The New Advent Loudspeaker Review (Vintage Speaker)

[beagleman]

Any box speaker in a normal room will generally excite resonances in the room between 40 Hz and about 120 Hz, add to this the overhang of bass energy released by the speaker / cabinet after the initial driving current has fallen away and you get a particular sound, which can be boomy. EQ schemes like Dirac can reduce the initial resonance but can do nothing about the stored energy that is smearing the sound. We have become used to this sound as far as bass reproduction goes, and to many this can sound "right" with good "midbass slam" if the bass is not too peaker in the ~80 Hz realm.

As noted by Linkwitz ( see https://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm ) dipole speakers - open-baffle woofers and panel speakers of any kind - excite these room resonances far less, and also don't exhibit the slow release of stored energy from enclosures like box speakers do.

Will never forget, when I worked at one audio store in the 80s, a guy brought in a cassette tape of his favorite test tracks...


First song was Emerson Lake Palmer "Lucky man" and he cranked up the volume, hit the loudness and we ran it through some large JBL towers.....
OMG the boomy bass notes are etched into my mind to this day. I remember stuff vibrating in the room and trying not to laugh at how boomy and crazy it sounded.

After the song was over, he says to me "NOW THAT IS BASS!"

 

[gino1961]

Hi thank you very much for this very interesting review of a famous and very popular model

Distortion was reasonable at 86 dBSPL but then went to hell at 96:

This is to be expected of the drivers of the era. The large woofer doesn't have to move much at lower amplitudes so does well. But when asked to moved, it can't do so with the precision of current drivers. Tweeter also falls apart.

I think that back then there were indeed some notable exceptions like Acoustic Research best models and JBL for instance
I love your distortion graphs a lot
Thank you very much again

 

[beagleman]

Recently went with a relative to a guys house with some OLA (original large advent) for purchase, and turns out he had literally 5 models of Advent in his basement man cave, including THIS exact model!
(my cousin DID leave with the OLA speakers)

I sheepishly asked if we could maybe hear the other models to compare them, as I was into audio and speakers. He seemed excited, and started to talk about a test of the "New Advent" online, and I realized he was talking about ASR!!

He is NOT a member but read the test and allowed me and my cousin to hear the model Amir reviewed.

My assessment as I had not heard any of these in probably about 30 years, was yes, it was not really as good as I had remembered for sure, but...........

At the same time, I was still fairly impressed with the deep bass, and a relatively neutral sound. I did not frankly hear weak bass or boosted highs, OR even what I would call a lot of distortion. Guy said they were refoamed a few years ago.

So I am left truly pondering, what caused this huge variance in listening versus Amir's test or his test sample??

I have mostly agreed with speakers I have heard or owned that Amir tested, except for this ONE vintage model.

Looking back at measurements, have to wonder why it "sounded" more like the room reflections curve to me than the on axis?? I am NOT saying it sounded perfect, but just a much closer to neutral sound overall.
We did check the switch, and he actually had it on HIGH, and still the treble was relatively neutral.

 

[gino1961]

Hi thank you very much for your interesting post
i am not sure to understand how the distortion test has been carried out As i said above i have been quite shocked by the bad results
the woofer is quite big and was used also in the epic dq10

Advent Factory Replacement Speaker, Woofer, Large Advent, New Advent, P001-31858

now that i look better the magnet is a little small
a Qts of 0.71 is a little on the high side
AR loudspeakers magnets were much more substantial and the much lower Qts shows that quite clearly

imho a very telling test is the measurement of the response to a multitones signal
This is a standard test for electronics like the response to a square wave by the way
I really cannot understand why is so rare for speakers/drivers evaluation
the same signal passess through all the element of an audio chain I do not understand why some tests stop at the amps out
i am pretty sure that most speakers have a bad behaviour
What i mean is that it is imperative to keep an open mind
Of this would not mean to trust flat earthers Science is science Not voodoo

 

[Jim Taylor]

, I was still fairly impressed with the deep bass, and a relatively neutral sound. I did not frankly hear weak bass or boosted highs, OR even what I would call a lot of distortion.

So I am left truly pondering, what caused this huge variance in listening versus Amir's test or his test sample

First, let's delete the weasel words:

At the same time, I was impressed with the deep bass, and a neutral sound. I did not hear weak bass or boosted highs, OR a lot of distortion

So I am pondering, what caused this variance in listening versus Amir's test or his test sample??

Second, let's go over two possible reasons:

1) Reverse confirmation bias. IOW, you expected a greater subjective difference ("variance"). Without it, your opinion was greatly affected.
2) Uncontrolled listening. Without controls, your senses were not rigorously confined to one point of comparison at a time.

In such casual circumstances, the unknowns of room acoustics (including SBIR), amplifier characteristics, masking effects inherent in the recorded material and your physical and mental preparedness all have bearing on the results.

In essence, you did the same thing as the YouTube "reviews" that clog the web. What you experienced had no value ... other than confirming how poor our ears are for analysis, and how unreliable Subjectivist reviews are.

 

[beagleman]

Hi thank you very much for your interesting post
i am not sure to understand how the distortion test has been carried out As i said above i have been quite shocked by the bad results
the woofer is quite big and was used also in the epic dq10

Advent Factory Replacement Speaker, Woofer, Large Advent, New Advent, P001-31858

now that i look better the magnet is a little small
a Qts of 0.71 is a little on the high side
AR loudspeakers magnets were much more substantial and the much lower Qts shows that quite clearly

View attachment 417186

imho a very telling test is the measurement of the response to a multitones signal
This is a standard test for electronics like the response to a square wave by the way
I really cannot understand why is so rare for speakers/drivers evaluation
the same signal passess through all the element of an audio chain I do not understand why some tests stop at the amps out
i am pretty sure that most speakers have a bad behaviour
What i mean is that it is imperative to keep an open mind
Of this would not mean to trust flat earthers Science is science Not voodoo

Oddly enough, I found specs they give on SAME page that do not match with the Qts value you found on their PDF file.....??

• Special Advent 12" pin-cushion frame (10" woofer in 12" frame)
• Original Advent design, paper cone, poly foam surround
• New materials last much longer than the original design!
• Size: 11.375" (12.5" diagonally)
• Hole cutout: 10.25"
• Depth: 4.875"
• Voice coil: 1.5", 4 layer
• Magnet: 30 oz
• Impedance: 6 ohms, Re: 4.8 ohms
• Power: 80 watts RMS, 140 watts max
• Response: 28-4500 Hz
• Sensitivity: 89 dB, 1 watt, 1 meter
• Le: 1.3 mH, Fs: 26 Hz, Vas: 12.5 cu. ft., Qms: 5.9, Qes: .34, Qts: .36, Xmax: 6mm

 

[beagleman]

First, let's delete the weasel words:




Second, let's go over two possible reasons:

1) Reverse confirmation bias. IOW, you expected a greater subjective difference ("variance"). Without it, your opinion was greatly affected.
2) Uncontrolled listening. Without controls, your senses were not rigorously confined to one point of comparison at a time.

In such casual circumstances, the unknowns of room acoustics (including SBIR), amplifier characteristics, masking effects inherent in the recorded material and your physical and mental preparedness all have bearing on the results.

In essence, you did the same thing as the YouTube "reviews" that clog the web. What you experienced had no value ... other than confirming how poor our ears are for analysis, and how unreliable Subjectivist reviews are.

Jim, I think you are being a bit harsh in your reply....

Being into audio for many decades I DO realize the things you mention of course.
I purposely left out MANY details of the experience simply to keep the story to a readable semi-interesting experience.

Not even gonna say you are entirely wrong, but I did account for many of the things you mention. I know what amplification was used and acoustics of his man cave, were nothing radical, that would account for a huge disconnect between what Amir and I heard.

Expectations....not sure. I get where you are going, I expected "Crap" based on what Amir found, but sound was honestly good, but not great, but just nowhere near as bad as Amir found. The guy that owned them felt the same way.
BUT, I had heard this same speaker maybe 30 years ago and did NOT hear crap sound. SO not sure how that balances out overall..?

My biggest confirmation, he owned a pair of newer Advents, (Legacy Jensen era late 80s) that I had owned MANY years,
I had years ago compared those to several of the older Advents but decades ago. In full disclosure, ALL of his Advents, had a somewhat similar tonal quality, not the SAME of course, but none stood out as Sizzling highs, but in fact were more subdued overall.

Yes acoustics and all that would factor in, and sure I get this was not a in depth experiment or had controls, but based on an hour of time or so, I simply heard a much better sound that Amir heard.

(( I could go into FAR more details, but felt we would all just be arguing over this or that mattered or did not matter))


I am left wondering if age of the actual unit factored in more than anything??
BUT, Dennis Murphy gave them a once over and said they were "Good", and I respect his opinion, so where are we left??

 

[gino1961]

Oddly enough, I found specs they give on SAME page that do not match with the Qts value you found on their PDF file.....??

• Special Advent 12" pin-cushion frame (10" woofer in 12" frame)
• Original Advent design, paper cone, poly foam surround
• New materials last much longer than the original design!
• Size: 11.375" (12.5" diagonally)
• Hole cutout: 10.25"
• Depth: 4.875"
• Voice coil: 1.5", 4 layer
• Magnet: 30 oz
• Impedance: 6 ohms, Re: 4.8 ohms
• Power: 80 watts RMS, 140 watts max
• Response: 28-4500 Hz
• Sensitivity: 89 dB, 1 watt, 1 meter
• Le: 1.3 mH, Fs: 26 Hz, Vas: 12.5 cu. ft., Qms: 5.9, Qes: .34, Qts: .36, Xmax: 6mm

Hi thanks ! yes i see now Wonder which one is right 0.34 for Qts is fine
as i said i would be curious to see the results of a multitones test
the less the intermodulation products the better of course
Lately i have become so much more interested in speakers And the main reason comes from having read this

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

i was shocked deeply I cant explain how much i am serious A complete change of perspective

 

[Jim Taylor]

but none stood out as Sizzling highs, but in fact were more subdued overall.

Is auditory memory accurate over 50 years (from the '70s compared to now)? I think not.
Also ... wouldn't a person's hearing ability have a bearing on this? Certainly in the absolute sense, as in the results shown by a hearing test, but also in the relative sense, as in how Amir's hearing compares to other people's.
Then we have the parameters of the tests upon which Amir based his assessment. The SPL makes a difference, the distance makes a difference, the fact that he listens in mono whereas you listened in stereo as well as the fact that he listens critically are all important.
The differences in recorded material also make a difference.

As for my being "a bit harsh" ... I don't intend to be harsh. However, when you post on a public forum, your post is seen by many people. (I wish I had precise numbers*, but I don't.) Some of them are members here, and they understand the limitations inherent in your casual testimony.
But other people are not accustomed to being so critical in their thinking. To them, your post carries great weight, perhaps for some the same weight as Amir's review. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.
As members, we should all be mindful of the way visitors, especially people new to this hobby, view comments.

* The stats published on the home page indicate that anywhere from one thousand to twenty-five hundred people are visiting this site at any one given time. That's a count taken every hour over a span of 24 hours, every day, all year long. (I'll grant that some may only view the Reviews section, but how many is unknown.) So the posts we make here have an effect on a very, very great number of people.
Shouldn't our posts therefore have appropriate value?

 

[Mr. Widget]

What you experienced had no value ...

I understand what you are trying to say, but this is a horrible way of saying it.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I understand what you are trying to say, but this is a horrible way of saying it.

I always try to be diplomatic, but I am aware that my idea of diplomacy and other people's idea of diplomacy might be radically different. Give me the benefit of your viewpoint,; how would you have expressed the idea?

 

[Mr. Widget]

I always try to be diplomatic, but I am aware that my idea of diplomacy and other people's idea of diplomacy might be radically different. Give me the benefit of your viewpoint,; how would you have expressed the idea?

The long answer:
First, all of our experiences are valid. When considering the human animal, all of our experiences are very real in the sense that reality is a construct within our our minds.

With that in mind, what you were talking about and the focus of this forum is objective facts. There is no wiggle room with well defined facts. When we draw conclusions from personal experiences we may or may not be forming conclusions that align with facts and additional study is required to determine if our conclusions are factually or universally accurate.

What you said was that his conclusions were wrong.

The short answer:
I would suggest that his conclusions were very likely wrong based on the points you made which I agree with, but I wouldn't categorically say that they were wrong because there is an outside chance that the speakers he was listening too did in fact have a fairly neutral frequency response with reasonably low distortion. Without careful measurements of the speakers in question within the room they were placed in we really can't say if his conclusions were objectively accurate or not.

