Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Stormy2021

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Houston, Texas
  • Interests
    music, astronomy, sci-fi
  1. Great pics! I assume the larger-than-normal dome was to allow for a relatively low crossover point and/or possibly so a 6dB/octave slope (one capacitor is used with this tweeter, correct?) could be safely employed. FYI: one of KEF's best speakers in the late 70s, the Reference 105, used a TWO inch dome tweeter. IIRC they did this to increase the quality of the stereo image since such a large radiating surface had a relatively narrow dispersion angle and in turn that would reduce floor/ceiling/wall reflections which can interfere with the sound that arrives at the ears directly from the tweeter. I wonder how well a modern version of the A25 would sell nowadays - more specifically, in this money-conscious economy - where anything larger than something that fits in your hand is "uncool" - I bet if the correct marketing was used it might sell quite well (hey Apple has sold millions of iPods to millions of people I bet would never have considered using headphones on a regular basis, even though they never even said anything disrespectful about loudspeakers). "Retro" seems to be a big selling point for many 20-somethings and these speakers are pretty attractive IMO (unlike much old stuff an old guy like myself thought looked nasty when it was new!), so you never know..........
  2. Thanks for all the info, but on my end at least, there's no photos visible or links to photos.
  3. Hi Tony, I have hi-res scans of the brochure for the original 3-way Advent, the 6003, that I made myself & can send you if you think they may help. Just ask!
  4. Thanks Genek. I was afraid no one answered at first because this model was a "post Kloss" design and worst(?) of all, it was a three-way! I realize some people don't think Advents sold after H.K.'s departure were "real" Advents, and the fact the 6003 was a three-way instead of a 2-way probably made this model even less worthy in the eyes of those people. But in my opinion Advent's ACTUAL "death" was in 1994 when Recoton Inc. purchased them and their sister brand Acoustic Research (International Jensen actually, their parent company). But until that time, unlike so many of their competitors - many of which had sunk into obscurity by building junk speakers, changed their philosophy so much they were nearly unrecognizable or outright went out of business - Advent continued to build speakers that remained 99% true to the originals. For example, when pretty much every one of their competitors changed to the bass-reflex system, Advent continued to use the "uncool" acoustic-suspension system. When those same other brands bowed to market pressure and built speakers that soudned bright and punchy so they sounded good in a demo room, Advent's speakers continued to produce those warm and smooth sonics that for many music fans made listening to all types of music easy on the ears & made longer listening sessions possible than many of those "exciting" sounding brands. And on a front that may seem unimportant to some, Advent's speakers were always e-z on the eyes with their warm wood finishes and furniture-like lines that actually complimented the room they were located in, or least didn't offend anyone. This was totally opposite of many of their competitors, who ended up styling their gear to look good in a modern architecture magazine, using cold and angular shapes plastered along with all-black color schemes - such speakers were jarring & unpleasant to look at in normal living rooms and made selling them difficult to many people especially married couples (I used to sell audio gear, including Advents, back in the early 90s). And as far as the three-way issue, well, that's just a normal response to technological progress. When the CD format debuted in 1982 with its incredibly wide dynamic range and bass that could reach down to a true and unfettered 20Hz, the limitations of the two-way design became obstacles to reproducing what could be contained on those silver discs. But when a midrange driver was used, those obstacles were eliminated: now the tweeter's crossover point could be moved up and its power handling greatly increased and distortion reduced. And the woofer, freed from having to reproduce so much of the delicate midrange spectrum, could be better optimized for low bass and increased power handling. And again, true to Advent's do-their-own-thing philosophy the midrange driver itself was not "normal". Instead of a typical cone or dome driver, they used H.K.'s funky cone/dome concept seen in the tweeter used in the original Advents, more commonly known as the "fried egg" tweeters. Except this driver was 5" in diameter and used polypropylene instead of paper. Again, Advent stuck to their guns and avoided the bland, safe, me-too attitude so many other brands allowed themselves to adopt. There were only two times I know of that Advent strayed from their normal path while under the control of International Jensen. One of these was the Mini Advent, which used a bass-reflex enclosure, probably because such a tiny speaker needed all the help it could get efficiency-wise for the uses it was designed for. But the biggest departure IMO was the Vision 500, a floorstander which used a type of bandpass enclosure for the bass spectrum and a separate (but attached) module for the upper bass/midrange driver and dome tweeter. And even though its slender lines were striking, it still retained Advent's signature home-friendly styling cues. You can check it out here, along with a disassembled one: http://www.audiocostruzioni.com/r_s/diffus.../advent-500.htm I'll admit I am bit of a Luddite and do not like change for change's sake and usually only buy something new if it offers something truly better. But I have to admit the 500 helps (helped) keep the Advent name from seeming like some kind of old-fashioned & frumpy company unwilling to change, even in the face of new technologies that seem to offer better performance for the same or less money. And companies that stay completely static are at high risk of disappearing, especially with younger customers. So while no other model I know of adopted the 500's bandpass system or two-way + bass module configuration, just like with Chevy's Corvette, maybe if Advent had lived longer some of its truly useful technologies would have trickled down to the lesser models. But especially, the 500 let us know Advent's engineers were still open to new ideas and not sitting around pining for the old days. That's what I think about the 6003 anyway.
  5. I was wondering whether it would it be O.K., in other words legal, to post full/hi-res scans of the Advent 6003 brochure here. I am kind of fuzzy about copyright matters and don't want to get myself or this site's owners in hot water for doing so. Thanks!
  6. Uh oh, here comes an audio engineer wannabe. I admit 1) I haven't read this entire thread and 2) am only an audio amateur and only understand about half of what is being posted here by those on both sides of the argument. That being said........ Reading the comments about woofer/boundary issues made me think of subwoofers and how they are usually located for best performance. To expand on that: in my experience, the majority of subs sounded best (best = non-boomy quality; and compared to a pair of conventional floorstanders using woofers with a combined radiating area equal to the sub's driver, capable of producing higher levels of bass that also extends much deeper) when located very near a wall, inches in other words, and especially near or in a corner. Obviously this only works for the really low stuff, because when I've played around with my conventional full range speakers and placed them right up next to the wall but especially in a corner, the level of low bass increased significantly and was more extended (I know the speaker itself remained the same - I just mean the lowest frequencies it did produce were now more obvious), but everything above ended up sounding boomy and just plain ugly. And there's that series of Boston Acoustics loudspeakers sold in the 80s, the "A" series, that IIRC were designed to be operated with their backs against the rear wall. I think their very broad front baffles helped them to "blend" with the wall...or am I confused? But they and some other brands at the time were the only speakers to use such a design and I've never seen any imitating that design since then, so I guess they didn't perform as well as originally thought? That's all I wanted to say - thanks for reading!
  7. Just an update: Audiovox now owns the Advent name. Looking at Audiovox's webpage for Advent.... http://adventproducts.com/advent/ .....I can find no loudspeakers. I really can't blame them too much, since home audio in general the last @5 years seems to be a fading segment of the home electronics market.
  8. Just curious: why don't you operate the Maestros in their original 3-way configuration? I've always been fascinated with that model's 5" grey cone/dome polypropylene "donut" midrange modeled after Kloss' tweeter that is used in the speakers he designed while working at Advent. Anyway.....in the brochure for the 6003 (the previous designation for Advent's 1st 3-way model) they implied the woofer was optimized for a three way system, and that its bass output was improved. I'm guessing that probably means that its midrange performance will suffer in comparison to the woofer in the 2-way 5002. BTW: sorry don't know the exact cu/ft specification, but the Maestro's enclosure always looked taller than the Legacy's (the 2-way version) by @5 inches.
  9. That design looks similar to what Wilson Audio uses for their ultra-hi-end speakers: http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product/watt_puppy_8/ (approx $28,000 per pair)
  10. I was wondering if anyone knew anything this ubiquitous tweeter which in the 70s seemed to be used on dozens of different companies' loudspeakers, from entry-level models to respectable "Buick-level" speakers. I've heard them many times and never thought they sounded *bad* and quite a few times I thought they sounded quite good, if a bit on the beamy side as far as dispersion is concerned. 1) what company designed it? 2) what was the phenolic ring - sometimes black, sometimes reddish brown - specifically used for? Why not plastic or some other material? 3) was KLH's cone tweeter the inspiration for it? I've seen these with small magnets weighing around only 3oz., and versions in better loudspeakers with heavy 8oz. magnets. I think some later models also included ferrofluid. Until a year ago or so, I saw this tweeter on the PartsExpress site and it was built by Pioneer. BTW: any thoughts on why cone tweeters fell out of favor? I realize domes are almost always better in most respects, but for 2-way systems their (relative) drawback is that their crossover frequency is usually much higher than the typical cone tweeter's xover point.* Did speaker system manufacturers finally decide that the advantages of a dome tweeter outweighed its problems in a 2-way system i.e. being crossed over at a higher frequency, say 2500kHz which could affect the system's midrange output? * I realize some domes had quite low xover points, like the one with the inverted dome made by Genesis in the late 70s/early 80s. I think it had a xover point at around 1500Hz or so.
  11. As someone who owns Boston Acoustics speakers and recommends them to anyone who asks (and also used to own Advents for 14 years and now a pair of Smaller Advents), this is an interesting discussion. >>> When Advent ran into financial trouble in the mid to late 70's <<< Do you know why this occurred? This is surprising, being that the Large Advent was one of the most successful loudspeakers of all time. >>> it changed ownership, and things went downhill very fast. <<< I think I might be entering touchy territory here, but what aspects of Advent went "downhill"? >>> “Here, take this home, and make it sound the way you like it. Mark down the settings of the EQ when you’ve got it right, and then we’ll talk. <<< Holy cow, can you imagine a speaker company doing this now? While I think highly accurate/100% scientifically-researched speakers have their place (recording studios for one) in the home environment they can sound really sterile and uninvolving....which is why I think so many home speakers sound like this now i.e. too many speakers being designed totally(?) "in the computer" to save on R&D costs rather than with help from the ears. >>> Henry and Andy also believed in the importance of smooth on-axis response as a starting point for good loudspeakers. They didn’t place much importance on power response at all. <<< I always wondered why these two company's speakers sounded so different from each other.
  12. >Really, it is just a box >reduction, and new woofer. I guess for a student of MIT the word "just" is appropriate but for this Average Joe, the thought of designing a new woofer, especially *that* one and its associated xover, is quite intimidating! ***************************************** Fun factoid: around the late 70s someone at Radio Shack's speaker division must have been inspired by that woofer because one of their better speakers (a 3-way) used a 10" sealed woofer with a dust cap almost identical to the Smaller's cap. As a 12 year old kid just getting into audio I was always fascinated by that huge wrinkled cap (and the funky 1/4" gray ring of sandpaper-like coating around it). IIRC another Realistic speaker used this same heavy-looking woofer in a two-way system with a 1" soft-dome tweeter, but this time as a passive radiator coupled with an 8" active woofer (passive radiators were another mystery feature for me at the time). That same eight incher was also used by RadShak in a transmission line enclosure.......but that's another forum! :^)
  13. Yep that's an Advent. I can't remember the exact date I saw the magazine advertisement for it and another rather unconventional model, or their model numbers or names, but IIRC it was around 1995. The following is drawn from a 12 year old memory so.......... In this model's upper black section, there is a 5.25" midbass/midrange driver along with the regular Advent 1" black parabolic mylar dome tweeter. It's the lower section containing the bass reproduction system that is really unconventional for Advent: it used a single 6.5" driver in a bandpass configuration. I can't remember if there were two ports or just one, but this type of enclosure can supply lots of bass from just one (relatively speaking) small driver. Bose used this configuration on a version of their 401 model back in the late 90s. It used a single 5" driver (AFAIK the same one used in the bass module of their Acoustimass sub/sat system) and used two ports at the back. I heard this speaker and the amount of bass, I guess down to around 40Hz, was amazing from those very skinny floostanders! The other Advent in this "sci-fi" series :^) was more conventional but did use the same modern style of 6-sided cabinet, but without the mid/tweeter pod. It used two 6.5" woofers mounted one on top of another i.e. a vertical line and the Advent dome tweeter. Obviously this is the same type of driver arrangement as their "regular" floorstander model called the Laureate,* but I *think* it also used some additional special technology but am not for sure. I never read of review of either of these loudspeakers - I'm pretty sure it's because around the same time these were advertised is when Recoton Corp. (now defunct) bought Advent's owner International Jensen. I am very sure that that clueless/cheapskate corporation put a stop to building such imaginative & UNmass-market products since their shareholders probably would not approve. * Best Buy used to sell Advent's speakers and I used to work there, from 1992 to 1995, so I am very familiar with the Advents sold during that time, including the Large Advent Anniversary Edition (I sold the last pair our particular store received; I was happy they sold [to a couple in their late 20s] but at the same time, was kind of bummed knowing we would never see any more of them again).
  14. Had to post this in this thread, since Bret brought up an issue I was on the verge of bringing up myself: >>> As an aside - You know, Ken, we keep talking about the market for an AR replacement tweeter and we keep describing its rare and desirable characterisics. We all agree it was a remarkable little thing not only for its day, but even now. Why, then, are we even talking about this as though the replacement market is the only market for this gem? Wouldn't any buyer of raw drivers at large consider this a viable option for even the most modern of speaker designs? I'd think it would fit right into a 5" two-way system, even if it were plastic and sold in a theater in a box. Okay, so I'm ignorant. Of the drivers that any manufacturer catalogs for sale, how did that driver arrive as a "standard product model" which any distributor can order? How did the Scan-Speak 1" dome tweeter get to BE the "standard" Scan-Speak 1" dome speaker? Bret <<< I totally agree with this. All those tweeters, in all those catalogs, seemingly designed for some hazily-envisoned loudspeaker system a manufacturer *might* be building......so how DOES a driver manufacturer finally decide on what set of characteristics a "generic" tweeter requires? So like Bret basically said, I'll bet SOME manufacturer out there could use XXX,XXX copies of the AR tweeter. This way the driver manufacturer could save a bit of time researching desirable characteristics for a new tweeter, their marketing people could use the AR heritage issue as a selling point AND the AR restorers could have their drop-in replacement.
  • Create New...