AR 5 vs AR 2ax

[ironlake]

What improvements was the 5 supposed to have over the 2ax and did it accomplish the improvements.

[genek]

The 5 uses the same woofer and tweeter as the 2ax with an 8 ohm version of the 3a's mid and crossover. It was a bridge between the 2ax and the 3a and its sound is somewhere in between, but from a commercial POV the gap it was bridging turned out to not be big enough to support another model and most buyers of the time either stepped up to the 3a or saved some bucks because the 2ax was close enough, so it failed as a product.

[RoyC]

I recently had a chance to compare newly restored AR-3a's, 5's, and 2ax's side by side, and have a theory why the AR-5 did not do better in the showroom. Although it is not reflected in the published specs, the AR-5 is clearly the least sensitive of the 3 models....so simply switching without compensating for this makes them sound "lesser" than the other two. I personally prefer the AR-5 over the 2ax, and at lower volume levels and/or with more acoustic music, actually prefer it over the 3a! It does not suffer as much as the 3a from the large woofer to dome midrange transition, and does a better job with vocals, imo. Given the high prices the 3a is commanding these days, it is a real sleeper in classic AR land.

Roy

[genek]

I think it was mostly price point, because in those days almost all AR speakers were sold with electronics we would consider underpowered today and the differences between models tended to be more subtle. The price of the AR-5 was not midway between the 2ax and 3a, but was closer to that of the 3a. Most dealers probably didn't stock or demo a lot of 5's for that reason. The fair trade laws were also still in place at the time, and since AR never asserted its power to tell dealers what to charge a lot of dealers combined the 2ax into packages with other components from manufacturers that wouldn't allow discounting in order to bring overall system prices down.

[Steve F]

"...but was closer to that of the 3a."

That is inaccurate. For the vast majority of their relevant market lifespans (from the mid/late '60's to around 1972), the 3a was $250 ea., the 5 was $175 ea., and the 2ax was $128 ea. (all in oiled walnut, by far their most commonly-sold versions). That puts the 5 only $47 away from the 2ax, but $75 away from the 3a. Hardly "closer to the 3a."

From 1973-1975 (when the ADD line came out), yes, the 7-6-2ax-5-3a had many price increases in quick succession, so there may have been one brief, arbitrary moment in time when the 5 was "closer" to the 3a than it was to the 2ax.

But, not, as I said, for the vast majority of its relevant market life. Look it up.

The reason for the 5's lack of huge sales success is that most customers will step to the better model or stay with the higher value model. Models like the 5 that try to "Thread the needle" too finely are not big successes.

The same thing happened at the other end of the product lineup--most customers would either choose the 4x (or later, the 7), skip the 6, and go right to the 2ax.

It's not that the 5 and 6 were abject sales failures; they weren't. It's just that more value was to be had just above and just below their spots in the lineup. This kind of thing happens with many products, in different fields. It's just consumer buying habit and patterns.

Steve F.

[sphotoz]

deleted

[genek]

That is inaccurate. For the vast majority of their relevant market lifespans (from the mid/late '60's to around 1972), the 3a was $250 ea., the 5 was $175 ea., and the 2ax was $128 ea. (all in oiled walnut, by far their most commonly-sold versions). That puts the 5 only $47 away from the 2ax, but $75 away from the 3a. Hardly "closer to the 3a."

My 2ax's cost me $110 each new in 1975. At the time I could have gotten 3a's for $200 each, and 5's for $160 each. The thing you have to remember when comparing list prices is that virtually nobody paid list price for AR speakers, and that dealers were using AR's open pricing vs the fair trade controlled prices of other brands to lower system prices. The same for the 4 series. So most AR dealers had many more 2ax's and 4's in their stockrooms than 3a s, and their demo 5's were often the only pair in the store and someone choosing that model would have to place an order. The 2 and 4 models were typically much more heavily discounted off list than any of the other classic models, with typical markdowns in the 30-35% range compared to 15-20% taken off the list price of the 3a. And little-stocked models like the 5 that had to be ordered from the factory were sometimes not discounted at all.

[Steve F]

That logic is specious, but if that's the line you're going down, it will pointless of me to argue.

The only thing we can factually compare is the MSRP vs. MSRP. That's it. The 5 was closer to the 2ax than to the 3a. Period.

But, as to your entirely subjective, unscientific and unprovable assertion that "typically" everywhere in the country some AR models carried higher percentage markdowns than others, let me say this--the vast majority of dealers and mail-order catalogues I knew of applied the exact same "percentage" markdown off list to every AR model. Illinois Audio, Baltimore Stereo Wholesalers, Carston Studios, etc (all major mail-order outfits whose catalogs and quotes I would write away for on a regular basis) all applied the same discount up and down the line--usually around 25%.

The retailer from whom I bought my 2ax's in Feb 1972--Fred Locke Stereo in CT-- applied a straight 25% off every AR, whether in stock or special-ordered. I was thinking of buying 2x's (which they did not stock), but those would have been the same 25% off as the in-stock 2ax's.

But rather than trying to recall or fabricate out of thin air the discount that various re-sellers applied to AR speakers, we come back to the only scientific, consistent, reliable data there is: the manufacturer's list price.

On that basis, the 5 is closer to the 2ax than the 3a.

I make no pretentions about knowing the exact re-sale price offered by every single re-seller in the country over an 8-year span, and the conditions under which they offered those discounts. If you can prove your allegation, we'd all be interested. Otherwise, it's inadmissable, and will be tossed out of court.

Steve F.

[genek]

I don't pretend to know the pricing everywhere in the country. I remember what audio pricing was like in the NY/NJ/Phil region from 1971-975 because at the time I had a job with a NJ electronics retailer and my boss had me tracking prices on a variety of items at other retailers in the area because he advertised a "we'll beat any quoted price" pitch (on systems only, since FT pricing tied his hands on most components unitl 1975).

Bottom line is. most people who heard the 5 either thought the sound wasn't enough of an improvement over the 2ax to justify its higher price or that its price wasn't enough of a savings off the 3a to justify choosing a "lesser" model, and the price was what directed their buy decision. Whether the price of the 5 was $25 closer to either speaker or equidistant between them and where either may have happened is a trivial point and why does it matter so much to you that you want to start down the road of banishing this discussion into the Kitchen?

[Carlspeak]

The discussion of the AR5 vs the 2ax has, IMO, clearly veered off track from the OP intent. Please keep future comments on these speakers focused on the performance characteristics as was the case in the first two posts following this thread's opening post.

Your friendly CSP moderator, Carl

[sphotoz]

Here are a couple of pages out of an early AR brochure on the AR-5 and AR-2ax

[Steve F]

"Bottom line is. most people who heard the 5 either thought the sound wasn't enough of an improvement over the 2ax to justify its higher price or that its price wasn't enough of a savings off the 3a to justify choosing a "lesser" model, and the price was what directed their buy decision."

Glad you agree with what I said several posts ago:

"The reason for the 5's lack of huge sales success is that most customers will step to the better model or stay with the higher value model. Models like the 5 that try to "Thread the needle" too finely are not big successes.

The same thing happened at the other end of the product lineup--most customers would either choose the 4x (or later, the 7), skip the 6, and go right to the 2ax.

It's not that the 5 and 6 were abject sales failures; they weren't. It's just that more value was to be had just above and just below their spots in the lineup. This kind of thing happens with many products, in different fields. It's just consumer buying habit and patterns."

Gene,

Not trying to be a hard-*** on the pricing issue. I just needed to keep the historical record straight and point out that your personal, local take on 2ax-5-3a pricing was just that: Personal and local-- in no way accurately-representative of the country as a whole over an extended time span. To put your position forward as if it were factual in a general, larger sense--when it was nothing more than a small-scale subjective impression--is misleading, especially to newcomers to this Forum, who are often looking for accurate historical information on Classic AR speakers. When I make a personal observation, I clearly identify it as such, i.e. ".....the vast majority of dealers and mail-order catalogues I knew of. "

Not the vast majority of them all; the vast majority of the ones I knew of. Then I'm very quick to point out that I don't know everything: "I make no pretentions about knowing the exact re-sale price offered by every single re-seller in the country over an 8-year span, and the conditions under which they offered those discounts."

But when you--or anyone else--starts with a blatently historically inaccurate statement--"the 5 was closer to the 3a than the 2ax"-- and then so-called "proves" it with a personal assertion with the word "typically" as if that is somehow representative of everywhere, then something needs to be said to set the historical record straight.

We are the keepers of the AR history. Everytime we let an inaccuracy pass uncorrected, AR's original history becomes more and more diluted. If I can prevent--or at least delay--that from happening, I will.

I'm sorry if you feel a strict adherence to accuracy and the scientific method need to be banished to the "Kitchen." This is not directed at you personally; accurate historical information is the only goal. The "....tossed out of court" comment was an attempt to be humorous and soften what you may have taken as personal criticism. It's apparent you did take it as personal criticism, for which I'm sorry, and I'm also sorry you did not pick up on what I intended as tongue-in-cheek humor.

Steve F.

[Carlspeak]

...............

