR's in Hi-Fi stores next to most other systems, the others were designed to sound much brighter, making the AR's sound like the tweeters were turned off. But, if you listened to the human voice or individual instruments through the AR's, the accuracy/reality struck you very stronly. Later, when KLH, Advent, Allison, and others (designed by the AR people) came along, they too sounded REAL.

Today, it seem almost all speaker systems are overly bright sounding. None but the $10,000+ systems are capable of bass like our old AR's could reproduce. It always amuses me how most, if not all, subwoofers in friend's homes can't match my AR3's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...