Why are the AR 3 series considered so much better than the 2 and 4?

[gkimeng]

The big classic ARs were highly dependent on room dynamics, because the dome tweeters need a big space with hard surfaces to create a reverberant field. Added to that, the 3 and its cousins with 11" woofers need a lot of power and amps that can handle impedances down to around 2 ohms. So if you have less than 100wpc to play with and a small listening room with carpets, heavy drapes and overstuffed soft furniture you'll probably never like 3s very much. The 2 series outsold them by leaps and bounds. The 5 was a happy medium for people with lower power amps and smaller rooms, but AR priced them badly; they were too expensive for the people who shopped 2s, so their appeal was mostly to people with lots of money and small rooms, except that people with lots of money tend to get big rooms.

 

[Blue Shadow]

The 5 was a happy medium for people with lower power amps and smaller rooms,

Guess I got the right speakers. Dynaco Stereo 120 with 60 a side in a kid's bedroom. Got em with paper route money back in 70.

Back then the MSRP was 295/215/165/102 for the 3a/5/2ax and 2-way AR-2x available for one year, I guess to have an entry level 1x1x2 foot bookshelf speaker.

Selling prices were 269/189/139 for those first three later on as other models were showing up. I recall the 5 was selling for about 175, significantly lower than the 3a and only a bump up from the 2ax.

 

[Nat]

I've owned multiples of most of these speakers, and liked them, but it's the fully rebuild ones I've heard at the Frankenfest (the New England AK fest) that have stunned me - I didn't know they could sound that dynamic and authoritative (kudos to Glenn and Baco99). When recapped and redoped, and whatever else, especially used with a big, clean amp, they are in a different league than what you may think they sound like.
And yes - the 3/3a are that much better than the 2/2a/2ax. Deeper bass may not seem theoretically to be that important, but when you hear how the air in the room sounded at the recording, it matters a lot. The 5s I don't have enough experience with, and no experience at all after a rebuild.

 

[rwh63]

Would it be worth it to own a single 3A speaker? Could I experience its qualities in mono?

 

[gkimeng]

I recall the 5 was selling for about 175, significantly lower than the 3a and only a bump up from the 2ax.

I picked up my 2ax's for $115 each in '75. Another $100 for a pair of 5s would have been a significant bump up for a new college grad making about $12k/yr.

At $500 a pair, 3a's were way out of my league, especially when you added on the cost of a big enough power amp.

 

[Blue Shadow]

Another $100

The advantage I had was living at home. The disadvantage was my father said I could not buy a car, just attaining driving age, didn’t need a house, bought hi-fi gear.

what was that first job outta school?

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Would it be worth it to own a single 3A speaker? Could I experience its qualities in mono?

Not unless your power amp can deliver 120/130 watts/channel into a 2.7 ohm impedance load with the current demanded of it. A McIntosh MC-100 can do this on the 4 ohm setting for a power amplifier all day long.

 

[gkimeng]

The advantage I had was living at home. The disadvantage was my father said I could not buy a car, just attaining driving age, didn’t need a house, bought hi-fi gear.

what was that first job outta school?

"Assistant Engineer," first step up the ladder in those days. I saved up for the hifi gear and a car all the time I was working part time during college, so there were limits on what I could spend on both.

My living space at the time was probably better suited for 4s, so I was already overbuying with 2ax's.

 

[centsless]

I like bass so the 3a/3 win out. The early 2ax's are the little brothers to the 3's but never meant to compete with them. The 5's are nice but can't compete for bass. I have had them all...many pairs...but have only kept the 3's and the 3a's with the alnico woofer. I got very lucky and purchased a very rare pair of 3's in birch veneer. I redid everything on them from the drivers to eight coats of lacquer on the birch....they look beautiful and sound beautiful....

 

[rwh63]

Not unless your power amp can deliver 120/130 watts/channel into a 2.7 ohm impedance load with the current demanded of it. A McIntosh MC-100 can do this on the 4 ohm setting for a power amplifier all day long.

i do have a yamaha m-60 amp. not sure if that cuts it.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

i do have a yamaha m-60 amp. no sure if that cuts it.

It's rated for 4 ohms, and should be OK doing the job!

 

[gkimeng]

The specs for that amp list power rating down to 2 ohms, so probably safe.

 

[Nat]

Mono is a viable alternative to stereo - you loose spaciousness and imaging, but gain simplicity and, maybe, clarity. And when the AR first came out, mono was standard, and stereo was a new thing. Stereo helped AR in the market place - people who wanted deep bass didn't necessarily have the room or desire for not one, but two refrigerator sized speakers, and so the AR1, and then the 2 and 3 were attractive ways of achieving full range sound and domestic tranquillity. But many were used for mono, at least at first. It is not uncommon to find pairs of one 2 or 3 and a 2a or 3a.

 

[GD70]

Not unless your power amp can deliver 120/130 watts/channel into a 2.7 ohm impedance load with the current demanded of it. A McIntosh MC-100 can do this on the 4 ohm setting for a power amplifier all day long.

I have one of my sets of 3s hooked up to my Scott LK-72 tube amp, a whopping 35wpc! It drives the 3s with ease, way loud enough for my listening space, deep tight thunderous bass. Both have been restored. Sounds sublime. I've owned 4xs, all original, and they sounded great as well, but cannot compete with the 3/3as.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I have one of my sets of 3s hooked up to my Scott LK-72 tube amp, a whopping 35wpc! It drives the 3s with ease, way loud enough for my listening space, deep tight thunderous bass. Both have been restored. Sounds sublime. I've owned 4xs, all original, and they sounded great as well, but cannot compete with the 3/3as.

3 a little easier to drive than a 3a. 3a is a SS separates job that can do 2.7 ohms with sufficient current and power.

 

[sberger]

I have one of my sets of 3s hooked up to my Scott LK-72 tube amp, a whopping 35wpc! It drives the 3s with ease, way loud enough for my listening space, deep tight thunderous bass. Both have been restored. Sounds sublime. I've owned 4xs, all original, and they sounded great as well, but cannot compete with the 3/3as.

To this day, the best sound I've ever heard from my 3's is with my McIntosh MC225. 25 watts(with Mc, maybe a few more)! Like you, plenty loud for my space, plenty of bottom end. I've enjoyed them with 400 watt amps, among others, but they never sing as well, to my ears, as they do with this tiny old tube amp.

 

[dan martin]

vs the 4 the three-way 3 has better drivers for all three parts of the spectrum

vs the 2, well which 2, there were 2-way and 3-way AR-2s. But the 3 was better because of bass response.

Some thinI the AR-5 is the best choice, using similar but different impedance midrange and tweeter and a 10" instead of 12". But the other side of that is the 3 has more bottom end.

how much are the ar3 speakers

 

[sberger]

how much are the ar3 speakers

You can get a general idea by looking at completed sales on the auction site. Prices depend on many different factors.

 

[GD70]

how much are the ar3 speakers

Many great deals at yard, tag and estate sales. I found both sets of my 3s at Good Will, 50 bucks, and Salvation Army, 19.99.

 

[Bill S]

how much are the ar3 speakers

Properly restored, $1,000 and up condition dependent. Unrestored versions can go for that bottom number as well. It all depends. You can score a pair of unrestored ones and spend several hundred or more getting them back to snuff with new caps and rebuilt tweets and mids. Then your close to $2,000 all in.