• 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)

beagleman

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
1,180
Likes
1,635
Location
Pittsburgh Pa
No "real" Advent with translucent polypropylene cones, AFAIK.
The brand name "Advent" had a long and somewhat unfortunate history post-Kloss. Recoton Jensen owned the name for a while, and some of the Recoton Jensen-era Advents were actually pretty good (better than the OLA, in terms of treble, at least, I'd opine), but they have zero cachet with -the Advent faithful.




I can remember some small-ish "KLH" branded loudspeakers (again, well post-Kloss) that had translucent plastic cones, but -- offhand(!) -- not any Advent branded ones.

This thread may be helpful for Advent model ID: https://www.audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/identifying-your-advent-loudspeakers.126376/
I recently came across a pair of "Advent AS2" speakers, from the Recoton era.......

Found them at Goodwill for only 10 bucks, figured I could part them out for maybe 30-40 bucks or more on Ebay.

Hooked them up, threw on a CD and was utterly floored to find they sounded VERY VERY good.
I mean not junk at all, but in an audiophile way very very good!

Very neutral, no boosted treble, decent 45hz bass, and just like everything was right overall.
Found they had an actual decent crossover also. Poly caps on the tweeter, and actual inductors on woofer and a REAL L-Pad, and 12db octave on woofer and tweeter.

Later found out the tweeter was a decent Vifa unit from 2004 they used.
They have a sound that I would say is similar to the old Polk Lsi9, but with deeper bass and more output ability. Probably a bit cleaner and more neutral than the Lsi9 I compared them to.

So not a junk speaker in any way, other than price!
(( And yes I have heard most of the "original" era Adent, and the Jensen era. These I dare say are better than both, except for really deep bass.
 

Attachments

  • s-l500.jpg
    s-l500.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 101
  • 159805-b71873ef-advent_as2_dual_6_2way_tower_pair.jpg
    159805-b71873ef-advent_as2_dual_6_2way_tower_pair.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,184
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
I'd have to read his review to completely understand what Hirsch was talking about. The Klipsch speaker begins to roll off rapidly at about 40Hz, with usable FR to about 35Hz, and then not much else (from Richard Heyser's pretty in-depth teardown). Also, from my recollection, Hirsch (and most reviewers from the era) were quite complimentary of the AR acoustic suspension design.



The little Advent was advertised as a 15 watt/ch receiver. AR advised a minimum of 25 watts/ch for their 4 ohm loudspeaker. From my experience (FWIW) and in my system at the time, with 60 watts/ch, it was the minimum I'd suggest, and even that was on the low side, if you wanted some dynamics, and in order to take advantage of the low FR the design promised.

This is why the pre-out on my ADVENT 300 (due to the low power of the ADVENT 300, which was intended to be able to be used as a preamp) goes to a pair of NAD 2100 running as mono blocks (with a pair of subwoofers) & my Frazier Super Monte Carlo speakers (much higher efficiency than any AR speakers) for my bedroom system. .
View attachment 198011

To my recollection, I personally have never heard an AR speaker or purchased an AR anything.
I only put out a copy of an article written by:
...Wes Phillips
[email protected] for the purpose of clarified the role of Edgar M. Villchur's interactions with Henry Kloss.
I do, however: own many things that Tomlinson Holman had something to do with. That would include the Henry Kloss (who hired Tomlinson Holman as Chief Engineer) ADVENT 300, the APT/Holman Preamp and some input into the NAD 2200 (I own three) (& it's somewhat more powerful sister [with nice meters] the Proton D1200 {sadly I own none}).
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,448
View attachment 198011

To my recollection, I personally have never heard an AR speaker or purchased an AR anything.
What made the invention important was its bass response in a small form factor. The actual speaker was like anything else from that era, polarizing. The Boston crowd thought it (and it's spawn) was the beez kneez in 'affordable' and accurate sound reproduction. The 'west coast' boys thought it was milquetoast, sonically.

