Should the AR-5 have been a 12" Speaker?

[michiganpat]

8 hours ago, tysontom said:

These response comparisons are valid if you are comparing an AR-3a and an AR-5 buried in a hole, flush with top of the ground, radiating into a perfect 2π solid angle.  There is that intrinsic difference, of course. 

On the other hand, if you had a listening room with AR-5s—and the room supported good deep bass—and you put one in a corner up off the floor, you would get twice the power into the bass and an extension (along with other bass frequencies below radiation impedance) into deeper bass.  In other words, by decreasing the solid angle from 180˚ to 90˚, you double the output in bass.  Sometimes mounting one channel in a corner and the other along the wall on a shelf or stand against a wall will give good results as well.

So, in the absence of a pair of AR-3as or Advents, moving one AR-5 speaker into a corner can have a dramatic effect and make up for some of the difference.

so does adjusting the bass tone controls on your preamp

[Aadams]

12 minutes ago, michiganpat said:

so does adjusting the bass tone controls on your preamp

You may have one but in general few stereo amps have tone controls for the 32hz to 64hz octave.

Adams

 

[michiganpat]

2 hours ago, harry398 said:

I own both of these....AR3a and AR5....among others....but to the point......Some people prefer the lighter bass of the ar5...NOT ME.

Put the ar5 in the corner.....all you want, the ar3a dominates it.  I have done it countless times....

I toy with the idea of taking my AR5, and if I could find someone to cut out the woofer hole to fit a 12 inch woofer (that I have plenty of), and slide in a ar11 crossover (that I have -or modify the ar11 crossover back to ar3a specs).

 

I own 2 sets of ar3a's....one set has the Hivi tweeters......both are recapped.......both have incredible bass and sound awesome.  The ar5 just doesnt fill in, but I guess some prefer that?     Sales are the technical indicator of what people prefer.  

What still confuses me is the crossover networks,  why the differences and why they went for different approaches.  Primarily, ar11 vs ar3a...while published crossover points were similar, CAP values arent.   so........they aint!

 

For reference, I Own ar3a (2), ar5, ar11b, ar98ls, ar9lsi, ar50.  and some others......     Those 3a's are quite remarkable, Great sounding and fun, but the 98ls is more accurate.  

 

so....for me...The AR5 needs a 12 inch woofer, and when I get the time, I WILL do it.

but then you'll have a 12" woofer in a cabinet slightly too small for it, so it will have a higher Qb and it may give you a larger hump in the bass response curve, but it may not go as deep as the AR3 in the cabinet that the woofer is better designed for---giving more of the dreaded "one note bass"......you'd be better off looking for a different 10" woofer that would work better with the cabinet size to get the -3db point lower....whether or not you can find some that would work, I don't know....

these drivers https://meniscusaudio.com/product/eclipse-w1038r/

may work well...here's the details on the drivers http://www.miscospeakers.com/speakers/OC10W-8D

doing the calculations in an AR2ax sized box yields a Qb of .785 with an F3 of 47hz and and F10 of 29hz

you'd be better off building speaker stands with passive subwoofers in them with a low pass filter crossed over at ~100hz, and put the subs in parallel with the AR5's....so the subs would roll off at ~12db/octave above 100hz, and the AR5's would be running full range.  I did that with a pair of AR18's on my marantz 2230, and the results were magical.

[michiganpat]

3 minutes ago, Aadams said:

You may have one but in general few stereo amps have tone controls for the 32hz to 64hz octave.

Adams

 

OK, graphic equalizer.......

[JKent]

2 hours ago, michiganpat said:

OK, graphic equalizer.......

Or an Allison Electronic Subwoofer?

[frankmarsi]

29 minutes ago, JKent said:

Or an Allison Electronic Subwoofer?

The Allison Electronic Subwoofer is probably the most rare of all items in the whole of 'Hi-Fi'-dom.

More rare than even my Dynavector 505 tonearm and LST's.

Be smart, forget the graphic-equalizer also and do what I did. 

Get a 'parametric-equalizer' and shape the sound like never before.

FM

[Steve F]

Changing the solid angle environment of the AR-5 (or any speaker, for that matter) will not change the shape of its intrinsic bass response relative to itself, in the deep bass range. Going from 4π to 2π to π will raise or lower the dimensionally-affected bass region relative to the rest of the spectrum, but the “number of dB down” a given speaker is at 30Hz relative to its 45Hz level will stay the same. If the AR-5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

The 3a will always have a stronger 30Hz output compared to its 45Hz output than the AR-5. Moving one 5 into a corner (reducing the environment from a 2π wall mount to a π corner-mount ) will change the spectral balance—“more bass” relative to the mids and highs, but it doesn’t change the 30Hz level relative to the 45Hz level.

The Allison Electronic Subwoofer will correct the AR-5, but it puts a huge demand on the speaker’s excursion and places huge power demands on the accompanying amplifier. It’s really only useful at very moderate volume levels. 

Rather than EQ’ing the AR-5, you’d be much better off using a parametric EQ and removing the upper bass heaviness from the 3a. Then you’d have the best of everything: The 5’s perceived “quickness” and freedom from excessive “weight,” combined with he 5/3a’s superlative mids and highs and the 3a’s deep bass.

That’s the way to go.

Steve F.

[ar_pro]

Didn't the Allison ESW have a reputation as a woofer-killer?

Just a thought, but to capture the '70s rock & roll market segment, Acoustic Research might have been better-served by purchasing outright the Cerwin-Vega company, and rolling some of those two and three-way lease-breakers into the bottom of their lineup.

 

[Aadams]

All this talk about EQ and Subwoofers is today stuff.  What would you do back then?  Consumer equalizers were new and expensive and a lot of us were still trying to eliminate rumble. Why boost it?  So suppose you were back in 1972.  Would you buy an OLA, AR3 or AR 10".  Obviously a huge chunk of the market went for the OLA and its imitators, for whatever reason.  Do we have consensus on what the correct response to the thread topic would be for Acoustic Research Corporation in 1969-70?

 

[harry398]

Hahaa.

 

Pretty obvious.  Ar5 is nice, but the 3a has the BEEF.

[owlsplace]

2 hours ago, Aadams said:

All this talk about EQ and Subwoofers is today stuff.  What would you do back then?  Consumer equalizers were new and expensive and a lot of us were still trying to eliminate rumble. Why boost it?  So suppose you were back in 1972.  Would you buy an OLA, AR3 or AR 10".  Obviously a huge chunk of the market went for the OLA and its imitators, for whatever reason.  Do we have consensus on what the correct response to the thread topic would be for Acoustic Research Corporation in 1969-70?

 

Well, I bought the 5's and an equalizer back then, but the more I look at the 3a cabs here now they just look so sensual with all that wood up front -- maybe I should have bought the 3a's and forgot about the equalizer

Roger

[tysontom]

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

Changing the solid angle environment of the AR-5 (or any speaker, for that matter) will not change the shape of its intrinsic bass response relative to itself, in the deep bass range. Going from 4π to 2π to π will raise or lower the dimensionally-affected bass region relative to the rest of the spectrum, but the “number of dB down” a given speaker is at 30Hz relative to its 45Hz level will stay the same. If the AR-5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

The 3a will always have a stronger 30Hz output compared to its 45Hz output than the AR-5. Moving one 5 into a corner (reducing the environment from a 2π wall mount to a π corner-mount ) will change the spectral balance—“more bass” relative to the mids and highs, but it doesn’t change the 30Hz level relative to the 45Hz level.

The Allison Electronic Subwoofer will correct the AR-5, but it puts a huge demand on the speaker’s excursion and places huge power demands on the accompanying amplifier. It’s really only useful at very moderate volume levels. 

Rather than EQ’ing the AR-5, you’d be much better off using a parametric EQ and removing the upper bass heaviness from the 3a. Then you’d have the best of everything: The 5’s perceived “quickness” and freedom from excessive “weight,” combined with he 5/3a’s superlative mids and highs and the 3a’s deep bass.

That’s the way to go.

Steve F.

I don't disagree with your comments particularly, but you clearly miss the point. 

Changing the solid angle doesn't affect the "intrinsic bass response," as you say, or make the AR-5 more potent in the bass compared with an AR-3a that would be placed in that same corner, and it doesn't change the relationship of "30 Hz relative to its 45 Hz level."  I wasn't trying to infer that. 

Reducing the solid angle, by getting a better coupling of the air around the woofer, always increases bass output relative to midrange frequencies—the "relative level" of bass—by elevating all of the bass frequencies from the frequency of air-load resistance (in this case, all the way down from the crossover frequency) all the way down to resonance and below.  Sometimes corner placement works fine; other times the bass can be too heavy, but it will increase output down low without increasing harmonic distortion, something that cannot be said for an equalizer.  Using a graphic equalizer (or an ESW) to ramp-up deep-bass frequencies—for a given acoustic output level—will increase the excursion of the woofer and thus force the speaker into non-linear territory much sooner than without it.  Aside from the very earliest AR-5s, the linear voice-coil travel is approximately ⅜-inch.

Corner placement, which doesn't cost anything to try, is cheaper than going with an equalizer, and it might work fine.

—Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

1 minute ago, tysontom said:

If the AR-5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

The outputs at 30 Hz and 45 Hz will both be elevated by 3 dB with a change in that solid angle.  I think this is what you are trying to say here, not that the level of the 30 Hz frequency stay the same no matter what placement you choose.

[Aadams]

17 hours ago, Steve F said:

Rather than EQ’ing the AR-5, you’d be much better off using a parametric EQ and removing the upper bass heaviness from the 3a. Then you’d have the best of everything: The 5’s perceived “quickness” and freedom from excessive “weight,” combined with he 5/3a’s superlative mids and highs and the 3a’s deep bass.

 

15 hours ago, harry398 said:

Hahaa.

 

Pretty obvious.  Ar5 is nice, but the 3a has the BEEF.

 

13 hours ago, owlsplace said:

Well, I bought the 5's and an equalizer back then, but the more I look at the 3a cabs here now they just look so sensual with all that wood up front -- maybe I should have bought the 3a's and forgot about the equalizer

 

20 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

Get a 'parametric-equalizer' and shape the sound like never before.

Ok folks, page 6 of this thread has been all about how to get more bass  The topic is “Should the AR 5 have been a 12” speaker.”

But perhaps the topic should have been ,  ”Did AR need an additional 12 inch speaker line to answer the OLA? “  Let’s pretend that is the topic.  Do we have an answer at this point?

I will go out on a limb and say: AR should have spec’d a woofer and tweeter to be purchased specifically to fill a cabinet that would directly compete with the OLA at or near the same price point. Why didn’t they respond?  I am guessing pride played a roll, but they were myopic and complacent.  Based on the story I read, Villchur was in a business he never really wanted to be in and he probably had been looking for a way to cash out for a while before Teledyne showed up. He made sure all of his top team members had soft landings in the transition and with their cushy set-up they proceeded to follow the path of every well fed, comfortable old timer, they followed their habits. They just kept making more refined products at higher price points.  That is, rather than go toe to toe in the mud with the OLA they instead just kept building even more expensive speakers that would not sell in large enough volumes.  They created some really great speakers but didn't address the need to internally bankroll the future.  I think they did not have a real Hi FI business leader of vision on the entire executive staff.  Their entire management team was a group of accomplished technicians with complimentary professional backgrounds.  Just a guess.  Anybody with a different analysis speak up.

 The question has evolved.   ”Did AR need an additional 12 inch speaker line to answer the OLA? “ 

[Steve F]

Yes Tom, that’s clearly what I said:

Changing the solid angle environment of the AR-5 (or any speaker, for that matter) will not change the shape of its intrinsic bass response relative to itself, in the bass range. Going from 4π to 2π to π will raise or lower the dimensionally-affected bass region relative to the rest of the spectrum, but the “number of dB down” a given speaker is at 30Hz relative to its 45Hz level will stay the same. If the 5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

 

Now, back to the AR vs. Advent sales issue in the real world of the ‘70’s and whether AR needed a 12-inch speaker to compete with the OLA.

 I have some factual sales information about Advent in that time period. (Remember, BA’s founder was Advent’s head Product and Marketing guy. I worked with him for 11 years at BA. This info is from him directly, confirmed again by me w/ him via e-mail two days ago.)

In the 1970-1976 timeframe, Advent sold approximately 1.4 million speakers. Of that total, the Large Advent was “70-75% of that number.” (Direct quote.) That means that the Large Advent sold about 1 million units from 1970-76. A million.

What was the 2ax lifetime total in the US? 350k? 450K? And those dated from 1964, whereas the Advents were from 1970 on.

The 5 we know was about 50k. The 3a? What, 150k in the US? The 5 started in 1969, the 3a in Dec 1967.

So apples to apples, 1970 on, AR was probably 250k (2ax), 40k (5), 120k (3a), So AR’s total sales of “2 cu. ft. bookshelf boxes” during the head-to-head Advent competitive period was 410,000 units vs. Advent’s 1,000,000 Large Advents. Want to add in the post-1970 AR2x and the short-lived 1973 AR-8? Those two combined probably don’t amount to a hill of beans.

And, very impressively, every single Advent was sold at retail, after a competitive A-B in a sound room, where the customer said, “OK, I’ll take ‘em.” Advent didn’t sell to mail-order discounters, military exchanges, Lafayette Radio, etc. What do you think the actual “won-loss” record was of AR vs. Advent in head-to-head retail sound room competition in the 1970-1976 time period? How many times did a customer listen to a 2ax and then to a Large Advent at Sound Ideas or Tech Hi Fi or Atlantis Sound and say, “Ok, I’ll take the 2ax’s.” Out of those 410,000 units that AR sold in that time period, how many were direct “wins” vs. an Advent in an A-B face-off? I’d bet dollars to donuts that Advent won the retail war over AR 1,000,000 to 100,000. Ten to one. Exactly as I said before: Obliterated.

There were a lot of marketing/sales/distribution policy decisions that turned out to be disasters for AR during this time period as well. It wasn’t simply that the Advent sounded far better to their target buyers in a retail A-B demo than the reticent/deep bass-deficient 2ax, the smooth/deep bass-deficient/overpriced 5 or the smooth but too-expensive 3a. Advent was also more profitable for the dealer to sell and had better dealer advertising policies. Advent (Henry Kloss) really knew how to hold the dealers’ hands and make them feel like Advent’s partners, whereas AR took a somewhat ‘hands-off” approach to their dealers, feeling that as long as they (AR) “made a better mousetrap,” everything else would just kind of fall into line and take care of itself. It didn’t, of course.

AR had two huge factors that brought them down from 32% market share in the ‘60’s to single-digit % in the ‘70’s: The wrong product for a changing buyer demographic and a sales/marketing/distribution strategy that alienated their dealer base, while Advent was gaining dealers as allies who supported them with virtually religious zeal.

AR’s meteoric rise through the 50’s-60’s followed by their epic fall from grace through the ‘70’s and’80’s should be a standard graduate-level marketing study. AR did everything right, then did everything wrong. It’s fascinating.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

Roy C said

I've been thinking about this, Steve, and if we were limited to the known AR parts bin and price of the original 5, I don't see many (if any) decent possibilities. My only suggestion comes out of left field, and would be more expensive. Perhaps AR should have discontinued the AR-3 immediately upon the introduction of the 3a in 67, and offered essentially a "utility cabinet" version of it with a cone tweeter and 3a mid...and name it something else.  If "rough" is acceptable, I don't see any reason for the expensive, difficult to manufacture, fragile 3/4" dome tweeter to compete against the likes of the Larger Advent. The AR-3 crossover is nearly as simple as the 2ax crossover and would be easy to manufacture. The cabinet could be the 3a cabinet with a lesser finish, no bracing, and no trim. The dreaded pots could also be eliminated.The drawback of course, is it would still cost more than the Large Advent. [Roy]

Tysontom said

In hindsight: AR by 1970-1971 probably needed a woofer to fall between the 10-inch AR-2/AR-5 and 12-inch AR-3a flat-side woofers currently available, to compete with The Advent Loudspeaker and some others in that class.  A 2-way speaker was needed in an inexpensive cabinet.  Perhaps even a new line of budget speakers outside the main "classic" line.  This could be an inexpensively built 10-inch woofer, capable of response up to 1300-1400 Hz, with an 11-inch, 6-bolt frame (same size as the original Alnico AR-2) using expansion wood screws like the rest of the industry.  An off-the-shelf OEM-type tweeter with a couple of special "AR tweaks" to keep it somewhat proprietary.  The classic range would be left alone and would compete in a different, more-upscale class.  This new inexpensive series could be marketed to offset any advantage Advent had on the competition.  AR's reputation might have suffered a bit, but sales would have been excellent.    

The existing 10-inch AR-5 woofer could be updated inexpensively with a heavier magnet, slightly larger cone, 1½-inch voice coil with more overhang, lower resonance and the whole deal put into a separate line of speakers aimed directed at the Advent crowd.  The 11 lb. magnet structure and 2-inch voice coil of the AR-3a woofer was simply too costly, unworkable, inappropriate and overkill.  This new speaker might then have a -3dB of 36-38 Hz rather than the-3dB of 44-45 Hz in the later AR14.  The cabinet for this line would have the AR-5-type grill molding with vinyl (optional walnut veneer) in an interior volume approximately the same as the AR-3a.  A handsome, Velcro-attached grill of a slightly different design with some cosmetic features (similar to the plastic band that goes around the grill opening of The Advent Loudspeaker).

 

It looks like the technical side agrees, the AR2ax and AR5 were not fit to meet the challenge presented by the OLA.  Further, the preferred solution lies outside the current parts bin.  The guy holding the purse wants agreement.  The question for Marketing/Sales in 1969 is: 

Do we waste resources creating a parts bin pig that will be quick but please few or devote our efforts creating a new weapon to match or possibly overmatch the threat within a proposed timeframe NLT Sept 1971?

[genek]

14 hours ago, Aadams said:

Based on the story I read, Villchur was in a business he never really wanted to be in and he probably had been looking for a way to cash out for a while before Teledyne showed up. He made sure all of his top team members had soft landings in the transition and with their cushy set-up they proceeded to follow the path of every well fed, comfortable old timer, they followed their habits.

Based on the bits and pieces we've gotten over the years, it appears that although Villchur secured five-year deals for his team before he departed, there was friction from the start with Teledyne's new management, which had very different ideas about what products to develop. So rather than just "following their habits," Allison and co probably butted their heads into brick walls on their new product proposals and eventually followed the path of least conflict, finished the projects already in the pipeline when Villchur left the building and did whatever new ones Teledyne told them to while they worked on their own exit plans. 

