|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.107.83.24
I had a pair of these long ago, but I don't think they were working properly. Plus, it's been SO long since I've heard them. Can anyone describe their sound to me? What I'm using now are Dynaco A-25s, so that is essentially my current point of reference. I'm about to pull the trigger on a pair of AR-2s...in fact, I already made the deal and just need to pay for them. I'm just looking for a little bit of encouragement. How is the midrange? I'm worried it's going to be recessed like some other 10" two ways that I've heard. Looking for something warm, punchy, non-harsh, liquid, and lush.....
The original AR-1 was a woofer and was accompanied by an electrostatic
Jantzen tweeter. the AR-2 seriously lacked presence but put out
great bass if you had a good amplifier. the tweeter upgrade made
it a AR2-ax which is a very honest speaker which wears well.
best, adoc
I know this is a very old thread, but figured if somebody comes upon it my insights might help.
I am the owner of a pair of minty AR2's that I really like. I've had AR 2AX's, 3's, 3a's, KLH Model Five and Six's, so am familiar with the East Coast sound. Also have a pair of Klipsch Cornwall's which I like and rotate in every so often.
The 2's, if the pots and drivers are working correctly, sound very good with my Fisher 500C and X-101-B. Those 2 amps were made for them. I also acquired a pair of Micro Acoustic microstatic tweeter arrays that I use on top of the 2's. They help to open up the high end a bit more, add a bit of air to the overall presentation. I have the 2 lying horizontal, on top of my Cornwalls, with the microstats on top of them, directly above the AR2 dual tweeters. The sound is punchy with very good top end. Not the last word, certainly, but I am not a treble freak, and love the warm presentation of AR speakers in general. The 2's are also quite easy to drive, and 30 watts is plenty.
So I add this post in the hopes that folks who come across these relatively rare AR's don't automatically pass them up, but rather consider them, particularly if they are going for reasonable prices. They are beautiful speakers to look at, and with everything right they can be lovely keepsakes.
The AR-2 is just ok sounding. As others has posted, the pair of angled tweeters does not have great extension or dispersion. They also do not have very good power handling which is why the tweeter pair was replaced by a single tweeter from the AR-4.
Bass is quite good, and I found that in a small to med sized room, actually sounds better than the 3 or 3a. The 2 series is best represented by the 2ax. Great in room bass, clear midrange and extended treble. Even better is the AR-5. Same midrange and tweeter as the 3a (used at 8ohm nominal impedance instead of 4) combined with the cabinet and woofer from the AR-2ax.
If the price is right as they say....
Best,
Ross
My first pair of speakers was a 2 and a 2a, used with Radio Shackor Layfayette Electrostatic tweeters. They were old even then (1974), but they sounded much better than most of the posters have suggested. The pots have to be be good or they will sound terrible, but that's true of all old ARs. The angled tweeters don't sound bad, but it is true that they don't have a lot of extension (nor do most other tweeters of the same time). They were made to be used horizontally, and if used vertically, as is the current fashion, they beam horribly, and that may be why people think they don't have much highend. The tweeters are damped with fiberglass, and in some cases it will have pressed against the back of the cones, distorting them, which, if severe, might be a problem -- it wasn't for mine.
Being young, and convinced that newer was better, I got the upgrade kits and put in the single driver panel that made them a 2x and a 2ax. I don't think it sounded any better, but it looked more modern, and I used the tweeters as full range drivers for a couple of pairs of small speakers for impoverished college student friends, and they sounded amazingly good, though they couldn't produce loud volumes or low bass.
If you like rich ponderous velvety sound, you might be very pleased
With the AR lineage, first was the AR1, which was a 12%22 woofer with the Altec/WE 8%22driver with it, sort of a full-range driver with a sub combo. Next was the AR2, a budget version, with the dual cones and 10%22 woofer. Then the AR3 which included the first dome drivers, mid and tweet. So its like they really hadn't hit the modern compliment of drivers until the 3.
I landed a free pair a year back--unloaded them immediately. Agree with all they sounded pretty bad. The two 4" drivers are made of very brittle paper, if they are not ripped already, will most likely disintegrate soon. Do not touch them, even lightly. I believe the front grill is not removable, so you may not be able to see them. The pots on the ones I got were all corroded up, so you may want to inspect them. If you really want to hear these, replace or bypass the pots, but I would not bother. Somewhat harsh, but true...
The front grille is removeable ONCE. There were kits($10 by the way) to convert to the superior AR2x or AR2ax versions produced later. And one of the parts was a new grille. Grilles were held on by nails.
True. There is a thin wood frame nailed to the front that holds the grille material in place. Probably not impossible to take apart and carefully put back together, but why?
Late 60's early 70's. Acoustic Research's historic line of models included the 4x, 2, 2ax, 5, and 3a. No other manufacturer had a line this great. Truly historic products!
That said, the only dog was the AR-2. A very heavy, boomy bass and weak highs. It was the least popular model.
I would stay away from AR-2's...they have a very blah top end, and as others have posted they are rather slow sounding overall. AR-2AX's were an improvement, but still the top end leaves a lot to be desired.
