• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The New Advent Loudspeaker Review (Vintage Speaker)

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,979
Well... I mean... photography, too. ;)

7f3fd7e25f5de159afdb7b3030522dec.jpg
Not that the technology had changed much, but that darkroom is more 40’s than 70’s. Everybody in the 70’s wanted a condenser enlarger, like an Omega or a Beseler, and then by the 80’s they wanted a Durst or a Saunders. Not the old Solar diffusion enlarger shown here. I think I still have an old Solar 5x7 enlarger in the pile somewhere. Just try finding the bulb that thing takes. If I ever set up an enlarging capability again, it will use the Omega D-3 that’s much closer to the top of that pile.

When my last Nikon scanner can no longer be used, I may be back to that enlarger. That’s the part that’s on point here—the old mechanical (and electro-mechanical) technology is easier to sustain in the face of technological obsolescence than the newer software-based stuff. The newer stuff can’t be better when its technology is no longer available, and that because of a commercial viability decision insensitive to my needs and desires.

Those who sell subscription services are wholly interested in the complete removal of standalone technology. When physical media and it’s playback equipment disappears completely, the rent-seeking model will prevail, which will mean higher prices, little control over quality as any given individual may measure it, and increased external oversight of my choices. and the abandonment of formats and software will accelerate. I will buy and use physical media as long as I can.

My digital photography is a concern in that regard. Much of the work I’ve done is in proprietary formats like DNG and PSD—widely supported now but with no guarantees for a few decades from now. I spend a lot on backup systems and also keep multiple versions of important stuff. Now Adobe wants me to store all that on their cloud servers. I don’t think so! Most people don’t think about preservation, and their grandkids will never see those family pictures or play Grandpa’s music.

Rick “history writ small” Denney
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,741
Likes
6,460
That’s the part that’s on point here—the old mechanical (and electro-mechanical) technology is easier to sustain in the face of technological obsolescence than the newer software-based stuff. The newer stuff can’t be better when its technology is no longer available...

Those who sell subscription services are wholly interested in the complete removal of standalone technology. When physical media and it’s playback equipment disappears completely, the rent-seeking model will prevail...,

An example I use: if my Dyna tube amplifier blows up, I can repair it myself. If my AHB2 blows up, it's back to Syracuse. Hopefully the company will still be in business. If not, since it's not much to look at, it will probably be trashed, because who will be able to repair it?

The subscription model for software ('enterprise' licensing) has been the case with businesses for a while, but whether it is worthwhile for consumers is another story. MS is advertising their monthly 'Office 365' (I think that's what they call it) sub, telling consumers they will always have access to the latest and greatest builds. But for most consumers it is doubtful that they need any of that. I have a 'boxed' copy of Office 2013. Why would I need to upgrade for routine tasks? When I used to use typewriters I never felt the need to buy a new model as long as the old one worked.

I still have records I bought going back from when I was a kid. Why not use them?

You will own nothing and you will be happy!
 

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
Here are the complete TS parameters for the A25 woofer. Note the extremely high Vas and Qts.

View attachment 143669

@Dennis Murphy
Seems like several of your measurements are off or there is a problem with your woofers. Did
you measure both of them? I measured an A-25 woofer back in 2006 and the original data sheet
is available at the SEAS site. Mine were in spec.

SEAS 25 TV-EW UNIT SAMPLE: PLB#1 1/12/06
UNIT DATE: 25 week of 1971
Rubber surround part number: SR 231/1
Effective cone diameter = 21 cm measured
Effective cone area = 285 cm^2 old SEAS spec, 350 cm^2 new (25F-EW)
seems the old spec of 285 cm^2 was an error and might explain
the difference in moving mass below:
Delta M 15.75
Fshift -16%
Fs 23.6 Spec: 20-25 Hz
Vas 205
Re 5.7
Qe .48
Qm 4.2
Mms 37.5 Spec: 30
no .36
SPLref 87.6 Spec: 88
Bl 6.6
Qts .43

SEAS Vintage "Very Old" Data sheets at their site: http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=446
I can't seem to find the 25 TV-EW version which had an ALNICO magnet, but the 25 F-EW (Ferrite magnet) is available:
 
Last edited:

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,548
@Dennis Murphy
Seems like several of your measurements are off or there is a problem with your woofers. Did
you measure both of them? I measured an A-25 woofer back in 2006 and the original data sheet
is available at the SEAS site. Mine were in spec.

