View Single Post
Old May 25th 21, 10:35 PM posted to
Sam Berger
external usenet poster
Posts: 3
Default AR3a vs. JBL-100

On Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> (MYanchick) wrote:
> >
> > Yes it is a relative thing, therefore the only situation in

> which the 3a
> > would prove to have wider dynamics would be when listening to a

> signal
> > generator, pipe organ music, rap, or some weird synthesizer music.

> Most music
> > doesn't contain much information below 50hz relative to the mid-bass,

> midrange
> > and highs. Also speakers that go down very low don't necessarily play

> loud at
> > low frequencies, they bottom out.

> Mike,
> If you listen to any music today, be it classical, jazz, pop or
> whatever, you will quickly find that there are many, many recordings
> that contain a great deal of information below 50 Hz. Granted, some
> pop recordings don't contain much information below 50 Hz., but many
> others do have lot's of energy down to the 30-40 Hz. range. There can
> be no question that many classical recordings have information not only
> to the 40-Hz. range (typical bass drum fundamental), but all the way
> down to 18 Hz. and below (organ recordings and some up-close recorded
> Steinway Concert D piano recordings). Jazz and New Age, etc., are full
> of powerful deep-bass recordings. A good example is Russ Freeman's
> Rippington's *Topaz* recording. Try "Snakedance" and tell me about low
> frequency. I could probably drum up 50 other good examples. I also
> hasten to add that these are digital recordings I am referring to, not
> analog or LP recordings, which typically compress some of the extreme
> deep-bass information on some recordings.
> There is no basis in fact for your statement about speakers that go low
> can't play loud; they bottom out. Where did you get this notion? In
> truth, an AR-3a -- which is acoustic suspension -- is much better
> protected against "bottoming" out than the L-100 which becomes unloaded
> at subsonic frequencies due to its bass-reflex design, yet the AR-3a
> can go much lower in frequency than the L100. In fact, the AR-3a can
> play much louder at 20, 30 or 40 Hz. than the L100 because it is
> capable of reproducing the fundamental frequency without gross
> distortion. This is not a criticism of the L100 specifically: it was
> not designed to reproduce the lowest frequencies to begin with. It is
> more of a midrange/prescence-sort-of design, and it is superb as a
> studio monitor for that reason. But the L100 is no match for an AR-3a
> at low frequencies. By the same token, the AR-3a is no match for the
> L100 at mid frequencies in terms of SPL output.
> > To be honest you can buy some cheap $300 speaker by NHT or

> Paradigm today
> > and it would be more transparent and accurate than the 3a or the

> L100. Modern
> > speakers the size of an L100 that will play loud and clean like the

> L100 are
> > few and far between though.
> > Mike

> You might find some "cheap $300 speaker by NHT or Paradigm today" that
> is brighter sounding than the AR-3a, and perhaps better on-axis output
> at the highest frequencies than the AR-3a, but that's where it would
> end. They would never match the AR-3a in power response, overall
> flatness and power bandwidth.
> Don't get me wrong. The L100 is a fine speaker -- I have a pair -- but
> this speaker system was designed with a different goal in mind than the
> AR-3a. It is brighter, more "up front" sounding than the AR-3a, but
> lacks the overall smoothness, accuracy and extension of the AR-3a
> --Tom Tyson
> Sent via
> Before you buy.

I love them both and use both ever day with McIntosh amp. The L100's with a MC2300, and the AR3's with a MC2105. The AR3's have been completely restored, the L100's are stock. Both sound great.