I have a pair of AR9 spekakers in for repairs to the surrounds of all
six drivers.

Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?

The speakers are each about 5' high, 1'2" wide, and about the same in
depth.
There are two 11" woofers at the bottoms of each side of the sealed box.

at the top of the front of the box there there is a dome tweeter,
a dome upper midrange, and one AR's famous 8" lower mid drivers with
square magnets.
The total of 4 domed speakers appear to be OK, but the total of 6
surrounds to the LF units all need replacement.

The crossovers inside are somewhat complex, and have huge capacitors and
many coils,
with also quite a few 20 watt resistors and 3 switches to alter levels
of bass, midrange and treble.

Nothing looks cooked, an I am wondering who has some schematic or other
accurate
impedance info on these wonderful old bangers from the past, so I can
expect what
to measure when I check them after repairing the surrounds.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"

I have a pair of AR9 spekakers in for repairs to the surrounds of all
six drivers.

Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?



** This site has everything - including a full schematic in 3 formats.

http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/ar-9/ar9.htm


All you had to do was Google: " AR 9 speaker schematic ".





............ Phil

"Patrick Turner" wrote:
Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?

I don't, but I bet someone on this board does....
http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcboard.php
There's an entire section devoted to old AR speakers...

Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

I have a pair of AR9 spekakers in for repairs to the surrounds of all
six drivers.

Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?

** This site has everything - including a full schematic in 3 formats.

http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/ar-9/ar9.htm

All you had to do was Google: " AR 9 speaker schematic ".

I did a quick search under 'AR9 loudspeakers',
saw no schematics, and then time caught me,
since saturday night is for socialising.

Thank you very much for the reference you found, the schematic i now have
looks to be the one that is in the units.

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in " the AR9 was the
greatest speaker of all time".

And interesting to see how low they go, considering they have a closed box,
and I hope the caps have not degraded.

There is an awful lot of rather ordinary woodwork to resonate.

No doubt they would have cost a pretty penny in their heyday.

But like Duntech Sovereigns, the foam rots out on all the drivers.

Patrick Turner.





........... Phil

Patrick Turner wrote...

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in "
the AR9 was the greatest speaker of all time".

Well, that's quite a statement. But I'll tell you this -
I've owned a set since 1980 and I've NEVER
heard another speaker that I'd swap them for. I think
they are just amazing speakers!

And interesting to see how low they go, considering
they have a closed box,

They are -3db (NOT the usual -6 db spec) at 28 Hz.
They have incredible bottom end! Be sure when you
reinstall the lower mids and the woofers that they are
properly sealed. It's a true acoustic suspension design
and air leaks are killers.

and I hope the caps have not degraded.

Replace all the caps with good film caps -
Solen/SCR/Chateauroux is good, use the best caps you
can afford. The 470 uf and 2500 uf caps may be okay,
if they aren't the only suitable replacement is NP electros;
you'll have to use a bunch in parallel for the 2500 uf cap.
I think Bennic is as good as you'll be able to do.

The chokes are 17 ga. air core, you can leave them in
place since they are quite good.

You can change as much wire as you want, do use a
heavier and better quality cable to the woofers in any
case. Also, the internal stuffing is all at the top of the
cabinet, that's by design.

And if the "acoustic blanket" and/or other foam material
has deteriorated do properly replace it. That speaker
(with good program material) will image just beautifully.

There is an awful lot of rather ordinary woodwork to
resonate.

Yes, it seems that way, but in reality it doesn't
materialize.
Read Tim Holl's treatise on how the AR9 was designed and
you'll find it quite interesting. It's on the Classic
Speaker Pages
site too. Pay attention to room placement - these are
designed
to be placed up against the wall, not out into the room.

BTW, the wood was likely Walnut, and they had an oil finish.

No doubt they would have cost a pretty penny in their
heyday.

US $1200.00 per pair in 1980 is what I paid, list was
$1400.00.

But like Duntech Sovereigns, the foam rots out on all the
drivers.

All the foam from drivers of that era rots. It's not unique
to
AR or Duntech or anybody. Hell it's 25 years old...

Be nice to those, fix them up right. You'll be VERY glad you
did!!
They are competitive with (almost?) anything being made
today.

Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

In article , says...

Patrick Turner wrote...

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in "
the AR9 was the greatest speaker of all time".

Well, that's quite a statement. But I'll tell you this -
I've owned a set since 1980 and I've NEVER
heard another speaker that I'd swap them for. I think
they are just amazing speakers!

I worked as an audio salesman back then, and we carried
these speakers. They were great speakers!
The low bass was amazing; I had a CD of Gerwsin,
American in Paris, Rhapsody in Blue. There was a very
low rumble in the mix, really low, and inaudible
on other speakers. We decided it must have been
the airconditioning system in the hall.

Jim McShane wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote...

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in "
the AR9 was the greatest speaker of all time".

Well, that's quite a statement. But I'll tell you this -
I've owned a set since 1980 and I've NEVER
heard another speaker that I'd swap them for. I think
they are just amazing speakers!

That they may be the greatest is a matter of conjecture;
something few men would ever agree upon, and I was merely
paroting the claims of those who do like them.





And interesting to see how low they go, considering
they have a closed box,

They are -3db (NOT the usual -6 db spec) at 28 Hz.
They have incredible bottom end! Be sure when you
reinstall the lower mids and the woofers that they are
properly sealed. It's a true acoustic suspension design
and air leaks are killers.

I'll measure them.



and I hope the caps have not degraded.

Replace all the caps with good film caps -
Solen/SCR/Chateauroux is good, use the best caps you
can afford. The 470 uf and 2500 uf caps may be okay,
if they aren't the only suitable replacement is NP electros;
you'll have to use a bunch in parallel for the 2500 uf cap.
I think Bennic is as good as you'll be able to do.

I have bagfulls of 2uF x 250v poly caps which will be fine paralleled
for the
tweeters, and I may use some motor start poly props for the midrange.

The 2,500 uF and 470 uF would be quite enormous if polypropylene.
They may be in perfect working condition, and so perhaps no need to
change them.

I am more concerned that AR got the values right in their Xovers.
Nearly all speaker makers get things sub optimal with Xovers, after all,

its merely the results of a guy with a calculator, and perhaps if we
were lucky,
acoustic tests were done over an extended period to trim all the values
properly for the best response.



The chokes are 17 ga. air core, you can leave them in
place since they are quite good.

The inductors are wound on rather soft plastic spools, and the windings
not varnished.
When I looked in there I found the turns rather loosely wound, and if
such
very ordinary lowest common denominator quality is regarded as "quite
good", then I
am left feeling dissapointed, and knowing I have seen a lot better.