SEAS 25 TV-EW UNIT SAMPLE: PLB#1 1/12/06
UNIT DATE: 25 week of 1971
Rubber surround part number: SR 231/1
Effective cone diameter = 21 cm measured
Effective cone area = 285 cm^2 old SEAS spec, 350 cm^2 new (25F-EW)
seems the old spec of 285 cm^2 was an error and might explain
the difference in moving mass below:
Delta M 15.75
Fshift -16%
Fs 23.6 Spec: 20-25 Hz
Vas 205
Re 5.7
Qe .48
Qm 4.2
Mms 37.5 Spec: 30
no .36
SPLref 87.6 Spec: 88
Bl 6.6
Qts .43

SEAS Vintage "Very Old" Data sheets at their site: http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=446
I can't seem to find the 25 TV-EW version which had an ALNICO magnet, but the 25 F-EW (Ferrite magnet) is available:
I only measured one woofer except for Fs, which was the same at around 31 Hz. Both woofers measured similarly in-box from a frequency response standpoint. Mine had the Anico magnet. My Qts does seem high, but the factory specs seem low, particularly for the Ferrite. Acoustic suspension woofers from that era had very high Qts values. That was inherent in the design approach.
 

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
I only measured one woofer except for Fs, which was the same at around 31 Hz. Both woofers measured similarly in-box from a frequency response standpoint. Mine had the Anico magnet. My Qts does seem high, but the factory specs seem low, particularly for the Ferrite. Acoustic suspension woofers from that era had very high Qts values. That was inherent in the design approach.

I don't know if you are familiar with my work from the last 20 years or so on vintage speakers, but
I've measured many Large Advent woofers, the AR 11-12" (from AR-11 and AR-9 s) and they all
have Qts below .5. What you're stating about high Qts was promoted as normal by Dynaudio
(and Morel) because they did not use enough (cheap) magnet to get a lower Qts. There are a few
exceptions from Dynaudio. In fact the abnormally high Qtc then required the Variovent to lower it.

Qts is a function of Fs and is lower with lower Fs, the old acoustic suspension woofers had very low
Fs by design because the intent was for the box compliance to dominate and this resulted in a
low Qts figure also. A properly functioning LA woofer has an Fs of 16 to 18 Hz and an Fc in system
of 42 Hz give or take a bit. Qtc is about .8 for the LA with fiberglass damping and requires the
correct Qtc/Fs to obtain that figure - free air Qts is much lower as can be seen in my measurements.
Here's just one set of my measurements, note the very low Qts of .32:
Measured with LAUD and posted at the Classic Speaker Pages many years ago:
Fs = 18.23 Hz
Vas = 250 liters or 8.82 cu ft
Re = 4.83
Qe = .364
Qm = 2.93
Qts = .324
Mms = 42.28g
Cms = 1.80 mm/N
Bl = 8.02 Tm
no = .400 %
SPLref = 88 dB

You can read the original July 1955 Audio paper for the AR-1 woofer by Villchur in the attachment
to this post. Note in Figure 6 that the system output passes through the reference level at Fc (45 Hz)
indicating that the system Qtc is equal to 1. Villchur (and Kloss) preferred this Qtc for a roughly flat
(there is some peaking above Fc but give or take close enough to flat) response down to Fc. Villchur
used an amp with variable output damping that he set to 1 in order to obtain a system Qtc of 1. I
know from simulations that this woofer when driven "normally" by a high damping factor amplifier
the Qtc is then about .7 and if you remove the driver from the box you'll find that Qts is much lower.
I've measured the AR-11 (essentially the same modernized woofer) to have the following specs:
The vintage AR-3a and AR-11 used 17ga air core inductors with the woofer inductor having about
1 ohm DC resistance so that in series with the 2.45 ohms of the woofer results in a 4 ohm system,
it also raises the in system Qtc:
Rvc = 2.45
Fs = 15.7 Hz
Qes = .231
Qms = 1.72
Qts = .204
Pd = 9.25" measured with a ruler
Vas = 14.6 ft^3 413 l
Mms = 65.2 g
no = .672%
Bl = 8.97 T-m
Cms = 1.56
SPLref = 90.3 dB

These were properly designed Acoustic Suspension speakers that contradict the high Qts claim.
 

Attachments

  • AR-1 AUDIO-1955-JUL.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 70
Last edited:

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
Sure wish that the Dyna A-25 posts were in a new thread with an appropriate title
rather than mixed in with this NLA info.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,436
Likes
24,823
... start a new thread & quote and/or put links to the stuff you're interested in separating.
 

