Acoustic Research AR-3A THE EQUIPMENT: AR-3A, a full-range speaker system in enclosure. Dimensions: 25 by 14 by 11% inches. Price: in wainut, oiled walnut, cherry, or oiled teak, $250; in mahogany or birch, $240; in unfinished pine, $225. Manufacturer: Acoustic Research, Inc., 24 Thorn- dike St., Cambridge, Mass. 02141. COMMENT: The second “A” in the nomenclature of this speaker system designates its first design change in over ten years, By way of background, the AR-3 (and before it, the AR-1) has been regarded as the granddaddy of acoustic- or airsuspension speaker systems, based on a woofer design that was intro duced back in 1954. Briefly, in. this type of system, the low-frequency driver is initially made to be floppy, with a loose suspension and very low resonance. Such a cone, if unaided, would provide scarcely any response, The aid is furnished by a compact, stuffed, sealed enclosure which—by virtue of the limited air trapped within it—stiffens the suspension and raises the cone resonance to the audible range. This tech: nique—quite novel in the mid-Fifties but by now used by many manufacturers—is credited with making for clean bass response inasmuch as air used as a cone- restoring force is more linear than mechanical sus: pensions. Its proponents always have emphasized that such a speaker sounds good not in spite of small size, but actually because of it—the limited size being a required condition for performance rather than a ‘compromise to save space. For simplification, the air-suspension technique can be considered an “in- finite baffle" in reverse: instead of loading a large cabinet to the rear of the speaker to permit the speak- er to respond down to its natural resonance, the air- suspension method loads a small cabinet to the rear of a specially designed woofer to permit it to ‘reach up” to some resonant frequency and continue re- sponding upward from there. The cabinet thus is very much a part of the behavior of the speaker itself, more integrally so perhaps than in any other type of reproducer design; its construction, thickness, tight: ness of seal, internal sound-absorbent stuffing all be: ‘come very critical and cannot be tampered with or modified by the user. Once the bass response had been taken care of, AR went after the midrange and highs, and produced its first full-range system, the AR-1, later superseded by the AR-3 which has been this firm's top-of-the-line model for over a decade and which still is made. In the AR-3, the woofer is crossed over to a 2-inch diameter hemispherical dome midrange cone at 1,000 Hz, and this driver is crossed over to a 13-inch dome tweeter at 7,500 Hz. In the AR-3A, the same woofer is used, but the midrange driver and tweeter are new designs, and the crossovers to each have been lowered in frequency. The midrange dome now is 14 inches in diameter; the tweeter's, 2% inch. Diaphragm materials have been changed, and the voice-coils now are copper instead of the former aluminum. Crossover frequencies are now 575 Hz to the midrange, and 5,000 Hz to the tweeter. The lowered crossovers give the woofer “less work” to do, confining it more to the deep bass and keeping it out of the midrange. (The lowering of the bass crossover is generally acknowleded to be a de- sirable design feature of any multiple-driver speaker system.) The changes in the other two drivers are credited with improving the dispersion characteristics and general smoothness of the system. Externally, the AR-3A resembles the AR-3: both systems use°the same size enclosure, the same binding post con- nections at the rear, two of which may be discon- nected so that the woofer only may be used (for special applications), and the same two controls for adjusting relative levels of the midrange and tweeter units. Input impedance is still 4 ohms and efficiency is low; an amplifier capable of supplying at least 25 watts (RMS) power per channel is recommended. Our tests of the AR-3A simply confirm the manu: facturer’s design aims and claims for this system. Our reaction on first hearing the AR-3A was a favor. able, even enthusiastic, one which has not diminished after weeks of listening. The system is a clean, trans- parent reproducer with a full and well-defined bottom, ‘a balanced and open midrange, and clear and ex: tended highs. The bass end is smooth and level down to about 40 Hz, from which frequency it rolls off ‘smoothly. Doubling can be induced in this region if the system is driven abnormally hard; in normal use, predominantly fundamental bass is evident to about 30 Hz. There is response below this frequency but it becomes increasingly dominated by harmonics. The mid-bass region is as clean and defined as you could want, with no trace of roughness or false emphasis, Upward along the range, response remains exemplary, with no apparent peaks, dips, or other audible “‘sur- prises.”” Directional effects are scarcely noticeable, even above 5,000 Hz. Response does narrow some- what, expectedly, but the fall-off away from speaker axis is very smooth and much less obvious than in many speaker systems. Tones in the 13 to 14 kHz re- gion can be heard clearly at least 60 degrees off axis; at 15 kHz the response is mostly on axis and continues to beyond audibility. White noise response is smoother than average and very well dispersed. ‘Advancing the rear level controls brings it up—but again, the “brightening” remains very smooth and exhibits virtually no harshness. You have to drive the AR-3A with somewhat more amplifier power than most speakers take to get it to put out the “big sound,” especially in a large or acoustically damped room. We auditioned a pair, using a few different amplifiers, and found ourselves run. ning our amplifiers with the volume controls rarely below 12 o'clock position. Actually, this was as much a tribute to the clean output of these speakers at loud levels as it was an indication of their need for, and ability to handle, high amplifier power. For at such levels, the speakers sounded magnificent, fill ing the place with a lot of clean, musical sound and an excellent stereo image. At lower levels, the sound seemed to recede as if you'd taken a seat further back in the hall. On any material we fed to them, our pair of AR-3As responded accurately and neutrally, ending no coloration of their own to the sound. How does an AR-3A compare to an AR-3? The diference may vary from fairly apparent to quite subtle, depending on the program material. Music which is rich in predominantly upper midrange tones and fairly, ‘open in texture probably would demonstrate the dif ference best. The new speaker seems to be free of a certain kind of ‘calling attention to itself” in this, region that the AR-3, by direct comparison, occasion: ally exhibits, Specifically, the AR-3 has been criticized for emphasizing the lower midrange while, by compari- ‘son, depressing the upper midrange. In the AR-3A, we can detect no aural grounds for such criticism. The entire treble range seems to us better balanced and more “definite,” more a part of everything else. AS for the mid-bass in the new version, perhaps there's, ow a touch of more rosin on the lower strings, and 2 slightly improved aural focus on the timpani. Ove! all, the AR-3A sounds less “dry” than the AR-3. The system, in short, has been improved. What was very good to begin with has been made better. CIRCLE 79 ON READER-SERVICE CARD