Advent Model 300 Vintage Receiver Review

[anmpr1]

Stereo Exchange still exists but only as a high-end, by appointment only type of place).

When I plugged the Advent in last year, after not having used it for ~20 years, I was shocked at how NOISY it seemed.

During the low days of analog I purchased a Denon DP-75 and DA-307 arm from Stereo Exchange for a couple hundred dollars. I switched out the arm for a Grace 747, and then sold it to some guy living in the Ocala forest for about what I paid for it. Years later I saw that same turntable/arm (with a custom base I made) listed at the on-line marketplace for a thousand dollars. LOL

I think for the most part old stereo gear is like old cars. I was at the C/D site--they are running archive stories because I guess they can't pay for good writers anymore. The latest was a year 2000 sports sedan comparo (remember the Saab Viggen?). They were all impressive and a lot of fun back then, but pretty pathetic spec-wise given the current state of Euro sports sedans.

Unless you can fix something yourself I see no reason to get involved with old hi-fi gear. Generally it's not worth much, although second hand prices for certain stuff remains high. Old tube gear people used to throw away tends to retain some value. Maybe a McIntosh amp or something with bonafide collector value (but otherwise useless) like a Marantz 10 tuner. Not sure anyone anywhere would want an Advent receiver, unless they could pick it up for a few dollars at a garage sale. And then it'd be a close call with the Oster blender.

 

[Labjr]

I don't see value in any American made solid state hi-fi components from the 70's. They weren't that good compared to newer equipment. By the 70's, Japanese companies were eating our lunch. The reliability was better and the prices were lower. However, I think Some of the 80's Japanese stuff is worth looking at.

 

[cistercian]

I don't see value in any American made solid state hi-fi components from the 70's. They weren't that good compared to newer equipment. By the 70's, Japanese companies were eating our lunch. The reliability was better and the prices were lower. However, I think Some of the 80's Japanese stuff is worth looking at.

That is about where I am at with one caveat...older mitsumi tuner equipped stereo receivers are still better than typical
receivers made today. Modern receivers on a chip for consumer use are not very good compared to the old stuff.
BUT...really old gear is a PITA to maintain and plenty of components are just gone for good.

I don't listen to FM anymore so for me it is a moot point anyhow.
Old receiver architecture was very different. Two stages of tuned RF amplification before the mixer helped selectivity
as well as sensitivity. Of course it cost more to build it and align it. Radio on a chip costs far less.

 

[Labjr]

My Fisher 500C has a Nuvistor front end. I think it's very good. Marantz 10B and Fisher FM-1000 were very good tube FM tuners. Sequerra Model 1 was a great solid state tuner from the 70's but that was $2,000 back in the day. You're right though, the heyday for FM is long gone. Between the content and the quality of the transmission, which is probably compressed digital files being played by a computer, it's terrible.

 

[cistercian]

My Fisher 500C has a Nuvistor front end. I think it's very good. Marantz 10B and Fisher FM-1000 were very good tube FM tuners. Sequerra Model 1 was a great solid state tuner from the 70's but that was $2,000 back in the day. You're right though, the heyday for FM is long gone. Between the content and the quality of the transmission, which is probably compressed digital files being played by a computer, it's terrible.

Nuvistors were really cool. Tiny tubes with short leads and small spacing between elements for better performance at VHF+.
I still have a few in the junk box. I have some acorn tubes too but after all these years the seals failed and the getters are white now.
Orban compressor/limiters were the end of good FM. Most stations sound horrible now and you are right about source material too.
Yuck.

 

[JeffS7444]

Really enjoyed listening to my McIntosh MR71 for a number of years, but it's mostly a collector's item at this point: Modern DSP FM receivers should have sufficiently good selectivity to properly deal with (or ignore) digital radio signals riding on the sidebands. It's a pity that Sony never released a more advanced followup model to their XDR-F1HD, but that tuner was built around a chip which is no longer being produced. But Software Defined Radio (SDR) solutions can be had for under 30 USD in the form of a USB stick.

 

[mhardy6647]

Really enjoyed listening to my McIntosh MR71 for a number of years, but it's mostly a collector's item at this point: Modern DSP FM receivers should have sufficiently good selectivity to properly deal with (or ignore) digital radio signals riding on the sidebands. It's a pity that Sony never released a more advanced followup model to their XDR-F1HD, but that tuner was built around a chip which is no longer being produced. But Software Defined Radio (SDR) solutions can be had for under 30 USD in the form of a USB stick.

I still use an MR-67 nearly every day to listen to Vermont Public Radio. VPR is cool in that they actually maintain two separate station networks: one is almost all news and talk (plus a few music programs, some locally produced and very good), and the other is all classical music (again, much of it locally produced). Their sound quality is very, very good (especially on the MR-67).

Generally not a big fan of things McIntosh -- but (to their credit) they have made some nice, and good sounding, tuners over the decades.

DSC_0705 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[cistercian]

I still use an MR-67 nearly every day to listen to Vermont Public Radio. VPR is cool in that they actually maintain two separate station networks: one is almost all news and talk (plus a few music programs, some locally produced and very good), and the other is all classical music (again, much of it locally produced). Their sound quality is very, very good (especially on the MR-67).

Generally not a big fan of things McIntosh -- but (to their credit) they have made some nice, and good sounding, tuners over the decades.

DSC_0705 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Nice!

 

[EJ3]

Thank you both very much. I appreciate the replies, Bruce and Labjr. That ebay link jogged my memory -- I recall coming across that ebay seller when I was looking into the Fisher several years ago. I passed not just because the cost was too high (it is), but because it's not an exact match. The pot in the amp section of the Fisher Allegro (there are no individual model number designations for the separate amp and tuner in the Allegro) has a 4-gang pot, so I'd be paying $90 to the ebay and am then counting on successfully extracting the switch from the back of his 2-gang pot, and grafting it onto mine. And of course this is assuming the pots are the same diameter. Probably they are, but again, it's $90 to find out.

Anyway, thanks again, and since this IS an Advent Model 300 thread, let me chime in on that regard. I bought my Advent Model 300 used in 1986 from Stereo Exchange in downtown NYC (which back then along with Harvey in midtown were two favorite destinations for audiophiles. Stereo Exchange still exists but only as a high-end, by appointment only type of place). I paid $120, IIRC.

When I plugged the Advent in last year, after not having used it for ~20 years, I was shocked at how NOISY it seemed. This probably has a lot to do with the current state of the caps and that my unit is unrestored. However, I am concerned that what's really going on is that what we find acceptable today as a noise floor is much improved from 30 years ago, which would mean that the Model 300 was actually not that good. I'm trying to decide whether to restore it, and I guess I wonder whether it will meet my modern expectations.

The one Amir tested is mine and it has been renewed, although I don't know about the Power Supply, which is in limbo at the moment. So, on the amp side (which many, if not most) we have the information that it was possibly quiet enough for most turntables at the time (but not likely quiet enough for the very best TT's of the time, on the other hand, if you had a TOTL TT, you likely where not using this UNLESS it was just for the phono section & FM, which we still have very little data on BUT is how I believe most people ended up using it). That was, according to ADVENT, it's real reason for being built.

 

[amirm]

Review updated with phono stage performance.

 

[cistercian]

My parents fisher solid state rig had an audible noise floor as did my pioneer sx-727. When I bought my CD player
I used the phones jack on the player for black levels of silence with phones. Playback though speakers was fine.
I remember hearing everybody's stereos hissing at idle, including some very expensive ones.
I remember being shocked at how there was no noise in between tracks on the CD player when using phones.
It was weird! Our equipment is in many ways vastly better now...even if it feels light and toy like compared to
the old heavy gear.
I don't miss rumble either or hearing footsteps during playback!

 

[EJ3]

Review updated with phono stage performance.

Thank you very much for taking the extra time to do this. The average was less distortion than I expected but I was not expecting the low end bump in distortion and the high end peaking. The rumble filter is an in the documentation. Being able to defeat it would have been nice.

 

[EJ3]

My parents fisher solid state rig had an audible noise floor as did my pioneer sx-727. When I bought my CD player
I used the phones jack on the player for black levels of silence with phones. Playback though speakers was fine.
I remember hearing everybody's stereos hissing at idle, including some very expensive ones.
I remember being shocked at how there was no noise in between tracks on the CD player when using phones.
It was weird! Our equipment is in many ways vastly better now...even if it feels light and toy like compared to
the old heavy gear.
I don't miss rumble either or hearing footsteps during playback!

I only noticed footsteps at some other folks homes. Half of the home that I grew up in is on slab. My parents owned a small Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Company my family started in 1927. They designed (and with their contracting friends) built their own house. When they built it had a central vacuum cleaning system and an intercom system. I am guessing that it was built to a higher than average standard. I live there now.

 

[restorer-john]

Unless you can fix something yourself I see no reason to get involved with old hi-fi gear. Generally it's not worth much, although second hand prices for certain stuff remains high. Old tube gear people used to throw away tends to retain some value. Maybe a McIntosh amp or something with bonafide collector value (but otherwise useless) like a Marantz 10 tuner. Not sure anyone anywhere would want an Advent receiver, unless they could pick it up for a few dollars at a garage sale. And then it'd be a close call with the Oster blender.

If you had spent a significant proportion of you life life deep inside and repairing gear, appreciating every nuance of the design, quality, construction and performance, perhaps you would have come to same conclusions I have.

That being: modern gear is transient in nature- here today, gone tomorrow and thrown out for minor failures, not remotely good quality in general, won't stand the test of time, and is so unsustainable it should be banned. Not only that, it's not really good value. I see people wetting themselves over a headphone amplifier for several hundred dollars. What a joke.

As for vintage gear being "not worth much", go look at the prices being consistently achieved on the secondhand market for Marantz gear from the early 1970s right through until the mid 1980s. Have a look at classic Quad, Leak, Empire, Linn, Technics, Sony, Yamaha, Sansui, Pioneer, Accuphase and US brands of note.

And yes, at the garage sale, you could pick up the 1950s Ivar Jepson designed Sunbeam Mixmaster A-12(B) that just needs a little TLC (instead of a nasty Oster blender) or the tube/valve receiver that will cause you a whole lot of pain restoring it. My attitude? Buy them both for a few dollars! And guess what stand kitchen mixer sits in my kitchen? Not a noisy KitchenAid or Kenneth Wood's Chef, but a 1966 indestructible, quiet, and beautiful A-12 Mixmaster. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes better mashed potatoes, cake batter, egg whites or whips cream like a Mixmaster.

Yes, I restored these long before they were cool to restore...

 

[anmpr1]

As for vintage gear being "not worth much", go look at the prices being consistently achieved on the secondhand market for Marantz gear from the early 1970s right through until the mid 1980s.

When I said 'not worth much' I meant the run of the mill stuff from the era. Sure, a Levinson LNP-2 is going to cost an arm and a leg if you can find one. But mass market gear that was once 'rated high' (like this little Advent) shouldn't be worth anything. Let's face it, it was kind of a silly thing back in 1977, and it hasn't gotten any better over the years. However that doesn't mean that someone might not pay top dollar for one, in order to 'bring back that lovin' feeling'. People spend their money in strange ways.

I also meant that on an absolute technical level the old stuff really isn't worth much compared to equivalent modern gear. Of course it is possible to spend an arm and two legs for something modern that is technically worse than certain old gear. That is certainly true.

PS: One reason (I'm sure) that folks like the '70s and '80s gear is that it looks and feels a thousand times better than most new stuff. Solid aluminum face plates, knobs and switches. Now it's all black plastic for the most part. That said, unless one can fix it themselves, or know someone that can, I'd not advise anyone spending too much money on the older stuff.

 

[EJ3]

If you had spent a significant proportion of you life life deep inside and repairing gear, appreciating every nuance of the design, quality, construction and performance, perhaps you would have come to same conclusions I have.

That being: modern gear is transient in nature- here today, gone tomorrow and thrown out for minor failures, not remotely good quality in general, won't stand the test of time, and is so unsustainable it should be banned. Not only that, it's not really good value. I see people wetting themselves over a headphone amplifier for several hundred dollars. What a joke.

As for vintage gear being "not worth much", go look at the prices being consistently achieved on the secondhand market for Marantz gear from the early 1970s right through until the mid 1980s. Have a look at classic Quad, Leak, Empire, Linn, Technics, Sony, Yamaha, Sansui, Pioneer, Accuphase and US brands of note.

And yes, at the garage sale, you could pick up the 1950s Ivar Jepson designed Sunbeam Mixmaster A-12(B) that just needs a little TLC (instead of a nasty Oster blender) or the tube/valve receiver that will cause you a whole lot of pain restoring it. My attitude? Buy them both for a few dollars! And guess what stand kitchen mixer sits in my kitchen? Not a noisy KitchenAid or Kenneth Wood's Chef, but a 1966 indestructible, quiet, and beautiful A-12 Mixmaster. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes better mashed potatoes, cake batter, egg whites or whips cream like a Mixmaster.

Yes, I restored these long before they were cool to restore...

The NAD 2200's were considered run of the mill. Mine tested out pretty well & the updates were not anything that would change the original circuitry. Same for my ADVENT: if used as a phono/FM pre (I do listen to probably 20% FM [and fix the power supply issue]) it would serve it's purpose (for my DUAL 1229 TT & my high end cassette decks, it's as some Brit's might say "ADEQUATE". For my Technics SL-M3
Specifications
Type: fully automatic
Drive method: direct drive
Motor: brushless DC motor
Drive control method: quartz phase locked control
Platter: 325mm, 2.5kg, aluminium die-cast
Pitch control: +-6% range
Speeds: 33 and 45rpm
Wow and flutter: 0.022% WRMS
Rumble: -82dB
Tonearm: dynamically-balanced linear tracking
Effective length: 238mm
Effective mass: 13g (including cartridge)
Cartridge: moving magnet
Replacement stylus: EPS-33ES
Dimensions: 526 x 205 x 425mm
Weight: 15kg
(-82 db rumble isn't a terrible spec. It likely won't be heard in the average room [and there are turntables that do even better than that]) and my OPPO 205, not so much. I run these and other digital things into other stuff I bought better suited to the noise floor, etc of what I am doing. Having bought my things new, putting out $200-$400 to bring it up to the best that it can be is certainly worth not putting it out to pasture.
On the other hand, if you have gone full digital, then maybe only my NAD 2200 triplets are good enough. I am not of the consumerist bent, I try to buy quality and try to keep it. I recently got rid of my 1972 Ford Mustang Grande with a 351 Cleveland, FMX trans, power windows, AC (& all other options available then + my updates: computer controlled electronic ignition, Aussie Heads [that I bought in Perth while I was visiting] fuel injection & suspension upgrades, etc), I bought when it was 3 years old, sold it with now over 300,000 miles, due for an engine rebuild, for $25,000. Is it worth that? I don't know. But that is what I was offered & I decide that I could part with it for that. I have other cars to drive that I like better (1970 Pontiac T/A "Bandit" manual trans [80K miles], 2000 Nissan Frontier 4 cyl [170K miles ], 2007 Honda Fit [50K miles] & a 2012 Lexus ES350 [30K miles]. Turns out that this list is in the inverse order of what I like driving the most.

