Vintage or Less Vintage: The AR-3a vs. the AR-303a

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
962
374
1,625
71
Chicagoland
My discussions of vintage speakers on the WBF so far are here (the AR-3a discussion part), here and here. Rather than put this comment in the Vintage Forum, I've opted to keep it here.

In recent years I've owned three pairs of AR-3a, the AR 303as, as well as two pairs of AR-5, a pair of AR-2ax, and a pair of AR-4x. I thus think I can comment usefully on the differences between the circa 1970 AR-3a and the circa 1995 AR-303a.


The 3a was designed in the late 1960s, while the 303a was a 1995 design. There was thus considerable time for advance in driver design. The designers were different people as well. The 1995 design is really quite a different animal and does not sound much like the older models except in the bass.

The AR-3a, despite being some 45 years old now, is often available on the used market on eBay or Craigslist. There are usually multiple pairs available at once. It sold well for many years and still has many enthusiastic admirers.

The AR-303a is much, much rarer on the used market. It was only sold for a very few years. A pair only turns up on the used market once every couple of years or so. When they are available, they command higher prices than the 3a.

What are the differences? For one thing the 303a has ferrofluid tweeters, so they can play louder and the treble can be run at full level at high volume without significant distortion problems or chance of burn out. The 3a tweeter is "protected" a bit by the crossover and run at a lower level, meaning that the top octave rolls off a few dB or more compared to the 303a. The 303a has no driver level controls, so you are stuck with the chosen balance. The 3a tweeter and midrange can be adjusted over a wide range, but even at maximum tweeter level, the top is rolled off a bit compared to the 303a. The 303a can be biwired or biamped (I biamped them with my Arcam AVR-600), the 3a cannot. The physical driver arrangement is much different; the AR-303a has its driver laid out one above the other but were made in mirror imaged pairs (the mid/tweet should be placed toward the center of the room, not on the outside nearer the side walls). The AR-3a are not mirror imaged and the midrange and tweeter are more or less horizontally aligned.



The 303a sounds clearer and goes yet deeper in the bass, and has even more bass impact than the 3a. In my living room system the 303a would never, ever need a subwoofer even for high-volume reproduction of the lowest organ pipes. I've never heard a speaker that small produce such powerful, extended bass--truly remarkable.

The 303a is balanced more brightly at the top, but the midrange, like the 3a, is very flat and accurate sounding, as is the bass. It is a more "revealing," more "modern" sounding speaker because of this. It is right at home with both rock and pop music and the bass and midrange are wonders. The imaging and staging are superior to the 3a



And yet . . . . The 3a is balanced more concert-hall naturally. The 3a and AR-5 just sound tonally more like live unamplified classical music sounds in a concert hall. Relaxed, full range, clear enough, and the bass is full and rich yet tight enough to never, ever have the type of midbass excess which the Harbeth M40 and M40.1 can easily have in my audio room, and without nosediving in the bottom octave the way those Harbeths always do in my audio room. There is a reason these AR-3a speakers fooled people in live v. recorded demos. Yes, you can point to flaws compared to modern speakers, but they sound "right" in ways that few modern speakers can match.


I have used the 303a only vertically on tall stands, 24" tall. I have used the 3a that way, as well as horizontally at ear level or above in a bookcase. The 3a works well either way. Both speakers like to be close to the wall behind them. Both sound fine toed in toward your ears or pointing straight ahead.

The main problem with the 303a is that it is a bit aggressive and forward sounding in the presence range (2 kHz to 5 kHz) and the highs are ruler flat out to 20 kHz.. The response measures very flat from low bass to upper treble, flatter than most other speakers I've measured. But as I've found over the years, speakers which measure flat don't sound flat, they sound tipped up toward the highs.

I tried various ways to tame the top end aggression of the 303a. The best method was to attach a single sheet of Kleenex tissue paper (one layer of a two-ply Kleenex-brand facial tissue) to the inside of the grill cloth so as to cover the area where the midrange and tweeter are. This reduced the measured highs by about 2 dB over a quite wide range. I lived with them fairly happily that way for about a year in my living room system.

Still, in the end, I decided the highs were still too aggressive for the most natural replay of classical music. What the AR-3a and AR-5 could do effortlessly, these had trouble mimicking. Adding more tissue layers did not help, but instead started to fuzz up the presentation as if I were adding distortion. Of course, you could always try an equalizer, but I never bothered since I also had the 3a on hand and that speaker is magic in terms of balance with classical music.

If your tastes lean toward a brighter sound than the AR-3a, and especially if you rarely listen to classical or other purely acoustic music, then the strengths of the 303a may well make it the better choice. But for those looking for more natural presentation of orchestral, vocal, choral, and folk music, the AR-3a is definitely a better choice. Thus for the classical music lovers, there is no need to hunt for the rare AR-303a. Just be prepared to pay for or perform a lot of restoration on a 45-year-old pair of AR-3as.
 

dingus

New Member
Mar 22, 2013
108
2
0
Graham, WA
nice write up, quite enjoyable. just wondering if you've ever asked Ken Kantor about the AR 303a and its aggressive nature compared to the AR-3a?
 

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
962
374
1,625
71
Chicagoland
nice write up, quite enjoyable. just wondering if you've ever asked Ken Kantor about the AR 303a and its aggressive nature compared to the AR-3a?

No, I did not talk to Ken Kantor. Another point of comparison of the AR-303a sound, I suppose, is the NHT 3.3 speakers which came out in 1994, roughly contemporaneous with the earlier AR-303 (the 303a was similar, as I understand it, but with some better wiring and connectors, as well as the biamp/biwire capability). Ken Kantor was, of course, responsible for those NHT designs. In my showroom auditions of the NHT 3.3, it had the same sort of extended flat response as the 303a, also the bit of what I deemed excess brightness.

When I bought the 303a, I assumed that Ken would have balanced the speaker a bit more like the old AR-3a. This was supported by some review descriptions of the 303 sound (Stereophile review) which talked about a heavy or a bit excessive bass end. That's usually a clue to me that the speaker will have a balance I find agreeable. Stereophile's measurements of the NHT 3.3 looked much different from those of the 303. The sonic description of the NHT in Stereophile matched my slightly hot high end impression. And Stereophile talked about the AR-303 having a high end which was a bit reticent, and such descriptions are also usually to my liking.

But, for whatever reason, in the end, in my set ups, the AR-303a still sounded a bit bright. The 303a and AR-3a shared a certain amount of form factor: same size cabinet, acoustic suspension bass (which was already becoming a rarity by 1995), three way design, dome tweeter and midrange, very deep bass extension for the cabinet size), that's more or less where the similarities end. The balance of the 303a is much more like the NHT speakers of that time and at least somewhat later (I haven't heard any NHTs lately).
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I still have NHT 3.3's in my home theater. Even driven by a Denon 4301 AVR in a reflective room I would never characterize their sound as "bright". Then again, I have always thought of the AR 3a as having a recessed, very "unbright" (i.e.rolled-off treble) sound.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,304
1,420
1,820
Manila, Philippines
This is a blast from the past! My Dad had AR3a's and it rubbed off enough that when I bought my very first pair of speakers from saving my allowance it was a KK era AR design, the Rock Partners. Boy time flies. I was deeply saddened with what has been made of the AR brand in recent years. Plastic outdoor speakers. Very sad.
 

Ki Choi

Member Sponsor
May 13, 2010
764
29
1,590
Seattle WA area

The 303a can be biwired or biamped (I biamped them with my Arcam AVR-600), the 3a cannot.

Hi Tom

This is a great post - what I had envisioned from WBF as one the "best" of vintage speakers discussion that one can still enjoy today and actually better than most of modern speakers that costs x $$$$s.

The AR3a is dear to my audio heart. AR3a's were my ultimate but out of reach dream speakers even after purchasing the Large Advents (and an SLR camera) with the paycheck from my first real job late 70's.

I did buy a pair few years back and experimented to harness the most tasty bass I have ever had (other than the SoundLab A1s) and mated them with wood mid & tweeter horns biamping. On my AR3a's there was a jumper between hot and T that enabled me to use the AR3a as just bass unit with an external electronic crossover. I am not sure removing the jumper made the AR3as biampable.

I got rid of the AR3a's foolishly but would like to get another pair and mate them with better horns using good three way electronic crossovers - someday.

Ki
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing