AR 2Ax

[PhilMays]

Anyone know anything about these? I have read very little on these tonight.

Just got back from Florida where we took the kids and the family joined us on a cruise. The day we were leaving I noticed in my brother-in-laws suv a pair of speakers. They we the above mentioned. Bottom line is my new wifes grandfather (102 years young) was quite the audio person and had bought these in Brooklyn years ago (1960's ?) and drove them with a heath kit that he built. He was a successful lawyer but had the bug himself...preaching to the choir.

Anyway, they were getting ready to throw these speakers away. Of course I offered to pay for them yadda yadda but they were given to me anyway.

These will need to be reconed for sure as they were stored poorly over the years with some substantial damage to one cabinet. Anyway, what can you guys tell me about these?

[leok]

Acoustic suspension (one of the first or maybe the first): not efficient. They sounded unusually good at the time. I have begun to suspect that the inefficient acoustic suspension speakers that took over in the 60s did so because the new, more powerful transistor and global feedback tube amps sounded so harsh at low power. The inefficient speakers made the amps put out more power where they sounded better.

Leo

[LarryC]

Those are really ancient, and I don't know if you could find anyone to recone them. They were all very sealed up in those little cabinets and probably can't be taken apart in any case. I dimly recall an AR-1W, which was only a low-frequency speaker, and in fact I think their first product was a bass speaker only . The best known was the AR-2aX (perhaps Consumer Reports made it a favorite for a while) -- the"2" meant it was a follow-on in a smaller box. Either the "a" or the "X" meant it was a 2-way for an extended range. I suppose the same is true of the 1aX, though I don't recall ever hearing of it.

The AR series and the KLH-6 (another CU favorite) became famous and highly-rated by CU because they were SMALL, a big advantage as stereo was just coming out.

The ARs had a very pure but very withdrawn sound as I recall. I think their distortion measurements were extremely low. They were closer to how violins sounded than most, especially (sorry!) horn speakers, but the trouble was everything including brass and woodwinds sounded soft like violins. I doubt those are worth much even as relics -- they're so historical I couldn't even Google up the 2aX let alone a 1aX.

Larry

EDIT: See http://stereophile.com/interviews/105villchur/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Research

[jon_010101]

AR1 speakers (not sure about the 1Ax) are generally just a big woofer and large midrange driver -- but that midrange is sometimes an Altec 755, which is quite desirable (and valuable). You might want to do some research on them. It should be either possible to restore them, to "borrow" the 755s (if present) for use with some tube amps, or to pass them on to an AR collector. I'd bet that the woofer has a cloth surround, so it may still be in usable condition.

Perhaps take a look at http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/ for info (they do have an AR forum, too). These are rare speakers, and are rather highly prized, although perhaps more for their historical significance than their sound. G'luck!

[PhilMays]

Thanks fopr the reply's. I couldn't find anything on the !ax either. Perhaps I was wrong and they are the 2ax. They need reconing as in one speaker the remnants were everwhere.

They did not look like you could get into them either. I have since read that was done on purpose. I guess these will be "fun" to play with. I think I'll simply fix them up to hear them.

Last night my wife asked me why would I not sell them if they had value and why would I put any money into them if not. My only comment to her was Abe would be very proud that someone gave his "babies" some attention, especially in the family.

I'll get them in two weeks when my mother in-law drives up form Ft Laurderdale. I guess this is one time her fear of flying will pay off!

[oldbuckster]

They date back to the pre-speakers wars of the early 70's..........all the different brands popping up, spin offs from bigger companies, but Acoustic Research held their own........they might be worth your effort Phil.......should be able to recone those speakers........Must be someone or someplace to get the surrounds.............You'll figure it out..........So many changes in HI-FI back then, stereo rearing it's ugly head...Great Times......Sorta'....

[greg928gts]

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcboard.php

[PhilMays]

Thanks Greg! Excellent link! I think I'll get all the info I will need there.

As I look at pictures I believe these to be AR 2ax

[pmsummer]

I have a pair of early AR-2ax speakers (cloth surrounds). I really like them.

Carl's
Custom Loudspeakers can re-cone them. They'll need new caps, and the
potentiometers for the tweets and mids cleaned or replaced.



Classic Speaker Pages is the place to go for info, although there's
been lots of talk over onthe AudioKarma site as well.

Congratulations. BTW: They love tubes (big surprise).

[PhilMays]

Thanks PM, just added Carls site to my favorites. I may just ship him the speakers and let him have at it.

[pmsummer]

Thanks PM, just added Carls site to my
favorites. I may just ship him the speakers and let him
have at it.

Phil,

Carl's a good guy. Those are worth saving... especially with family history involved.

PM

[CaptnBob]

The AR 2Ax was widely considered the best value of the AR line in the late sixties and early seventies. Its 10 inch woofer was less "thuddy" sounding than the 12" in the AR-3 and 3a. AR 2Axs with serial numbers above 125,000 supposedly have the same woofers and tweeters used in the AR 5, and are said to be a noticeable improvement. (If you're wondering, the 5 had the same midrange and tweeter as the 3a, and may have been the best sounding speaker AR made during that period.)

The level controls almost always need cleaning or replacement. The drivers are sealed in place with a clay-like material which you may need to replace by now, and the cabinets are filled with the nastiest, most pervasive fiberglass known to man. Gloves are a must when you get into these.

[PhilMays]

Thanks for the info captnbob. I'll have to get these in my hands in the next few weeks to see what I really have in the serial # pecking order. I hate calling my brother in-law and keep asking him "can you now read on the back....."

[ZAKO]

AR 2X 1 percent efficient....Klipshorn 50 percent efficient. AR 100 watt to power ...Khorn 3 watt

[CaptnBob]

AR 2Ax - fit on bookshelf.

Klipschorn - fit on floor in corner.

AR 2Ax - $

Klipschorn - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[pmsummer]

AR 2X 1 percent efficient....Klipshorn 50 percent efficient. AR 100 watt to power ...Khorn 3 watt

Slight exaggeration. My 20+/- wpc H/K 330 does a very nice job of driving my AR-2ax's. The 2ax (8 Ohm) is comparable to the KLH 6 and 17 in terms of power requirements.

The AR-3a (4 Ohm) does need 50 - 60 Watts, minimum.

[BigBloato]

Yes, maybe I can help you! The AR 2-ax was a further developement off the AR 2a. The difference was a slightly improved treble speaker/crossover. I owned a pair puchased new in 1966. If my memory is correct they have a 10" woofer and a crossover adjustment located on the back panel. The user could adjust the speaker for the room by use of the rotary control on the back. The cabinets were hermetically sealed and as such they were very inefficent, which does not neccesarily make them bad speakers. The bass was not boomy at all. It was a solid thud. The only problem in those days was to power them with a relatively strong amplifier. I had a HK receiver, in fact it was the first transistorised HK receiver. I don't recall the power rating anymore but the HK was working real hard at anything more than a loud sound level. During my time of owning these I had to get into the back inside and pull the rotary controls out and clean them because they became corroded and the higher frequency sounds all but disappeared.(sp). It was a job I only wanted to do once, but it was do-able. With your situation you probably can just open it up on the backed side and get to the controls that way. You will find that the cabinet is stuffed with dampening material much like house insulation. It should be ok.

There should be small brass emblems on the front grill work which have a large 2 and a smaller ax. The grill cloth was a very light tan/gray color.

Hope this helps

Big Bloato

[greg928gts]

The rotary controls are best cleaned by taking them out of the cabinets and disassembling them. Not very often you find controls that can be disassembled and reassembled.

Or you can just buy new ones from VintageAR.

I recently sold a pair of 2ax's and apair of 3a's. I liked the sound of the 2ax's better.

I'll be selling a pair of AR5's this winter. I think they sound better than the 2ax's did. I've had a lot of these old AR speakers and I really like them. They've got a nice sound. From a Klipsch purists point of view, that's exactly the point, "they've got a sound".

Greg

[Erik Mandaville]

If you're interested, I have a two-part article from Speaker Builder magazine (1997) that covers a *very* comprehensive and in-depth rebuilding of an old, rotted-surround pair of AR-3As. This gentleman went to great lengths in this project, from altering certain aspects of driver parameter (see also: Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, V. Dickason), to rewinding motor coils by hand. It's interesting reading, and though not directly related to the 2Ax, might have some useful information for you.

If you're interested, I can send you the article. I found Part I, and the second should be around here somewhere....

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"Acoustic suspension (one of the first or maybe the first): not efficient. They sounded unusually good at the time. I have begun to suspect that the inefficient acoustic suspension speakers that took over in the 60s did so because the new, more powerful transistor and global feedback tube amps sounded so harsh at low power. The inefficient speakers made the amps put out more power where they sounded better."

It seems to be one of those two-sided, two-way-street things. I've had (audio) conversations with people who chuckled when I told them I preferred the sound of lower-powered tube amps and extreme efficiency horns. Some of them responded with anecdotes about the time when 'they' thought and perceived the same thing as I, only to have that preference abuptly changed after listening to well-designed speakers (acoustic suspension, in particular) of much lower efficiency with far more powerful transistor amplifiers. Horns were colored and tube amps euphonic, some thought, compared to good dynamic drivers driven by clean and powerful solid state amps.

Erik