AR9 design debate

*** this ongoing discussion had taken another thread too far off topic so i started this thread so it can carry on without further derailing the other thread ***

the pair you heard were not fully operational, nor were they setup properly in the room so passing judgment on AR9's based on your experience would be a mistake (i'll add that the amplification was not adequate to fully appreciate them had they been in good working order).

the contention that the driver array of the AR9 is ill-conceived or problematic towards delivering good sound is not well founded. you may not like their sound, which is not being questioned, but the science behind their design is well proven, time-tested and has been successfully implemented by many highly regarded speakers using similar arrays.

the pair you heard were not fully operational, nor were they setup properly in the room so passing judgment on AR9's based on your experience would be a mistake (i'll add that the amplification was not adequate to fully appreciate them had they been in good working order).

the contention that the driver array of the AR9 is ill-conceived or problematic towards delivering good sound is not well founded. you may not like their sound, which is not being questioned, but the science behind their design is well proven, time-tested and has been successfully implemented by many highly regarded speakers using similar arrays.

The pair I heard were completely operational. Keeping mulitple drivers in phase is always going to be a problem. The other gimmicky design is the inward firing woofers and opposing radiator which creates sound waves that must turn 90 degrees before reaching your ears. This setup will NEVER be as accurate at forward firing drivers.

from the thread concerning the pair of AR9's in question http://www.sound-thinking.org/index.php?showtopic=4557 ...

obviously this pair of AR9's was not fully operational. that they were "restored" opens up the possibility that some of the drivers might not even be the correct models. this was the case for my mid-bass drivers and the change in character of the sound was stunning when i replaced them with original drivers.

again, this is a red flag for bad caps or driver problems.

lack of accuracy, fatiguing, ill-defined bass, lack of punch are not characteristic of the AR9 when it is fully functional, properly setup in the room and adequately driven. as for the gimicky design i'll refer you to The Classic Speaker Pages at http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/ where the technical aspects can be explained by experts who will do so much better than i can.

Another great post. You guys are very inspired today.

from the thread concerning the pair of AR9's in question http://www.sound-thinking.org/index.php?showtopic=4557 ...

obviously this pair of AR9's was not fully operational. that they were "restored" opens up the possibility that some of the drivers might not even be the correct models. this was the case for my mid-bass drivers and the change in character of the sound was stunning when i replaced them with original drivers.

again, this is a red flag for bad caps or driver problems.

lack of accuracy, fatiguing, ill-defined bass, lack of punch are not characteristic of the AR9 when it is fully functional, properly setup in the room and adequately driven. as for the gimicky design i'll refer you to The Classic Speaker Pages at http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/ where the technical aspects can be explained by experts who will do so much better than i can.

Opinion has not changed. These speakers are flawed and a waste of money.

I am not the only one to think so...

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=220891

my point is that basing your opinion on what you heard from a pair in sub par condition is a mistake. i have no doubt that if you heard a pair of AR9's in good working order that you would still not prefer their sound, but i also believe that the experience would change your opinion of their quality. as for the opinions expressed in the thread you pointed to, only one other person besides yourself had a negative opinion of the speaker.

If you read the post, there was a lot of opinions favoring the ar9's also. opinions opinions, gotta love em.

elroy

my point is that basing your opinion on what you heard from a pair in sub par condition is a mistake. i have no doubt that if you heard a pair of AR9's in good working order that you would still not prefer their sound, but i also believe that the experience would change your opinion of their quality. as for the opinions expressed in the thread you pointed to, only one other person besides yourself had a negative opinion of the speaker.

I heard them after the driver was replaced and with a variety of amps including Nikko 450, Nak PA-7, and Yamaha PC2002M. At first, I thought it was the amp and to some degree, the PA-7 and Nikko couldn't deliver the goods. However, the PC2002M is known for accuracy and speed as well as ability to drive difficult loads. Sorry folks, IMO the AR9 is flawed and has more than a whiff of Bose with the odd driver placement and redundant woofers. The bass dead spot in front of the speakers should tell you the bass must reflect before getting to your ears. IMO, that is a compromise to sound quality.

This post has been edited by socal sam on April 03, 2009 08:43 pm

you could have saved a lot of argument had you provided this information earlier.

every speaker ever made represents a compromise to one degree or another, but from personal experience i can tell you that the AR9 does not suffer from bass dead spots at any point in the room. again i'll refer you to those with the technical expertise at the CSP who can better explain the science behind the design.

The AR does suffer from a dead spot. Park yourself 5 feet in front one of them. This is a problem that no forward firing woofer suffers. My preference is always for non-reflected sound which only forward firing drivers can deliver.

Saying that "every speaker ever made represents a compromise to one degree or another" is true because cone excursion by itself will cause distortion. In fact, there is no such thing as a distortion free speaker. Given that, the goal is to minimize compromises. Opposing woofers are a compromise because the cones affect each other. I can't remember if they work in phase or opposite phase but whichever, damping the secondary vibration is not possible with this design. The result is wooly and unnaturally augmented bass. Another undesirable result is a voracious appetite for power, which IMO is also a design flaw considering the efficiency rating is around 90 db/M.

The AR does suffer from a dead spot. Park yourself 5 feet in front one of them. This is a problem that no forward firing woofer suffers. My preference is always for non-reflected sound which only forward firing drivers can deliver.

Saying that "every speaker ever made represents a compromise to one degree or another" is true because cone excursion by itself will cause distortion. In fact, there is no such thing as a distortion free speaker. Given that, the goal is to minimize compromises. Opposing woofers are a compromise because the cones affect each other. I can't remember if they work in phase or opposite phase but whichever, damping the secondary vibration is not possible with this design. The result is wooly and unnaturally augmented bass. Another undesirable result is a voracious appetite for power, which IMO is also a design flaw considering the efficiency rating is around 90 db/M.

I am glad you had a chance to listen to a set or ar9's that was repaired and operational. And to try to change your opinion, I think not, you heard what you heard.
You like the sound you like.

I really like the sound that they put out. I have heard the 9's sound like crap at dingus's house about 3 years ago, and my vandersteens blew them away with a little 40watt sansui tube amp. but since then, there has been a huge quality power increase, and quality component change out that, changed the sound dramatically for the good, His 9's are the best all around speakers I have heard, now I havent heard a bunch of great speakers, but I would put them a small notch above my beloved vandy's.

thats the beauty of this sport, trying to win at all costs. haha,

elroy

i've owned these speakers for about 4 years now and i have listened to them from every conceivable position; there is no dead spot from 5 feet or from anywhere else in the room. if you experienced this phenomenon then something is amiss with the configuration you heard.

granted but that doesnt mean that any speaker using non-forward firing drivers is operating under a flawed design.

this is why i keep referring you to the CSP for clarification on this design because i can assure you that the bass from the AR9 is not woolly, and it is natural as well as being taut, articulate and very well defined. other renowned strengths are its imaging ability and, the other characteristic you say it lacks, accuracy. the AR9 is a demanding speaker and can be finicky with placement, but i dont see how these characteristics can be considered design flaws as opposed to differences in design philosophy and approach. would you say that any speaker with a rated efficiency of 87db is flawed, or just the AR9? they sounded very good driven alone with a Yamaha CR-2020 @ 105wpc, but they sound downright amazing bi-amped with a combined 400wpc. i have lived with these speakers for a number of years and i am intimately familiar with their sonic characteristics and ability. you have heard them a couple of times, the first instance with a less than fully functional pair in poor condition. i have to believe that what you heard is a far cry from what i hear with the speaker.

Sorry guys but when we try to compare the same speakers we must have the same sound source the same preamp/amp at the same level and the the same acoustic room treatment and room dimensions, etc....what elroy says is very true. Amplifiers differ significantly in their ability to source current and therefore drive low-impedance loads. Their frequency responces can change at differing power levels , and in different ways. Their output impedances differ, producing differing responces and modifying interatctions with the speakers to which they are hooked up, sometimes dramatically.
Just a thought...

i've owned these speakers for about 4 years now and i have listened to them from every conceivable position; there is no dead spot from 5 feet or from anywhere else in the room. if you experienced this phenomenon then something is amiss with the configuration you heard.

granted but that doesnt mean that any speaker using non-forward firing drivers is operating under a flawed design.

this is why i keep referring you to the CSP for clarification on this design because i can assure you that the bass from the AR9 is not woolly, and it is natural as well as being taut, articulate and very well defined. other renowned strengths are its imaging ability and, the other characteristic you say it lacks, accuracy. the AR9 is a demanding speaker and can be finicky with placement, but i dont see how these characteristics can be considered design flaws as opposed to differences in design philosophy and approach. would you say that any speaker with a rated efficiency of 87db is flawed, or just the AR9? they sounded very good driven alone with a Yamaha CR-2020 @ 105wpc, but they sound downright amazing bi-amped with a combined 400wpc. i have lived with these speakers for a number of years and i am intimately familiar with their sonic characteristics and ability. you have heard them a couple of times, the first instance with a less than fully functional pair in poor condition. i have to believe that what you heard is a far cry from what i hear with the speaker.

I've seen the CR-2020 amp section on the scope during a square wave reproduction test and it is a poor performer. The 20 Hz trace shows severe tilting which means it cannot hold a low tone. The mid range was OK but the attack and decay were sloped indicating only fair accuracy. The highs wlooked like sine waves. If you think this amp sounds good, I have to question your perception of accuracy.

i have asked you repeatedly to investigate the design and science behind the AR9. you continually deny the speaker is capable of delivering quality sound without providing any evidence to support your claims. it is apparent to me that you have a bias against the speaker and are not willing to accept its ability, quality and place in history as a revolutionary speaker which utilized cutting edge technology, regardless of the facts which are available to you. now you are questioning my ability to discern good and bad sound based on the spec of a receiver. have you talked your way so far into a hole that you have to resort to an ad hominem attack? why dont you investigate the factual evidence of the AR9 design and then respond?