Jump to content

AR-6 vs. The Advent Loudspeaker


tysontom

Recommended Posts

An interesting comparison of the Advent and AR-6 woofer voice coils:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/618.jpg

The AR-6 coil is longer, and would theoretically have greater linear excursion capability with lower distortion, considering that both speakers have approximately the same thickness top plate. The Advent, however, has a larger cone and a lower box resonance, and thus is superior to the AR-6 in low-frequency reproduction. The AR-6 is not far behind, however, and this image illustrates AR's dedication to low harmonic distortion -- even at the expense of efficiency. AR could have substituted a shorter coil and and attained higher efficiency, and most of the time the differences would be inaudible. But when the AR-6 woofer is called upon to deliver deep bass, the long coil provides linear excursion, the hallmark of a well-designed acoustic-suspension woofer.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR-6 was a remarkably good speaker, but it suffered from a sales/marketing standpoint of occupying a somewhat tenuous position in AR’s lineup. Much like the AR-5 being caught between the 2ax and 3a at the higher end of the line, so was the AR-6 caught between the 4x (later 7) and 2ax at the lower end of the line. The 6 never achieved the sales popularity of the 4x, 7, or 2ax.

But this isn’t to say that the 6 was anything less than one heckuva speaker. In fact, the critical acclaim showered on the 6 was nothing less than amazing. High Fidelity said, "…the AR-6 responds almost like an amplifier…a really terrific performer." Julian Hirsch said in Stereo Review that the AR-6 sounded like the 5 to an "amazing degree" with almost "identical" bass response.

Not only was the 6’s woofer an outstanding example of engineering, but as I mentioned in a previous post, the then-new 1 ½" cone tweeter (later changed in designation only to 1 ¼") was such an excellent unit that a close competitor of AR wanted to approach them about the possibility of manufacturing it for themselves under license. It’s noteworthy that that tweeter, introduced with the AR-6 in 1971, continued in AR’s line essentially unchanged (except for the addition of ferrofluid) until the late 1980’s in the Bxi series.

I have said that I consider the 2ax to be the best performance/dollar model of the original Classic Series, but I wouldn’t argue too much with someone who said it was the AR-6, especially at the original pricing of $72/81 ea. unfinished/finished.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>How long is the AR-4x woofer's voice coil and how does it

>compare to the AR-6?

Joe,

The original AR-6 (the one shown in my image comparing the Advent to the AR-6) has more excursion -- and lower resonance -- than the AR-4x. It is superior to the AR-4x in deep bass in both extension and distortion; however it was no better than the AR-4x down to the latter's lower limit. The older version of the AR-6 had the same resonance as the AR-2ax and AR-5, and was therefore approximately equal to either of them in deep-bass reproduction, thus the necessity for the long-overhang voice coil. This allowed long excursions necessary for the eight-inch woofer to move sufficient air at low frequencies.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/619.jpg

The older-version AR-6 cone with long voice coil has characteristics such as this; later AR-6s used a more generic AR 8-inch woofer. The writing on the flat dust cap belongs to T. Tyson for identification.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/620.jpg

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...