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,548
I don't know if you are familiar with my work from the last 20 years or so on vintage speakers, but
I've measured many Large Advent woofers, the AR 11-12" (from AR-11 and AR-9 s) and they all
have Qts below .5. What you're stating about high Qts was promoted as normal by Dynaudio
(and Morel) because they did not use enough (cheap) magnet to get a lower Qts. There are a few
exceptions from Dynaudio. In fact the abnormally high Qtc then required the Variovent to lower it.

Qts is a function of Fs and is lower with lower Fs, the old acoustic suspension woofers had very low
Fs by design because the intent was for the box compliance to dominate and this resulted in a
low Qts figure also. A properly functioning LA woofer has an Fs of 16 to 18 Hz and an Fc in system
of 42 Hz give or take a bit. Qtc is about .8 for the LA with fiberglass damping and requires the
correct Qtc/Fs to obtain that figure - free air Qts is much lower as can be seen in my measurements.
Here's just one set of my measurements, note the very low Qts of .32:
Measured with LAUD and posted at the Classic Speaker Pages many years ago:
Fs = 18.23 Hz
Vas = 250 liters or 8.82 cu ft
Re = 4.83
Qe = .364
Qm = 2.93
Qts = .324
Mms = 42.28g
Cms = 1.80 mm/N
Bl = 8.02 Tm
no = .400 %
SPLref = 88 dB

You can read the original July 1955 Audio paper for the AR-1 woofer by Villchur in the attachment
to this post. Note in Figure 6 that the system output passes through the reference level at Fc (45 Hz)
indicating that the system Qtc is equal to 1. Villchur (and Kloss) preferred this Qtc for a roughly flat
(there is some peaking above Fc but give or take close enough to flat) response down to Fc. Villchur
used an amp with variable output damping that he set to 1 in order to obtain a system Qtc of 1. I
know from simulations that this woofer when driven "normally" by a high damping factor amplifier
the Qtc is then about .7 and if you remove the driver from the box you'll find that Qts is much lower.
I've measured the AR-11 (essentially the same modernized woofer) to have the following specs:
The vintage AR-3a and AR-11 used 17ga air core inductors with the woofer inductor having about
1 ohm DC resistance so that in series with the 2.45 ohms of the woofer results in a 4 ohm system,
it also raises the in system Qtc:
Rvc = 2.45
Fs = 15.7 Hz
Qes = .231
Qms = 1.72
Qts = .204
Pd = 9.25" measured with a ruler
Vas = 14.6 ft^3 413 l
Mms = 65.2 g
no = .672%
Bl = 8.97 T-m
Cms = 1.56
SPLref = 90.3 dB

These were properly designed Acoustic Suspension speakers that contradict the high Qts claim.
That's certainly interesting, although it doesn't comport with my own experience. I've restored the AR3a, AR2ax, AR4, Large Advent, and the KLH5. They all had a Qts of .5 or above, in all cases the Fs was very close to spec. Qts is taken directly from the impedance measurement, so there's no room for error with any decent measurement system (I've used LAUD, Praxis, and 3 versions of DAT's.) I'm going to research this a little more out of my own interest, but thanks for the post.
 
Last edited:

hex168

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
400
Likes
341
I hope I'm not suffering a reading comprehension deficit (it happens sometimes) but it looks like Mr. Basel is writng about Qts and Mr. Murphy about Qtc, and they are actually in agreement?
 

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,548
We're actually both referring to Qts. I've corrected the error in my last post, which was due to the late hour and extreme old age. We're both talking about free air measurements.
 

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
Consider these basic equations that let you "simulate" closed box systems in your head:
Fc = (((Vas/Vb)+1)^0.5) * Fs
Qtc = (((Vas/Vb)+1)^0.5) * Qts

substituting:
Qtc = Fc/Fs * Qts
Taking the AR or Large Advent as examples:
Approximately Fc = 40 Hz and Fs = 20 Hz then Fc/Fs = 2
If the target Qtc is .7 then Qts must be .7/2 or .35
Neither the AR or LA achieve a Qtc of 1 but if we assume this value it would require a Qts of .5
The AR woofer has a Qts even lower than the above numbers but that is to compensate for the
high DC resistance of the crossover inductor. This resistance raises the effective Qts of the driver.

My numbers pass a sanity check, they also work fine in box simulators.

An exception is the AR-2 series where the final Qtc is IIRC 1.1 or perhaps 1.2 then Qts was
probably about .6. This was a budget system that used high Q to reduce the baffle step requirement.
 

Keith Conroy

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
79
Likes
115
That's certainly interesting, although it doesn't comport with my own experience. I've restored the AR3a, AR2ax, AR4, Large Advent, and the KLH5. They all had a Qts of .5 or above, in all cases the Fs was very close to spec. Qts is taken directly from the impedance measurement, so there's no room for error with any decent measurement system (I've used LAUD, Praxis, and 3 versions of DAT's.) I'm going to research this a little more out of my own interest, but thanks for the post.
Dennis Peter, I also have tested TS parameters on many many vintage woofers through the years. I have used Dats...........LMS.........AP Systems and several other test systems. I must say that my experience has been the same as Dennis. The QTS and QES were high by today's standards. More so then not above (.5)................I'm also going to try and get my hands on a few and re-test?????????
 

Keith Conroy

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
79
Likes
115
Dennis Peter, I also have tested TS parameters on many many vintage woofers through the years. I have used Dats...........LMS.........AP Systems and several other test systems. I must say that my experience has been the same as Dennis. The QTS and QES were high by today's standards. More so then not above (.5)................I'm also going to try and get my hands on a few and re-test?????????
To be clear I'm talking about Free Air TS data testing.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,979
I just want to say: Peter, it’s great to see you here. I have read many of your old posts on other forums and they were invaluable when I was rebuilding my two pairs of NLA’s.

Rick “welcome” Denney
 

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
Thanks Rick, good to be here!

Sure wish people would look at the simple math that supports my measurements in
post #351.

When I first measured the newer 12" AR woofer used in the 11, 9, and 10pi and
found a Qts of .2 Ken Kantor got involved and had his guys measure several drivers
with similar results. We all ignored the DC resistance of the woofer inductor, then I
discovered that accounting for it in simulation provided correct results.
The AR-1 and 1W had an Fc of about 45 Hz, many people measured low 40s for the
much newer AR-11 but I also measured about 44 Hz for the AR-11, mine had poly
fill and earlier ones with fiberglass might have had a few Hz lower. Everything was
in agreement give or take, even in simulation. Qtc for the AR-11 measures at about
.7 by me and Kantor, and that is the number in AR literature, of course this is with the
woofer inductor included.
Another point, several of the AR experts thought that the newer 12" AR woofer never
had a metalic VC former. Most of mine did which I think was a change around the AR-9
timeframe for better power handling. A metal former will provide a lower Qts (from Qms)
due to eddy currents in the metal. An early 1960s AR-3a 12" woofer might have a slightly
higher Qts but not by much.
 

TomH

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
5
I use Martin Logan electrostatic speakers normally but a few years ago, I rebuilt some original Larger Advent walnut speakers. I replaced the capacitors with high quality polypropylene capacitors the same value. Although I did not run frequency tests, it was obvious when comparing one rebuilt speaker to the other before rebuild, that the Advent's highs became far less bright and the level of low level detail (air) really improved. After completion, the Advent pair reminded my of how they originally sounded. Is it possible that testing a 45 year old speaker with the original cheap non polarized 45 year old caps, might produce a negative listening conclusion?
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,204
Likes
1,727
Location
James Island, SC
Solid review, Amir! Still have the original shipping cartons, doc & NLA (Walnut) from 1976. New surrounds & connected to the Advent 300 receiver. Under-powered, but haven't yet found an amp to use the receiver as a preamp.

For those who were Advent fans back in the day, what speaker is your go-to today?
THIS IS NOW A SECONDARY SYSTEM FOR ME (& has been for a long, long time): Since my ADVENT 300 was new, I used these Frazier speakers (& still do). My somewhat later setup is this (which I still use today): Both left & right channels going into a (larger of the 2 styles built) black 12 inch Radio Shack cabinet (through it's stock L & R crossover) with a Pioneer 93 DB at 2.83 Volt (don't remember the model) dual 4 ohm voice coil AUTO SOUND COMPETITION speaker that send the left & right signals to vintage (the same era):

(This is a copy of the CBS Labs test done in June 1975)
Frazier Model F8-4SH-A (Monte Carlo IV A or Super Monte Carlo),
a compact full -range loudspeaker system in oiled -walnut enclosure. Dimensions: 10 1/2 by 19 inches (front -may be used horizontally or vertically), 11 3/4 inches deep. (back then) Price: under $100 (may vary locally).
Warranty: five years parts and labor, shipping paid one way.
Manufacturer: Frazier, Inc., P.O. Box 34216, Dallas, Tex. 75234.