It's a phenomenon I personally experienced many times during my career in Silicon Valley startups. When you go to work in an iconoclastic founder's new company, don't plan on trying to stick around for very long after your boss leaves, because everything that made that company a place you wanted to be will go with him/her.

[Aadams]

25 minutes ago, genek said:

Based on the bits and pieces we've gotten over the years, it appears that although Villchur secured five-year deals for his team before he departed, there was friction from the start with Teledyne's new management

Very plausible.  When we move to the blame placement phase it looks like Teledyne will be a candidate.

[tysontom]

3 hours ago, genek said:

Based on the bits and pieces we've gotten over the years, it appears that although Villchur secured five-year deals for his team before he departed, there was friction from the start with Teledyne's new management, which had very different ideas about what products to develop. So rather than just "following their habits," Allison and co probably butted their heads into brick walls on their new product proposals and eventually followed the path of least conflict, finished the projects already in the pipeline when Villchur left the building and did whatever new ones Teledyne told them to while they worked on their own exit plans. 

It's a phenomenon I personally experienced many times during my career in Silicon Valley startups. When you go to work in an iconoclastic founder's new company, don't plan on trying to stick around for very long after your boss leaves, because everything that made that company a place you wanted to be will go with him/her.

Kent,

We've talked about this countless times in the past, but to review a few facts that led up to the Teledyne, Inc. purchase of Acoustic Research in 1967:

It is apparent that by 1966, Edgar Villchur saw the handwriting on the wall, that AR's domination in engineering innovation, product-quality  and performance excellence would not go on forever, and he wanted to get back to his research.  After all, two of the biggest advances in high-fidelity speaker development came from Acoustic Research, and (most of) the rest of the industry followed AR's lead ("if you can't beat them, join 'em") and AR in fact held market domination at 32.2% in 1966.  This we all know well by now.  Of course, the rest of the industry was bound to catch up in time.

As Villchur explained many times, he was not an audio enthusiast and never wanted to be in "the business rat race" with day-to-day operations and decision-making hanging over him, and one day he hoped to build up AR to the point he could sell the company and retire to Woodstock, New York, to devote his time to research and writing.  This he did.  

Although he became a shrewd businessman over time, he disliked the part of doing business, and he in fact stayed away from direct operations as much as possible in the beginning.  In 1957, after the acrimonious departure of Kloss, Hofmann and Low, Villchur put in a new team of managers that by 1959 would later include Gerald Landau in marketing and Roy Allison in Plant Management.  Under Villchur's stewardship from 1954 until June 1967, AR grew larger and more profitable over time—never losing a penny during this entire period. 

In 1972, Villchur decided that the time was right to sell Acoustic Research while the company was at the top of its game, and he wisely chose a buyer (from several wanting to buy the company) willing to pay what was needed and to commit to requirements for the sale, to leave the top management people in place until June 1972, five years after signing the purchase agreement with Henry Singleton, founder of Teledyne, Inc.  This left Abe Hoffman (no relation to Tony) in as President, Gerald Landau as Marketing Director with Sumner Bennett as Sales Manager,  and Roy Allison as Vice President of Engineering. 

As it happened, these men were relatively free—within certain constraints as long as the organization grew and made money—to  manage the company as before and in accordance with pre-approved, long-range business plans.  There was apparently relatively little interference from the Teledyne people in the beginning stages of the 5-year term.  Product development continued along previous long-range plans with many noteworthy loudspeakers introduced that reflected Roy Allison's "touch," such as the AR-3a, AR-5, AR-4x, AR-6, AR-2ax and AR-LST.  The "basic" design of the AR-3a was Ed Villchur's vision, but the technical and production implementation of it was done by Chuck McShane with Roy's supervision and testing.

When 1972 rolled around, all bets were off and the "old guard" flew out the door quickly.  It was the end of AR as it was known for many years; now it was a Teledyne operation 100%.  —Tom Tyson

[genek]

I'd be surprised - no, make that shocked - if the old guard all made a sudden and simultaneous decision to "fly out the door quickly." They'd put a positive spin on and try to avoid crashing morale for the rest of the company, both at the time and long after, but anyone who's ever lived through a mass management exodus knows that they're preceded by long periods of discreet - and sometimes, not so discreet - seething.

[tysontom]

3 hours ago, genek said:

I'd be surprised - no, make that shocked - if the old guard all made a sudden and simultaneous decision to "fly out the door quickly." They'd put a positive spin on and try to avoid crashing morale for the rest of the company, both at the time and long after, but anyone who's ever lived through a mass management exodus knows that they're preceded by long periods of discreet - and sometimes, not so discreet - seething.

Yes, no doubt there was considerable stress and unrest at the company through this time after 1967.  There had to be some undercurrents of tension, but things appeared to run along pretty much as usual without too much interference from management at Teledyne right up to the end.  Although market share dropped after 1966, new products were introduced and revenues and profits rose each year after that, but by 1972, the tension had to be quite high!  

[tysontom]

11 hours ago, Steve F said:

Yes Tom, that’s clearly what I said:

Changing the solid angle environment of the AR-5 (or any speaker, for that matter) will not change the shape of its intrinsic bass response relative to itself, in the bass range. Going from 4π to 2π to π will raise or lower the dimensionally-affected bass region relative to the rest of the spectrum, but the “number of dB down” a given speaker is at 30Hz relative to its 45Hz level will stay the same. If the 5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

 

Now, back to the AR vs. Advent sales issue in the real world of the ‘70’s and whether AR needed a 12-inch speaker to compete with the OLA.

 I have some factual sales information about Advent in that time period. (Remember, BA’s founder was Advent’s head Product and Marketing guy. I worked with him for 11 years at BA. This info is from him directly, confirmed again by me w/ him via e-mail two days ago.)

In the 1970-1976 timeframe, Advent sold approximately 1.4 million speakers. Of that total, the Large Advent was “70-75% of that number.” (Direct quote.) That means that the Large Advent sold about 1 million units from 1970-76. A million.

What was the 2ax lifetime total in the US? 350k? 450K? And those dated from 1964, whereas the Advents were from 1970 on.

The 5 we know was about 50k. The 3a? What, 150k in the US? The 5 started in 1969, the 3a in Dec 1967.

So apples to apples, 1970 on, AR was probably 250k (2ax), 40k (5), 120k (3a), So AR’s total sales of “2 cu. ft. bookshelf boxes” during the head-to-head Advent competitive period was 410,000 units vs. Advent’s 1,000,000 Large Advents. Want to add in the post-1970 AR2x and the short-lived 1973 AR-8? Those two combined probably don’t amount to a hill of beans.

And, very impressively, every single Advent was sold at retail, after a competitive A-B in a sound room, where the customer said, “OK, I’ll take ‘em.” Advent didn’t sell to mail-order discounters, military exchanges, Lafayette Radio, etc. What do you think the actual “won-loss” record was of AR vs. Advent in head-to-head retail sound room competition in the 1970-1976 time period? How many times did a customer listen to a 2ax and then to a Large Advent at Sound Ideas or Tech Hi Fi or Atlantis Sound and say, “Ok, I’ll take the 2ax’s.” Out of those 410,000 units that AR sold in that time period, how many were direct “wins” vs. an Advent in an A-B face-off? I’d bet dollars to donuts that Advent won the retail war over AR 1,000,000 to 100,000. Ten to one. Exactly as I said before: Obliterated.

There were a lot of marketing/sales/distribution policy decisions that turned out to be disasters for AR during this time period as well. It wasn’t simply that the Advent sounded far better to their target buyers in a retail A-B demo than the reticent/deep bass-deficient 2ax, the smooth/deep bass-deficient/overpriced 5 or the smooth but too-expensive 3a. Advent was also more profitable for the dealer to sell and had better dealer advertising policies. Advent (Henry Kloss) really knew how to hold the dealers’ hands and make them feel like Advent’s partners, whereas AR took a somewhat ‘hands-off” approach to their dealers, feeling that as long as they (AR) “made a better mousetrap,” everything else would just kind of fall into line and take care of itself. It didn’t, of course.

AR had two huge factors that brought them down from 32% market share in the ‘60’s to single-digit % in the ‘70’s: The wrong product for a changing buyer demographic and a sales/marketing/distribution strategy that alienated their dealer base, while Advent was gaining dealers as allies who supported them with virtually religious zeal.

AR’s meteoric rise through the 50’s-60’s followed by their epic fall from grace through the ‘70’s and’80’s should be a standard graduate-level marketing study. AR did everything right, then did everything wrong. It’s fascinating.

Steve F.

>Yes Tom, that’s clearly what I said:

>Changing the solid angle environment of the AR-5 (or any speaker, for that matter) will not change the shape of its intrinsic bass response relative to itself, in the bass range. Going from 4π to 2π to π will raise or lower the dimensionally-affected bass region relative to the rest of the spectrum, but the “number of dB down” a given speaker is at 30Hz relative to its 45Hz level will stay the same. If the 5 is down 15dB at 30 relative to its output at 45, that remains constant, even if the entire bass region goes up or down relative to the midrange/highs when you transition from 4π to 2π to π.

Steve, you still seem to miss the point of putting the speaker in a corner.  Never mind this "dimensionally affected" hogwash (that must be some Boston Acoustics marketing speak); what is that, anyway?  It's also not a matter of 30 Hz relative to 45 Hz; all of the frequencies in the bass are elevated with a reduction of solid angle, but the point is to boost the entire spectrum of bass by 3 dB in a speaker that isn't super-powerful in the bottom octave.  If the listener is satisfied that midbass is not unduly affected by this move, and it doesn't upset the spectral balance too much (many times it will work out great, and I have tried it many times), then it is a valid way to boost low frequencies all the way down without increasing distortion.  A 3 dB increase at 40 Hz is a noticeable improvement.

>Now, back to the AR vs. Advent sales issue in the real world of the ‘70’s and whether AR needed a 12-inch speaker to compete with the OLA.  I have some factual sales information about Advent in that time period. (Remember, BA’s founder was Advent’s head Product and Marketing guy. I worked with him for 11 years at BA. This info is from him directly, confirmed again by me w/ him via e-mail two days ago.) In the 1970-1976 timeframe, Advent sold approximately 1.4 million speakers. Of that total, the Large Advent was “70-75% of that number.” (Direct quote.) That means that the Large Advent sold about 1 million units from 1970-76. A million.

It is probably important to note that this individual you mention, the founder of Boston Acoustics, was a former hi-fi salesman at Audio Lab (along with some other "greats" in the speaker world) before taking a job at KLH and finally with Henry Kloss in sales at Advent when that company entered the speaker market.  He's been out of the audio business for quite some time now, and I think you told me recently that he had no recollection of the famous Acoustic Research AR-LST—none—which  I consider a curious and surprising memory lapse.  The LST is one of the best-known loudspeakers of all times; how could he forget it?  So therefore, how can we be sure of these off-the-cuff sales numbers?  I doubt those sales were that high, and I've never seen anything like #1,000,000 on the back of any Advent, but it could be possible.  Roy would know better than most since he's looked at many over the years and has a good feel for the serial-number range.  Look, we all know that the Advent sold in high numbers, probably second in sales to the Dynaco A25, but even Dynaco didn't brag about 1.5 million sales to my knowledge.  I think those numbers you gave might be questionable.

>What was the 2ax lifetime total in the US? 350k? 450K? And those dated from 1964, whereas the Advents were from 1970 on. The 5 we know was about 50k. The 3a? What, 150k in the US? The 5 started in 1969, the 3a in Dec 1967  So apples to apples, 1970 on, AR was probably 250k (2ax), 40k (5), 120k (3a), So AR’s total sales of “2 cu. ft. bookshelf boxes” during the head-to-head Advent competitive period was 410,000 units vs. Advent’s 1,000,000 Large Advents. Want to add in the post-1970 AR2x and the short-lived 1973 AR-8? Those two combined probably don’t amount to a hill of beans.

Advent pushed their speakers on the market with huge dealer and salesman incentives, spiffs and other inducements to sell as many as possible, and the dealer mark-up was high.  There is a reason for this, which I will get to shortly.  There was always the in-store A/B comparison, and Advent dealers (who typically were not AR dealers) pitted their speaker, sometimes unfairly as we all know (level controls), against the likes of AR-2axs and AR-5s and so forth.  The higher sensitivity of the Advent also enhanced the more striking sound.  No AR would ever be sold in that environment, and I clearly saw this where I live as well.  Advent dealers were extremely aggressive and disparaging, but they made lots of sales.  AR was caught blindsided by this because the catalog-sales business was waning by this time as well.

Henry Kloss was a talented and innovative inventor, but he departed KLH after being rebuffed by Singer over the cost of his projection-TV product, and he left to start Advent with the hope of selling this product, along with several Dolby-based, chrome-tape recorders he hoped to sell to the audio marketplace.  These products were not big sellers, and the video product was extremely costly to develop.  But the real problem that plagued Advent was the same issue that had occurred at AR and at KLH: disorganization.  Acoustic Research could stand it no longer, and by February 1957, Villchur and some associates bought out Kloss, Hoffman and Low to clean up AR after auditors found that the business purchasing and production-control management was in shambles.  Even the 1957 AR-2, worked on by Kloss right up to the day he left, was developed incorrectly and had to be redesigned by Villchur, causing it to miss its introduction by nearly two months.  Singer Corporation felt the same way—that  Kloss was unmanageable, and they eventually parted ways with him.  Kloss used his KLH stock payout ($400k) to start Advent Corporation. 

Advent Corporation therefore wasted no time in getting into financial trouble.  Actually, Advent never really got off the ground.  By 1975, the company had a respectable $16.7 million in revenues but by the second half of that year, it had operating losses of $3 million!  The company went through several presidents, and product development went in different directions.  Prices were raised on certain products and R&D and advertising budgets were slashed to nothing.  Even the immensely successful The Advent Loudspeaker and The Smaller Advent could not save the company's fortunes.  Sales and income were higher by 1978 due to cut costs and increases in product retail prices, but in 1979, the fun came to an end, and Advent lost another $2.6 million.  By 1980, Advent owed nearly $15 million to banks.  In March of 1981, the company filed for Chapter 11.

So yes: The Advent Loudspeaker gave AR (and everyone else in the business) a tough time in its lifetime, yet the speaker was designed to be a huge seller from day one by offering the virtures of AR-3a bass for half the price, and it undoubtedly drained off a lot of sales from AR speakers.  Did AR rush out to design an "Advent-Buster?"  No, not really, except for the AR-8 and AR14, neither of which caused much harm to Advents sales.  Did it worry AR particularly?  Probably not as much as Steve would have you think.  AR knew that Advent was going through some tough times also.  

>And, very impressively, every single Advent was sold at retail, after a competitive A-B in a sound room, where the customer said, “OK, I’ll take ‘em.” Advent didn’t sell to mail-order discounters, military exchanges, Lafayette Radio, etc. What do you think the actual “won-loss” record was of AR vs. Advent in head-to-head retail sound room competition in the 1970-1976 time period? How many times did a customer listen to a 2ax and then to a Large Advent at Sound Ideas or Tech Hi Fi or Atlantis Sound and say, “Ok, I’ll take the 2ax’s.” Out of those 410,000 units that AR sold in that time period, how many were direct “wins” vs. an Advent in an A-B face-off? I’d bet dollars to donuts that Advent won the retail war over AR 1,000,000 to 100,000. Ten to one. Exactly as I said before: Obliterated.

That is a total crock!  By the mid-1970s, the old "fair-trade laws" were illegal in all but about 25 states, so price-fixing at a retail level was essentially illegal, despite the fact that many manufacturers threatened their dealerships (usually over the phone) with a franchise removal if the products were not sold at list price.  Legally, the manufactures would simply say that they had decided to give the franchise to another dealership due to sales issues.  So, this law was not never heavily enforced, although dealers would tell hapless buyers that they were "not able to discount the Advent for fear of losing their dealership" for that reason, but the smarter buyers easily got around this roadblock.  I bought two pairs of Advents myself at a decent discount from two separate franchised dealerships, one pair in Richmond Virginia and one pair a couple years later in Charlotte, North Carolina.  I bought these for friends, and I got a discount, and  I didn't buy a "system."  The dealer simply had a separate sales invoice to show Advent should they ask for it, which I was told that they weren't.  They were threatened by Advent not to discount the products  

There were a lot of marketing/sales/distribution policy decisions that turned out to be disasters for AR during this time period as well. It wasn’t simply that the Advent sounded far better to their target buyers in a retail A-B demo than the reticent/deep bass-deficient 2ax, the smooth/deep bass-deficient/overpriced 5 or the smooth but too-expensive 3a. Advent was also more profitable for the dealer to sell and had better dealer advertising policies. Advent (Henry Kloss) really knew how to hold the dealers’ hands and make them feel like Advent’s partners, whereas AR took a somewhat ‘hands-off” approach to their dealers, feeling that as long as they (AR) “made a better mousetrap,” everything else would just kind of fall into line and take care of itself. It didn’t, of course.

>AR had two huge factors that brought them down from 32% market share in the ‘60’s to single-digit % in the ‘70’s: The wrong product for a changing buyer demographic and a sales/marketing/distribution strategy that alienated their dealer base, while Advent was gaining dealers as allies who supported them with virtually religious zeal. AR’s meteoric rise through the 50’s-60’s followed by their epic fall from grace through the ‘70’s and’80’s should be a standard graduate-level marketing study. AR did everything right, then did everything wrong. It’s fascinating.

If you are a disciple of a one-trick pony type of business model, you can believe that Advent won the one battle with their speaker, but they lost the war.  Sales of all of Andy's Advents were poor, and the company couldn't survive longer than twelve or thirteen years—all very turbulent—before it crashed and burned in bankruptcy.  Reorganized, yes, but never the same. 

—Tom Tyson

[Aadams]

This is like the Thanksgiving Family and Groundhog Day rolled into a new story in which you guys are two geezers piloting Air France 447 while arguing over whether Convair or Douglas made the better plane for stall recovery. 

 

 

 

 

[Steve F]

Wow. On this thread, my opinions have been characterized as ‘hogwash,’ ‘lunacy,’ ‘ludicrous,’ among other things. I consider everyone on the Forum to have an interesting, well-considered, worthwhile view, and I enjoy reading them and respect everyone’s position. I may or may not agree with everything that is said here, but I don’t think I’d characterize anyone else’s view as “lunacy.” That’s just me. To each, his own. 

Re  “dimensionally-affected,” that is an accurate statement. Bass frequencies have wavelengths that are affected by their dimensional relationship to nearby room boundaries. As the frequency increases from low bass to mid bass to upper bass to lower midrange—and the wavelengths get shorter—the front baffle of the speaker cabinet itself (not the room boundaries) provides a 2π environment for the speaker at those frequencies. You know, the “dimensionally-affected” ones. 

As for Advent’s speaker sales, yes, Andy’s memory of the LST at a recent meeting I had with him was strangely lacking. But you tend to remember what your own kids did in vivid detail, even after you’ve long forgotten that your neighbor’s kid broke your basement window with an errand throw while playing ball in the street. I also remember an Advent magazine ad from that period (mid ‘70’s) that said something to the effect of “...we’ve sold a million Large Advents....”. Andy’s recollection of his own sales and my remembering an ad that said the same thing gives me confidence in the million Large Advent number.

This is not a court of law. Absent an authentic s/n label that says 1,000,000, there is no “proof.” People are free to accept or reject the Advent sales number as they want, according to what serves their personal purposes better.  When definitive “proof” is not there, people usually reconstruct and reinterpret history to fit their own preferred narrative. Fine with me. Again—to each, his own.

Advent’s fortunes as a corporation are not the subject of this discussion. Advent’s Large Advent speaker sales in the competitive 1970-1976 retail environment is the topic, and whether AR could/should have done something different to combat those Advent sales. I don’t care if Advent lost money on their projection TV or not, nor do I care that Kloss gave birth to the Advent speakers as a way to provide cash flow to fund the TV development effort. Immaterial to this discussion. This discussion is about the AR-5 and whether it was a market-worthy speaker for AR in the retail time period that was dominated on the showroom floor by the Large Advent, or whether AR could have done something more effective than the AR-5 as it was actually conceived and built. The reality is that the Large Advent dominated the retail showroom floor speaker sales during this time, and the 2ax-5-3a were not very successful in head-to-head A-B’s against the Large Advent.

Market success or failure is equal parts marketing/sales/distribution policy and equal parts actual product performance. From both a marketing and a purely product standpoint, the 2ax-5-3a were not effective against the Large Advent at retail in a showroom A-B. Of course, if being successful against Advent in a showroom A-B at Tech Hi Fi or Atlantic Sound or Tweeter Etc. in the 1970-1976 time period was not AR’s goal, then the basis for my having brought up the entire AR-5 12-inch thread in the first place was pointless.

I realize that my opinions are often thought of as lunacy, hogwash and ludicrous, but I hope someone will deem them worth reading nonetheless.

 

Steve F.

[tysontom]

4 hours ago, Steve F said:

Wow. On this thread, my opinions have been characterized as ‘hogwash,’ ‘lunacy,’ ‘ludicrous,’ among other things. I consider everyone on the Forum to have an interesting, well-considered, worthwhile view, and I enjoy reading them and respect everyone’s position. I may or may not agree with everything that is said here, but I don’t think I’d characterize anyone else’s view as “lunacy.” That’s just me. To each, his own. 

Re  “dimensionally-affected,” that is an accurate statement. Bass frequencies have wavelengths that are affected by their dimensional relationship to nearby room boundaries. As the frequency increases from low bass to mid bass to upper bass to lower midrange—and the wavelengths get shorter—the front baffle of the speaker cabinet itself (not the room boundaries) provides a 2π environment for the speaker at those frequencies. You know, the “dimensionally-affected” ones. 

As for Advent’s speaker sales, yes, Andy’s memory of the LST at a recent meeting I had with him was strangely lacking. But you tend to remember what your own kids did in vivid detail, even after you’ve long forgotten that your neighbor’s kid broke your basement window with an errand throw while playing ball in the street. I also remember an Advent magazine ad from that period (mid ‘70’s) that said something to the effect of “...we’ve sold a million Large Advents....”. Andy’s recollection of his own sales and my remembering an ad that said the same thing gives me confidence in the million Large Advent number.

This is not a court of law. Absent an authentic s/n label that says 1,000,000, there is no “proof.” People are free to accept or reject the Advent sales number as they want, according to what serves their personal purposes better.  When definitive “proof” is not there, people usually reconstruct and reinterpret history to fit their own preferred narrative. Fine with me. Again—to each, his own.

Advent’s fortunes as a corporation are not the subject of this discussion. Advent’s Large Advent speaker sales in the competitive 1970-1976 retail environment is the topic, and whether AR could/should have done something different to combat those Advent sales. I don’t care if Advent lost money on their projection TV or not, nor do I care that Kloss gave birth to the Advent speakers as a way to provide cash flow to fund the TV development effort. Immaterial to this discussion. This discussion is about the AR-5 and whether it was a market-worthy speaker for AR in the retail time period that was dominated on the showroom floor by the Large Advent, or whether AR could have done something more effective than the AR-5 as it was actually conceived and built. The reality is that the Large Advent dominated the retail showroom floor speaker sales during this time, and the 2ax-5-3a were not very successful in head-to-head A-B’s against the Large Advent.

Market success or failure is equal parts marketing/sales/distribution policy and equal parts actual product performance. From both a marketing and a purely product standpoint, the 2ax-5-3a were not effective against the Large Advent at retail in a showroom A-B. Of course, if being successful against Advent in a showroom A-B at Tech Hi Fi or Atlantic Sound or Tweeter Etc. in the 1970-1976 time period was not AR’s goal, then the basis for my having brought up the entire AR-5 12-inch thread in the first place was pointless.

I realize that my opinions are often thought of as lunacy, hogwash and ludicrous, but I hope someone will deem them worth reading nonetheless.

 

Steve F.

>On this thread, my opinions have been characterized as ‘hogwash,’ ‘lunacy,’ ‘ludicrous,’ among other things. I consider everyone on the Forum to have an interesting, well-considered, worthwhile view, and I enjoy reading them and respect everyone’s position. I may or may not agree with everything that is said here, but I don’t think I’d characterize anyone else’s view as “lunacy.” That’s just me. To each, his own. 

These characterizations are allegorical and strictly refer to some things said or expressed, not to you as a person!  Too strongly worded, probably, and less discreet than it should be.  You know that I have the highest regard for your opinions and thoughts, and I should say, "in my opinion," because it was just that.  Besides, this is largely a philosophical discussion, and it brings on stronger emotions and descriptions.   

