DQ-10's or AR9's ?

[Tucker99]

Anyone really done an A/B of the DQ-10's vs AR9's ?

I have DQ-10's and EPI A500's but have a lead on some AR9's ....not cheap so my question is "Self...do you really want them?"

Can anyone help me out? I have been told that the EPI A500's are very similar to the AR9's. If so, then I would not consider them to hold a candle to the DQ-10's, although I might still buy them for the collector value.... sell off my two pair of HPM 100's and trade into the AR9's????

All thought, comments welcome.

Cheers

 

[marantzfan]

Not even a question...AR9's are truly in a whole other class form the Dahlquists..IMHO:yes:

 

[tarior]

DQ-10s reproduce brushed cymbals a little better than AR9s, but for everything else, the AR9s beat DQ-10s. IMO, of course.

 

[wank]

AR9s if the deep, visceral bass is a necessity. The Dahlquists win for imaging with the dipole effect from the HF baffle.
Or, like me, have both (actually AR9LS, but the concept is generally the same).

 

[tentoze]

All a matter of individual preference. Personally, I don't care for AR9's- never have, never will. Let your ears decide.

 

[Billfort]

Personal preference for sure.

I have only heard AR9's in other's systems but used DQ-10's for years and I prefer them to the AR's - especially in a bi-amp configuration with a good woofer to help out the light DQ bottom end.

 

[dc270]

I have been fortunate to have had both types- it really depends on how you like to listen to your music! If I want a comanding presence with full bass extention (rock music?) then probably the 9's. If I want dimention, sonic placement and true depth then the 10's. I would probably be a 9's fan if I still had either one. What really swayed me was a pair of Magnaplanar SMGs- those were even differant (better to me) than either the 9's or 10's!
DC

 

[Tucker99]

Wow!

I read these posts as 5:1 in favour of the AR9's (so far, anyhow).

Tentoze... Its clear you don't care for the AR9's but do you mean that as compared to the DQ-10's, against other speakers that you clearly prefer (which ones, out of curiosity?) or just plain don't like the AR9's ? ?

Myself, I am not into thumping base and the DQ-10's running off a Marantz 2325 deliver quite sufficient base for me so I would not buy them for that reason alone, but I am shallow enough to buy them just for bragging rights "Oh, I've got those...." .

Other than more base, what do the AR9's do that the DQ-10's don't ? ?

But it does kinda sound like I should persue them.....

 

[thedelihaus]

AR9s if the deep, visceral bass is a necessity. The Dahlquists win for imaging with the dipole effect from the HF baffle.
Or, like me, have both (actually AR9LS, but the concept is generally the same).

I have been fortunate to have had both types- it really depends on how you like to listen to your music! If I want a comanding presence with full bass extention (rock music?) then probably the 9's. If I want dimention, sonic placement and true depth then the 10's. I would probably be a 9's fan if I still had either one. What really swayed me was a pair of Magnaplanar SMGs- those were even differant (better to me) than either the 9's or 10's!
DC

The above statements I find to be accurate and I'm in full agreement with 'em.

Wow!

...Myself, I am not into thumping base and the DQ-10's running off a Marantz 2325 deliver quite sufficient base for me so I would not buy them for that reason alone, but I am shallow enough to buy them just for bragging rights "Oh, I've got those...." .

Other than more base, what do the AR9's do that the DQ-10's don't ? ?

But it does kinda sound like I should persue them.....

I have DQ-10s and AR 9LSis. The 9LSis still need a bit of work.

However, I've been exposed to both.

As the fellas said above, the DQs are very open and have a nice soundstage, imaging, ect. I'd say slightly better than the ARs.

The ARs are going to go real low, and have more of an aggressive sound- not by any means bad/aggressive, but more impact.



Really, two different speakers, and both excellent- if you have the room, grab the ARs. Easy enough to sell if you find 'em not to your liking.



For me, it's the DQ-10s I prefer. If I need more bass, I'll add a subwoofer and call it a day.



But- I'm glad I have both.

 

[kfa888]

DQ-10 for me. I like the open airy sound, the imaging and the Maggie like sound. I had AR90's (slightly smaller AR9's) and have heard several sets of 9's now and I just don't prefer the sterile flat sound. The beautiful open sound of the 10's trump the pound your face in sound of the AR9's IMHO.

 

[Nat]

I haven't heard the 9s in a very long time, and the 10s are my standard speaker. But that's partly because my nephew got them for $25 and didn't want them.
But: airy soundstage and all, I don't think a speaker that does not go very low reproduces the feel of an acoustic space at all. I think the subsonics are crucial to realistic reproduction -- to me the air vibrating as a mass is a very significant part of any musical experience. Very few stereos actually reproduce this, and its not reasonable to expect most to. But if you are thinking about AR 9s or DQ 10s, you are in a price and system level that you ought to expect at least some attempt at subsonics. Which would mean that the DQ 10s ought to be used with a good subwoofer (I would hope better than the Goodwill $20 AudioSource I'm using). I think this would give you a better sense of price/performance ratio.

 

[Blue Shadow]

When comparing two top line speakers like these with such different sound qualities, it is personal preference, but one needs a point-of-view. This is when I go back to the selling days with the Bose 901, DCM Time Windows, Dahlquist DQ-10, Magneplanar MG-II and Epicure 3.0 as the top speakers in the store.

With a preference for an arena sound, rock and roll concert, sound filling the room and just power, it is the Bose 901 all day long. I think I can still hear the reflections bouncing around the room and I have no idea where the sound is coming from. Sure is loud.

The other extreme is the unplugged jazz bar. Stand up bass, piano, drums and maybe a vibraphone or horn. This venue provides the opportunity to close your eyes and 'see' the performance. The pluck of each string on the bass is over there, the drums are on the other side of the stage and the piano is just behind the vibraphone. Wow what an image, but there is not much slam to knock you down. This with the female vocalist is what Magneplanars do that nearly no other speaker can do. Their quickness because each square centimeter is under the control of the amplifier and magnets allows this performance.

Between these extremes there is the Dahlquist, Time Window and the AR. The Dahlquist was a very highly regarded speaker by the 'audiophile' community in its day. They are known to sound natural, provide an excellent representation of an orchestra with the instrument's sound coming from the area of the orchestra that they are supposed to. They will do the jazz club and they will do rock and roll but they have much less slam than the Bose, but the sound is so much cleaner. Not quite a Magneplanar for the female jazz vocals but a very capable speaker.

The Time Window is a speaker that images very well, handles power with ease, doesn't break or need repairs to the surrounds. They were less expensive than the DQ-10s and the MG-IIs. I had a pair of the MG-Is but needed the taller speaker because Magneplanars do not project vertically. So because of the pricing, I bought Time Windows and still have them.

I suspect the AR is a speaker that provides more slam as stated above and many prefer this. I might like to add a speaker to my collection that has that, but right now the Magneplanars and DCMs are my main speakers. Anything else I own is not a keeper.

So what to do? If the speakers fit with what you want a speaker for, in this case more slam, less imaging and they are at a price where you will not lose money if you need to let them go and you have the funds, go for them. Then tell us what you think.

The ARs are sought after but they are big and heavy. I did not know what my situation was going to be like when I bought the Time Windows in 1980 IIRC, but I'm happy to say they are easy to move (and I have a number of times) and easy to set up in a room to get good to excellent results.

So personal preference even if it is for a variety of speaker types.

Good luck

 

[tarior]

Wow!

I.

Other than more base, what do the AR9's do that the DQ-10's don't ? ?

But it does kinda sound like I should persue them.....

The ARs are considerably more dynamic than the DQs. I like orchestral music with big crescendos and the ARs are still sounding good long after the DQs are crying for mercy. The ARs most certainly have a flatter frequency response, which is either a good or a bad thing, depending on what you like.
After I recap my ARs, I'll weigh in on whether or not they can do subtle as well as the DQs. I will admit that the DQs are more precise in their imaging, and I'm not so sure a recap will change that.

 

[totem]

Tucker those AR,s are not the ones that have been around with the Sumo gear are they??

If not no problem, if so then they are not original and have been
made up.
Call me if you need more info.

 

[Susurus]

I digress (long)

Great thread, thanks for your detailed explanations and reports.

First non-theoretical AR9 experience was ~4 weeks ago courtesy of Tarior. :thmbsp::thmbsp:

Have 5 pairs of different Dahlquists. DQ-10's see frequent use. Not just apples to oranges, they are Mercury to Jupiter--different planets.

OTOH, more interesting comparison of two Jupiters would be my Bozak Symphonies--both are three ways with dual 12" woofers.

Spewing speculation off the top of my head, the AR9s win the long-throw sub bass nether regions, Bozaks eek out the mid-bass realism, win in the midrange, but lose the high end and imaging. Course that's why we multi-amp, tweek, match up different amps, add supertweets, ...etc. etc.

Now off the lab results and into a musical experience...!

For stadium rock, ELP: AR9s.

I don't have them. What I do have:

Full-tilt Orchestras, Peter Gabriel, or Piano for 4 hands: Bozaks.
Celtic vocals, acoustic trios: Maggies
Loud heavy Blues: DQ-9, Klipsch RF-7s (Altecs if I had 'em)
Jazz: E-stats/ hybrids.

DQ-10s like lots of other stuff. Layered with dynamic content. Jethro Tull. Self-indulgent Concept albums: Moody Blues Days of Future Passed, Yes Tales from Topographic Oceans. War of The Worlds. Overdubbed vocals: 10 c. c. I'm Not in Love, Dire Straits Brothers In Arms, ColdPlay.

Back on topic... :nono: I've done a 45 minutes apart comparison, AR9s on a G-9000, DQ-10s on a 16.5, different rooms. Not a scientifically valid A/B/X but hey I've heard them! Design intent and generation differences smear any meaningfull 'better/worse' application, even before individual differences in listening preferences and room context. I could live with neither one as my only system. DQ-20i's just maybe...

...nah. Ain't gonna happen.


Bowie sounds great on any of these fine speakers. Guess he's just an oddity.

 

[Tucker99]

Very interesting thread...a compliment to all who responded rather than the idiot who asked the question(me!).

Thanks to all of you.

Totem....

Yes, those are the ones.... the representation is that they are perfect so thanks majorly for saving me a trip to check them out....

Clearly why they are still out there ....

But hey, I'm shallow...if I bought them and just posted fuzzy photos, would you rat me out??? (LOL!) But on a serious note, thanks for the 'heads up'. We still need to link up for some beers and some music!

 

[Raphael]

Both are staple 'must haves' in my book! I have both and they are phenominal speakers for the dollar.

Like most great speakers, however, they deserve space.

Remodel anyone?