Comment: This is by far the smallest and least expensive speaker we have ever tested from Frazier -though it is not, in fact, the most unassuming the company has offered in a finished system. (The minute, one-way, $50 Super Midget is.) Frazier's reputation rests on an excellent series of floor -standing models plus a line of equipment for use in commercial sound reinforcement. What kind of a mini-speaker would it make, we wondered. There were some surprises in the answers the Super
Monte Carlo gave us. First of all, we had assumed from the small enclosure size that here would be one Frazier system
of relatively low efficiency. No way. CBS Labs found that the Monte Carlo could produce the standard 94 -dB test level with only 1 watt of input power, confirming the manufacturer's claim that in average rooms only 1/2 watt will be needed. All right, so it's not power-hungry; but can it take power with equanimity? The lab hit 40 watts -for an output of 108 dB -before encountering excessive distortion, indicating excellent dynamic range as well as good power handling. And in pulse tests the speaker handled over 130 watts (average) before distorting excessively. So any amplifier rated at between, say, 5 and 40 watts should be an excellent match, with the choice at the bottom end of the range dictated both by how much reserve power you want and by your patience in hunting for a low -power amp of sufficiently high quality.

From the foregoing description it should come as no surprise that the Monte Carlo employs a ducted port for relatively high efficiency in a small enclosure without drastic sacrifice of bass. The port actually is a slot whose operation is described by Frazier as a modified Helmholtz resonator. The system uses an 8 -inch woofer and a piezoelectric horn tweeter. There is no electrical crossover network; the natural response characteristics of the two drivers are matched to deliver an effective acoustic crossover point of about 4 kHz. (The presence of the piezoelectric tweeter is specified by the "SH"-for "super horn" -in the model number and "Super" in the model name.)

Presumably because of the loading provided by the port slot, the system's impedance curve shows multiple peaks in the bass. The rating point (at the next minimum -about 350 Hz) was measured by CBS Labs at 9.5 ohms, confirming Frazier's 8 -ohm listing. Since the 9.5 -ohm figure is the lowest measured at any frequency (average across the audible band is in the neighborhood of 16 ohms, though values throughout the midrange are lower than that), there should be no problem in paralleling these speakers with any other 8 -ohm model off a transistorized amplifier. (This is particularly important if you are contemplating them as extension speakers.) Despite its small size the Super Monte Carlo reaches to below 40 Hz. Of course you can't have everything, and doubling is fairly high in the extreme bass region. That is to say that in small enclosures a tradeoff must be made.
Frazier's $90 Super Monte Carlo
1642828746482.png


Frazier Monte Carlo Harmonic Distortion'
Output Frequency
Level 80 Hz 300 Hz
(dB) % 2nd % 3rd % 2nd % 3rd
70 0.6 1.3 0.65 0.75
75 0.7 1.3 0.65 0.80
80 0.9 0.9 0.65 0.88
85 1.2 1.5 0.65 0.92
90 2.1 2.3 0.70 1.0
95 4.3 2.3 0.70 1.1
100 9.0 6.0 0.70 1.3
105 0.80 1.9
108 0.90 3.0
Distortion data are taken on all tested speakers until distortion exceeds the
10% level or the speaker produces the spurious output known as buzzing,
whichever occurs first.
JUNE 1975 47
AmericanRadioHistory.Com
I sometimes run my pre-outs into a Harrison LABS PFMOD (analog) Parametric Electronic SUB X-OVER
image800.png

into a bi-amped configuration of NAD 2100's or a tri-amped configuration of triplet NAD 2200's (both my ADVENT 300 & one of my NAD 2200 triplets can be found here reviewed by AMIRM). Good luck. You may PM me if you have any questions.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,548
I use Martin Logan electrostatic speakers normally but a few years ago, I rebuilt some original Larger Advent walnut speakers. I replaced the capacitors with high quality polypropylene capacitors the same value. Although I did not run frequency tests, it was obvious when comparing one rebuilt speaker to the other before rebuild, that the Advent's highs became far less bright and the level of low level detail (air) really improved. After completion, the Advent pair reminded my of how they originally sounded. Is it possible that testing a 45 year old speaker with the original cheap non polarized 45 year old caps, might produce a negative listening conclusion?
Possible, but I replaced the NP's with poly just to take that out of the equation.
 

Pete Basel

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
32
Likes
34
@MZKM I notice that you posted the Spin data in the second post in this thread, I assume
that those are based on Amir's measurements, is that right?
I'm fairly new here so have not seen anything mentioned about it.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,251
Likes
11,557
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
@MZKM I notice that you posted the Spin data in the second post in this thread, I assume
that those are based on Amir's measurements, is that right?
I'm fairly new here so have not seen anything mentioned about it.
Here:
 
Top Bottom