We are the keepers of the AR history. Everytime we let an inaccuracy pass uncorrected, AR's original history becomes more and more diluted. If I can prevent--or at least delay--that from happening, I will.

..............

Steve F.

I thought TT was writing the definitive AR history book or document, or something. We sure do need something besides an occasional post from you or Roy or TT with a gem or two of AR history in it that we have to spend time trying to search at a later date.

[Steve F]

Until or unless that much-awaited tome arrives from Tom, it is all of our responsibility--certainly I take it as mine--to keep the day-to-day communications and interactions with other Forum members as accurate as possible. That's a worthy standard, to my way of thinking, and it's totally independent of whether or not a reference work exits somewhere else.

If someone says the 3a's w-m x-o was 750 Hz, I'll correct it. If someone says the first 2ax was intro'd in 1962, I'll correct it. If someone says the LST-2 had a 6-pos switch, I'll correct it.

Do we feel as a group that that is not good info and not worth doing?

Steve F.

[Steve F]

Putting aside all the discussion over what the list price vs. the regional selling price was for mid-'60's/early-'70's Classic AR speakers, let's return to the original question of the 5's performance.

A brief history of the AR-5, as posted by me on this site in June of 2005:

The AR-5 was one of the later “classic” series original AR speakers. It filled in the spot between the top-of-the-line AR-3a and the half-as-expensive AR-2ax.

The 3a had a list price of $250.00 ea. in oiled walnut; the 2ax was $128 ea. in oiled walnut; the 5 was $175 ea.

From a chronological standpoint, the original 2ax was introduced in 1964, with its older-style cloth surround 10” woofer, the 3 ½” midrange and an 8-ohm version of the “fried egg” 1 3/8” dome tweeter from the AR-3. [sf note--this has been shown to be incorrect since I wrote that in 2005. The original 2ax's 1 3/8" tweeter was in fact the same 4-ohm unit as in the 3.] Crossovers were 2000 and 7500Hz, price was $128 ea.

At the end of 1967, the 3a superseded the 3 (although the 3 continued to be available). The 3a introduced the new 1½” dome midrange and ¾” dome tweeter, replacing the larger dome units of the AR-3.

The AR-5 followed in 1968/69. It used 8-ohm versions of the 3a’s 1½” and ¾” dome drivers and a brand new 10” woofer with a foam surround—the industry’s first. The 5 received excellent reviews from all the major magazines and was hailed as a superb speaker, with just slightly less deep bass than the 3a. In fact, many critics of the 3a were considerably “kinder” to the 5, saying that its less heavy bass actually contributed to a more pleasing overall tonal balance, without the tendency towards “thickness” that the 3a sometimes exhibited.

Note that at the time of the 5’s introduction, the 2ax was still the “old” 2ax. In 1970, AR introduced the “new” 2ax that used the 8-ohm ¾” tweeter from the 5, and its new foam-surround 10” woofer. The 3½” midrange stayed the same as in older 2ax’s, but the crossovers were lowered from 2000 and 7500Hz to 1400 and 5000Hz respectively. In spite of the extensive improvements and upgrades, the 2ax’s price also remained unchanged at $128 ea.

The AR-5 never enjoyed anywhere near the sales success of many other AR speakers, in spite of its acoustic excellence. The second to the top of the line often struggles from a sales standpoint in virtually any market or industry. In AR’s case, the second-banana syndrome was repeated with the LST/2 and AR-90, neither one of which was the sales and publicity champ that the LST and 9 were.

What is interesting and noteworthy about the 5 vs. the 2ax is this: From the lower limit of its LF performance (~44 Hz or so, -3dB), the 5 represented the very best that AR could design/manufacture in a home loudspeaker, whereas the 2ax was presented by AR as being a slightly compromised-by-price design.

In direct A-B comparison (a good friend had 5's, I had 2ax's), the 5 had a more widely-dispersed midrange and marginally clearer vocals, but the 5 (less so than the 3a, but still there, nonetheless) had a slightly "woody" coloration to its midrange that the 2ax--in spite of its slightly less midrange detail--didn't have. I could see why most people went from the 2ax right to the 3a.

Steve F.

[Carlspeak]

Thaks Steve. Another 'gem'!.

I'm finishing up restoration of a pair of 5's and will take some acoustic measurements to share here at CSP in a new thread. Those are the ones with the Compulytic caps. Ser.# 39788 and 39637. I didn't pull the mid or tweet to look for any dates stamped on the back.

[ironlake]

Mark me wrong on this info if you know different, but I distinctly remember the literature on the ar 5 saying something to the fact that they had an improved low bass response compared to the 2ax,s. The reason I remember this is I had 2ax,s at the time and the dealership offered me a very good deal on trade of my 2ax,s for the 5,s. I didn;t do the trade as the 5;s in the demo room did not sound any better on deep organ music than the 2ax and when you listened to the 3a,s on the same organ music they made both the 5 and 2ax sound weak in the deep bass.

