• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

AR-2Ax Opinion

A

angel17

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Hi Guys,
I have this little problem. I recently bought a nice pair of KLH 17 from a nice guy in New York. Besides the KLH speakers he also has for sale two mint pairs of AR-2AX and Rectilinear III's. I fall in love with one pair of the AR-2AX, they are completely restored cherry wood,caps,surrounds and new old vintage cloth and he call me today that he is planning to put them on cragslist but he wants me to have the first crack at them. Right now I'm running the KLH's with a Fisher 400 also I'm using JBL's 4411 with a Scott 340B, the JBL's are 90db efficient but they sound very nice with the Scott. Would
the AR-2AX's sound as good with only 35 WPC (tube) power. I also have a SS Sansui at 45 WPC but I like Tubes better. So should I get the AR-2AX and try them? They look awsome. Thanks Guys.
 
Register to hide this ad
angel17 said:
Would
the AR-2AX's sound as good with only 35 WPC (tube) power. I also have a SS Sansui at 45 WPC but I like Tubes better. So should I get the AR-2AX and try them? They look awsome. Thanks Guys.
Click to expand...

I ran my AR-2ax's with a 1975 Kenwood 35WPC receiver for 30 years and they worked fine. Right now while I shop for a new amp (the Kenwood finally croaked) we're using my wife's old 20WPC Sony receiver and even that seems to work pretty well, though we're not cranking them up much. If fully restored 2ax's are reasonably priced you can never go wrong with them. Grab 'em, and if they don't work well with your amp, go buy another amp. Problem solved. :)
 
I have read several peoples comments on how they think the 2AX sounds better than the 3. With the 3 being highly collectable at this time I do not think you can go wrong buying the 2ax's it will only be a matter of time before more people discover how nice they are.
 
Bass from the 2ax (and 5) is better integrated in room, with the speaker sounding better balanced as a result. You get the same treble as the 3a(and 5), but the midrange is less transparent- some like it better, some don't.

Justifiably so the AR-2ax is a classic. If the price is right - buy the pair and if you don't like them I am sure you can sell them very quickly, for about what you paid.

Best,

Ross
 
i ran a pair for a while with 20 watt eico hf-20 tube mono's, and they were way strong enough for them. but i think their true partner in life would be something like a ballsy marantz amp/receiver, 85 watts and up....i'm half way through a restoration of my pair right now.
 
While the AR 2ax's are excellent speakers, I would go for the Rectilinear IIIs, which have a larger, more effortless sound, and a midrange to die for. But you can't go wrong with either. Good luck.
 
Did I understand that the AR's have new surrounds? So this would be the newer woofer version? I think the older style had cloth surrounds, which shouldn't need to be replaced. I have the 2ax's with the newer style woofer, refoamed, and I am totally unimpressed with the bass response of these. Check into the woofers before you get the AR's. And of course, listen to them. My 2 cents.
 
kcollins4 said:
I have the 2ax's with the newer style woofer, refoamed, and I am totally unimpressed with the bass response of these. Check into the woofers before you get the AR's. And of course, listen to them. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
It's very possible you still have a problem (like an air leak somewhere). I have two re-foamed pair, no problems with the bottom end at all. :dunno:
 
(Sorry, totally ignored the OP. :D )

With tube power, I would certainly give the AR's a trial. 35 wpc ought to be plenty. :music:

If the price is right, buy them - they'll be easy to re-sell if you don't like them.
 
kcollins4 said:
Did I understand that the AR's have new surrounds? So this would be the newer woofer version? I think the older style had cloth surrounds, which shouldn't need to be replaced. I have the 2ax's with the newer style woofer, refoamed, and I am totally unimpressed with the bass response of these. Check into the woofers before you get the AR's. And of course, listen to them. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

My 2ax's are later models. Their bass was fine when they were new, and when the foam went on one of them I just replaced the entire woofer (exact replacements were still available at the time, don't know about now). Since one of them still had intact foam I was able to compare the rewoofered one against it; no change in bass that I could hear. But I rewoofered both of them anyway just to be sure they matched.

I've heard a number of old speakers that have been refoamed. Most of them sounded fine to me, but I still have my doubts as to whether a refoamed speaker is truly producing its original sound.
 
I've had my doubts about whether I have the right woofers in these. Always meant to open them up and check.:scratch2:
 
Rectilinear III

joelongwood said:
While the AR 2ax's are excellent speakers, I would go for the Rectilinear IIIs, which have a larger, more effortless sound, and a midrange to die for. But you can't go wrong with either. Good luck.
Click to expand...

But to drive the Rectilinear III how much power will I need? My most powerful receiver is only 45 WPC.
 
The AR-2ax was voiced for tubes. I love my pair (driven by my little H/K 330c).

The Rec III ought to do just fine with 45 WPC (depending upon whose Watts just a little). That was BIG power when the Rec IIIs first came out.

The solution to your dilemma is staring at you...


...get both pair!
 
angel17 said:
But to drive the Rectilinear III how much power will I need? My most powerful receiver is only 45 WPC.
Click to expand...
pmsummer is correct..........45 watts per channel should be more than enough to drive the Rectilinears to adequate listening levels, and beyond. Since they are a ported design, they need less power than the acoustic suspension ARs. Are these the High Boy or Low Boy version? I ask because there is a difference in sound. I (and many others who have posted here) prefer the High Boy version, as they are more balanced and open sounding than the Low Boys, although removal of the Low Boy plastic grill improves them quite a bit. With the plastic grill in place, the Lowboys sound quite muddy and bloated in the bass department. Both versions of the III are quite large in comparison to the 2ax's, but if you have the room and they are within your budget, I think you'll like them. I know what I would do: Get both! :D
 
if you don't have too many speakers, you should get both.
two very distinctive speakers. it'd be nice to hear the difference. hearing other people's opinion is nice, but we all have different ears:yes:. hearing it yourself will be an awsome experience. if i had to choose, between two, i'd go with the AR2ax, and it's very good with mid-powered tube amps, but better with high powered SS:thmbsp: oh yeah!!:D
 
If the price is good, I agree with those who say get both. I have the older AR2axs and the RIIIs and prefer the RIIIs. But it's not that easy to find speakers like these, esp. since the ARs are redone, so I would be very tempted to get both. You might like the ARs better, or find a place for both sets, or give a pair to a friend.
 
I had KLH 6's (similar to the 17s) and currently use AR 2ax in my main setup. Although my current amp (solid-state) is 60 wpc, I used the 2ax's with a Scott 340b tube amp for awhile and they sounded lovely.

While I love KLH speakers, for my money the 2ax beat them hands down. I haven't found a vintage receiver yet that didn't make them sing, some more than others for sure, but they seem pretty easy to drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom