The New Advent Loudspeaker Review (Vintage Speaker)

[KxDx]

I wanted to also thank Dennis and Amir for the look back in time. I was a teen in the double Advent era. This was a stack of two Advent speakers on each stereo side. The look back review was supported by today's state of the art test equipment. This type of test equipment was only a dream, when the Advents were designed. Frankly at the time the Advents were thought to have great deep bass. Also the highs were thought to be pretty smooth. This would be as compared to the JBL L-100's of the era. Lastly there were small Advents and large Advents. The manual Amir listed does not seem to match the model tested? With a slight bit of work the grill should pry off. It would be interesting to see which tweeter, they are using? In later years they used a straight dome tweeter and a more sophisticated crossover. Early versions used cone tweeters. Maybe Dennis can weigh in on this. It's clearly a piece of audio history. Now let's test an EPI 100!

A guy near me is selling a pair of Genesis 20’s for $40 on farcebook. They just need new foam on the woofers and PR’s. I think I’m going to snag em. Even with the foam and new tweeter capacitors, I’ll be less than $100 in,

 

[oldsysop]

I'm only interested in backward 1980s amps and speakers, so thank you so much Amir for this review.

 

[beagleman]

I owned the six's as well--until I traded them in on a pair of KLH 5's. The Six's were way less bright than this sample of the NLA. I tried to score another tweeter to make sure this one wasn't out of spec, but couldn't find one. I do recall seeing a measurement of the tweeter someplace else, and it looked like mine. I'm sure the reconing job didn't do the bass response any good, and this speaker didn't go as low as I had recalled. But The Fs was 21 Hz, which is close to the original spec of 19 Hz.

I recall these being pretty decent down to maybe upper 30s or so.
Fairly good deep bass.
I never would call them bass "shy", but nor were they boomy.

Had the later Advent Legacy, and while technically different, had a bit less deep bass, but unreal power handling.
You mention the Fs really did not change much, but could the Qts value be off from reconing?

 

[mhardy6647]

A guy near me is selling a pair of Genesis 20’s for $40 on farcebook. They just need new foam on the woofers and PR’s. I think I’m going to snag em. Even with the foam and new tweeter capacitors, I’ll be less than $100 in,

Genesis (this Genesis, that is -- Genesis Physics) is, of course, the Winslow Burhoe branch of the AR family tree. Nice loudspeakers to my ears and taste still today.
Concave "airspring" tweeter and purpose-built woofers to have smooth enough HF roll-of as to not require any crossover on the woofer. I.e., the entire system XO in most of the EPI and Genesis products, AFAIK, was just first order (a capacitor) on the tweeter. They were, consequently, very easy to drive and surprisingly efficient for acoustic suspension speakers.

I guess the 20 has a passive radiator, too, per Huy Powell: https://www.humanspeakers.com/genesis/genmodel.htm
The only pair of Genesis speakers I've had were Genesis 1 (sans the PR) -- and not that I can find a photo of them at the moment

 

[beefkabob]

Hmmm... did you play it for 250 hours to break it in?

 

[AndreaT]

My memory of the New Advents dates back to a 1978 visit with my late father and my girlfriend at the time (Patrizia) at an Hi-Fi expo at Fiera di Milano, when they were chosen by the Mark Levinson dealer to showcase their ML-2 Class A 25 W mono-block power amps, JNC-2 preamp and a Supex MC cartridge on a Thorens record player. I was near the end of my High School, driving a Vespa PX125E and functionally penniless from a relatively well-off family. They played a good pressing of Dark Side of the Moon: I sat in religious silence and left speechless as I compared the sound of the Advents/ML/Supex with the sound in my bedroom of a system composed of Dual record player/Shure 91 ED/Grunding RTV 700 receiver (10 W/ch on 4 ohm!) and AR 4-x (with the unreliable and scratchy potentiometer for the tweeter level). The price of the MLs in (devalued) italian Liras was in the many millions and comparable to price of luxury sedan automobile. While now I am older, and slightly less penniless, I welcome the interval progress in speaker design and materials that brought us better choices and much, much better sound. Amir's review puts a smile on my face, as I think about the upward curve of domestic sound reproduction as but one of the myriad significant blessings in my life so far.

 

[Ken1951]

I lived with a couple of other guys and we had double Advents powered by a Mac2300. Various pre-amps and TTs rotated through. Sounded pretty good for circa 1974.

 

[mhardy6647]

My memory of the New Advents dates back to a 1978 visit with my late father and my girlfriend at the time (Patrizia) at an Hi-Fi expo at Fiera di Milano, when they were chosen by the Mark Levinson dealer to showcase their ML-2 Class A 25 W mono-block power amps, JNC-2 preamp and a Supex MC cartridge on a Thorens record player. I was near the end of my High School, driving a Vespa PX125E and functionally penniless from a relatively well-off family. They played a good pressing of Dark Side of the Moon: I sat in religious silence and left speechless as I compared the sound of the Advents/ML/Supex with the sound in my bedroom of a system composed of Dual record player/Shure 91 ED/Grunding RTV 700 receiver (10 W/ch on 4 ohm!) and AR 4-x (with the unreliable and scratchy potentiometer for the tweeter level). The price of the MLs in (devalued) italian Liras was in the many millions and comparable to price of luxury sedan automobile. While now I am older, and slightly less penniless, I welcome the interval progress in speaker design and materials that brought us better choices and much, much better sound. Amir's review puts a smile on my face, as I think about the upward curve of domestic sound reproduction as but one of the myriad significant blessings in my life so far.

View attachment 141404

I... I like the AR4x that I have here (found on the side of the road last year; one had a hack-job tweeter replacement, which I retro-replaced to the proper tweeter).
I was (am), in fact, amazed by how good those little monkey coffins sound. The AR4(x), ostensibly, was designed by the aforementioned Mr. Burhoe (who is, actually, still in the loudspeaker business, last I knew, although a pretty small-time player nowadays).

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I... I like the AR4x that I have here (found on the side of the road last year; one had a hack-job tweeter replacement, which I retro-replaced to the proper tweeter).
I was (am), in fact, amazed by how good those little monkey coffins sound. The AR4(x), ostensibly, was designed by the aforementioned Mr. Burhoe (who is, actually, still in the loudspeaker business, last I knew, although a pretty small-time player nowadays).

I think you must fall into the "warm" sound camp. The AR4x was my first speaker, and I hated them from the get go. I always assumed the "velvet curtain" sound was due to a lack of treble extension, but I later discovered after scoring a good used pair that the problem was a huge peak in the lower treble caused by an inadequate high pass filter on the tweeter. Here's how the AR4x measured in stock form. Below that is the response after I redid the high pass crossover to suppress the peak.

 

[Robin L]

High Fidelity's review of the original large Advent speaker is on page 43:

High-Fidelity-1970-05.pdf (worldradiohistory.com)

 

[restorer-john]

This is impressive for a 1977 product. I mean considering the "famous speaker of that time" is LS3/5a and friends.

In 1977, the Yamaha NS-1000M was already 3 years old (first made 1974) and it's still legendary 47 years later.

 

[Robin L]

I have to wonder: the Stereo Review test/audition of the latest Advent speaker from 1978 is called the Advent 1, has the same drivers as the old Large Advent in a slightly smaller box. Page 52:

HiFi-Stereo-Review-1978-09.pdf (worldradiohistory.com)

Sweeping through High Fidelity's reviews from 1977 to 1980 I did not find a review of the "New Advent" but I did find a review of the powered Advent, the first powered speaker I can recall. I remember it as considerably more refined sounding than the regular Advents. Page 59:

High-Fidelity-1978-06.pdf (worldradiohistory.com)

 

[laudio]

Flat response and you didn't even try it EQ it? Hmmm.

I read a lot of reviews here on a lot of speakers that good subjective listening tests after EQ. Pretty sure that old dog would do well. The preference rating is better than a lot of crap that gets kudos.

 

[Chrispy]

@Robin L thanks for the memory trippin with the reviews/articles from back then (all of which played a role in my getting the Advents back then....well, and the price ....really wanted JBL L100s tho).

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the "The New Advent Loudspeaker" vintage speaker, circa 1977. The sample under test was kindly provided by our own @Dennis Murphy. He has looked it over and replaced a crossover capacitor to make sure it has the value it originally had. The woofer has been professionally reconed. Dennis can add more information here.

This speaker is in reasonably good shape seeing how it is made out of fragile particle board:

View attachment 141358

I didn't take a picture of the back side but there is a 3-way switch to adjust the high frequencies. Story is that this was to adjust for lack of uniformity of the recordings of the era and not to tune the speaker. I measured the difference as you will see later.

There is a site with a copy of the manual which I highly recommend to check out: https://www.theprojectasylum.com/el...adventspkrbrochure/adventspkrbrochurepg1.html

The manual is not just a manual. It is written as if it is an article for a hi-fi magazine! It is very boastful of its design approach without appearing too arrogant. There is also this bit of advertising about it:

View attachment 141361

As a woodworker, I detest particle board. It is horrible material and seemingly falls apart by just looking at it. Interesting that it didn't have this negative stigma then.

Fascinating that its max power rating was just 15 watts! I fed it a lot more than that.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%.

Reference axis was the tweeter center or as best I could determine through the grill. I think I was a bit to the right of the tweeter. The grill was left on.

I picked the middle position (red below) in the switch that is marked as "decrease" for high frequencies based on my setup measurements (and later confirmed by Dennis):

View attachment 141363

The New Advent Loudspeaker Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 141362

Bass response is deficient and we have good bit of variations but not as bad as I had expected. Near-field response shows a very slow response for the woofer in crossover region:

View attachment 141364

That then screws up some of the tweeter response.

I was pleasantly surprised how smooth the early reflections are:

View attachment 141365

This almost magically transforms the overall response to a flat one in-room:

View attachment 141366

Alas, we know that such a response subjectively sounds bright. Still, one wonders if this is an accident or by design.

Beamwidth shows lack of directivity control as the large woofer becomes directional before tweeter takes over with its wide response:

View attachment 141368

View attachment 141369

Vertical directivity is quite tricky. Stay at or below tweeter axis:

View attachment 141370

There are two minima in impedance graph:

View attachment 141371

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

View attachment 141372

View attachment 141373

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.

The New Advent Loudspeaker Listening Tests
Oh gosh. I always start my listening tests with female vocals and these were unlistenable with the Advent pointed at me. The sound would be Ok and then one part of the vocal would hit a resonant peak (or something like it) and the sound would be so sharp as to attempt to go through you! I had to stop after a couple of tracks. Thinking older music may do better, I played a few Nina Simone tracks. They sounded terrible as well. Lack of bass is a major problem as it accentuates the highs so much.

As a quick experiment, I pointed the speaker straight out and this helped some but by then my mind was so corrupted that I stopped and started to type up this review.

Conclusions
I don't have a lot to offer you. The Advent is not as bad as I thought it would measure. Subjectively it is horrid in my quick l listening tests. Progress in speaker design is real and I am spoiled by that. I let you all discuss the rest.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Appreciate any donations using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.2
With Sub: 5.1

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Older than me!
• Not great but not catastrophic either
• Some resonances
• Directivity could be better as the ON vs. LW is pretty bad
• 2-4K trough not too good...

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 4.3
with sub: 6.2

Score EQ Score: 5.0
with sub: 6.9

Advent Vintage APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July162021-124720

Preamp: -0.5 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.05,    0.00,    0.87
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 337.99,    -2.23,    1.28
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 616.38,    -2.63,    2.33
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 981.77,    1.25,    3.18
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1334.30,    -3.81,    4.27
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2591.33,    -2.61,    8.30
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4369.55,    -2.39,    2.45
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8759.50,    -1.41,    2.15
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 12855.02,    -3.48,    4.77

Advent Vintage APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July162021-124114

Preamp: -0.5 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.05,    0.00,    0.87
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 346.74,    -2.23,    1.58
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 617.38,    -2.63,    2.58
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1024.27,    1.08,    5.97
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1330.30,    -3.81,    3.77
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2541.65,    -2.74,    7.05
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4399.55,    -3.15,    1.52
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8783.50,    -1.88,    1.37
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 12834.02,    -4.48,    4.77

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal
The Slope of the PIR is too flat even after LW based EQ
to be compared!

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

EDIT
Just corrected the resonance/peak at 2100Hz.
I know... it's purely for fun as no one will ever EQ these speakers...

Score EQ Score: 5.1
with sub: 7.0

 

[Trif]

If you lived around Boston in the '60s, you could watch the Boston Symphony Orchestra on WGBH on your TV while listening to it in stereo on WGBH on your FM receiver. Henry Kloss had a vision, and he started Advent to build giant TVs. Call him the Godfather of Home Theater.

The speaker company was just a front. Henry was smart, and he learned from the best, and designing two-way loudspeakers was not a challenge for him. Building a state of the art factory that could crank out speakers at a low cost didn't take him that long, either. All the money was funnelled upstairs to the attic where the full-color projection TV was being developed. Another bright young man ahead of his time.

 

[laudio]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.
....
I know... it's purely for fun as no one will ever EQ these speakers...

Score EQ Score: 5.1
with sub: 7.0

But they could right? Nice post.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I have to wonder: the Stereo Review test/audition of the latest Advent speaker from 1978 is called the Advent 1, has the same drivers as the old Large Advent in a slightly smaller box. Page 52:
High-Fidelity-1978-06.pdf (worldradiohistory.com)

Thanks for linking the review of the "Advent 1". The various model names are certainly confusing. The "New" Advent loudspeaker, which is the subject of Amir's test, apparently didn't get any mainstream reviews. It could be that Henry didn't seek any, since in some respects it was inferior to the original "Large Advent" speaker. The crossover was simplified and, as we've seen, the tweeter was increased in sensitivity without adequate adjustments in the crossover. All of this didn't prevent it from far outselling the original Advent. The "Advent 1 was a revision to the original "Smaller Advent" speaker, which was simply the Large Advent in a smaller cabinet. The Advent 1 carried over the same woofer but used the revised tweeter from the "New" Advent large speaker. I did notice that the Stereo Review article gives the Fb of the Advent 1 and the New Advent, which suggests that Stereo Review did review the New Advent somewhere, some time:
"The in -box resonance is 52 Hz in the Advent/1. as compared with 43 Hz in the New Advent and Powered Advent speakers"
If you check Amir's impedance measurement for the speaker I sent him, the Fb clocks in almost exactly at 43 Hz, or even a smidge lower. So my beat up sample apparently is pretty representative of the breed.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

But they could right? Nice post.

Or you could build my revised crossover. Or Not.

 

[kschmit2]

Fascinating that its max power rating was just 15 watts! I fed it a lot more than that.

I guess that's because it says "Power Requirement" and not "max power rating"