[IanATC]

I have decided to post this because so few speakers now are sealed.  The majority of the market is ported in some way.  ACI,ATC, AR and AFAIK Duntech was/are sealed systems.  I think sealed offers accuracy, detail and speed advantages over ported.  But this is not about sealed vs ported, as I have heard good examples of both.

Does anyone have information about 80's and 90's AR speakers?  The sealed models from the mid 80's up to the TSW [Titanium Solid Wood] series especially.

Thanks and cheers.

[DVV]

I have decided to post this because so few speakers now are sealed.  The majority of the market is ported in some way.  ACI,ATC, AR and AFAIK Duntech was/are sealed systems.  I think sealed offers accuracy, detail and speed advantages over ported.  But this is not about sealed vs ported, as I have heard good examples of both.

Does anyone have information about 80's and 90's AR speakers?  The sealed models from the mid 80's up to the TSW [Titanium Solid Wood] series especially.

Thanks and cheers.

Well, since I still own a pair of AR94s, thoroughly rejuvenated (see my long text on this at http://www.tnt-audio.com ), let's say I do know a few things about sealed enclosures. Way back while most of you guys were in shorts, I used to own AR5 speakers, and I loved 'em.

I agree sealed enclosures tend to offer better bass control and resolution than most (but not all) vented speakers. If you are wondering why this almost total changeover to reflex, the answers are simple. Reflex offers better overall efficiency, it provides for somewhat lower cutoff (-3dB) frequency that sealed, and last but not least, they were in vogue at one point.

However, sealed will offer more extension than relex as its deterioration is slower than that of the reflex and it will offer less to much less phase shift in the bass, which usually accounts for its greater clarity.

What's to say? AR invented the principle in 1953 and pushed it really far. At one point, people (e.g. Marantz, Ortofon-later-turned-Dynaudio, etc) were offering sponge bungs you could insert in your bass reflex vent and turn the speaker to some sort of sealed. Of course, this never really worked well, because the requirements for a sealed woofer are different to those of a reflex one, but it sure was a good marketing gig.

I for one am sorry to see this worthy principle pushed aside, I feel there's a lot of mileage in it yet.

Cheers,
DVV

[IanATC]

Thanks for the reply!

I have an additional "suspicion"  if you want to call it that.

I feel that it is possible that when a driver becomes highly efficient [IE ported/eminence]  that is damps too quickly.  That means, I feel the most detailed drivers/speakers seem to invariably the least efficient.

I have heard horns of all kinds, and while not to my taste, I never found any of them as revealing as sealed/less efficient designs.  [The good one that is]. they have the initial attack, but the decay is so rapid, that fine details seem to be lost.  Not to mention treble extension doesn't seem all that good.  

I only got to hear a small set of AR bookshelf speakers.  Two way, with a 8"  sealed woofer.  It was mid 80's vintage.

I think the principals are excellent.  And now that solid state has come a long way, we have plenty of power to do them justice.

I'd like to hear those AR's again, but with a stout 200 wpc pushing them.  I'd like too see what they sound like when really backed by topnotch gear.

[DVV]

Thanks for the reply!

I have an additional "suspicion"  if you want to call it that.

I feel that it is possible that when a driver becomes highly efficient [IE ported/eminence]  that is damps too quickly.  That means, I feel the most detailed drivers/speakers seem to invariably the least efficient.

I have heard horns of all kinds, and while not to my taste, I never found any of them as revealing as sealed/less efficient designs.  [The good one that is]. they have  ...

I cannot dispute much of what you say simply because it's all very subjective. I also don't like horms too much, not the common types (but very expensive JBL and Klipsch jobs are a totally different matter).

That least efficient are the most detailed is (or was) a very popular thesis in Britain. I always suspected this was launched by manufacturers of inefficient speakers who couldn't do efficient and needed some rationale to whitewahs their own failings.

I don't think there's any direct link between efficiency and absolute clarity, although it stands to reason that the more efficient speakers will perform better with typica mid powered gear, while less efficient speakers will only do so-so.

The ARs I still have are used by my son. He has a Harman/Kardon 6550 integrated amp (2x50/70W into 8/4 ohms), which drives the not at all easy to drive ARs VERY well. When I sometimes take my Karan iA-180 (2x180/280W into 8/4 ohms), I do hear a difference, but under normal room conditions, the differences one hears come from the absolute quality of the two units, not their power. But push it a little harder, and of course, the more powerful of the two gets ahead.

By today's standards, they are not detailed, or exceptionally clean and clear - BUT, they do it all, all at once, top to bottom, SEAMLESSLY, like very few modern designs manage, and they do have a warmth which is most rare these cold and heartless days.

Still love 'em.

Cheers,
DVV

[Carlman]

Do the AR110 and 210's count?  These were 2-way bookshelves I bought at Circuit City many years ago.  The 110 had a 6.5" driver and the 210 had an 8".  I would not say they were warm, though.  Kind of sterile and possibly harsh.  However, they held together exceptionally well at extreme volumes.  I had them connected to an Onkyo integrated amp... and I had that same HK 6550 as well.  These were replaced by DCM Timeframe's.... which were ported dipole's... different story there.

They can be used on a variety of applications.  However, warm and pretty they are not.  They image OK, the 110's had hollow sounding bass and the 210's were much richer in midbass but, didn't have the punch of the 110's for midrange.  I've gotten rid of both pairs but, don't know if this is the same Acoustic Research that people talk about.

[DVV]

Do the AR110 and 210's count?  These were 2-way bookshelves I bought at Circuit City many years ago.  The 110 had a 6.5" driver and the 210 had an 8".  I would not say they were warm, though.  Kind of sterile and possibly harsh.  However, they held together exceptionally well at extreme volumes.  I had them connected to an Onkyo integrated amp... and I had that same HK 6550 as well.  These were replaced by DCM Timeframe's.... which were ported dipole's... different story there.

They can be used on a vari ...

Of course they do, Carl, why shouldn't they?

Regarding your comment on them, I can't say I am surprised. My 94s were far from cheap in those days, they were the smallest of their two digit series, which was their flagship series of the day, headed by the big 9.

I agree on holding together - same here, same ever since I first heard an AR. This seems to be a family trait they all shared in their time.

And the 6550 was a damn good integrated amp in its day, good enough to hold its own even today. Definitely one H/K can be proud of, even if the art has progressed in the meanwhile.

Cheers,
DVV

[IanATC]

That least efficient are the most detailed is (or was) a very popular thesis in Britain.
  I don't know that it ever was.  In the 70's when hifi really got going, the BBC developed the ls/35a and Kef.  They were designed to replicate the polar pickup response of a microphone, in reverse.  The subsequent designs became the "BBC sound".  A lot of it was the crossover design with a voicing in mind.  I cannot explain B&W , I have never been a fan.  But there is no longer a typical "British"  voicing.  ATC, PMC, Tannoy and  
others are more neutral all the time.  I just don't believe you are going to see a mass market here for klipsch anytime soon.

I always suspected this was launched by manufacturers of inefficient speakers who couldn't do efficient and needed some rationale to whitewahs their own failings.
   Again, I believe it is a deign aspect, not a limit.  Tannoy has not been inefficient.  I don't think Brits in general care for horn speakers like Klipsch or in-your-face hard metal sounds.  My humble old Kef 103.2 could do quite a lot, given that my flat is solid concrete and brick.  I mean floors, walls , ceilings, everything.  A set of klipsch, JBL or other over-efficient design would not work as well.  There is a serious limit on SPL and a large amount of "shoutiness"

I don't think there's any direct link between  ...

  There may be, I am still not convinced there isn't.  Not until I hear a horn system that is as seamless, uncoloured and non shouty as other designs.  

BTW:  the 18k JBL horn system is again, a horn.  If you have a lot of space, and treatment you might like them.  If you are not a horn fan, they still sound like horns, albiet not with the ferocious pain of something like klipsch.

[DVV]

There may be, I am still not convinced there isn't.  Not until I hear a horn system that is as seamless, uncoloured and non shouty as other designs.  

BTW:  the 18k JBL horn system is again, a horn.  If you have a lot of space, and treatment you might like them.  If you are not a horn fan, they still sound like horns, albiet not with the ferocious pain of something like klipsch.

As for the "BBC sound", and this may surprise you, although there weren't many UK designed and built speakers I really liked, I do feel there is a lot to say for the BBC sound as a concept - and unfortunately, not all, not even enough was said about it.

In general, I feel UK speakers up to say 1990 were slow and somewhat detached for my taste, although they were by and large detailed and there was much work in progress to achieve high levels of precision. There were exceptions to this, of course - for example, I would have picked up a Spendor anytime (but they were reflex!), some Celestion Dittons did it for me, etc.

The US scene was very much different (in general), they preferred efficiency and liveleness, and wanted seamless integration from top to bottom at the expense of absolute clarity and precision. Just think back to speakers like JBL's L100, a home derivative of their legendary 4312 monitor.

As for your comment regarding horns and Klipsch, well, your view is just one of many possible. I could now say that these were indeed up-and-go speakers, sometimes in-yer-face, but that they were more efficient and faster than somewhat slow UK speakers. If you were to replace what you had with a Klipsch, and live with it for say a month or two, what do you think your reaction might have been when changing back to UK speakers? You might have them thought them slow and "lazy", despite greater precision.

And it was AR, always AR, who were the odd man out. I do believe the secret of their success was a very happy marriage of the two schools. They were not as efficient as most US speakers, but were still more efficient than most UK speakers. They were faster than most UK speakers, but not as fast as most US speakers. And of course, they used their acoustic suspension, which I believe to be a most valid approach even these days.

Just my view.

As for the BBC 2x1 concept, such was my faith in it that when I sat down to write the design brief for my own speakers, the concept cornerstone was that very approach. I refer to my own B&M Acoustics 1041, a test of which you see on http://www.zero-distortion.com . It turned out to be a totally outstanding speaker, and I can only mourn that company is no longer operational, although I have heard this model may be reincarnated under a different trade name.

Cheers,
DVV

[IanATC]

As for the "BBC sound", and this may surprise you, although there weren't many UK designed and built speakers I really liked, I do feel there is a lot to say for the BBC sound as a concept - and unfortunately, not all, not even enough was said about it.
   **The Rogers Ls/35a are classics.  The Kef 103.2, 104.2 and 107 are classics that hold up today.  Fact:  many ofn the best American speakers from the 70's and 80's used KEF drivers.  

In general, I feel UK speakers up to say 1990 were slow and somewhat detached for my taste, although they were by and large detailed and there was much work in progress to achieve high levels of precision. There were exceptions to this, of course - for example, I would have picked up a Spendor anytime (but they were reflex!), some Celestion Dittons did it for me, etc.
  **I'd actually agree, they WERE.

The US scene was very much different (in general), they preferred efficiency and liveleness, and wanted seamless integration from top to bottom at the expense of absolute clarity and precision. Just think back to speakers like JBL's L100, a home derivative of their legendary 4312 monitor.
   **JBL's, are your preference.  I cannot look back on those with the same reverence.  The L100 had a paper cone tweeter.  It was beamy at certain frequencies, and boomy at others.  It was by far and away more coloured than the KEF from that same timeframe.  They were not seamless, nor lively.  but they were...loud.   The sound like midfi to me.

As for your comment regarding horns and Klipsch, well, your view is just one of many possible. I could now say that these were indeed up-and-go speakers, sometimes in-yer-face, but that they were more efficient and faster than somewhat slow UK speakers.
  **faster?  maybe.  less detailed?  definately.  More coloured and shouty like a public address system?  absoloutely.  Midfi, not hi-fi.  The big horns had a demonstrated time delay. What's the point of being fast, if that speed= screaming and honking? Even using some of the softest and most romantic valve gear, klipsch still screams bloody murder.

If you were to replace what you had with a Klipsch, and live with it for say a month or two, what do you think your reaction might have been when changing back to UK speakers? You might have them thought them slow and "lazy", despite greater precision.
   **no, my ears would have felt like they finally got to go on holiday.

Just my view.
  ** I'll second that.

   I can only look back to a handful of pre 90's speakers with any joy.  Spica, rogers, kef.  They all had a more romantic sound than by todays standards.  Compared to my ATC, most speakers will sound syrupy and slow, but that is a preference in itself that many people have.  How many times have you read the phrase: "I could listen to it for hours on end without fatigue"  That should NEVER be stated of klipsch.

[Sa-dono]

There may be, I am still not convinced there isn't.  Not until I hear a horn system that is as seamless, uncoloured and non shouty as other designs.  

BTW:  the 18k JBL horn system is again, a horn.  If you have a lot of space, and treatment you might like them.  If you are not a horn fan, they still sound like horns, albiet not with the ferocious pain of something like klipsch.

I would have to say that you should give a listen to some the top horn speakers out there before completely writing them off. I'm not a fan of horn speakers, but must say I was impressed by my very brief listen of the JBL K2-S9800WG's ($27K). I have also been told that the Avantgarde speakers do not have the typical "horn-y" sound. If you get a chance to audition them, be aware that the Duo's and Trio's are supposed to need a fair amount of room for proper convergence of the drivers.

[IanATC]

I would have to say that you should give a listen to some the top horn speakers out there before completely writing them off. I'm not a fan of horn speakers, but must say I was impressed by my very brief listen of the JBL K2-S9800WG's ($27K). I have also been told that the Avantgarde speakers do not have the typical "horn-y" sound. If you get a chance to audition them, be aware that the Duo's and Trio's are supposed to need a fair amount of room for proper convergence of the drivers.

** I will agree.  There are three brands of horns that I have heard that are *very*  minimal horn colouration.  They are far and away better than typical 1K horns.

1) Avante Garde- I still have reservations about seamlessness and bass integration/speed vs the horn.  They are much better than square horns, but I can still hear the horn.  They do sound very nice.  The styling and space requirements are lititations, along with the new BMW pricing

2) JBL  they are another painfully expensive flagship speaker.  If you have the space, they are as dynamic as the day is long.  So is the number of the pricetag.

3) Zingali...Italian made speakers that use a wooden "omniray"  horn.  The definition is nice, but again, you can hear the horn-throat effect.  these are by far the most affordable of the three.

Horns can be nice if space is there, and you can afford the sky-high price.

[singhal]

I remember purchasing a couple pairs of ARs. The words Sonic Holography they used really excited me back then.

[WerTicus]

I have a pair of AR25's... they were the same as the ar20's but they were the 25th annaversary special edition, i dont know what was different but mine has:

a sealed 15mm LDF box. (yey!)

a parallel cross over network where the woofer is full range and the tweeter has a giant 6uf capacitor that is very light and has red ends and almost wood looking black cylinder ((dunno what type it is thats for sure) but its large than a film foil would be for 6uf.)

8" woofer

tiny little paper tweeter but its a paper dome of about 3mm diametre.

sounds okay i suppose... sounds like mid range mostly ... bit boomy cause of the box i imagine and the top end isnt good... mid range isnt so good either really... the 8" is too big ..... so.....

MEH!  they were bought in 1980.

[WerTicus]

i still have the 23 year old booklet for it here if anyone wants to host an image ill send a scan to you