>Re  “dimensionally-affected,” that is an accurate statement. Bass frequencies have wavelengths that are affected by their dimensional relationship to nearby room boundaries. As the frequency increases from low bass to mid bass to upper bass to lower midrange—and the wavelengths get shorter—the front baffle of the speaker cabinet itself (not the room boundaries) provides a 2π environment for the speaker at those frequencies. You know, the “dimensionally-affected” ones. 

Okay, fine.  I see what you are saying, but I have never noticed that expression in the audio literature anywhere, so somehow I've missed it.  So, the "hogwash" is on me if I have overlooked that expression somewhere!  We're otherwise in 100% agreement on the solid-angle thing, just nit-picking each other on some details.

>As for Advent’s speaker sales, yes, Andy’s memory of the LST at a recent meeting I had with him was strangely lacking. But you tend to remember what your own kids did in vivid detail, even after you’ve long forgotten that your neighbor’s kid broke your basement window with an errand throw while playing ball in the street. I also remember an Advent magazine ad from that period (mid ‘70’s) that said something to the effect of “...we’ve sold a million Large Advents....”. Andy’s recollection of his own sales and my remembering an ad that said the same thing gives me confidence in the million Large Advent number.

I do kind of recall some Advent advertisement to that effect, too, and it might certainly be close to a million.  A lot of companies at different times in history laid claim to the top-selling speaker, too, such as Dynaco (A-25), Fisher (XP-4 earlier), KLH (Six and Seventeen), BIC with one of their models and the Advent.  As for the number range of Advent speakers, I think Roy here would have a very good feel, having seen so many.

>This is not a court of law. Absent an authentic s/n label that says 1,000,000, there is no “proof.” People are free to accept or reject the Advent sales number as they want, according to what serves their personal purposes better.  When definitive “proof” is not there, people usually reconstruct and reinterpret history to fit their own preferred narrative. Fine with me. Again—to each, his own.

10-4.  I just think that Andy's sales-number memory might be slightly fuzzy, particularly when he drew a blank on the "AR-LST."  In the audio world, that's almost like saying, "you own a Chevrolet, what' a Chevrolet?"   

>Advent’s fortunes as a corporation are not the subject of this discussion. Advent’s Large Advent speaker sales in the competitive 1970-1976 retail environment is the topic, and whether AR could/should have done something different to combat those Advent sales. I don’t care if Advent lost money on their projection TV or not, nor do I care that Kloss gave birth to the Advent speakers as a way to provide cash flow to fund the TV development effort. Immaterial to this discussion. This discussion is about the AR-5 and whether it was a market-worthy speaker for AR in the retail time period that was dominated on the showroom floor by the Large Advent,

You are probably right that Advent's fortunes or success were not specifically a part of this discussion, and maybe it didn't belong here, but I think that company's financial well-being was definitely a factor in how the Advent speaker was originally conceived.  Remember, Henry Kloss had migrated from audio speakers at KLH to projection-TV and Dolby tape recorders, and he had not intended to get back into the speaker business; however, Advent Corporation was on the brink of insolvency after just a year or two of operation, and Kloss was forced back to his basic skills in speaker-building.  Kloss aimed at the entire market for a big-selling product, without anyone's speakers particularly in mind, and literally hit the ball out of the park on the first try.  He based his design on the KLH Six's value and the KLH Four's bass response.  Along the way, as luck would have it, the Advent happened to eat AR's lunch.

>or whether AR could have done something more effective than the AR-5 as it was actually conceived and built.

Remember, the Advent came well after the AR-5, not before it.  The AR-5 was already there in full production and distribution when the Advent hit the market, so no one at AR had any inkling of the impact or effectiveness of a new "Advent" speaker. 

>The reality is that the Large Advent dominated the retail showroom floor speaker sales during this time, and the 2ax-5-3a were not very successful in head-to-head A-B’s against the Large Advent.

AR's dealer network was very poor, frankly miserable, and as you have stated before, AR had a poor reputation with the few dealers that it did have, unlike Kloss' hand-holding with his dealers; therefore, Advent had a huge advantage in that respect as well.  AR's anachronistic marketing strategy was a problem that couldn't be fixed overnight, and certainly not by AR's "old guard" management team.  Yeah, ideally, AR might have scrapped the AR-5 and redesigned another speaker, but I think it was far too late to mount a competitive design.  I think we all know that using the 12-inch AR-3a woofer with the 3½-inch midrange driver would not be a good fit for many reasons that we have discussed over and over, so what was AR to do? Another example might be the KLH Five.  It offered "near-AR-3a bass" for $175 in a beautiful, very sophisticated 3-way speaker, but I think it sold fewer speakers than the AR-5. 

>e is equal parts marketing/sales/distribution policy and equal parts actual product performance. From both a marketing and a purely product standpoint, the 2ax-5-3a were not effective against the Large Advent at retail in a showroom A-B. Of course, if being successful against Advent in a showroom A-B at Tech Hi Fi or Atlantic Sound or Tweeter Etc. in the 1970-1976 time period was not AR’s goal, then the basis for my having brought up the entire AR-5 12-inch thread in the first place was pointless.   

If AR had established a strong and faithful dealer network/distribution policy during this period—and those AR dealers had gone all-out to promote and demonstrate AR speakers in the showroom as fervently as Advent dealers did their product—we wouldn't be having this discussion.  In my entire life I have never once witnessed an audio dealer "take up" for AR over an Advent.  Old habits die hard, and AR's sales/marketing arrogance in the late-60s and early 70s (after years of "you need us, we don't need you") did enormous damage to the brand.  Nevertheless, Acoustic Research continued to see big increases in sales and profits throughout this period up through the mid-1970s, even with that drop in market share, and it never lost money.  Teledyne/AR in 1975 went all out with some success to reverse the damage done, but many of the old established dealers (out of pride alone) would not come back to AR after the early days.

I still don't buy into the idea of an "AR-5 with a 12-inch AR-3a woofer," but that is your opinion, of course.  I think in the end, people viewed the difference in price between the AR-3a and AR-5 too little not to justify moving up a notch to the 3a.  Once the Advent surged in the market place, it hurt the sales of both of the AR speakers.

—Tom Tyson