 

[restorer-john]

I also meant that on an absolute technical level the old stuff really isn't worth much compared to equivalent modern gear.

Absolutely true, yes. The deceptive simplicity of much modern gear hides phenomenal complexity and integration which simply wasn't possible in the past. But often, that complexity is there for complexities sake and not for improving the ultimate performance.

My issue primarily is the waste/sustainability of vintage vs modern. Once modern gear went fully high density SMD and then PbFree, reliability went out the window. Sure it's getting better now, but lead free soldered joints with SMD components simply don't last the test of time, especially in moist, coastal environments. Even a single ant can destroy and render gear unrepairable, especially if crawls over multiple pins of a FPGA or uP.

But, it's here to stay for sure.

 

[mhardy6647]

If you had spent a significant proportion of you life life deep inside and repairing gear, appreciating every nuance of the design, quality, construction and performance, perhaps you would have come to same conclusions I have.

That being: modern gear is transient in nature- here today, gone tomorrow and thrown out for minor failures, not remotely good quality in general, won't stand the test of time, and is so unsustainable it should be banned. Not only that, it's not really good value. I see people wetting themselves over a headphone amplifier for several hundred dollars. What a joke.

As for vintage gear being "not worth much", go look at the prices being consistently achieved on the secondhand market for Marantz gear from the early 1970s right through until the mid 1980s. Have a look at classic Quad, Leak, Empire, Linn, Technics, Sony, Yamaha, Sansui, Pioneer, Accuphase and US brands of note.

And yes, at the garage sale, you could pick up the 1950s Ivar Jepson designed Sunbeam Mixmaster A-12(B) that just needs a little TLC (instead of a nasty Oster blender) or the tube/valve receiver that will cause you a whole lot of pain restoring it. My attitude? Buy them both for a few dollars! And guess what stand kitchen mixer sits in my kitchen? Not a noisy KitchenAid or Kenneth Wood's Chef, but a 1966 indestructible, quiet, and beautiful A-12 Mixmaster. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes better mashed potatoes, cake batter, egg whites or whips cream like a Mixmaster.

Yes, I restored these long before they were cool to restore...

When, where, and (EDIT) how I grew up, this was a "Mixmaster"

http://airportjournals.com/mixmasters-cessnas-misunderstood-twins/

(yeah, yeah -- the Sunbeam was, too)

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Absolutely true, yes. The deceptive simplicity of much modern gear hides phenomenal complexity and integration which simply wasn't possible in the past. But often, that complexity is there for complexities sake and not for improving the ultimate performance.

My issue primarily is the waste/sustainability of vintage vs modern. Once modern gear went fully high density SMD and then PbFree, reliability went out the window. Sure it's getting better now, but lead free soldered joints with SMD components simply don't last the test of time, especially in moist, coastal environments. Even a single ant can destroy and render gear unrepairable, especially if crawls over multiple pins of a FPGA or uP.

But, it's here to stay for sure.

I'm with you when to comes to large, monstrously complex products like AVRs. That said, I don't think it applies to simpler stuff like little desktop DACs and even the multitude of uber-cheap Chinese-built Class D "chip amps," where most of the sophisication and complexity is in VLSI silicon and the rest of the PCB is pretty rudimentary, requiring at most a double-sided PCB with relatively few solder joints -- and then there's the cost factor and minuscule environmental impact involved, which pretty much dictates discarding/recycling and replacing a sub-$100USD audio product rather than having it repaired professionally at today's hourly rates.

 

[BDWoody]

When, where, and I grew up, this was a "Mixmaster"

View attachment 75756
View attachment 75757
http://airportjournals.com/mixmasters-cessnas-misunderstood-twins/

(yeah, yeah -- the Sunbeam was, too)

Exactly what I thought of...
Lots of years reading Flying!

Looked at one, ended up with a Seneca II.