Jump to content

How do Advents compare to AR?


gcrimmins

Recommended Posts

Hi, my Dad recently picked up a pair of New Advent Loudspeakers at a yardsale. I'm wondering if anyone knows how these compare to AR speakers. Specifically, how does the frequency response compare? Which AR model are they most similar to? And how does the deep base compare to that from AR speakers? Thanks for any imformation anyone can share!

--Geoff Crimmins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i own a pair of the Large Advent utility cabs, a pair of AR-9's and a pair of AR-91's. i dont know how the Advent would compare to other in the AR line as i have never heard any other than the 2 pair i own. a comparison to the AR-9 is pointless and though not a fair comparison against the AR-91, i'll give my impressions.

the Large Advent is a competent speaker, well balanced and pleasant sounding. some find the high end to be harsh, but mine on a Sansui 2000A receiver sound just fine to me. i find the low end to be exceptional for such a modest speaker.

the AR-91 is a different class of speaker. a 3 way design with a more refined sound and just more balls from top to bottom. will go bigger and better than the Advent in all respects.

now, take 2 pair of Large Advents and stack them, with the top pair inverted so that the tweeters are in the middle of the stack. that is a revelation. being a 2 way design its limitations in the midrange are obvious. in a stack somthing happens with the dynamics that fill the midrange void. the soundstage is also much bigger and better defined. the low end even more prodigious than before.

i havent compared the Advent stack to the AR-91's but my gut tells me i would still opt for the AR-91, if only for its more refined sound. that said i am quite happy with the Advents (pulling duty in my work rig) but the Advent stack was stellar, highly recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest russwollman

Dear Geoff,

The frequency response of a loudspeaker, which can be expressed the form of a graph showing the response "curve", can reveal some limited information about the loudspeaker's ability to reproduce musical sounds. But those graphs or figures cannot demonstrate the loudspeaker's "voice", the actual quality and nature of the sound it produces. Your own ears will serve you best when you compare speakers.

It is beneficial to have an idea of the sound of live musical instruments. Listening to a live symphony orchestra or similar musical concerts on some regular basis will help develop your sense of sound.

There are speakers which, though they may show a nice response curve from the low bass to the high treble, are in fact inferior to the ear compared with some others which may not look so polished on paper.

The various AR and Advent speakers are both well-regarded, and the debate over them, especially between strong adherents of each, can really never be settled, for personal preference will often override all the solid mathematics which loudspeaker testing can provide. Mathematics are very useful when designing a loudspeaker system, but the human ear is more useful in the case of comparing loudspeakers.

ARs and Advents share a common and illustrious lineage, and both do very well in the reproduction of the low end of the musical spectrum, to which we apply the term "bass".

There are those who for whom the term "bass" brings to mind that helpless aquatic animal which gets yanked from ponds with baited barbed hooks. But anyone who becomes an audiophile must quickly pick up on the meaning of the term as it applies to sound, and the importance of bass response in providing emotional richness and a firm foundation to the music.

So, no matter which speaker serves your listening purpose, be sure to enjoy the music and the wondrous variety of it, all coming from the mind of man. As time goes on, you will develop an increasing base of knowledge about the sound of music and its accurate reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being that Kloss was at the forefront of both companies it is probably safe to say some of the same ideals and components are in both speakers. I am also sure a lot of AR listeners also have a pair of Advents (as I do) because they got a big box for not as much money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Being that Kloss was at the forefront of both companies it is

>probably safe to say some of the same ideals and components

>are in both speakers. I am also sure a lot of AR listeners

>also have a pair of Advents (as I do) because they got a big

>box for not as much money.

Hi there;

Without Henry Kloss, we all would have been a little less able to afford our earliest hifi systems, whether, AR, KLH or Advent, or his many other devices and inventions.

While it's easy to say there are similarities because of Kloss, there is also numerous differences, some that I find very interesting.

When KLH started up, I understand that Henry Kloss had permission to use the acoustic suspension sytem design.

A reverse roll and cloth surround was used on the woofers, and I believe this practice was continued, and followed well after the foam surrounds had come out with AR, etc..

Switches rather than pots.

Whereas Dynaco went to a 5 position switch, for more and repeatable settings, I have never heard of a bad Dynaco or KHL switch, or only a very rare KLH switch.

A solid epoxy mounting to the front baffle board of the woofer and tweeter frames in early KLH Sixes.

While this method certainly gives an extremely solid mounting/coupling, there appears to have been be no early thought given to replacing drivers or even the simplist crossover repairs.

The woofers cone was replaced with crossover repairs or if burnt, having to be re-coned at the factory, but the tweeter was a sacrifice and must have been a stinker to replace.

The awkwardness to service them, must have cost them a few dollars under their warantee program.

I would definitely find it interesting reading, if Henry had published his thoughts on that issue, or any other thoughts he may have had.

I don't know the numbers produced by this method.

The tweeters were apparently well liked, as were the midrange drivers of the Five and Twelves, which were used also as a fullrange single driver.

There seemed to be a price versus model speaker comparable to Acoustic Research speakers, even the numbering system, except KLH used words rather than numerals.

Here in Vancouver, KLH was next to being invisible, as I remember.

There is an AR and KLH chronological order list in our library.

Starting off with the KLH One and proceeding up the numerical classic series, can anyone list the various drivers used?

On the surface, I have seen 3 different tweeters, one with and without the metal screen, one with fibreglass and mesh screen.

Fullrange and midrange drivers, same impedance?

Woofers, 10" for most all models but which are different?

I've read that The KLH Five uses the same 10" woofer as ?

12" for KLH Twelve.

Impedance differences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>i own a pair of the Large Advent utility cabs, a pair of

>AR-9's and a pair of AR-91's. i dont know how the Advent

>would compare to other in the AR line as i have never heard

>any other than the 2 pair i own. a comparison to the AR-9 is

>pointless and though not a fair comparison against the AR-91,

>i'll give my impressions.

>

>the Large Advent is a competent speaker, well balanced and

>pleasant sounding. some find the high end to be harsh, but

>mine on a Sansui 2000A receiver sound just fine to me. i find

>the low end to be exceptional for such a modest speaker.

>

>the AR-91 is a different class of speaker. a 3 way design

>with a more refined sound and just more balls from top to

>bottom. will go bigger and better than the Advent in all

>respects.

>

>now, take 2 pair of Large Advents and stack them, with the top

>pair inverted so that the tweeters are in the middle of the

>stack. that is a revelation. being a 2 way design its

>limitations in the midrange are obvious. in a stack somthing

>happens with the dynamics that fill the midrange void. the

>soundstage is also much bigger and better defined. the low

>end even more prodigious than before.

what you may have unwittingly done here is create a sort of driver arrangement made famous by Joe D'Appolito. However, for it to work best, a third order Butterworth crossover network is used in conjunction with the driver arrangement in a single speaker. However, the lobing characteristics of the stacked array may still have been improved to the extent that the highs and lows were blended together, yielding the impression of improved mid-range in these 2-way speakers.

>

>i havent compared the Advent stack to the AR-91's but my gut

>tells me i would still opt for the AR-91, if only for its more

>refined sound. that said i am quite happy with the Advents

>(pulling duty in my work rig) but the Advent stack was

>stellar, highly recommended.

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>now, take 2 pair of Large Advents and stack them, with the

>top

>>pair inverted so that the tweeters are in the middle of

>the

>>stack. that is a revelation. being a 2 way design its

>>limitations in the midrange are obvious. in a stack

>somthing

>>happens with the dynamics that fill the midrange void.

>the

>>soundstage is also much bigger and better defined. the

>low

>>end even more prodigious than before.

>

>what you may have unwittingly done here is create a sort of

>driver arrangement made famous by Joe D'Appolito. However, for

>it to work best, a third order Butterworth crossover network

>is used in conjunction with the driver arrangement in a single

>speaker. However, the lobing characteristics of the stacked

>array may still have been improved to the extent that the

>highs and lows were blended together, yielding the impression

>of improved mid-range in these 2-way speakers.

>

>

>

>Remember, it's all about the music

>

>Carl

>Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

i knew it was something like that. jk, the technical side of sound is beyond me, i just know what sounds good to me. i wouldnt have thought to stack speakers this way on my own. i read about it on another audio site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>When KLH started up, I understand that Henry Kloss had

>permission to use the acoustic suspension sytem design.>A reverse roll and cloth surround was used on the woofers, and >I believe this practice was continued, and followed well after

>the foam surrounds had come out with AR, etc..

>

KLH was one of the original licensees of the acoustic-suspension patent; Electro-Voice (who later contested the patent) and Heath were others. The “permission” was via royalty payments. The inverse or concave half-round surround that was used by KLH (and Advent) was done primarily to allow the woofer to be stacked on an assembly table either magnet-up or magnet-down. It neither added to nor subtracted from the performance of the woofer. It was more of a “convenience factor” that “performance parameter.”

>Switches rather than pots.>Whereas Dynaco went to a 5 position switch, for more and

>repeatable settings, I have never heard of a bad Dynaco or KHL

>switch, or only a very rare KLH switch.

>

Switches, which were originally considered by AR, are more reliable than the continuously adjustable level control, but they greatly lack the adjustment range of the control. Control over the range of output from the midrange and tweeter was considered important in the early days, but the oxidation of the controls was never considered to be the issue that it eventually became. In a way, however, having oxidized level controls on many old AR speakers may have added many years of life to the old tweeters and midranges, as the high-range drivers ceased to work after a few years due to the controls, and there might have been more opportunity for a tweeter burn-out had they been connected by switch.

>A solid epoxy mounting to the front baffle board of the woofer

>and tweeter frames in early KLH Sixes. While this method certainly gives an extremely solid

>mounting/coupling, there appears to have been be no early

>thought given to replacing drivers or even the simplist

>crossover repairs. >The woofers cone was replaced with crossover repairs or if

>burnt, having to be re-coned at the factory, but the tweeter

>was a sacrifice and must have been a stinker to replace.

>The awkwardness to service them, must have cost them a few

>dollars under their warantee program.

>

I believe that Henry Kloss was fully aware of the awkwardness of this design, but realized that just as AR had printed on the labels of many early AR-1s, “Under no circumstances should an attempt be made to open cabinet or remove speakers,” Kloss probably felt that any repair whatsoever to be made to the speaker should be done at the factory, not in the field. AR did not a support field-repair policy for many years as well, but eventually did have authorized AR repair stations.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, very much appreciated clarity, Tom.

Thank you.

When I stopped working at the local warantee depot in the early '70's, Advent's warantee was still being handled by the only local Advent dealer.

Where I seemed to pick out Henry Kloss, I would love to read a single multi-chapter book on the various persons of importance per chapter.

Edgar Villchur, Henry Kloss, and other person's that had a strong influence on post 1954 hifi east coast sound.

For example, in various readings I've seen that AR had a number of employees go on to bigger and better things, EPI, just for one.

Those are the person's of interest, that I would love to see what and where they went to and what is happening with them today.

Thank you again, Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...