The only "bookshelf" sized speaker from the vintage era that really ever floated my boat was the Bozak B-313. It does not go as low as the 302-A (It is essentially a 302-A in a smaller enclosure) but it is way more lively sounding than any KLH or AR speakers I have heard, the bass is more detailed, and the Bozak midrange is to die for. But- the top end is still nowhere near what a modern speaker can deliver.
If you are sensitive to sibilince or a harsh/forward high-end. You might like good speakers from this era (KLH, AR, Marantz, etc). But they must perform as new, otherwise you'll not hear all of the sound they were/are capable of producing. The non-solid state crossovers from this era tend to degrade over time and this will kill the HF response.
...But seriously, I haven't heard the original 2's... Had an opportunity to get some for free but I passed...the two 4" cones of brittle paper that pass for both the mids and tweeters really put me off. Because I used a pair of 2a's as my main speakers for a few years. I still own them. Those have the same dual cone arrangement but adds a dome tweeter similar if not the same as the one from the 3a. But there is really no true mid, just two sets of tweeters. I re-worked the crossover and got the old 2a's to sound good and give me some nice imaging. But the highs don't have the sparkle of "modern" speakers and the bass while plentiful and deep can be described as "slow".
I have mentioned this in the past, but when I compared my AR2a's to a pair of ADS 500's I noticed the 10" woofers of the AR's went lower but the transient response (say for trumpets and/or other brasses) of the ADS was startling.
Having said all that, A pair of original 2's could be the basis for a fun project. Those old AR cabinets are heavy and solid and the crossover was very simple. You could experiment with modern mids and tweeters and come up with something you'll probably like. The hard part is getting the grills off without wrecking them with all those staples and glue holding them on. Which reminds me, I have another pair of either 2a's or 2ax's up in the attic I've gotta deal with, and a few pairs of 3's stashed somewhere too.
FWIW, I know Dynaco A-25's are sacred around here, but I didn't care for either of the two pairs I have had. I thought you had to be pretty far away from them for the drivers to integrate. But that's just me...
Good luck
--Matt
"You know why is that?"
NOBODY is that old (except for a few of us), but pull the trigger and try Bold Eagle's 1-ohm resistor trick to make your amp more like the tube amp these were voiced for. I did it with AR2a speakers, and the results were exactly what you describe, even with a 10-buck Kenwood receiver.
What is the resistor trick?
Bill H explains it, but you might want to try a 1 ohm or a 1/2 ohm in series. With some amps, 1 ohm is too much and the bass gets too boomy.
The original AR2 had a weak top end that was fairly directional. Bass is good, but could sound rather dark if the top end is weak. It's a matter of balance.
The speaker is from the tube era, so the woofer is overdamped with a solid state amp. That's part of why you use the series resistor.
The woofer has a cloth surround and it loses it's sealing after a number of years and leaks air. Search my posts on the KLH 17 for ways to reseal. If the suspension leaks air, the bass gets dull and slow. Properly set up the AR2 series 10" has a fairly punchy bass.
Jerry
It involves a 1-ohm resistor placed in series on one of the leads to each speaker. For more info about what this does, check the archives.
I can only comment on the AR-2ax, which sounds pretty good; what you're looking for is about right. The original AR-2, I would think, would be awfully lacking in HF extension even for my 48-plus year-old ears.
all the best,
mrh
The one with the two 5" cone "tweeters" angled towards each other.
all the best,
mrh
I have these speakers with the two angled tweeters and often wondered where they fit into the ar2 series lineup. Would you know? I assume they were meant to be a step up, maybe down, from a speaker already in the lineup. Really love these for piano and good acoustic guitar by the way.
The AR2 has the 10" woofer plus two cone tweeters in a plastic assembly that are angled toward each other. They are each about 4" wide and are made of a brittle paper. The frames are closed back, and I remember reading somewhere that they used two to increase power handling. The 2a added a dome tweeter to this, and the dual cone assembly was moved to the side of the front baffle from the middle. The 2ax, I believe, uses the same or similar dome tweeter and mid as the 3a. I could be wrong about that, I may have a pair around here somewhere...The 2ax in the catalog picture MRH posted looks like it has the dome tweeter and a mid which could be a cone with a piece of fibreglass over it, I have seen those before on AR speakers.
The 2x I have never seen, in fact, I never knew it existed before.
BTW, the easiest way to work on a 2 or 2a is to unscrew and carefully pry out that dual cone tweeter assembly, you'll have plenty of room to get your hands in and get to the crossover and corroded pots. It is very difficult to pry out the woofer without damaging the cabinet. The putty they used to seal the drivers holds like cement...
--Matt
"You know why is that?"
So as I understand it; neither the single small speaker nor the pair of small speakers in the AR2A are midrange. They are all tweeters, am I correct?
I'm no crossover expert, but the AR2a's I "restored" originally had a "wax block" dual section capacitor with values of 6uf and 4uf. The 6 went to the dual cones and the 4 to the dome. That's all. There was also an inductor for the woofer but I don't remember it having any value marked on it. So I don't think the 6uf value on the dual cones would let much midrange get to them, but someone correct me if I am wrong. In comparison, the wax block I took out of a 3 (might have been a 3a) had values of 6uf and 24uf...
--Matt
"You know why is that?"
nt
all the best,
mrh
nt
all the best,
mrh
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: