ACOUSTIC RESEARCH AR-3a[/U]or
- Thread starter asdf1234
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Copa1934
My ears are bleeding
More info may be needed as AR's went through many revisions and the Bostons went though a couple series as well.
If they are about the same price and in good working condition, I would pick the ARs hands down. They are valuable iconic speakers that still sound great with classical music--but they have a downward sloping high end and can sound a little dull. If you listen to pop or rock primarily, you might prefer the Bostons.
I have a pair I recapped (early version with alnico magnets) and they are nothing like "dull". They are one of the finest speakers I've ever heard. In my opinion, the key to any quality speaker is whether they're smooth or not. AR-3A's define the word.
smooth boston?
Regardless of how it sounds to you, are you suggesting that the AR3a doesn't have a tipped down hf on-axis response? I will say this, the speakers sound very natural in "live" rooms because of their excellent dispersion and uniform power response.
I also agree that they are "smooth" but with a ~3 db/octave downward trend over about 5kHz or so -- a nice compromise, especially for classical music.
I also agree that they are "smooth" but with a ~3 db/octave downward trend over about 5kHz or so -- a nice compromise, especially for classical music.
I've owned a lot of speakers during my lifetime, and I can't say AR-3A's sound rolled off compared to them, no, but that's just it. I use my ears to make my opinions, and if anything, my 55 year old ears are less able to hear treble now than when I was a younger man, so I think I can still trust them when judging treble ie. if I can still hear it, it's there. I listen to all sorts of music, and these AR's are the most balanced/smooth/realistic I've ever heard. I had a pair of Thiel 3.2's for about a year and I could never get them tamed enough to really enjoy (treble too hot), and they were supposed to be very flat in their response. Sure, people have differing tastes, but I find that far too many relatively "flat" speakers are difficult to listen to. Perhaps it's just my sensitivity to unsmooth treble (I generally hate metal tweeters), but I think I've been around long enough and heard enough different equipment to consider my opinion valid. To be honest, I don't see how anyone who has heard a recapped and properly working pair of AR-3A's could dislike them (there are a few regs here who always disparage them whenever they can... you not included judging from your comments), but such is life... largely subjective.
Last edited:
I lifted this from the net, but it seems appropriate. And, BTW, I thoroughly respect and have enjoyed several vintage ARs -- even had a AR1W/Janszen stereo rig once upon a time:
Here's an excellent explanation for the downward sloping high frequency response of the AR3a tweeter by Tom Tyson (former AR employee) over at The Classic Speaker Pages:
Quote:
There was quite a lot of criticism of the AR-3a regarding the output of the tweeter, relative to the woofer, with some testers stating (correctly) that the output of the tweeter could not exactly match the woofer, even with the level control turned all the way to maximum. To understand why AR did not design the AR-3a (and other AR speakers) to have virtually flat on-axis response is to understand compromises necessary to achieve broad power response. The response characteristics of the 3/4-inch hard-dome tweeter were designed to achieve very wide off-axis response, somewhat at the expense of sensitivity. Because of available technology and materials of the time, the hard-dome tweeter with notched-plate foam suspension was considered to offer the broadest dispersion at the highest frequencies of any available tweeter (note that even the AR-11 3/4-inch tweeter, while more sensitive, does not respond quite as well off axis as the AR-3a tweeter). This very broad dispersion was considered integral to good spectral balance in the home-listening environment. For this reason, a speaker with proper spectral balance will generally sound more natural in a normal listening environment than a speaker with flat on-axis response but compromised acoustic-power response. This is based on the assumption that one listens well back in the reverberant sound field, which affords a natural combination of reflected and direct sound, with the highest ratio of sound coming from reflected surfaces. Interestingly, the AR-LST was designed to overcome any shortcomings of the AR-3a with respect to sloping response. The recording industry, tired of existing monitor speakers, wanted AR-3a-type accuracy but with flat on- and off-axis response and much-greater power-handling capability. The needs of the recording studio or concert-hall sound reinforcement are very different from those of a home-listening environment, and those needs were met with the AR-LST. It is also for this reason that proper mounting of an AR-LST is more critical for best sound than for an AR-3a.
