Great video. I prefer the sound of the 3's although the 3a's sound nice. The seems to be a more general natural sound coming from the 3's. I own a pair of 2a's that I got from my dad who bought them new. I had them upgraded to the 2ax using the kit that AR offered. They sound fantastic, but I am dying to compare the to the 3's.
I just got one AR3 your speakers sound comparison is a help. I have to clean the rheostats on mind to get it up and running and will have to wait for another to show up. I have other AR's to listen to until it shows up. thanks for making the video.
Sure! It's a crappy low tech video, but it gives some idea between the two. The AR3's are my favorite speakers. Just amazing sound from these. I just finished a pair of AR-2A's which are very nice as well, but the 3's are another level. Hope you find another soon. Cheers!
I agree. I don't have the 3A's now. I was refurbishing the cabs for a friend and did the video before he picked them up. Even if the positions were reversed, the sonic differences were quite noticeable.
Room placement and position can dramatically affect a speakers spectral balance, especially it's height from the floor. If I'm not mistaken the 3As are the ones up front and the 3s are further back towards the room corners? If so the differences are about what I'd expect from their relative positions in the room. The AR3As sound more up front, a bit brighter with a leaner bass. Try exchanging their positions... place the 3s in front and move the 3As to where the 3s were and see what the results yield. Regardless the outcome both are classic and desirable speakers.
You are absolutely correct. People sometimes have no idea how different positions can totally alter a speaker's sound balance, especially in the vertical plane.
I refurbished the cabs of the 3a's and when the owner picked them up, we A/B'd the 3's and 3a's. He too, preferred the 3's. These are early 3's with the big oil can caps. In person, they sound suburb. This video was a basic, crude comparison shot with s Cannon point & shoot camera. It was to try to do a very basic comparison. Thanks for your comments.
I was wondering, how about the pots? The AR 3 and AR 3a both have mid and high pots. Are they both turned in? Or out? Or are they bypassed? If not, there's a big difference between the mids of the AR 3 and AR 3a
Robbie Brouwer The pots in the 3's were replaced with originals in good condition. The 3a's were replaced with Ohmites. Both tweeter and mids were set to max output to make the comparison as close as possible. Yes, there's a big difference.
+70GD i know how good AR speakers sound mate n no one can possibly realize how good they are listening to them on a pair of computer speakers from u tube, my AR9s LS have an 8 inch lower mid range 200 to 1100 HZ n computer speakers have little mickey mouse "bass" speakers? also most music on u tube i compressed it a different world listening to the real thing live
I must say the AR3 has a more natural sound than the 3a. They are quite different overall. The mids on the 3a's seem over-inflated. I own the 3a's. Anybody interested in a very clean original pair?
no question about it the 3As have a more open sound that i didn't think i could hear the difference on computer speakers but i can even of course on the PC speakers they both sound heavy n uncomfortable cause its just not possible for little PC speakers to reproduce anything anywhere near AR standards of sound
Thanks for taking a look at the video! PC speakers will never sound good with You Tube videos. The best way to hear the difference is to listen with headphones. Again, the sound will never sound as good as the actual listening space, but you can get the idea of the difference in sound between the two.
It was a pleasure mate and a happy new year to you, when i started with Hi Fi i was very disappointed at first with the sound of my first sound system the speakers i could barely effort Celestion 15s Goodman mezo where very sharp on the treble n bass Non existent the Warfdales n Leak sounded very sort of flat n lifeless, it was only after am American guy in charge of CBS Europe at Theobald road in the city near (Holborn) said to me am selling my speakers as am getting a new pair from the states when i first saw them with white grills n pine cabinets (AR4s) i thought i just have to find a good way to say no, that was till he put on SANTANA i knew then i be buying them the sound was something i never heard B4 after that it was ARs for me n Shure cartridges for me except once with a pair of KEFs concertos after i blown the woofers on my AR 5s using the amp flat ous as all amps go into clipping LOL as i really needed a more powerful amp now i only got 2 pairs my AR5s cause they are the only brand new pair i bought n for me the best speakers money can buy theAR9s LS i was very lucky to find about 8 -10 years ago in Exeter they are just perfect for me happy listening mate
I had many vintage Ar sprakers "The older the smoother" The old cheaper & even smaller models that in some cases had 6 to 8 inch woofer & a 2 way models more "Darker" and smooder models. The woofer was projecting most of the sound . The AR-3 & Ar3a came with 3 way cross& with that large Dome mid driver . Thats actually the first time Ar turn to be more open sounding "all arround sound" so Ar-3 was good but ccross let the woofer do lot of the work then ar-3a came with diferent cross that shfted alot of the effort to the midrange unit. Makes the ar3a more open & crispy sound and little harash for some type of music that needed darker 2 way speaker to filter lots of that harash bad mix noisees etc . So in my overall opinion If you like old music jazz soul r&b look for vintage 2 way Ar ... If you more into.more electro like in this clip.go get vintage JBL L100
Great choice of Amp, the AX-9 was one of the best kept secrets in the history of HiFi, just how good it was, it could challenge the top dollar heavyweights
Try comparing them with the AR10 pi or AR11 which came out in 1974. These speakers were the ultimate evolution of AR's original 3 way design. They sound superior to the 3 or the 3a.
+John McLaughlin Thanks for checking out the video. The AR3's are sweet, as is the A-X9. I just bought a 2nd JVC M-7050 power amp, and it is unbelieveable, more of everything the A-X9 has. I'll do a (crappy LOL) video soon.
Thanks for checking out the video! I’ve done a couple more comparing the 3 vs. 3a, and several with the LST-2s. If you search through my videos you’ll find them. Cheers!
i once had marantz champagne gold ecoteck sm or sc 7,and matching pre amp sc or sm 9..extremely rare bought for 100,sold for 900 allmost immediately..and one channell blown.i love the older stuff,its just purer,but you gotta spend the bucks on it...........
I personally prefer the 3 over the 3a. It's overall smother sounding. The 3a is an excellent speaker though, and you can't go wrong with either, but keep in mind, if not properly restored, they won't sound good. The 3's mids will need rebuilding, the 3a's tweeters will most likely need rebuilding, new caps installed, and foam surrounds on the 3a woofers unless they are early models with the cloth surround Alnico magnet woofers.
The 3a's have a crisper sound than the rather muddy sound of the 3's, although I can't really judge which sounds more natural without hearing the live version of the music. A well recorded orchestral piece might allow a better judgement of which speaker is more natural sounding. I would guess that AR felt that they had made an improvement in the naturalness by introducing the 3a's. At risk of some downward thumbs, I have always considered the 3's and 3a's to be a bit muddy sounding, but the 3a's are an obvious improvement!!! I would definitely like to own a pair of 3a's!!!
I agree, though in person, the 3s are overall a smoother more balanced speaker in my opinion. Also, at the time I made this video, the 3s were untouched, and the mids output diminished. A couple months ago, I sent the mids and tweeters to Roy C. one of the authors of the AR3a restoration guide on theclassicspeakerpages site. They now sound as new, according to Roy. Quite a difference from when I shot this. They are far from muddy sounding, very natural and detailed. Thanks and appreciate you checking out the video and your thoughts!
OK!!! If you do a video comparison again, I would love to re-listen to the differences between these two classic pairs. The first time I ever saw and heard the 3a's was in NYC Grand Central Station in an AR sound booth, that was set up to promote AR products. I was in my early teens (~1967) and even at that time, an audio addict!
Hello dear 70GD. I really need Your advice, on choosing speakers Acoustic research AR-3 or AR-3A . From Your video sametine that they sound different, but to define exactly, watching video from the Internet difficult. Please tell me which of these models of acoustics, that sounds more touching, poignant, plaintive, that would be to just cry and gave me goose bumps. Of these criteria - which is better in Your opinion Thanks:-) PS and just Describe how You hear the difference between these two models.
Hi Met, I prefer the 3's over the 3a's. The bass is smoother with the alnico magnet, and the mids seem fuller. Highs may go to the 3a's, but so many variables regarding driver condition of both models due to age can make either model sound better than the other. Keep in mind, both are 40 plus years old, and will need work unless previously restored. Good luck in your search. -70GD
Great, thanks for the answer. And is not the magnet in the 3A model Alnico? Just 3a entered the book of records :-) And you do not remember how much they cost AR-3 when made out in the 60s. AR-3A about 160,000 yen, I do not know how much it is in dollars at that time, but I think it's It was very expensive :-))) And do you think there is no electrolytes in the crossover? I think it's bad for the sound :-) And tell me, maybe you heard the younger models AR-2AX and AR-5. Are they much worse by sound? Thank you.
Sorry for the long delay answering the magnet question. This set of 3as have the ceramic magnet woofers. Only the very early 3as had the Alnico magnet, cloth surround woofers, which are more desirable. To my ears they go a little bit deeper and sound smoother.
i like the extra treble of the 3,a,s better,but turn a few knobs an can make them sound identical maybe..the 3 a,s need a little more bass,and allmost too much treble,i love bass an treble,am a leadguitarist all around atlanta and hear the best very loud systems,im 60,but would prefer the 3 a,s myself,as most of the planet does..
the 3,s sound a little muffly,compared to the 3,a,s..i have model 33 rare klh,s..and are way nice likee both of these,runnin with at 10 cerwin vegas,also nice,for theatre with my onkyo 606 ,never a need for a subwoofer,no way.........i want some 3,a,s or maybe 4 x etc...
Yes, a different sound, especially in the mids and highs. Looking at the video again, I should have moved the JVC's out of the way, I'm sure they were blocking some of the sound being in front of the 3's.
The term "Bookshelf" was used broadly and loosely as a category during the time period. These could be placed on a book case, though pretty heavy at 47lbs each, and were pretty heavy for bookshelves unless it was a book case. AR sold optional floor stands, and many simply placed them on the floor. One reason you see so many cabinets with badly scratched up bottoms. Since I made this video many years ago, I have my two sets of 3s on stand, about 5-6 inches raised, slightly tilted so the mids and tweeters aim at my ears when seated. Cheers!
@@70GD Thanks for sharing your user experience. Reason for my asking is that I bought back in early 80s a pair of 3a Improved from a HiFi showroom where they hanged against a wall serving as demo models. The store sales consultant said being bookself speakers they were accoustically tuned to sound best when the woofer was at least 3 feet above the ground and away from side walls. Thus in the years they were in use I always tried to place them high. I initially paired them with a Yamaha A1000 integrated amp, with 120 wpc into 8 ohms and presumably more into 3a's 4 ohms. The playback quality was good but not spectacular. Not until I upgraded to a Denon setup of DAP5500 pre-Amp + POA6600 x 2 mono blocks capable of 450 wpc into 4 ohms did I find out the 3a's Incredible Hulk characteristics -- the metamorphosis was such that I sweared I was listening to a different pair of speakers. Suffice it to say that the 3a is truly power hungry. To bad I had to retire them to my basement corner 15 years ago as the woofer surrounds began to sag and one of the dome tweeter cracked. I knew the surrounds could be refoamed but just don't know where I could get new tweeters to replace, now that AR is no longer in the business...
The tweeters can be rebuilt. A gent on AudioKarma and the classic speaker pages forums rebuilds them. He’s done several sets for me. Time to get the woofers reformed, tweeters rebuilt and recap the crossovers. Well worth it! I’ve restored many AR3sa.
i love brilliant splashy cymbals etc,but its gotta be as a real band is there,i play live lead guitar and know a good live sound...both re wonderful..set them to the listeners taste..
Great video. I prefer the sound of the 3's although the 3a's sound nice. The seems to be a more general natural sound coming from the 3's. I own a pair of 2a's that I got from my dad who bought them new. I had them upgraded to the 2ax using the kit that AR offered. They sound fantastic, but I am dying to compare the to the 3's.
I just got one AR3 your speakers sound comparison is a help. I have to clean the rheostats on mind to get it up and running and will have to wait for another to show up. I have other AR's to listen to until it shows up. thanks for making the video.
Sure! It's a crappy low tech video, but it gives some idea between the two. The AR3's are my favorite speakers. Just amazing sound from these.
I just finished a pair of AR-2A's which are very nice as well, but the 3's are another level. Hope you find another soon.
Cheers!
I agree. I don't have the 3A's now. I was refurbishing the cabs for a friend and did the video before he picked them up. Even if the positions were reversed, the sonic differences were quite noticeable.
All right . Thank you , sir !
Room placement and position can dramatically affect a speakers spectral balance, especially it's height from the floor. If I'm not mistaken the 3As are the ones up front and the 3s are further back towards the room corners? If so the differences are about what I'd expect from their relative positions in the room.
The AR3As sound more up front, a bit brighter with a leaner bass. Try exchanging their positions... place the 3s in front and move the 3As to where the 3s were and see what the results yield. Regardless the outcome both are classic and desirable speakers.
You are absolutely correct. People sometimes have no idea how different positions can totally alter a speaker's sound balance, especially in the vertical plane.
I refurbished the cabs of the 3a's and when the owner picked them up, we A/B'd the 3's and 3a's. He too, preferred the 3's. These are early 3's with the big oil can caps. In person, they sound suburb. This video was a basic, crude comparison shot with s Cannon point & shoot camera. It was to try to do a very basic comparison. Thanks for your comments.
I was wondering, how about the pots? The AR 3 and AR 3a both have mid and high pots. Are they both turned in? Or out? Or are they bypassed? If not, there's a big difference between the mids of the AR 3 and AR 3a
Robbie Brouwer
The pots in the 3's were replaced with originals in good condition. The 3a's were replaced with Ohmites. Both tweeter and mids were set to max output to make the comparison as close as possible. Yes, there's a big difference.
+70GD i know how good AR speakers sound mate n no one can possibly realize how good they are listening to them on a pair of computer speakers from u tube, my AR9s LS have an 8 inch lower mid range 200 to 1100 HZ n computer speakers have little mickey mouse "bass" speakers? also most music on u tube i compressed it a different world listening to the real thing live
I must say the AR3 has a more natural sound than the 3a. They are quite different overall. The mids on the 3a's seem over-inflated. I own the 3a's. Anybody interested in a very clean original pair?
no question about it the 3As have a more open sound that i didn't think i could hear the difference on computer speakers but i can even of course on the PC speakers they both sound heavy n uncomfortable cause its just not possible for little PC speakers to reproduce anything anywhere near AR standards of sound
Thanks for taking a look at the video!
PC speakers will never sound good with You Tube videos. The best way to hear the difference is to listen with headphones. Again, the sound will never sound as good as the actual listening space, but you can get the idea of the difference in sound between the two.
It was a pleasure mate and a happy new year to you, when i started with Hi Fi i was very disappointed at first with the sound of my first sound system the speakers i could barely effort Celestion 15s Goodman mezo where very sharp on the treble n bass Non existent the Warfdales n Leak sounded very sort of flat n lifeless, it was only after am American guy in charge of CBS Europe at Theobald road in the city near (Holborn) said to me am selling my speakers as am getting a new pair from the states when i first saw them with white grills n pine cabinets (AR4s) i thought i just have to find a good way to say no, that was till he put on SANTANA i knew then i be buying them the sound was something i never heard B4 after that it was ARs for me n Shure cartridges for me except once with a pair of KEFs concertos after i blown the woofers on my AR 5s using the amp flat ous as all amps go into clipping LOL as i really needed a more powerful amp now i only got 2 pairs my AR5s cause they are the only brand new pair i bought n for me the best speakers money can buy theAR9s LS i was very lucky to find about 8 -10 years ago in Exeter they are just perfect for me happy listening mate
I had many vintage Ar sprakers
"The older the smoother"
The old cheaper & even smaller models that in some cases had 6 to 8 inch woofer & a 2 way models more "Darker" and smooder models. The woofer was projecting most of the sound . The AR-3 & Ar3a came with 3 way cross& with that large Dome mid driver .
Thats actually the first time Ar turn to be more open sounding "all arround sound" so Ar-3 was good but ccross let the woofer do lot of the work then ar-3a came with diferent cross that shfted alot of the effort to the midrange unit. Makes the ar3a more open & crispy sound and little harash for some type of music that needed darker 2 way speaker to filter lots of that harash bad mix noisees etc .
So in my overall opinion
If you like old music jazz soul r&b look for vintage 2 way Ar ...
If you more into.more electro like in this clip.go get vintage JBL L100
Great choice of Amp, the AX-9 was one of the best kept secrets in the history of HiFi, just how good it was, it could challenge the top dollar heavyweights
Great and rare! Those in the know, rave about this amp, and I do the same. Spectacular sound. When they show up for sale, they are not cheap!
Cheers!
Try comparing them with the AR10 pi or AR11 which came out in 1974. These speakers were the ultimate evolution of AR's original 3 way design. They sound superior to the 3 or the 3a.
To me, the 3's are much more natural than the 3a's overall.
I also own an A-X9 amp, wish I had some AR3s!
+John McLaughlin
Thanks for checking out the video. The AR3's are sweet, as is the A-X9.
I just bought a 2nd JVC M-7050 power amp, and it is unbelieveable, more of everything the A-X9 has. I'll do a (crappy LOL) video soon.
Would like th hear the AR Lists you had in the background. Better dispersion and power handling.
Thanks for checking out the video! I’ve done a couple more comparing the 3 vs. 3a, and several with the LST-2s. If you search through my videos you’ll find them. Cheers!
i once had marantz champagne gold ecoteck sm or sc 7,and matching pre amp sc or sm 9..extremely rare bought for 100,sold for 900 allmost immediately..and one channell blown.i love the older stuff,its just purer,but you gotta spend the bucks on it...........
Hi ! Which one better ( AR3 or AR 3a ) , Sir ?
I personally prefer the 3 over the 3a. It's overall smother sounding.
The 3a is an excellent speaker though, and you can't go wrong with either, but keep in mind, if not properly restored, they won't sound good. The 3's mids will need rebuilding, the 3a's tweeters will most likely need rebuilding, new caps installed, and foam surrounds on the 3a woofers unless they are early models with the cloth surround Alnico magnet woofers.
The 3a's have a crisper sound than the rather muddy sound of the 3's, although I can't really judge which sounds more natural without hearing the live version of the music. A well recorded orchestral piece might allow a better judgement of which speaker is more natural sounding. I would guess that AR felt that they had made an improvement in the naturalness by introducing the 3a's. At risk of some downward thumbs, I have always considered the 3's and 3a's to be a bit muddy sounding, but the 3a's are an obvious improvement!!! I would definitely like to own a pair of 3a's!!!
I agree, though in person, the 3s are overall a smoother more balanced speaker in my opinion. Also, at the time I made this video, the 3s were untouched, and the mids output diminished. A couple months ago, I sent the mids and tweeters to Roy C. one of the authors of the AR3a restoration guide on theclassicspeakerpages site. They now sound as new, according to Roy. Quite a difference from when I shot this. They are far from muddy sounding, very natural and detailed. Thanks and appreciate you checking out the video and your thoughts!
OK!!! If you do a video comparison again, I would love to re-listen to the differences between these two classic pairs. The first time I ever saw and heard the 3a's was in NYC Grand Central Station in an AR sound booth, that was set up to promote AR products. I was in my early teens (~1967) and even at that time, an audio addict!
The 3's, to me, sound more 'natural'.
Hello dear 70GD. I really need Your advice, on choosing speakers Acoustic research AR-3 or AR-3A . From Your video sametine that they sound different, but to define exactly, watching video from the Internet difficult. Please tell me which of these models of acoustics, that sounds more touching, poignant, plaintive, that would be to just cry and gave me goose bumps. Of these criteria - which is better in Your opinion Thanks:-) PS and just Describe how You hear the difference between these two models.
Hi Met,
I prefer the 3's over the 3a's. The bass is smoother with the alnico magnet, and the mids seem fuller. Highs may go to the 3a's, but so many variables regarding driver condition of both models due to age can make either model sound better than the other. Keep in mind, both are 40 plus years old, and will need work unless previously restored. Good luck in your search.
-70GD
Great, thanks for the answer. And is not the magnet in the 3A model Alnico? Just 3a entered the book of records :-) And you do not remember how much they cost AR-3 when made out in the 60s. AR-3A about 160,000 yen, I do not know how much it is in dollars at that time, but I think it's It was very expensive :-))) And do you think there is no electrolytes in the crossover? I think it's bad for the sound :-) And tell me, maybe you heard the younger models AR-2AX and AR-5. Are they much worse by sound? Thank you.
Sorry for the long delay answering the magnet question. This set of 3as have the ceramic magnet woofers. Only the very early 3as had the Alnico magnet, cloth surround woofers, which are more desirable. To my ears they go a little bit deeper and sound smoother.
Ar3 my winner.
i like the extra treble of the 3,a,s better,but turn a few knobs an can make them sound identical maybe..the 3 a,s need a little more bass,and allmost too much treble,i love bass an treble,am a leadguitarist all around atlanta and hear the best very loud systems,im 60,but would prefer the 3 a,s myself,as most of the planet does..
the 3,s sound a little muffly,compared to the 3,a,s..i have model 33 rare klh,s..and are way nice likee both of these,runnin with at 10 cerwin vegas,also nice,for theatre with my onkyo 606 ,never a need for a subwoofer,no way.........i want some 3,a,s or maybe 4 x etc...
Yes, a different sound, especially in the mids and highs. Looking at the video again, I should have moved the JVC's out of the way, I'm sure they were blocking some of the sound being in front of the 3's.
OK
3 vs.3A. That debate has gone on for years. I've actually felt from all I've read, discussions with other audio heads, the preference is about even.
Aren't AR3 and AR3a not supposed to sit on the floor, being "book-shelf" speakers ?
The term "Bookshelf" was used broadly and loosely as a category during the time period. These could be placed on a book case, though pretty heavy at 47lbs each, and were pretty heavy for bookshelves unless it was a book case. AR sold optional floor stands, and many simply placed them on the floor. One reason you see so many cabinets with badly scratched up bottoms. Since I made this video many years ago, I have my two sets of 3s on stand, about 5-6 inches raised, slightly tilted so the mids and tweeters aim at my ears when seated. Cheers!
@@70GD Thanks for sharing your user experience. Reason for my asking is that I bought back in early 80s a pair of 3a Improved from a HiFi showroom where they hanged against a wall serving as demo models. The store sales consultant said being bookself speakers they were accoustically tuned to sound best when the woofer was at least 3 feet above the ground and away from side walls. Thus in the years they were in use I always tried to place them high. I initially paired them with a Yamaha A1000 integrated amp, with 120 wpc into 8 ohms and presumably more into 3a's 4 ohms. The playback quality was good but not spectacular. Not until I upgraded to a Denon setup of DAP5500 pre-Amp + POA6600 x 2 mono blocks capable of 450 wpc into 4 ohms did I find out the 3a's Incredible Hulk characteristics -- the metamorphosis was such that I sweared I was listening to a different pair of speakers. Suffice it to say that the 3a is truly power hungry. To bad I had to retire them to my basement corner 15 years ago as the woofer surrounds began to sag and one of the dome tweeter cracked. I knew the surrounds could be refoamed but just don't know where I could get new tweeters to replace, now that AR is no longer in the business...
The tweeters can be rebuilt. A gent on AudioKarma and the classic speaker pages forums rebuilds them. He’s done several sets for me. Time to get the woofers reformed, tweeters rebuilt and recap the crossovers. Well worth it! I’ve restored many AR3sa.
@@70GD Thanks ! I'm not handy at all and will have to look for someone to do it for me locally. I live in Toronto.
@@1324390 You could ship the tweeters to the gent that rebuilds them, and find a local tech to refoam your woofers.
from here its really crisp,an lost some bass..the 3,s sound better,but thats my computer an small j bl,s that are hooked to it..
i love brilliant splashy cymbals etc,but its gotta be as a real band is there,i play live lead guitar and know a good live sound...both re wonderful..set them to the listeners taste..
AR3a
now it seems the 3,s are nice an bright,an the 3,a,s are even brighter,an someone said my klh,model 33,s are bright,,nope.......
someones turnin up the treble as of a few seconds ago or something..............on the ar 3......
Who is the artist
Fly Away (Poolside Edit)