You can change as much wire as you want, do use a
heavier and better quality cable to the woofers in any
case. Also, the internal stuffing is all at the top of the
cabinet, that's by design.

I doubt changing wiring will change the sound, since the wires are short
runs,
and such short runs are very low impedance, compared to all the other
Z in series such as the small but significant DCR of the 10mH inductors
in series with the bass
speakers.

A 10mH inductor is a quite large value, and the only way to get the dcr
down is
to wind with 2mm dia wire, making coil as big as a small chocolate cake.

No such superior inductor resides in the AR9.




And if the "acoustic blanket" and/or other foam material
has deteriorated do properly replace it. That speaker
(with good program material) will image just beautifully.

The acoustic foam around the dome mids is stuffed, and will need to be
replaced.
They have some 1/2" felt padding in larger pannels to prevent the
beaming and diffraction rather than reduce the width of the cabinet
and use smaller dia drivers. When I look at AR9, I see a very cheap
piece
of joinery, like a cheap coffin, or kitchen cupboard, and the acoustic
front baffle damping is a bandaid measure instead of the slightly
more expensive options.


There is an awful lot of rather ordinary woodwork to
resonate.

Yes, it seems that way, but in reality it doesn't
materialize.
Read Tim Holl's treatise on how the AR9 was designed and
you'll find it quite interesting. It's on the Classic
Speaker Pages
site too. Pay attention to room placement - these are
designed
to be placed up against the wall, not out into the room.

The bass would then get lift being in the corner betwen wall and floor



BTW, the wood was likely Walnut, and they had an oil finish.

Yeah, and its a dull boring finish if ever there was one.
The don't look very flash to me; just large old speakers.



No doubt they would have cost a pretty penny in their
heyday.

US $1200.00 per pair in 1980 is what I paid, list was
$1400.00.

USD $1,400 would have been equivalent of aud $2,000,
and that makes them about aud $10,000 by today's standards.

I could easily make a MUCH better pair of speakers for that money.





But like Duntech Sovereigns, the foam rots out on all the
drivers.

All the foam from drivers of that era rots. It's not unique
to
AR or Duntech or anybody. Hell it's 25 years old...

Be nice to those, fix them up right. You'll be VERY glad you
did!!
They are competitive with (almost?) anything being made
today.

I think very many speakers would be much better.
Of course they'd also be expensive.

But really, the 8" main midrange is a very ordinary driver,
and almost anything from Peerless, SEAS, Scanspeak would be an
improvement.

Because there are two 11" woofers, the box size needs to have some
volume,
but perhaps some of todays drivers would not need such a large box to
still get down so low.
The box itself isn't right to me, and if you have seen my website and
the speakers
I made a few years back, you will see I believe in narrow fronted boxes
with
well rounded edges, 22 mm radius, real wood finish all around, and 38mm
thick
composite ply and particle board for the box panels, giving an
asymetrical
density across the thickness, so less tendency to ring, and I have a lot
more
inner bracing than AR.
My speakers are thus much more inert than anything made by AR.
I also have the bass boxes separate from the mid-trebles, to prevent
bass F from being able
to resonate the box in which the mids are mounted, and vice versa, the
mids cannot
resonate all that panel area of the bass box.
Each of the two bass boxes has the F response of a good sub but
extending up
to 250Hz.
There is no need for a 4 way speaker, so the Xovers are simpler.

The AR9 appear to be made to look impressive in an era where rich
*******s liked
to show off to their friends; they are standard common
everyday engineering but on a large scale.

I don't doubt the AR9 were landmark designs for 1980.
I am a fussy person when it comes to build quality and design.
So its why i went to the trouble
of making speakers which would easily compete with AR9
for most listeners.
I also don't like all the AR9 crimped and spade lug connections
when soldering is the the best way imho.
I would normally use some Vandenhull silver plated copper
hook up wire, but I doubt its use in AR9 would make much difference,
its a bit like placing a pearl necklace on a handsome porker.

But my customer won't be dissapointed when i am finished with them.

The only slight niggling doubts I have are with two of the 4 woofers,
which have square rather than round magnets like the other pair.
These would be probably older units, and the inner bellows are slightly
degraded, in that they slightly tend to pop
the cone one way of the other past the centre point, and it remains to
be seen
if the new rubber surrounds will damp the slight problem.
If not, the drivers would have to have new inner spiders fitted,
something I don't do
but a specialist would, and it means removing the cone entirely,
fitting a new inner spider, reassembly, new dust cap, and
perhaps changing the speaker parameters, and its much more expensive.
This much repair is a bit like changing the blade and the handle of
dad's old axe.
The other pair of woofers each have round magnets, but each is of a
different
vintage, one with masonite ( 3.5mm wood composite ) spacer like the
other older pair
and one with the basket metal pressed to replace the wooden spacer.
The spacer appears to have been used to increase the cone travel in an
exiting design,
something handy when you have 200 guests in the mansion on cocaine all
wanting to hear
Bob Marley turned up real loud.
The wood build out on the basket may have been to suit the available
foam surrounds,
rather than have the foam surrounds made to suit the driver.
With the rubber surrounds I have begun to use, the wood build out wasn't
needed,
and I removed them with a chisel, for surely these looked like they
would soon perish.
The one woofer with all metal basket appeared to take the rubber and be
centred better.
So altogether, there are 3 slightly different types of bass speakers
used.
Maybe they have been repaired before.
But the cones and inner spiders of each appear to be identical, so I
expect the same
responses.



Patrick Turner







Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

"Patrick Turner" wrote

Without commenting on the rest of your ungracious response, I wonder
where you get this opinion from:

I also don't like all the AR9 crimped and spade lug connections
when soldering is the the best way imho.

Why?

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has lower
and more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and such is
my experience.

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens and
eventually fractures.

Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.

Also ubiquitous in (very reliable) computers and military/industrial
connectors.

Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?

(Lucas crimped bullets excepted, they were reliably hopeless)

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson"
"Patrick Turner" wrote

Without commenting on the rest of your ungracious response, I wonder where
you get this opinion from:

I also don't like all the AR9 crimped and spade lug connections
when soldering is the the best way imho.

Why?

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has lower and
more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and such is my
experience.


** Both claims are utterly false.

Crimped spade terminals are highly prone to suffering poor contact and
failures over time. There are a serious of mechanisms that contribute to
this - but anyone who sees and repairs lots of equipment will attest to the
fact.


Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens and
eventually fractures.


** Same stress concentration where a wire end is crimped into a spade lug.
The plastic covers that are usual for automotive applications ( and thereby
provide a measure of strain relief) are almost never used for speakers and
the like.


Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem common
there.


** Yep, and a very common cause of failures - soldering the joints up
is the answer.



Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?


** Quick assembly by non skilled labour = CHEAPER !!




......... Phil

Ian Iveson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote

Without commenting on the rest of your ungracious response, I wonder
where you get this opinion from:

I also don't like all the AR9 crimped and spade lug connections
when soldering is the the best way imho.

Why?

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has lower
and more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and such is
my experience.

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens and
eventually fractures.

Not in the vast majority of speakers I repair, nor in anything I build.

The slip on lug connections to speakers are often found loose, even
disconnected
in speakers I repair.




Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.

Cheap and nasty .



Also ubiquitous in (very reliable) computers and military/industrial
connectors.

And usually gold plated, somewhat well done, and less prone to the
corrosion
I see in many speakers..



Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?

To better afford a Cadillac for the manager, i'd reckon.

Patrick Turner.



(Lucas crimped bullets excepted, they were reliably hopeless)

cheers, Ian

Suppose I could expect, posting at that time, to be jumped on by the
antipodeans.

"Phil Allison" wrote

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has
lower and more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and
such is my experience.


** Both claims are utterly false.

Not in my experience, nor in theory. But we have different
experiences and perhaps different theories. You have said nothing
later to justify this example of your habit of making simplistic
sweeping statements from a position of limited understanding.

Crimped spade terminals are highly prone to suffering poor contact
and failures over time. There are a serious of mechanisms that
contribute to this - but anyone who sees and repairs lots of
equipment will attest to the fact.

Fair enough, I bow to your greater experience of repairing cheap
consumer appliances. However, if you mean "faston" connectors then
the main problem is likely to be with the sliding contact rather
than the crimping. Temperature cycling due to poor contact can then
degrade the crimp.

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens
and eventually fractures.


** Same stress concentration where a wire end is crimped into a
spade lug. The plastic covers that are usual for automotive
applications ( and thereby provide a measure of strain relief) are
almost never used for speakers and the like.

Something of a contradiction. Decent crimping includes stress relief
(usually a sock or boot) in the crimping process.

And not true anyway. A good crimp will hold the bunch of strands
compressed in hexagonal close packing. As the bunch exits the
crimped sleeve, it maintains its own stiffness, which then trails
off smoothly, so avoiding stress concentration. Further, that
intermediate soft-packed zone acts as a damper, absorbing energy
like a leaf spring.

Of course all this can go badly wrong if the crimp is not done
properly, or if poor materials (including out-of-spec wire) are
used. Crimping is far more intolerant of botching than soldering.

Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.


** Yep, and a very common cause of failures - soldering the
joints up is the answer.

Again, your practical knowledge of cheap consumer durables far
outshines mine. Are you sure the crimp is at fault rather than the
contact?

Soldering is not the only answer. You could replace with good
quality crimped connectors. Soldering is much cheaper for you
though.

Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?


** Quick assembly by non skilled labour = CHEAPER !!

Not a safe assumption. I haven't yet seen a description of quite
what connectors Patrick is on about. If they are really cheap then
yes, they would be CHEAPER !!

OTOH, if they are really expensive connectors, they would be MORE
EXPENSIVE !!

cheers, Ian

"Patrick Turner" wrote

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens
and
eventually fractures.

Not in the vast majority of speakers I repair, nor in anything I
build.

The slip on lug connections to speakers are often found loose,
even
disconnected
in speakers I repair.

Generally it's the slip-on connection rather than the crimp which is
the primary problem. I will grant you that there are many poor
crimped connectors in many cheap consumer appliances, as Phil and
yourself have reported the same findings from your great experience
of working with cheap consumer appliances.

Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.

Cheap and nasty .

Cheap don't necessarily mean nasty. Phil reports that they do fail
often (although he didn't say they fail *more* often...) so perhaps
they truly are nasty. Looking inside a fairly modern Fender...yup,
they look nasty...could be worse though.

Also ubiquitous in (very reliable) computers and
military/industrial
connectors.

And usually gold plated, somewhat well done, and less prone to the
corrosion
I see in many speakers..

True. A good crimp with the proper materials is difficult to fault.
Gas-tight, with a large area of metal-to-metal contact at high
pressure. No contaminants like flux. Comes with built in stress
relief too.

But good crimping is expensive for small runs because of tooling and
setting-up costs.

Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?

To better afford a Cadillac for the manager, i'd reckon.

A predictable response, making not much sense.

If price were the only consideration, and it were true that crimping
is by its nature cheaper, then all cheap connections would be
crimped. But they aren't, so it must be at least a little bit more
complicated than you think. Some are crimped and some aren't. Why is
that, do you wonder? Why don't they crimp instead of using PCBs? Why
are some of those wires in the speakers soldered? Did the manager
decide he only wanted one Cadillac?

I conclude that good crimps are better than good solder, but are
harder to do and more expensive for short runs. Poor crimps are
worse than poor solder. Solder is better then when you want the
least chance of the worst connection, crimp for when you want the
greatest chance of the best connection.

So, in your circumstances, I would advise you continue soldering.
Consider crimping however should you wish to invest in higher
quality production some time in the future.

I am beginning to suspect that the connectors on those speakers are
poor examples of the art. I suggest it is the poor examples, rather
than the art itself, which is at fault. However, contrary to all of
this is the only experience we have seen reported of these speakers.
I wonder if Jim's examples have been modded in this respect? If not,
the only real data we have suggests the connectors are good and
reliable.

cheers, Ian

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

I have a pair of AR9 spekakers in for repairs to the surrounds of all
six drivers.

Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?

** This site has everything - including a full schematic in 3 formats.

http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/ar-9/ar9.htm

All you had to do was Google: " AR 9 speaker schematic ".

I did a quick search under 'AR9 loudspeakers',
saw no schematics, and then time caught me,
since saturday night is for socialising.

Thank you very much for the reference you found, the schematic i now have
looks to be the one that is in the units.

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in " the AR9 was the
greatest speaker of all time".

**Not even close. They were quite impressive and very competent performers,
however. One needs only to listen to a decent pair of electrostats from the
same time, to realise the (very obvious) limitations (and strengths) of the
AR9s. They are quite difficult to drive and require a powerful amp, with
prodigious current ability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

US $1200.00 per pair in 1980 is what I paid, list was
$1400.00.

USD $1,400 would have been equivalent of aud $2,000, and that makes them
about aud $10,000 by today's standards.

Not true. In 1980, the exchange rate was in our favour, and $US1,400 would
have been ~$AU1,300 (assuming they were bought in the US, and not subject to
import duties, freight charges, sales tax etc etc).

I could easily make a MUCH better pair of speakers for that money.

Oh, OF COURSE you could ... Why don't you???

Ian Iveson wrote:

Suppose I could expect, posting at that time, to be jumped on by the
antipodeans.

"Phil Allison" wrote

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has
lower and more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and
such is my experience.


** Both claims are utterly false.

Not in my experience, nor in theory. But we have different
experiences and perhaps different theories. You have said nothing
later to justify this example of your habit of making simplistic
sweeping statements from a position of limited understanding.

Ian, you don't repair speakers every day like I do, so you don't see the

problems we have to continually face. In theory crimped and
plugged connectiuons work; in practice they are ****.



Crimped spade terminals are highly prone to suffering poor contact
and failures over time. There are a serious of mechanisms that
contribute to this - but anyone who sees and repairs lots of
equipment will attest to the fact.

Fair enough, I bow to your greater experience of repairing cheap
consumer appliances. However, if you mean "faston" connectors then
the main problem is likely to be with the sliding contact rather
than the crimping. Temperature cycling due to poor contact can then
degrade the crimp.

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens
and eventually fractures.


** Same stress concentration where a wire end is crimped into a
spade lug. The plastic covers that are usual for automotive
applications ( and thereby provide a measure of strain relief) are
almost never used for speakers and the like.

Something of a contradiction. Decent crimping includes stress relief
(usually a sock or boot) in the crimping process.

And not true anyway. A good crimp will hold the bunch of strands
compressed in hexagonal close packing. As the bunch exits the
crimped sleeve, it maintains its own stiffness, which then trails
off smoothly, so avoiding stress concentration. Further, that
intermediate soft-packed zone acts as a damper, absorbing energy
like a leaf spring.

Of course all this can go badly wrong if the crimp is not done
properly, or if poor materials (including out-of-spec wire) are
used. Crimping is far more intolerant of botching than soldering.

Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.


** Yep, and a very common cause of failures - soldering the
joints up is the answer.

Again, your practical knowledge of cheap consumer durables far
outshines mine. Are you sure the crimp is at fault rather than the
contact?

Soldering is not the only answer. You could replace with good
quality crimped connectors. Soldering is much cheaper for you
though.

Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?


** Quick assembly by non skilled labour = CHEAPER !!

Not a safe assumption. I haven't yet seen a description of quite
what connectors Patrick is on about. If they are really cheap then
yes, they would be CHEAPER !!

OTOH, if they are really expensive connectors, they would be MORE
EXPENSIVE !!

cheers, Ian

Ian, most large scale makers such as AR use the cheapest lowest common
deonominator
construction methods available, so the better crimped and pluggers are
never going to be used.

Us blokes in the repair trade have to cope with their **** 25 years
later.

Ppl don't like throwing things out.

The AR9 speakers had problems with several loose bolted connections
where the wires connected to the crossover boards, and
the sonnections to speakers were not very tight.

Things just fall apart with time, but well soldered joints take far
longer.

Patrick Turner.

Ian Iveson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote

Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens
and
eventually fractures.

Not in the vast majority of speakers I repair, nor in anything I
build.

The slip on lug connections to speakers are often found loose,
even
disconnected
in speakers I repair.

Generally it's the slip-on connection rather than the crimp which is
the primary problem. I will grant you that there are many poor
crimped connectors in many cheap consumer appliances, as Phil and
yourself have reported the same findings from your great experience
of working with cheap consumer appliances.

Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem
common there.

Cheap and nasty .

Cheap don't necessarily mean nasty. Phil reports that they do fail
often (although he didn't say they fail *more* often...) so perhaps
they truly are nasty. Looking inside a fairly modern Fender...yup,
they look nasty...could be worse though.

Also ubiquitous in (very reliable) computers and
military/industrial
connectors.

And usually gold plated, somewhat well done, and less prone to the
corrosion
I see in many speakers..

True. A good crimp with the proper materials is difficult to fault.
Gas-tight, with a large area of metal-to-metal contact at high
pressure. No contaminants like flux. Comes with built in stress
relief too.

But good crimping is expensive for small runs because of tooling and
setting-up costs.

Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?

To better afford a Cadillac for the manager, i'd reckon.

A predictable response, making not much sense.

If price were the only consideration, and it were true that crimping
is by its nature cheaper, then all cheap connections would be
crimped. But they aren't, so it must be at least a little bit more
complicated than you think. Some are crimped and some aren't. Why is
that, do you wonder? Why don't they crimp instead of using PCBs? Why
are some of those wires in the speakers soldered? Did the manager
decide he only wanted one Cadillac?

I conclude that good crimps are better than good solder, but are
harder to do and more expensive for short runs. Poor crimps are
worse than poor solder. Solder is better then when you want the
least chance of the worst connection, crimp for when you want the
greatest chance of the best connection.

So, in your circumstances, I would advise you continue soldering.
Consider crimping however should you wish to invest in higher
quality production some time in the future.

I am beginning to suspect that the connectors on those speakers are
poor examples of the art. I suggest it is the poor examples, rather
than the art itself, which is at fault. However, contrary to all of
this is the only experience we have seen reported of these speakers.
I wonder if Jim's examples have been modded in this respect? If not,
the only real data we have suggests the connectors are good and
reliable.

cheers, Ian

I will never use crimping and slip on plugs while I remain a small
volume producer
and repairist. I see what it leads to.

When they make a speaker in large numbers they make wiring harnesses
in large numbers, and with regret the maker spends a $ to have a dude to
connect it up to
drivers during the 10 minute assembly time.

Soldering wires in confined spaces of a box is all too hard,
and the fumes could lead to a worker being injured.

But I still take the time, wear a mask, and solder every fukkin thing.

The worst case of crimping and plug ons I ever saw was in a Radford
solid state amp,
which repeatedly blew fuses at turn on plus blew devices until I
soldered up
all connections. Great british engineering needs to be soldered up.

Patrick Turner.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

I have a pair of AR9 spekakers in for repairs to the surrounds of all
six drivers.

Anyone got the schematic of the crossovers?

** This site has everything - including a full schematic in 3 formats.

http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/ar-9/ar9.htm

All you had to do was Google: " AR 9 speaker schematic ".

I did a quick search under 'AR9 loudspeakers',
saw no schematics, and then time caught me,
since saturday night is for socialising.

Thank you very much for the reference you found, the schematic i now have
looks to be the one that is in the units.

It will be interesting to see if there is any truth in " the AR9 was the
greatest speaker of all time".

**Not even close. They were quite impressive and very competent performers,
however. One needs only to listen to a decent pair of electrostats from the
same time, to realise the (very obvious) limitations (and strengths) of the
AR9s. They are quite difficult to drive and require a powerful amp, with
prodigious current ability.

I only parroted what some ppl say about AR9 speaker sound.

The actual drivers used are not world beaters at all.

I measured the bass voice coil dcr, only 2.6 ohms per speaker,
and they have two connected in parallel.
The dcr of the series inductors is about 2 ohms.

I've seen crap before, and the closer I look at AR9, the crapier they seem.

The re-surrounding was successful.
I am just about to reassemble and test them for response and impedance.

I will record my results.

Patrick Turner



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Ian Iveson"


Suppose I could expect, posting at that time, to be jumped on by the
antipodeans.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.


"Phil Allison"

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable and has lower and
more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and such is my
experience.


** Both claims are utterly false.

Not in my experience, nor in theory.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.


But we have different experiences and perhaps different theories. You have
said nothing later to justify this example of your habit of making
simplistic sweeping statements from a position of limited understanding.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.



Crimped spade terminals are highly prone to suffering poor contact and
failures over time. There are a serious of mechanisms that contribute to
this - but anyone who sees and repairs lots of equipment will attest to
the fact.

Fair enough, I bow to your greater experience of repairing cheap consumer
appliances.


** I repair expensive pro-audio gear - you stinking arsehole.


However, if you mean "faston" connectors then the main problem is likely
to be with the sliding contact rather than the crimping.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.


Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper work hardens and
eventually fractures.


** Same stress concentration where a wire end is crimped into a spade
lug. The plastic covers that are usual for automotive applications ( and
thereby provide a measure of strain relief) are almost never used for
speakers and the like.

Something of a contradiction.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Of course all this can go badly wrong if the crimp is not done properly,
or if poor materials (including out-of-spec wire) are used. Crimping is
far more intolerant of botching than soldering.


** That, at least, is right.



Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped joints seem common
there.


** Yep, and a very common cause of failures - soldering the joints up
is the answer.

Again, your practical knowledge of cheap consumer durables far outshines
mine.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Are you sure the crimp is at fault rather than the contact?


** Try actually reading what I wrote - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Soldering is not the only answer.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?


** Quick assembly by non skilled labour = CHEAPER !!

Not a safe assumption.



** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.






............. Phil

Patrick Turner wrote...

I measured the bass voice coil dcr, only 2.6 ohms per
speaker, and they have two connected in parallel.
The dcr of the series inductors is about 2 ohms.

Why don't you tell us about the Q/impedance optimizing
network Patrick? You know, the one in the woofer
circuit that you OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue about
the purpose of the network. If you did you wouldn't
make statements like you did above.

I've seen crap before, and the closer I look at AR9,
the crapier they seem.

Then I'd say you're pretty stupid to spend the time and
money to work on them and get the foam redone. If they're
so lousy why don't you just toss them in the trash?

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

I am just about to reassemble and test them for
response and impedance.

Why don't you just look at the impedance and response
curves in the owners manual?

Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

Patrick Turner wrote...

A BUNCH OF CRAP

You know what - screw you Turner... I gave you a
lot of useful information. I know those speakers
VERY well, and I thought I could help. I didn't
count on your massive overblown ego being
such a barrier.

I have all the original blueprints on them. I would
have been happy to share them with you, but you're
so f'ing smart you figure it out. BTW why do you
need a diagram if you are such a wizard ?

I'd burn them before I'd let you see them. I'm sorry
I gave you the link to the AR site.

BTW, my AR-9s crimp connectors work fine after
25 years.

Phil Allison is right about you. You're just an obnoxious
blowhard.

Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

kyser wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

US $1200.00 per pair in 1980 is what I paid, list was
$1400.00.

USD $1,400 would have been equivalent of aud $2,000, and that makes them
about aud $10,000 by today's standards.

Not true. In 1980, the exchange rate was in our favour, and $US1,400 would
have been ~$AU1,300 (assuming they were bought in the US, and not subject to
import duties, freight charges, sales tax etc etc).

I cannot remember a time when the Oz $ had a higher value than the usd.

And you don't know what our importers and shops were like in 1980;
why, they ripped us well then.

But even at aud $5,000, the AR9 would be a rip off.

I measured the repaired speakers and all the caps, switches, and resistors
appear to have
the corretc values.
The measured response was quite lousy, and they sound boxy and very coloured.

The bass is OK, at least.

To me they have a negative value once purchased since they need considerable
reworking of the crossovers to flatten the response.
In other words, if you see a pair going free, grab 'em, they'll keep you busy or
poor for awhile.
Work enriches the soul they say....


I could easily make a MUCH better pair of speakers for that money.

Oh, OF COURSE you could ... Why don't you???

I have, on several occasions, made better sounding speakers than AR9.

And I have been prepared to sell the best of them at less than aud $5,000.

Now, what have you achieved in your workshop?

Jim McShane wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote...

I measured the bass voice coil dcr, only 2.6 ohms per
speaker, and they have two connected in parallel.
The dcr of the series inductors is about 2 ohms.

Why don't you tell us about the Q/impedance optimizing
network Patrick? You know, the one in the woofer
circuit that you OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue about
the purpose of the network. If you did you wouldn't
make statements like you did above.

I measured the plot of the impedance today.
What seems obvious to you might be seen as poor perception
on your part by the time I have finished demolishing your defensive
position
of AR9 speakers.


I am fully aware of the silly attempt by AR to equalize the Z as you
call it
by having 2,500 uF in series with 10mH as a network in shunt with
another 10mH as the first element from the amp.
Then there is a 470uF to ground, then about 3mH to the speaker.
The pair of 10mH are in fact each a pair of about 4mH stacked for
mutual coupling to give the 10mH value. Each 10mH has a dcr of 1.7 ohms.

So at 32Hz the 10mH + 2,500 uF become a series resonant circuit at 32
Hz, and tend to shunt the slightly
higher Z of the other 10mH at 32 Hz.
Above 32 Hz, the 2,500 uF becomes a low Z, and effectively
the LC circuit in front of the bass is 5mH and 470 uF, with a cut off Fo

at 104Hz.
The 3mH adds a bit of extra attenuaion, but very little since the 470 uF

does nearly all the attenuation since the speaker Z rises inductively.

The speakers as is measue a bass Z of 3 ohms at 120Hz.
Each driver measures 3 ohmsZ at 120Hz, on its own on the bench.
With a pair in the box, they are 1.5 ohms, and the DCR of the
coils are 0.85 ohms plus 1.0 ohms, so there is at least as much power
wasted in the
DCR of the inductors as being useful in the speakers.

The quality of the inductors is attrocious by my standards; they
are non audiophile, lowest common denominator grade, because their DCR
is far too high compared to the Z of the speaker.

The 2,500 uF plus 10mH does not do much and could be removed.

There are options to make the bass Xover simpler.

All the L and C could be retired, and replaced with
a single coil of about 5mH, but using 2mm+ dia wire to get the dcr 0.4
ohms.
There is no need for the 3 mH L.
But then you'd have a bass mid band Z = approx 2 ohms only,
and this is a horror story for many amps.

Rather than wire the bass in parallel, wire them in series.
The esxisting 4 x 5mH inductors can then be wire series and parallel
to make a 5mH L with dcr = 0.85 ohms.
Again the 3mH can be ommitted.

The use of the series connection and adjusted inductors
will deliver the same power to the drivers as in the existing set up,
since the DCR is that much lower than existing.

Thus the bass Z can be raised from the existing min of 3 ohms to about 7
ohms,
and the speaker at bass F will be more efficient since less amp current
is wasted
in heating crossover dcr.

The other 3 drivers all are more efficient than the bass anyway, so we
can afford
to place some series R in series with them even allowing for the
switched
series R in the existing set up.
The existing average Z right across the band is 4 ohms, with 3 dips in
total to 3 ohms.
when the attenuation switches are used to reduce driver levels, the
Z can be a maximum of more than twice the existing.
The variations of response with the added series R and the effect on the

Xover slopes and Xover poles isn't good, but whenever the simple use
of variable R is used in series with speakers for attenuation, there is
always a
detrimental effect. It would be vastly better to have an audio
transformer with taps from which to switch the levels of the mids and
treble,
but a decent pair of trannies isn't bugeted for in this project, so
at least i will engineer the speakers to have the best response with
none of the
series R present except that which may be needed to get the initial
balance of bass to the rest of the sound as good as possible.
Rarely does anyone ever want to boost mids or treble
beyond the flat response when indeed it really is flat to start with,
and mostly
ppl want to reduce mids and treble in rooms with all hard surfaces.
Such mid-treble reductions should in effect simply be a bass boost,
and ppl under 22 should be delighted by this factor, since no amount of
bass is enough for the under 22 age group.

The best speakers DO NOT have any eq included on them; the makers
attitude
is that YOU make do with the speaker as is, and either change the
tone/eq amp setting or buy a carpet and wall hangings.


I've seen crap before, and the closer I look at AR9,
the crapier they seem.

Then I'd say you're pretty stupid to spend the time and
money to work on them and get the foam redone. If they're
so lousy why don't you just toss them in the trash?

Because a customer wants me to re-engineer them
to closer to where they should have been when they left the factory 25
years ago.

All the drivers are connected in the same phase.

I plotted the the electrical signals at each driver to examine where the
actual
electrical crossover points are situated, and they appear to be
approximately
acceptable.
However no account must have ever been taken for what the acoustic
response
was for the lower mid, upper mid, and tweeter, since there is a huge
response null at
1 kHz, and huge broad peak centred at around 5 kHz, resulting in ****ful
sound.
I close miked each driver, and soon the reason became apparent for the
awful response I measured during several takes at 3 metres on axis and
with the speaker in 3 different positions.
The pink noise response at all positions was about the same, and not
acceptable.



Methinks thou dost protest too much...

No, just stating the facts about a poor speaker from 1980.

Others may be interested to constructively improve what they have.

Much is said about changing caps, and wire, but that always does almost
nothing to the large problems these old bangers have.

Only accurate measurements and changes in values to the Xovers will
address the response problems.


I am just about to reassemble and test them for
response and impedance.

Why don't you just look at the impedance and response
curves in the owners manual?

I never trust old speakers to be what a maker says they are.

I don't even trust any makers of new speakers until I have examined them
fully.

And when I hear claims about how bleedin marvellous any one piece of
audio
gear sounds, I only am convinced that one person thinks so, ie, the guy
making that claim.
I need to check it out myself.
Well, i did check out the AR9' today, and sorry, but they are not quite
so wonderful, and their sonic problems are mostly
in the upper mid and HF regions.

If a crossover component or a driver has a problem, ie, the Z value has
changed,
it may show up as a low Z along the band, which may be deadly to an amp,

or deadly for the ear, upseting imaging, making the sound "wrongly
voiced",
and in this case the AR are like a system with a graphic eq installed
but
with a couple of the slides turned right up, and couple turned right
down.

Good speakers with most sources and amps do not need tone control
or graphic eq built into them.
Where tone controls or equaliser are at the speaker or in the amp
system they usually fail dismally to correct the speaker problems.

If both speakers measure the same F response and same Z along the band,
then chances are all the Xover parts are functional as they were when
the speakers were made.

The best speakers are neutral voiced, ie, have a flat response.

Garth Brookes and Tom Waits could each sing 'Happy Birthday'
but at each note they sing, the harmonic blend will
vary somewhat enormously, and I let you decide who you prefer.
But I don't want a speaker which tries to add another layer of
harmonic favouritisms along the band, plus a pile
of resonant artifacts.

I might get them to sing better by tomorrow.

Patrick Turner.





Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

Patrick Turner wrote:

The worst case of crimping and plug ons I ever saw was in a Radford
solid state amp,
which repeatedly blew fuses at turn on plus blew devices until I
soldered up
all connections. Great british engineering needs to be soldered up.

Patrick Turner.



Radford HD250?, I rebuilt a pair from the local Radford dealer who sold
his shop in 1985 and had a pair kicking around for several years. These
were made in 1974 and died after 5 years or so. He used to give the new
techs a go at them and over the years several had had a bash and lifted
tracks off the PCB's and introduced new faults. The upshot of it all was
that most of the semi's were dead or noisy and replacing the brass
crimped connectors with new ones soldered on fixed the units and they
are still working now after four years (so far).

Power cables are crimped with pressures high enough to ensure the copper
cold flows and effectively becomes one with the lug terminal, I don't
think smaller crimped terminals reach the same crimp pressure to do
this.

Jim McShane wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote...

A BUNCH OF CRAP

You know what - screw you Turner... I gave you a
lot of useful information. I know those speakers
VERY well, and I thought I could help. I didn't
count on your massive overblown ego being
such a barrier.

Thankyou for whatever info you have tended to this discussion.
I need all the constructive help I can get to make the AR speakers sing.



I have all the original blueprints on them. I would
have been happy to share them with you, but you're
so f'ing smart you figure it out. BTW why do you
need a diagram if you are such a wizard ?

Phil A put me onto a site which had the original Xover schemo.
I was much obliged.

Then I have since worked out all the rest about these speakers
independantly, without help, and for the benefit of the world's
owners of these AR9 so that they may share what i have found.
I ain't done yet, and a couple of scans of the Z as found and response
will be made.
I don't give a **** if what i find is different to the original data or
blue prints.
People would want to know what i find now, and maybe compare
wth what was done 25 years ago.
I am being transparently constructive in my criticism, and i respect
now sacred cows.

I'd burn them before I'd let you see them. I'm sorry
I gave you the link to the AR site.

BTW, my AR-9s crimp connectors work fine after
25 years.

I found a couple of loose nut&bolt connectors, and at least
3 connectors to speakers were loose, and likely to further suffer from
the the inevitable
metal fatigue which makes push on speaker connectors loosen.

With loose ones you can either solder them up well,
or remove them and tighten them with a squeeze with pliers,
then force them back onto the spade, maybe they last tight another
25 years. Maybe they break loose in 5 years.

But soldering them is by far the best.

When they brought in solid state amps, the engineers breathed a sigh of
relief
because the whole circuit could be soldered up, no more plug and socket
joints.
But almost straightaway ppl started trying to cheapen construction costs
with
plug and socket joins, and it it wasn't until the age of the PC that
they began to get "temporary" joins to be reliable, since by then
only gold plated parts with carefully worked out amounts of
spring pressure on contacts were able to be reliable enough for computer
use.

I will always solder, and never use crimps or slide on plugs for
speakers.

It is best practice.

Phil Allison is right about you. You're just an obnoxious
blowhard.

I'm fully aware I get right up some folks, and i really couldn't give a
damn.
One of us is upset, and it ain't me.

Patrick Turner.





Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

Mark Harriss wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

The worst case of crimping and plug ons I ever saw was in a Radford
solid state amp,
which repeatedly blew fuses at turn on plus blew devices until I
soldered up
all connections. Great british engineering needs to be soldered up.

Patrick Turner.

Radford HD250?, I rebuilt a pair from the local Radford dealer who sold
his shop in 1985 and had a pair kicking around for several years. These
were made in 1974 and died after 5 years or so. He used to give the new
techs a go at them and over the years several had had a bash and lifted
tracks off the PCB's and introduced new faults. The upshot of it all was
that most of the semi's were dead or noisy and replacing the brass
crimped connectors with new ones soldered on fixed the units and they
are still working now after four years (so far).

Power cables are crimped with pressures high enough to ensure the copper
cold flows and effectively becomes one with the lug terminal, I don't
think smaller crimped terminals reach the same crimp pressure to do
this.

I can't recall the model number of the Radford I repaired, but the guy
hasn't been back
for at least 5 years.

My Thorens TT had crimp wired lugs to the arm/head shell join and cart.
I removed the arm join entirely, and soldered the lugs,
and got rid of 5 joins per wire, or 20 in total, and I got
more music, less noise, and no more radio in the background.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:

I can't recall the model number of the Radford I repaired, but the guy
hasn't been back
for at least 5 years.

My Thorens TT had crimp wired lugs to the arm/head shell join and cart.
I removed the arm join entirely, and soldered the lugs,
and got rid of 5 joins per wire, or 20 in total, and I got
more music, less noise, and no more radio in the background.

Patrick Turner.


Mine was their 50W stereo class, I even have the sales pamhlet with
it's ZERO percent distortion spec. I reckon you had some dissimilar
metal rectification problems with the radio reception.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson"


Suppose I could expect, posting at that time, to be
jumped on by the
antipodeans.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.


"Phil Allison"

Crimped high current vehicle wiring is more reliable
and has lower and
more stable resistance than solder. So I have read and
such is my
experience.


** Both claims are utterly false.

Not in my experience, nor in theory.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.


But we have different experiences and perhaps different
theories. You have
said nothing later to justify this example of your habit
of making
simplistic sweeping statements from a position of
limited understanding.


** **** off - you evil, mentally defective turd.



Crimped spade terminals are highly prone to suffering
poor contact and
failures over time. There are a serious of mechanisms
that contribute to
this - but anyone who sees and repairs lots of
equipment will attest to
the fact.

Fair enough, I bow to your greater experience of
repairing cheap consumer
appliances.


** I repair expensive pro-audio gear - you stinking
arsehole.


However, if you mean "faston" connectors then the main
problem is likely
to be with the sliding contact rather than the crimping.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.


Vibration is one consideration, as soldering creates a
stress
concentration where the solder ends, and the copper
work hardens and
eventually fractures.


** Same stress concentration where a wire end is
crimped into a spade
lug. The plastic covers that are usual for automotive
applications ( and
thereby provide a measure of strain relief) are almost
never used for
speakers and the like.

Something of a contradiction.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Of course all this can go badly wrong if the crimp is
not done properly,
or if poor materials (including out-of-spec wire) are
used. Crimping is
far more intolerant of botching than soldering.


** That, at least, is right.



Guitar amp folk probably have an opinion, coz crimped
joints seem common
there.


** Yep, and a very common cause of failures -
soldering the joints up
is the answer.

Again, your practical knowledge of cheap consumer
durables far outshines
mine.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Are you sure the crimp is at fault rather than the
contact?


** Try actually reading what I wrote - you vile,
mentally defective turd.



Soldering is not the only answer.


** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.



Why didn't AR solder them, I wonder?


** Quick assembly by non skilled labour = CHEAPER
!!

Not a safe assumption.



** **** off - you vile, mentally defective turd.






............ Phil

The full Moon is near so you had better start taking your
medication again "Toaster Boy"!

"Jim McShane" wrote

Why don't you tell us about the Q/impedance optimizing
network Patrick?...

Patrick hasn't got to Q yet.

cheers, Ian

Ian Iveson wrote:

"Jim McShane" wrote

Why don't you tell us about the Q/impedance optimizing
network Patrick?...

Patrick hasn't got to Q yet.

I did address the issue, and since there has been a deafening silence
following my reply to the above question I guess I must have
said all there could be said, and it may have been correct.

The AR9 are nearly compltely re-engineered.
They do sound a lot better, and have a more benign impedance curve.
The sound is still like a pile of cheap pine particle board
being agitated.

The boxes need far more internal bracing than they have and
they could benefi from having bevelled edges to the front baffle staring
about
1/2 way up to becoming a larger bevel at the top, so the top of the box
is 3 sided, about 150mm of the original, then returning back at 45d for
a
section of bevel at 45d.
After such drastic saw work, proper internal braces could be fitted.

But the owner may not want such work done.

And what expertise do you have with speakers?

Patrick Turner.



cheers, Ian

nice job pinhead,
by your description these AR-9's were not in good operating condition.
instead of finding and correcting the problem, you've taken it upon
yourself to "re-engineer" them. did you really use rubber surrounds
you dip****? i thought the owner requested they be restored to factory
condition? had you bothered to do just that, you would know what these
speakers are supposed to sound like. instead, you have taken a pair of
wonderful vintage speakers, in need of repair, and ruined them. after
your pompous assed hatched job, its no wonder they sound like ****.

dingus wrote:

nice job pinhead,
by your description these AR-9's were not in good operating condition.
instead of finding and correcting the problem, you've taken it upon
yourself to "re-engineer" them. did you really use rubber surrounds
you dip****? i thought the owner requested they be restored to factory
condition? had you bothered to do just that, you would know what these
speakers are supposed to sound like. instead, you have taken a pair of
wonderful vintage speakers, in need of repair, and ruined them. after
your pompous assed hatched job, its no wonder they sound like ****.

You must be refering to me since I am the only one here
who recently tackled trying to fix AR9.

The owner is utterly delighted by my efforts.

The response measured was far better than what it could have been
originally.

The rubber surrounds are better than foam types.
I know many ppl think foam surrounds are the best and I have regular
arguments
with the cowboys who run businesses only fixing speakers,
and who hate rubber surrounds but that must be because they
are more expensive to buy, and won't rot out so their son won't get a job
fixing speakers again in 10 years.

I regret that I couldn't get enough easy access to the internal part of the

boxes to place quite a few cross braces in since AR didn't think it
necessary to
build boxes that didn't resonate.

But used at sensible volumes, the AR9 as modded were quite nice.
There is however about 2dB difference in output of the HF tweeters, and the
owner
is considering fitting ribbon tweeters.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:

dingus wrote:


nice job pinhead,
by your description these AR-9's were not in good operating condition.
instead of finding and correcting the problem, you've taken it upon
yourself to "re-engineer" them. did you really use rubber surrounds
you dip****? i thought the owner requested they be restored to factory
condition? had you bothered to do just that, you would know what these
speakers are supposed to sound like. instead, you have taken a pair of
wonderful vintage speakers, in need of repair, and ruined them. after
your pompous assed hatched job, its no wonder they sound like ****.


You must be refering to me since I am the only one here
who recently tackled trying to fix AR9.

The owner is utterly delighted by my efforts.

The response measured was far better than what it could have been
originally.

The rubber surrounds are better than foam types.
I know many ppl think foam surrounds are the best and I have regular
arguments
with the cowboys who run businesses only fixing speakers,
and who hate rubber surrounds but that must be because they
are more expensive to buy, and won't rot out so their son won't get a job
fixing speakers again in 10 years.

I regret that I couldn't get enough easy access to the internal part of the

boxes to place quite a few cross braces in since AR didn't think it
necessary to
build boxes that didn't resonate.

But used at sensible volumes, the AR9 as modded were quite nice.
There is however about 2dB difference in output of the HF tweeters, and the
owner
is considering fitting ribbon tweeters.

Patrick Turner.




What kind of ribbons?, i'm interested in obtaining some.

But used at sensible volumes, the AR9 as modded were quite nice.
There is however about 2dB difference in output of the HF tweeters, and the
owner
is considering fitting ribbon tweeters.

Patrick Turner.




What kind of ribbons?, i'm interested in obtaining some.

Jaycar have scored a container full from a gone broke organ maker in the US.
$39.95, and good for 6kHz upwards.

WES also have a ribbon tweeter, but much more expensive.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:

What kind of ribbons?, i'm interested in obtaining some.


Jaycar have scored a container full from a gone broke organ maker in the US.
$39.95, and good for 6kHz upwards.

WES also have a ribbon tweeter, but much more expensive.

Patrick Turner.




Ahh I see, I have a detailed article on Stan Kelly's ribbon
horn tweeter, I thought some hard drive magnets might be
usable but I'm not sure of the pole arrangement, might have
to buy some dedicated supermagnets. At any rate it can go on
the backburner while I take care of the more pressing stuff.

Thanks
Mark

Mark Harriss wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

What kind of ribbons?, i'm interested in obtaining some.


Jaycar have scored a container full from a gone broke organ maker in the US.
$39.95, and good for 6kHz upwards.

WES also have a ribbon tweeter, but much more expensive.

Patrick Turner.



Ahh I see, I have a detailed article on Stan Kelly's ribbon
horn tweeter, I thought some hard drive magnets might be
usable but I'm not sure of the pole arrangement, might have
to buy some dedicated supermagnets. At any rate it can go on
the backburner while I take care of the more pressing stuff.

Building a ribbon tweeter isn't too hard if you have some reasonable tools.
But you do need the time.
Jaycar have some small super magnets though, and bending some mild steel
up and filing it to an accurate size shouldn't be too hard, but making two the
same
is a PITA.
Its far easier to buy one.

Kelly's ribbon was horn loaded, to raise efficiency, so making a horn
is another pita.
Then you have the step down tranny, a 3rd pita.

But people made all sorts of things before there was TV and the Internet.

Patrick Turner.



Thanks
Mark

dumbass,
its not a matter of foam -vs- rubber, it is what was intended by the
designers, in this case foam. the drivers are not going to behave as
intended, ie; they arent going to sound the way they are supposed to.
you did nothing to repair an obvious problem with at least 1 (possibly
2) tweeter(s). instead of restoring them to factory condition, you
have moved further away and no longer have AR-9's. ribbon tweeters?
why the hell not? how about some different mids and woofers? you are
a ****ing hack, you should not be allowed to touch any speaker ever
again.

dingus wrote:

dumbass,
its not a matter of foam -vs- rubber, it is what was intended by the
designers, in this case foam. the drivers are not going to behave as
intended, ie; they arent going to sound the way they are supposed to.

All the speakers I repair with rubber instead of foam sound better
than new. Foam surrounds were a nasty attempt by speaker makers to
reduce the costs of production, and foam did not
contribute any more hi-fi to the public.



you did nothing to repair an obvious problem with at least 1 (possibly
2) tweeter(s). instead of restoring them to factory condition, you
have moved further away and no longer have AR-9's.

Thank goodness the owner hasn't got genuine as new AR9.
There is nothing spectacularly wonderful about these speakers.
They are just another set of speakers, made rather larger than
most others, but using the same lowest common denominator
standards of construction.


ribbon tweeters?
why the hell not? how about some different mids and woofers? you are
a ****ing hack, you should not be allowed to touch any speaker ever
again.

Feel welcome to cling / promote your ideas about speakers.

I am sure the world will be mightily impressed by what you have to say.

Patrick Turner.