Smooth acoustic-power response in the reverberant field is what makes an AR-3a sound so natural and life-like in most listening rooms. Another consideration, and one with considerable debate, in favor of slightly rolled-off high-end response, is that sound in a concert hall is definitely rolled off at the highest frequencies. However, critics of the sloped on-axis response generally made this generalization while listening at point-blank range. And compared with some speakers with flat on-axis response, the AR-3a (like many AR speakers of the era) does definitely sound reticent. But this reticence is perhaps more natural, and closer to the original sound. Today, of course, loudspeaker designers can circumvent the shortcomings of past years with respect to frequency response and sensitivity, and so forth. But today's designers tend to address the issues of "imaging," and do not always look for the widest dispersion as in the days of the AR-3a speaker. Brighter and more "focused" is what is often heard, but in comparison to the original sound source, there is still controversy about what is more accurate.
Here's an excellent explanation for the downward sloping high frequency response of the AR3a tweeter by Tom Tyson (former AR employee) over at The Classic Speaker Pages:
Quote:
There was quite a lot of criticism of the AR-3a regarding the output of the tweeter, relative to the woofer, with some testers stating (correctly) that the output of the tweeter could not exactly match the woofer, even with the level control turned all the way to maximum. To understand why AR did not design the AR-3a (and other AR speakers) to have virtually flat on-axis response is to understand compromises necessary to achieve broad power response. The response characteristics of the 3/4-inch hard-dome tweeter were designed to achieve very wide off-axis response, somewhat at the expense of sensitivity. Because of available technology and materials of the time, the hard-dome tweeter with notched-plate foam suspension was considered to offer the broadest dispersion at the highest frequencies of any available tweeter (note that even the AR-11 3/4-inch tweeter, while more sensitive, does not respond quite as well off axis as the AR-3a tweeter). This very broad dispersion was considered integral to good spectral balance in the home-listening environment. For this reason, a speaker with proper spectral balance will generally sound more natural in a normal listening environment than a speaker with flat on-axis response but compromised acoustic-power response. This is based on the assumption that one listens well back in the reverberant sound field, which affords a natural combination of reflected and direct sound, with the highest ratio of sound coming from reflected surfaces. Interestingly, the AR-LST was designed to overcome any shortcomings of the AR-3a with respect to sloping response. The recording industry, tired of existing monitor speakers, wanted AR-3a-type accuracy but with flat on- and off-axis response and much-greater power-handling capability. The needs of the recording studio or concert-hall sound reinforcement are very different from those of a home-listening environment, and those needs were met with the AR-LST. It is also for this reason that proper mounting of an AR-LST is more critical for best sound than for an AR-3a.
Smooth acoustic-power response in the reverberant field is what makes an AR-3a sound so natural and life-like in most listening rooms. Another consideration, and one with considerable debate, in favor of slightly rolled-off high-end response, is that sound in a concert hall is definitely rolled off at the highest frequencies. However, critics of the sloped on-axis response generally made this generalization while listening at point-blank range. And compared with some speakers with flat on-axis response, the AR-3a (like many AR speakers of the era) does definitely sound reticent. But this reticence is perhaps more natural, and closer to the original sound. Today, of course, loudspeaker designers can circumvent the shortcomings of past years with respect to frequency response and sensitivity, and so forth. But today's designers tend to address the issues of "imaging," and do not always look for the widest dispersion as in the days of the AR-3a speaker. Brighter and more "focused" is what is often heard, but in comparison to the original sound source, there is still controversy about what is more accurate.
Thank you Eurasian for posting that piece. It certainly seems to reinforce why these AR-3A's sound so good to me. Mine are placed about 20 inches from the side walls (to edge of speaker, not center), and 24 from the back wall in one end of a 16 foot long x 12 foot wide x 10 foot high room. I have them on 2 foot loaded target stands. There are little acoustic treatments so I assume the room is at least somewhat live sounding. Just the sort of room they were designed for.
Last edited:
