Advent Model 300 Vintage Receiver Review

[Hiten]

Not sure but HiFiEngine has following specifications when new.
-----
Frequency response: 40Hz to 20kHz
Total harmonic distortion: 0.5%
Signal to noise ratio: 80dB (MM), 80dB (line)
-----
Probably that explains bass roll off ? Also Original is THD : 0.5% at full power both channels ??
Thanks for the review
Regards

 

[restorer-john]

The volume and treble knobs appear to be transposed...

 

[restorer-john]

I believe it came out in 1970s.

See the dates on the schematic below.

The former I do as I tried to get a flat response but could not

The amplifier has a deliberate roll-off in the power stage feedback loop which is the dominant pole for the low end. -3dB at 10.6Hz.

 

[EJ3]

Advent 300 is a favorite of mine but I can't say I'm too surprised by test results, as a bit of noise and power supply ripple was visible at the outputs of mine even after I had replaced every single electrolytic and tantalum capacitor. Do you have any means of illustrating the effect of the tone controls and accuracy of RIAA equalization? I really found the treble control especially useful between 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock positions Did you measure output impedance of pre-outs? Was under the impression it was too high to drive more than a short length of cable, at least that seemed true of my unit.

This is my unit (bought new in the late 70's). Henry Kloss hired Tomlinson Holman for this project. And this is about what I expected, except for the PS issue being as bad as it is. The well known FM drift during warm-up has been addressed (seemingly a temperature related issue of the parts used at the time), along with the rest caps having been replaced. I will have to look into the power supply again. Perhaps "it is what it is" design wise. It is suggested in the owners manual that the unit was designed for the owner to upgrade to a separate amplifier and that the engineering was put into the FM tuner and Phono sections. Perhaps this is why their last product (the ADVENT 350) had an amplifier section with approximately double the rated power. When this ADVENT 300 is in my system (as it sometimes is) it is usually being used as a Preamp for the FM. Sometimes also for the Phono. The pre out runs into either a pair of NAD 2100's or 3 NAD 2200's (Amir recently tested one of my NAD 2200 triplets). I originally used very efficient Frazier Super Monte Carlo speakers (Jack Frazier & Paul W Klipsch were friendly) before I added separate amplification and Dahlquist M905's with subwoofers.. Like you, I found the treble control useful when used as a receiver. When I added amplification the bass control became useful also. In both cases between the 11 to 2 o'clock positions.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Looks like something Henry Kloss would make. Like a Tivoli radio.

Yes, indeed. That's what the tuner knob made me think of. We have 2 Tivoli PALs.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Funny that the treble and volume knobs are reversed.
Back in the day, these were popular just for the phono section. Some users purchased them for that purpose only.
Too bad you didn't test that aspect.

Dave.

Looks like those 2 knobs have been swapped.

 

[uwotm8]

Such devices are meant to be used with high-sensitive loudspeakers of same age. But still it measures better than typical chinese D or T-class crap (cheap smsl and topping rated up to 2x50W but clipping at 10-15W), and should sound better as well. That said, it's usable with natching speakers and/or for desktop/background listening if size doesn't matter (may be critical for desktop use tho).

P.S. The look is perfect, the only thing I don't like is not-bananable acoustic terminals.

 

[milosz]

At the time these were available- mid / late 1970's - they were the best tuner / preamp you could buy for a reasonable price, and you got some low power amplifiers to use whilst your Marantz 240 was getting new output transistors in one channel (my story in 1980)

The tuner was decent and the phono stage also better than most Japanese offerings of the day. As far as SINAD goes, remember in those days - 1970's-early '80's - the BEST S/N you got from any source was about 60 dB- and generally less. FM, LPs, cassettes, open reel - none of these have realistic best-case unweighted S/N ratios higher than about 70 dB, and 60 dB or less was typical. So really there wasn't any drawback to having a tuner / preamp with this kind of SINAD.

Maybe if you had a high quality cassette deck or half-track stereo open reel at 15 IPS you could approach 70 dB unweighted S/N- but where did the music on that tape come from? A commercial pre-recorded cassette certainly isn't really high fidelity, and pre-recorded open reel albums were fairly rare and usually 3¾ IPS, so most of your cassettes and open reels would be recordings of your friends' LPs you made at home- and now we are back to the miserable SINAD of the vinyl medium. So- aside from bragging rights - where is the need for a preamp that exceeds 68 dB SINAD in 1979?

With digital media we now have MUCH better source S/N so nowadays this would matter if you were listening to CDs or files. However if you are listening to vinyl, you're lucky to obtain 50 dB S/N so go ahead and use your Advent 300 Holman phono stage.....

I would LOVE to see the SINAD for vinyl playback of a 1 kHz tone from a test LP.

 

[pma]

Time to put one of those expensive power conditioner/regenerators in front of it.
They do have a role!

This will make almost nothing with the measurements. The mains frequency multiples come from the rectifier + filter caps and poor PSR of the design.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Such devices are meant to be used with high-sensitive loudspeakers of same age. But still it measures better than typical chinese D or T-class crap (cheap smsl and topping rated up to 2x50W but clipping at 10-15W), and should sound better as well. That said, it's usable with natching speakers and/or for desktop/background listening if size doesn't matter (may be critical for desktop use tho).

P.S. The look is perfect, the only thing I don't like is not-bananable acoustic terminals.

Seriously?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...opping-tp60-and-fx-audio-fx502spro-amps.5025/

 

[restorer-john]

P.S. The look is perfect, the only thing I don't like is not-bananable acoustic terminals.

The look is wonderful! It's got the vintage "test gear" look about it, all it needed was a vernier for the tuner or at least a geared sub wheel and a meter or two.

As for the speaker terminals @amirm doesn't like, they were pretty much standard for about a decade on HiFi of all brands even though they were truly hideous, especially with the serrated washers and inbuilt ability to squeeze out any and all wire you put under them, no matter how carefully you stripped, twisted and inserted under the washer before screwing them down.

All the while, we had the almost 100 year old banana plug on test gear, but it took until the late 70s/early 80s before it made it to domestic HiFi amplifiers and speakers (phew).

 

[AudioSceptic]

All this has reminded me of the Advent 201 cassette deck, one of the first to be considered hi-fi. <https://www.cassettedeck.org/advent/201> NEAL made the similar 102 (!) in the UK <https://www.cassettedeck.org/neal/102>

 

[raindance]

I can't see wasting time for much more than a basic measurements which shows how bad most American companies were at making solid state hi-fi during the 70's.

This is from the 70's and is far better than the vacuum tube alternative, FYI.

 

[anmpr1]

Historical note: this design caused quite a stir in 'high end' space. It was pretty much due to Tom Holman's writings on the RIAA interface--what he termed 'cartridge inductance interaction' and his measuring of 'spectral content of square waves passed through the preamp after simulating RIAA preemphasis)'... (JAES 5/76).

Audio Critic numero uno rated the RIAA portion of Holman's little machine high, subjectively; supposedly 'sounding better' than the $1800.00 Yamaha wunderkind, the flashy and gimmicky C-1. At the same time, Aczel and his gang (which presumably included Mitchell Cotter) discovered that none of the Holman tests had any clear relationship to the 'sound' of various phono stages (they reviewed about two dozen in that issue), so you can draw your own conclusions about that bit of objective science.

Interestingly, with levels closely matched, the little Advent was said to be essentially indistinguishable from master-mind John Curl's JC-2 phono section. That should have triggered a lightbulb, but things were pretty dim back then (present company included--LOL).

As others have pointed out, because of its reputation, the Model 300 was often used as a 'cheap seats' preamp (with a tuner thrown in 'for free').

 

[anmpr1]

...I tried to get a flat response but could not: You can see the two humps where the treble and bass controls act.

From Audio Critic 1977: "...we discovered in the lab that when the tone controls were set for dead-flat response on the right channel, there was a 2 dB bass boost on the left channel. Furthermore, the dead flat position of the treble control was a few minutes past the 12 o'clock position. (Of course we mustn't forget that we're dealing with a $260 stereo receiver here... next thing you know, we'll complain that the controls didn't have that expensive feel. They don't..."

FWIW, I was a little surprised to see it assembled in Mexico. I didn't think outsourcing was common back then, but I didn't notice those things back then, either.

 

[Caligari]

This was known to have a great phono stage when it first came out.

 

[Robin L]

This was known to have a great phono stage when it first came out.

It had an ok phono stage. Maybe better than a cheap Pioneer receiver, but not all that much. The NAD 3020 had a better phono stage.

 

[anmpr1]

As for the speaker terminals @amirm doesn't like, they were pretty much standard for about a decade on HiFi of all brands even though they were truly hideous

For certain. In the 'early' days of hi-fi, screw on spade terminal strips were common. Upscale loudspeakers often had twist-on connectors that accepted bare wire. RCA plugs--probably the worst design ever. No one thought about connections in consumer gear. One of the first to bring it up (maybe the first) was Mark Levinson who incorporated camac terminations. They were an improvement, but one reason he did it (I suspect) is that Mark really didn't want other gear interfacing with his stuff.

Today, audiofools are fortunate to have decent connectors as being pretty much standard.

 

[Hiten]

accuracy of RIAA equalization?

From a wonderful site 'Americanradiohistory.com' (or worldradiohistory.com) and its HiFi Stereo Review Feb 1977 article Original RIAA specs were (+/-0.25dB 50hz to 15k and almot 0.5dB to 20K).
On side note 100 watts amplifiers were easily available those days. This model was deliberate low power unit to be adaptable to run from cars. https://worldradiohistory.com/ is tremendous resource for vintage equipments, reviews and articles.
Regards

 

[Labjr]

This is from the 70's and is far better than the vacuum tube alternative, FYI.

I have a Fisher 500C that'll smoke that thing.