 

[Jim Taylor]

The long answer:
First, all of our experiences are valid. When considering the human animal, all of our experiences are very real in the sense that reality is a construct within our our minds.

With that in mind, what you were talking about and the focus of this forum is objective facts. There is no wiggle room with well defined facts. When we draw conclusions from personal experiences we may or may not be forming conclusions that align with facts and additional study is required to determine if our conclusions are factually or universally accurate.

What you said was that his conclusions were wrong.

The short answer:
I would suggest that his conclusions were very likely wrong based on the points you made which I agree with, but I wouldn't categorically say that they were wrong because there is an outside chance that the speakers he was listening too did in fact have a fairly neutral frequency response with reasonably low distortion. Without careful measurements of the speakers in question within the room they were placed in we really can't say if his conclusions were objectively accurate or not.

I agree with everything that you've said, except my saying that his conclusion were wrong. I deliberately avoided that wording; it is pejorative and condescending. After all, "greater" value or "lesser" value are descriptions that are relative ... not absolute. I wanted to get the idea across that non-members reading his post might (or in my estimation, probably would) consider it as being useful for THEIR purposes. As I pointed out, the usefulness (or "value") might not be of as high a level as it seems.

I know that there is a chance that the speaker to which he listened had the characteristics he mentioned, but there is no way for us to know that ... not us, nor anyone else. Heck, the tweeter's performance in those speakers might have been greatly affected by age. We can't tell.

I might be wrong, but it is my opinion that the casual visitor here, scanning various reviews and posts, attaches only minimal importance to science and logic. They value the destination (the products) a great deal, but not the trip to get there (the logic and controlled procedure).
Because of this tendency, I think it's important to point out the difference between testimony derived from uncontrolled listening on one hand, and data gained from controlled listening or instrumental measurement on the other.

Our society seems to exhibit a growing tendency to denigrate and dismiss science and logic. Perhaps I shouldn't let that bother me, but it does .... greatly. The only way I know to combat that tendency is to point out flaws and weaknesses in thinking (and testimony) which are not supported by logic or rigor.

Please don't take me as a prophet of "doom and gloom". "Doom and gloom" is a curse I wish on no one. It would make me ecstatic to find out my assessment is wrong.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Did you even bother to read exactly what I said?? You mention auditory memory from 50 years ago and somehow skipped entirely over, me mentioning I just heard them a few days ago.....

Yes, I did bother to read what you said. You referenced your "memories", versus "this recent experience". I got the "50 years ago", from the 1977 production date (actually 47 years.)

but my memories and this recent experience, simply seemed to have less distortion and reasonable highs.

BUT, I had heard this same speaker maybe 30 years ago and did NOT hear crap sound.

You made a huge ASSumption that I was just "Completely wrong",

I made no such assumption. You make a huge assumption that I thought you were "completely wrong". Those are you words, not mine. My point is that your subjective impressions were not useful. I used the phrase, "had no value", and perhaps I should have used the phrase "not useful" instead. That's my bad, and I will take it into account in the future.
I do not engage in ad hominem. I do not make comments about you, personally. I learned that lesson long ago. So my point was not about you being right or wrong, but about your comparison being a useful example of testimony ... and specifically, a useful example to casual visitors.

You do realize objective measurements can be entirely wrong, if the sample at hand is aged, worn, or in any way not representative of how they were new?

Yes, I realize that. Amir realized that also, as in his comment, "Dennis said he tried to make a lot more complex crossover for it but at the end, it didn't do any better."

Now I'm making an assumption here. I know I shouldn't make assumptions, but I have no other point of reference: Dennis Murphy is a professional. He has designed speaker systems himself and published modifications for others. (His site, Murphyblaster Productions, seems to be down right now, or has perhaps been allowed to lapse.) If there was anything amiss with this example, I trust that he would have either found it or mentioned the greater possibility of its existence.

As for the bass, @abso123 added that, "the sensitivity roll-off in the bass is quite characteristic of that era."

My point was, my sample recently and Amir's sample may both be NOT objectively what they were. Both samples could be wrong or right or any combination.

Point taken. In that case, I would not have posted comments on the speakers at all, neither good nor bad.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but it bears repeating for the purpose of emphasis:

Testimonies given without controls are not useful.

I don't do it. It's not a good idea, and I expect that other members in good standing will understand WHY it is not a good idea ... or a useful idea ... or an idea having value.