Then when the advents came out in the late 60s the bass I wanted was there and I sold my 2ax, for 100.00 bucks and added a few more dollars and got the advents.

Now in the long run if I had it to do over again I would have saved a little longer and traded my 4x,s in for 3a,s instead of the 2ax,s. I could play the 2ax,s louder but never felt I had any more bass than the 4x,s. Now that I am having a repeat history with the 4x,s for classical chamber music only the 4x,s are super.

[genek]

I'm home with some kind of bug for nearly a week now, so any semblance of a sense of humor I may normally exhibit is severely handicapped. Apologies if I overreacted, not supposed to do that when you're moderating.

[Steve F]

"I distinctly remember the literature on the ar 5 saying something to the fact that they had an improved low bass response compared to the 2ax,s"

The (2nd-gen) 2ax and 5 used the same woofer in the same enclosure, so their LF performance was identical.

There was a series of AR 10" speakers that claimed better LF performance than before, and that was the Advanced Development Division (ADD) series that was introduced in the 1975-1976 timeframe.

In AR's literature for the 10" speakers in that series (the AR-12 and AR-14), AR said something to the effect of, "We've mounted the 10" woofers in cabinets usually reserved for our 12" drivers, in order to lower the system resonant frequency and improve the bass."

AR's 12" cabinets had marginally greater internal volume than the 10" cabinets (1.7 cu ft to 1.35 cu ft, although some specs show the 12" cabs as being just over 1.5 cu ft), so with a bit more "working room," the thought was that the 10-inchers would be able to reach a little lower than previous 10" units, but the cabinet was not so big as to not provide the proper restoring force/air spring for the woofer.

In any event, it didn't amount to anything meaningful in actual practice, as the subjective difference in bass--to my ears--between the ten-inch AR-12 and twelve-inch AR-11 was exactly the same as between the 2ax/5 and the 3a.

I completely agree with your observation about the relative differences in the deep bass between the 4x, 2ax, and 3a. The was a much greater subjective difference bewteen the 3a and 2ax than there was between the 2ax and 4x.

Steve F.

[RoyC]

The AR-5 followed in 1968/69. It used 8-ohm versions of the 3a’s 1½” and ¾” dome drivers and a brand new 10” woofer with a foam surround—the industry’s first. The 5 received excellent reviews from all the major magazines and was hailed as a superb speaker, with just slightly less deep bass than the 3a. In fact, many critics of the 3a were considerably “kinder” to the 5, saying that its less heavy bass actually contributed to a more pleasing overall tonal balance, without the tendency towards “thickness” that the 3a sometimes exhibited.

Note that at the time of the 5’s introduction, the 2ax was still the “old” 2ax. In 1970, AR introduced the “new” 2ax that used the 8-ohm ¾” tweeter from the 5, and its new foam-surround 10” woofer. The 3½” midrange stayed the same as in older 2ax’s, but the crossovers were lowered from 2000 and 7500Hz to 1400 and 5000Hz respectively. In spite of the extensive improvements and upgrades, the 2ax’s price also remained unchanged at $128 ea.

Steve F.

I wouldn't classify the so called "improvements" in the 2ax as much of an upgrade. The crossover components were unchanged in spite of the new crossover specs. There are many who believe the cloth surround woofer/larger dome tweeter version is sonically superior, and I doubt the foam surround woofer and the smaller tweeter cost more to manufacture. The earlier version certainly held up better over time.

Tom Tyson has mentioned a couple of times in the past that the AR-5 originally had a longer throw woofer. The 5 was equipped with the 2ax woofer at a later date.

The AR-5 also had its share of other changes along the way. The midrange and woofer inductors were changed, and the midrange is reversed in polarity on some earlier units.

Roy

[Carlspeak]

Thaks Steve. Another 'gem'!.

I'm finishing up restoration of a pair of 5's and will take some acoustic measurements to share here at CSP in a new thread. Those are the ones with the Compulytic caps. Ser.# 39788 and 39637. I didn't pull the mid or tweet to look for any dates stamped on the back.

Bad news, I discovered during a last minute check before re-installing the woofers that both tweeters are stone cold dead. Yuck, back to the customer for direction.

[ironlake]

In the literature above regarding the woofer in the 5 it says it is an entirely new process, (vacume formed paper) that gives a better cleaner sound. I thought I remembered the litlerature saying so.

[genek]

it's still the same woofer that went into the foam-surround 2ax's.