What the world really wanted was a loudspeaker with the 'transparency' of the Quad ESL, the efficiency of the Klipschorn, coupled with the bass response/small form factor of the AR 3a. However, the world had to wait for that to happen. We may still be waiting.
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,184
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
Kloss never stuck around long, in any place. He was said to have a pretty 'strong' personality, and therefore, difficult to work with, but OK if you did what he told you to do and didn't complain. That is often a common trait among entrepreneurs. Villchur once quipped that the problem between Kloss and himself was that a company can't have two presidents, and Henry needed his own company, for that reason. It didn't matter much, because Ed had men like Roy Allison in the lab. By the time Teledyne took over, it was pretty much over. Everyone moved on.
Perhaps he had a "strong" personality. The last paragraph of this obit from Tomlinson Holman gives some insight of perhaps another side of this personality in the last paragraph:
A Notable Passing: Henry Kloss
By Tomlinson Holman
Maybe you noticed the recent passing of Henry Kloss, since it was an event covered
by the New York Times (February 5, 2002) obituaries, and by National Public Radio, a
downloadable audio version of which is archived at http://search1.npr.org/opt/ collections/
torched/atc/data_atc/seg_137575.htm. But then again, for younger people in the
business, and for those with no connection to the consumer side of things, maybe you
don’t even know who he was.
Henry Kloss probably had more to do with how sound is heard in the home, and how
pictures are made for a certain level of home theater, than just about anyone. As a
24-year-old in 1954, he did most of the production work on the first acoustic suspension
woofer/box combination, the AR-1, following the theory of his instructor Edgar
Villchur. Henry was already in the loudspeaker business, and he saw real market possibilities
in this invention, and he and Villchur capitalized the company to exploit the
idea. Using the air in a sealed box as a spring relieved the loudspeaker from doing
this duty, and as the air was a more linear spring than the mechanical suspension of a
loudspeaker, there was lower distortion than prior designs. It also solved the problem
of “big bass from a small box,” and the acoustic suspension (or sealed box as it is
perhaps more commonly called today) became the stalwart of the industry.
“What really caught the public fancy, however, was the fact that the original Acoustic
Research AR-1 was a small loudspeaker system having essentially flat low-frequency
response down into the 40-Hz region. Other manufacturers were quick to point out
that the AR-1 gobbled up about 10 times the electrical power needed by larger, more
efficient systems. With 40- and 50-watt amplifiers becoming available, this turned out
not to be a major drawback, and the trend toward smaller, less-efficient home loudspeaker
systems was firmly established.
It wasn’t until 1960s, when Neville Thiele started making sense of those electromechanical
analogies in Beranek’s book, Acoustics (coincidentally published in 1954),
that the vented box was properly quantified. It took years, and Richard Small’s work
also, for ported enclosures to come into common usage by the late 1970s. Today’s
loudspeakers having dynamic drivers in boxes have to be said to owe the most credit
to Villchur, Kloss, Thiele, and Small.
Henry left AR and formed KLH with partners in 1957. It was here that he ventured into
other audio systems, such as a high-quality table radio and those three-piece systems
having a record player and electronics in one box and two loudspeakers, all in a suitcase
arrangement, that zillions of people took away to college or on vacation. In loudspeaker
design, he supported Arthur Janszen in making full-range electrostatics, the
KLH Model 9, as well as making the best-selling bookshelf loudspeaker of the 1960s,
the Model 6. To push the theory of loudspeaker design, he experimented with making
a loudspeaker with flat power response (100-percent dispersion of flat response in all
directions), and discovered that this design was hideously bright on program material
— another nice theoretical construct hung up on the grounds that it simply didn’t work
in the real world.
Moving to Advent after “L” and “H” bailed on him, he heard the first LP that used
Dolby A noise reduction on the master tapes, and was so impressed with its dramatic
decrease in tape noise that he tracked down Ray Dolby on the phone — in half an
hour — and went to see him the next afternoon in London — to talk Ray into making
a consumer version of the system to fix the plague of low-speed tape recording, tape
hiss. Applying noise reduction first to a KLH open-reel deck, which he built at Advent
for KLH, was the introduction of Dolby B to the world.
The logical successor to the KLH 6 was the Advent Loudspeaker. This best-selling
model of the 1970s combined quality and reasonable price. One of the ways that the
price was kept so reasonable was by doing quite a bit of the process of making the
speaker components in-house. For instance, a slurry was made basically by putting
grocery bags into a Waring blender with water and chopping them up to the right consistency,
then sucking on the mass through a filter to produce a limp cone, then
pressing the cone shape, then finally treating the paper cone with orange bulb dye
from the hardware store to stiffen it and make it less porous. The cone-shaping dye
gives a measure of how good Henry’s seat-of-the-pants design engineering was. Here
a male and female part mate with the cone trapped between them under pressure.
The exact cone shape is determined here, and it is a non-conventional central dome
centered within a larger radius annular ring, a kind of top half of a donut sawn through
sideways. The idea was that, as frequency goes up and cone losses become greater,
the area of radiation shrinks to that nearby the voice coil, maintaining dispersion. On
the other hand, the relatively large overall diameter provided good low-end (for a
tweeter) response and power handling. Really a brilliant piece.
More brilliant than we knew. After hundreds of thousands of these things had been
stamped out, and the original drawing lost, the response changed, and it took months
of work to figure out something that Henry had sketched on the back of a napkin
some years earlier — the exactly optimum shape.
These would be feathers enough in the cap of any audio inventor, but I was absolutely
astonished when I interviewed at Advent in the spring of 1973. What I was shown
during my interview was not an audio product at all, but instead, sitting in a darkened
room in a dingy part of Cambridge around the corner from MIT, sat a 7-foot diagonal
large-screen front projection television! It had brightness that reached motion picture
standards, and few theaters of the time even met those
Henry transcended audio then, and did for some years to come, essentially starting
the home theater business. Meanwhile, he was up to a few things in audio, too. Henry
fully recognized the value of surround sound, but not its quad implementation, which
was essentially dead by the time I got there. We built the Advent 400 table radio (and
I learned a lot just from that) and the 300 receiver. I remember Henry’s joy when I
spent a weekend with foam core making a model of how to put together the receiver
mechanically using monocoque construction — there was no identifiable chassis as
had always been used up until then.
It was an amazing time. Henry had assembled a team that was talented, bright, and
loyal. Most of us have never worked again in a place so filled with competent people.

While there’s a New Yorker article waiting to get out about what it was like to work
there, just one story suffices to tell what kind of a man he was:
The company got into trouble — after all, it was a pioneer in the projection television
business, and you know who the pioneers are — those guys with the arrows in their
backs. A new set of managers bought into the company, but with Henry still there.
They cut back salaries by 15 percent, and it was understood that these cutbacks
would be paid back when the company was on its feet. Of course, it never was in the
consideration of those managers. At Christmas, Henry came around with Christmas
cards. Inside each envelope was cash in the amount that the company had cut us,
making us whole.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,448
This all from memory, which is not the best arbiter of truth and fact, especially with stuff from a long time ago. But as I recall, KLH v AR product was quite contentious--at least on the retail side. AR tended to hold dealers to list, whereas you could usually get a discount on KLH. At least in my area of town.

Also, and to use a pro wrestling analogy, AR dealers wanted to sell you the 'total package', Lex Luger style. Their integrated amp, the famous AR turntable (with most likely a Shure M91E), and a loudspeaker. You could argue that it was a pretty good package, but not necessarily a pretty cheap one, given alternatives.

In an ideal world, this marketing strategy was designed to ensure more dollars for an AR franchise, all things being equal. However, since AR dealers probably didn't have the KLH franchise, and since the two speaker brand's 'sonic signatures' were similar, it was not an equal thing. My guess is that KLH probably cannibalized a lot of potential AR sales, unit for unit. And for those whose bottom line didn't demand an authentic 3a loudspeaker (plus the turntable and amp), less money would get them close to the same sonic thing, from the store across the street.

[An actual dealer from that era would have more insight into it than my scuttlebutt recollections. I certainly could have it all wrong.]

My only KLH speaker was a small two-way. It came in a single box, packed as a stereo unit. Sort of a value proposition 'player pack'. At the time I was using a bottom of the barrel Kenwood integrated amplifier (KA-2002, if I recall), pushing (on a good day) ten or twelve watts/ch. This was +/- 1974. It was a 'secondary' system, and the amp was woefully under-powered for a small acoustic suspension loudspeaker. Sure, it made sound, but it sounded pretty bad. But really, there wasn't anything out there at the time, at that price point and with that form-factor, that sounded good. So you could say it was as good as it got. They were real shoe-boxes, by the way.

The thing with Advent (again, from memory) was A) it was inexpensive (relatively) and B) was one of the first acoustic suspension loudspeakers that didn't sound like the music was being choked and strangled deep inside a box. I'm not trying to be unkind--it was just how I recall it.

I never really got the Boston crowd; audiophiles who at the time thought that the AR acoustic suspension thing was like Bret Hart, the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be. That sure wasn't how I heard it. Actually, that's not quite right. The Boston crowd moved on to Roy Allison's thing. Another polarizing design, for sure. Then there was AR alumnus, Ken Kantor, who I think actually set up shop on the West coast, but had that Boston sound going for him. Next? Boston Acoustics. The list goes on.

For me, and to make a rather strained literary to sound analogy, it was the difference between Henry James's Bostonian prose, and Hunter Thompson's Oakland gig, with the Hells Angels.

If I had a refurbished pair of 3a (now that I have much better gear, but certainly worse hearing), I might revise my opinion, and I might realize I was wrong all along. But I don't and I probably won't, so that's it for me. YMMV
 

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,542
This all from memory, which is not the best arbiter of truth and fact, especially with stuff from a long time ago. But as I recall, KLH v AR product was quite contentious--at least on the retail side. AR tended to hold dealers to list, whereas you could usually get a discount on KLH. At least in my area of town.

Also, and to use a pro wrestling analogy, AR dealers wanted to sell you the 'total package', Lex Luger style. Their integrated amp, the famous AR turntable (with most likely a Shure M91E), and a loudspeaker. You could argue that it was a pretty good package, but not necessarily a pretty cheap one, given alternatives.

In an ideal world, this marketing strategy was designed to ensure more dollars for an AR franchise, all things being equal. However, since AR dealers probably didn't have the KLH franchise, and since the two speaker brand's 'sonic signatures' were similar, it was not an equal thing. My guess is that KLH probably cannibalized a lot of potential AR sales, unit for unit. And for those whose bottom line didn't demand an authentic 3a loudspeaker (plus the turntable and amp), less money would get them close to the same sonic thing, from the store across the street.

[An actual dealer from that era would have more insight into it than my scuttlebutt recollections. I certainly could have it all wrong.]

My only KLH speaker was a small two-way. It came in a single box, packed as a stereo unit. Sort of a value proposition 'player pack'. At the time I was using a bottom of the barrel Kenwood integrated amplifier (KA-2002, if I recall), pushing (on a good day) ten or twelve watts/ch. This was +/- 1974. It was a 'secondary' system, and the amp was woefully under-powered for a small acoustic suspension loudspeaker. Sure, it made sound, but it sounded pretty bad. But really, there wasn't anything out there at the time, at that price point and with that form-factor, that sounded good. So you could say it was as good as it got. They were real shoe-boxes, by the way.

The thing with Advent (again, from memory) was A) it was inexpensive (relatively) and B) was one of the first acoustic suspension loudspeakers that didn't sound like the music was being choked and strangled deep inside a box. I'm not trying to be unkind--it was just how I recall it.

I never really got the Boston crowd; audiophiles who at the time thought that the AR acoustic suspension thing was like Bret Hart, the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be. That sure wasn't how I heard it. Actually, that's not quite right. The Boston crowd moved on to Roy Allison's thing. Another polarizing design, for sure. Then there was AR alumnus, Ken Kantor, who I think actually set up shop on the West coast, but had that Boston sound going for him. Next? Boston Acoustics. The list goes on.

For me, and to make a rather strained literary to sound analogy, it was the difference between Henry James's Bostonian prose, and Hunter Thompson's Oakland gig, with the Hells Angels.

If I had a refurbished pair of 3a (now that I have much better gear, but certainly worse hearing), I might revise my opinion, and I might realize I was wrong all along. But I don't and I probably won't, so that's it for me. YMMV
Actually, I think you have the pricing policies of the two companies reversed. AR prided itself in being consumer-friendly before the consumer movement even began. They had a full 5-year warranty, and, more on topic, didn't fair trade. They supplied discounters with speakers, much to the traditional retailers's dismay. I bought my first system in 1966 from a mail-order discounter in Washington, D.C.--AR4x speakers, an AR turntable, and an Eico ST-70 amp, all for $277 delivered. KLH, on the other hand, did fair trade and only supplied dealers would hold to list price. As a result, dealers regularly trashed AR speakers and steered people to KLH, and that's how KLH ate into AR's market share. That episode is (or was) taught as a case study at the Harvard Business School. I paid list price for KLH 6 and KLH 5 speakers--there was no alternative. But I could have bought AR3a's for a 15% off from a discounter in Ann Arbor. I just didn't care much for the speakers.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,269
Likes
7,698
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
This all from memory, which is not the best arbiter of truth and fact, especially with stuff from a long time ago. But as I recall, KLH v AR product was quite contentious--at least on the retail side. AR tended to hold dealers to list, whereas you could usually get a discount on KLH. At least in my area of town.

Also, and to use a pro wrestling analogy, AR dealers wanted to sell you the 'total package', Lex Luger style. Their integrated amp, the famous AR turntable (with most likely a Shure M91E), and a loudspeaker. You could argue that it was a pretty good package, but not necessarily a pretty cheap one, given alternatives.

In an ideal world, this marketing strategy was designed to ensure more dollars for an AR franchise, all things being equal. However, since AR dealers probably didn't have the KLH franchise, and since the two speaker brand's 'sonic signatures' were similar, it was not an equal thing. My guess is that KLH probably cannibalized a lot of potential AR sales, unit for unit. And for those whose bottom line didn't demand an authentic 3a loudspeaker (plus the turntable and amp), less money would get them close to the same sonic thing, from the store across the street.

[An actual dealer from that era would have more insight into it than my scuttlebutt recollections. I certainly could have it all wrong.]

My only KLH speaker was a small two-way. It came in a single box, packed as a stereo unit. Sort of a value proposition 'player pack'. At the time I was using a bottom of the barrel Kenwood integrated amplifier (KA-2002, if I recall), pushing (on a good day) ten or twelve watts/ch. This was +/- 1974. It was a 'secondary' system, and the amp was woefully under-powered for a small acoustic suspension loudspeaker. Sure, it made sound, but it sounded pretty bad. But really, there wasn't anything out there at the time, at that price point and with that form-factor, that sounded good. So you could say it was as good as it got. They were real shoe-boxes, by the way.

The thing with Advent (again, from memory) was A) it was inexpensive (relatively) and B) was one of the first acoustic suspension loudspeakers that didn't sound like the music was being choked and strangled deep inside a box. I'm not trying to be unkind--it was just how I recall it.

I never really got the Boston crowd; audiophiles who at the time thought that the AR acoustic suspension thing was like Bret Hart, the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be. That sure wasn't how I heard it. Actually, that's not quite right. The Boston crowd moved on to Roy Allison's thing. Another polarizing design, for sure. Then there was AR alumnus, Ken Kantor, who I think actually set up shop on the West coast, but had that Boston sound going for him. Next? Boston Acoustics. The list goes on.

For me, and to make a rather strained literary to sound analogy, it was the difference between Henry James's Bostonian prose, and Hunter Thompson's Oakland gig, with the Hells Angels.

If I had a refurbished pair of 3a (now that I have much better gear, but certainly worse hearing), I might revise my opinion, and I might realize I was wrong all along. But I don't and I probably won't, so that's it for me. YMMV
Had a KLH model 20, bought used in Berkeley in the early 1990s. My 7th/8th grade teacher, Mrs. Way, was a classical music buff that turned me into a classical music buff. She had a KLH model 20, and for me, at the time [1969] it was the best, fanciest stereo system I heard. Move forward 20 years, not so much. I had already burned through a number of different stereo systems by the time I got my model 20. I also recall finding a pair of KLH speakers, I think model 5. Did not impress in any way. My AR 3 speakers had wonderful bass, but less than stellar on top. The original Advent may not have been the most impressive speaker I've owned, but was much better than average in the midrange and over all was the best for music.

Mrs Way had her system on pedestals, like this:

IMG_6795_l.jpg
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,448
I bought my first system in 1966 from a mail-order discounter in Washington, D.C.--AR4x speakers, an AR turntable, and an Eico ST-70 amp, all for $277 delivered. ... But I could have bought AR3a's for a 15% off from a discounter in Ann Arbor.
When one bought a 'system' it was difficult to know the price breakdown, per component. Because you are being sold a package, dealers could manipulate it accordingly, and bypass the 'fair trade'.

I never heard of AR being regularly discounted at 15% off list, but I will certainly accept what you are reporting as the case.

JBL was another example of a 'fair trade' operation. I paid 'list' for my L100s, but the dealer 'threw in' a Shure cartridge at his cost, in order to sweeten the deal. One of the largest mail-order outfits at that time, Warehouse Sound Company out of San Luis Obispo, sold the then popular L100 at list, but could package a 4311 monitor with your system at a discount, as the pro line was shopped differently. This sort of thing drove local dealers mad, and created a lot of bad blood.

Pioneer was probably the worst 'offender'. Many storefronts refused to sell the brand because mail order outfits unloaded them for so much less than they could. For the average consumer it was a boon. Tweako 'high end' didn't usually play by those rules, and for their part, McIntosh always sold through established dealers, at full price. But McIntosh played at a different level than Pioneer.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,448
Below is typical of 'system' pricing of that era. You couldn't get L100s at a discount due to the 'fair trade'. But if you bought other gear, it was easy to work out some substantial price cuts.