As for whether I have heard this speaker during its heyday in the late '70s and early '80s ... yes, I have. I now realize that there were far, far too many variables unaccounted for and unrecognized at that time. Therefore, under no circumstances would I trust my memories or make comments.

 

[Jim Taylor]

not sure what has happened with you, as I have never had any issues with you being rude before,

Excuse me, but you are not having any issues with me being rude now, either. I agree that there should be no need to go on a 5 paragraph tirade, but what do you consider the efforts of other members here who go on for many pages, with rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal?

It is not "rude" to disagree or point out legitimate flaws. However, it is "rude" to engage in ad hominem. If you think that I have attacked you personally, please point it out, and I will apologize immediately.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I agree with everything that you've said, except my saying that his conclusion were wrong. I deliberately avoided that wording; it is pejorative and condescending.

I missed this nuance. In my distillation of your reply I took your meaning to be that you felt he was wrong. I didn't mean to misrepresent your post.

Our society seems to exhibit a growing tendency to denigrate and dismiss science and logic. Perhaps I shouldn't let that bother me, but it does .... greatly. The only way I know to combat that tendency is to point out flaws and weaknesses in thinking (and testimony) which are not supported by logic or rigor.

Not to continue down the doom and gloom path, but I agree and would suggest that it is a global phenomenon where facts, science and basic logic are somehow deemed to be less important than opinion and messaging. Unfortunately I don't think that combating this with logical fact based discourse will work. It may make us feel better, but it will not convince the other party that they are drinking some strange and likely unhealthy kool aid.

 

[beagleman]

Guys I get we will all have conflicting views on this subject and so on, but can anyone technically explain why the tweeter distortion rises many multiples from 86db to 96db?? I have looked at dozens of speaker spins, and have never seen one "Jump" this drastically.

Woofer distortion rise, makes total sense. But the huge peaks and increases above 1khz, are extremely uncommon.
I have measured quite a few tweeters over the years, and the only times I have seen a production model, suddenly rise many magnitudes, such as this, it turned out to be Ferrofluid issues, misaligned voice coils, or bad contact or connection, on level controls or components in the crossover. The additional volume level and vibration would cause the "issue" to reveal itself quite strongly, in contrast to the usual ramping up of distortion.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, the Advents used a cheap cone tweeter with a pseudo-dome in the form of the dustcap (the kind of thing that Kloss embraced for a long, long time). My guess is that the tested sample's tweeter was more or less borked -- by age and/or abuse.

(one of a pair of Original Economy Utility Advents currently ensconced in the basement)

The Recoton-era Advents with (also cheap) dome tweeters, though held in low esteem by the kind of folks who collect OLAs and their Kloss-era kin , had much better treble to my ears than did the OLA and kin.


(Dump find Advent Legacy II - one of a pair - after [generic] woofer refoam)

 

[rdenney]

View attachment 417413

Guys I get we will all have conflicting views on this subject and so on, but can anyone technically explain why the tweeter distortion rises many multiples from 86db to 96db?? I have looked at dozens of speaker spins, and have never seen one "Jump" this drastically.

Woofer distortion rise, makes total sense. But the huge peaks and increases above 1khz, are extremely uncommon.
I have measured quite a few tweeters over the years, and the only times I have seen a production model, suddenly rise many magnitudes, such as this, it turned out to be Ferrofluid issues, misaligned voice coils, or bad contact or connection, on level controls or components in the crossover. The additional volume level and vibration would cause the "issue" to reveal itself quite strongly, in contrast to the usual ramping up of distortion.

The New Advent Loudspeaker, unlike the original, used a tweeter that is damped with--you already guessed it--ferrofluid, which comprises magnetic particles in a grease base held in place by the magnetic field. When this dries up and hardens, it no longer damps the tweeter motion and it no longer effectively pulls heat from the voice coil. This will make the tweeter misbehave at higher excursions, leading to greatly increased distortion at high outputs.

The fried-egg tweeter in Advents was specifically designed to reduce the crossover frequency so that the two-way design could use a large(ish) woofer with a higher excursion. This made it quite different from the cone tweeters of prior times or the dome tweeters used in three-way (or stand) speakers of more recent times. The center of the tweeter acts like a dome tweeter at higher frequencies, and the surrounding part acts more like a mid-range driver just above the crossover frequency. This aspect was true for both versions of the large Advent loudspeakers, as I recall from having looked into it some years ago, although the NLA tweeter also used ferrofluid.

We routinely refoam the woofers in Advents because the foam used needs a very high compliance to provide the required deep-bass excursions, damped by the acoustic-suspension design (that is, by the reluctance of the sealed cabinet from changing pressure). The foam is thin and rots and falls apart. Both of my pairs of Advents have been refoamed twice. Both have had tweeters fail requiring me to find old tweeters that have not (yet) failed. None of the speaker refurbishments of which I am aware replace the ferrofluid in the tweeters, but I have seen projects where the tweeters were replaced either with (1.) horns or (2.) dome tweeters. Both will require changes to the simple crossovers, which will require those woofers to work at higher frequencies than Henry wanted them to.

One of the reasons that "stacked" Advents became a thing is that two pairs of Advents are driven to less excursion to create the same SPL as one pair, and thus were 3dB less likely to cross over into that much higher distortion. I ran two pairs stacked and driven by two amplifiers for quite a long time, and while they suffered from a range of issues some might notice, they did play loud music cleanly, which everyone noticed.

Another thing to remember is that Advents were popular and important at a time when the people who could only afford Advents could also only afford amps up to 40 or 50 watts, with 20 being as common as 50. Music was more dynamic in those pre-Loudness-War days, and the distortion at peaks were masked for many listeners anyway. They just weren't used much at SPL outputs greater than 90 or so. If the crest factor of typical music of that era was 12 dB (that's a guess), then a 50-watt amp would only be putting out 3 watts for the average signal when putting out 50 watts for the peaks. If the average signal is a sine wave, 3 watts would drive NLA's to about...wait for it...90 dB at one meter.

I still use one of my pairs of Advents in my basement YouTube-watching room, and they sound pretty good driven by one of my B&K amps, but I don't use that setup for really loud playing (doing so would upset domestic harmony). My main system uses Revel F12 towers and a Buckeye Hypex amp that's about three times more powerful. I chose those speakers because I could play them at >100 dB SPL without damaging the speakers or getting that crispy sound on the peaks, and that they would keep up with (and exceed by maybe 2dB) the pair of Advents driven by two 125-watt amps. The F12's had specifically been tested up to 100 dB SPL at two meters (6 dB more output than at 1 meter) in the Canadian Research Lab's anechoic chamber. Soundstage's quote based on that lab work: "PLEASE NOTE: Our standard is to provide the THD+N measurement at 90dB with a measuring distance of 2 meters (within the anechoic chamber). Since this speaker produced very low distortion levels under those conditions, we have added a second measurement performed at 95dB to give an indication of performance under higher-output conditions. In addition, we have also provide an additional Deviation from Linearity measurement at 100dB based on the good performance at 95dB." I bought them because they produced low distortion at high SPL's compared to anything else I could afford that also had excellent directivity.

Advents sounded really good in comparison to other speakers on the market at the time that were priced affordably and readily available to American college kids and young adults (the old adults that liked them then are mostly gone now, but they were probably comparing to the speakers in their previous stereo console). That's the thing people need to remember--Advents were about $125, half the price of equivalent KLH and AR speakers of similar(ish) design and size (and both of those brands also featured Henry Kloss in a key role in the days before he started Advent), and half the price of similar West-Coast party speakers from, say, Cerwin Vega or JBL. They weren't the best speakers on the market, but they were nicely balanced and had realistic bass response without ringing boominess common to most cheap hi-fi speakers that featured large woofers (typically 12"). They brought a good sound to people who had never experienced it in systems they could afford before that time, and that's why they are remembered so fondly now.

Edit for pictures (far different from the current arrangement!):

Stacked Advent NLA's, deluxe on the bottom and utility on the top. The Utility NLA pair I bought new in 1977. The Deluxe pair came much later.

Damaged Fried-Egg tweeter from an NLA:

Rotted foam compliance from an NLA:

Rick "maintaining perspective" Denney

 

[wadude]

The original walnut veneered Advent Speaker is an iconic design that, fifty-five years after it's introduction, is still able to bring high fidelity sound to listeners at an affordable price. It appears designed to be placed against the wall fairly close to the floor and played with the grills on. Remove those rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, use modern measuring methods and accept the facts, then take it for what it is. Good, Old, HiFi.