14408060664_66ce3616b1_b.jpg
 

audiopile

Active Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
161
Likes
125
The stereo that made me a obsessed stereo nut was a friends KLH suitcase stereo -but upgraded with the next model "wood" speakers. It simply amazed me. Certainly couldn't afford anything that expensive -so I bought magazines and tried to learn. Still am trying to learn. But I've bought and sold a lot of equipment since then. And even more records.
Pricing: For years JBL L-100's were a very hot top selling speaker within their pricerange. $273 each. 13 bucks of each speaker was a spiff -at the time paid in cash to the salesman. Buddy of mine worked for a national chain -German guy comes in -he wants some ungodly quantity of L-100 (turns out thats exactly how many would fit in a shipping container). Delivered to a warehouse in New Jersey. He sells them for 15% over their dead nutz cost -smiles when he picks up that XXX times $13 . Later did the same kind of low margin -nice spiff deal on a container full of Bose 901s -got yelled at by the Bose rep for that one (Bose traced the serial numbers back to him).
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3

Randy Bessinger

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
85
Likes
160
Had a KLH model 20, bought used in Berkeley in the early 1990s. My 7th/8th grade teacher, Mrs. Way, was a classical music buff that turned me into a classical music buff. She had a KLH model 20, and for me, at the time [1969] it was the best, fanciest stereo system I heard. Move forward 20 years, not so much. I had already burned through a number of different stereo systems by the time I got my model 20. I also recall finding a pair of KLH speakers, I think model 5. Did not impress in any way. My AR 3 speakers had wonderful bass, but less than stellar on top. The original Advent may not have been the most impressive speaker I've owned, but was much better than average in the midrange and over all was the best for music.

Mrs Way had her system on pedestals, like this:

View attachment 198532
My fraternity brother had one of those in the late 60’s. I liked it quite a lot at the time.
 

Don927

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2022
Messages
9
Likes
1
Maybe I've missed it somewhere, but the speakers shown are the Original Large Advents. The New Large Advents were considerably better performing and built. Visually the NLA's have rounded front corners and the cabinets are much higher quality. Great speaker for back in the day.
 

Attachments

  • NLA.jpg
    NLA.jpg
    90.6 KB · Views: 117

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,542
Maybe I've missed it somewhere, but the speakers shown are the Original Large Advents. The New Large Advents were considerably better performing and built. Visually the NLA's have rounded front corners and the cabinets are much higher quality. Great speaker for back in the day.
I'm not sure that's correct. The New Advents, which Amir tested and I worked with, had elevated and generally unpleasant highs, and the only change in cabinetry was the option of a less expensive finish. AFAIK, the original cabinet, shown in the picture, was never improved upon.
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,938
Likes
6,090
Location
PNW
I'm not sure that's correct. The New Advents, which Amir tested and I worked with, had elevated and generally unpleasant highs, and the only change in cabinetry was the option of a less expensive finish. AFAIK, the original cabinet, shown in the picture, was never improved upon.
More fits in with my recollection. Not even sure what "New Large Advents" refers to.
 

jkasch

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
794
Likes
5,069
Both the original and the new Large Advent offered a vinyl wrapped "Utility" cabinet. I purchased both when they were current. Both were offered in walnut veneer with a solid wood "bullnose" that surrounded the grill. The original was more angular and the new was more rounded. I bought the utility versions because I was a poor college student.
original.jpg

Original
new advent.jpg

New

utility.jpg

Utility
 

Mr. Widget

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2022
Messages
1,174
Likes
1,772
Location
SF Bay Area
This is a review and detailed measurements of the "The New Advent Loudspeaker" vintage speaker, circa 1977....
A belated thank you Amir!

I am amazed that Henry Kloss and Co got it this right considering their methodology and the era.

As for too bright? I do not recall thinking that at the time. I graduated high school that year and had exceptional hearing. I was able to hear north of 20KHz back then and the 15 KHz scanning frequency of CRT TVs drove me insane! (Yes, that was the cause.)

Listening to these at the time, they didn't wow me, but as I recall they were rather average and considered excellent value. Admittedly toeing in a speaker was not something I remember seeing until a few years later and much of the gear that we would have been using at that time would have been lower fidelity than we regularly see today.

All in all though, very cool to see these tests!
 

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,542
Both the original and the new Large Advent offered a vinyl wrapped "Utility" cabinet. I purchased both when they were current. Both were offered in walnut veneer with a solid wood "bullnose" that surrounded the grill. The original was more angular and the new was more rounded. I bought the utility versions because I was a poor college student.
View attachment 244305
Original
View attachment 244308
New

View attachment 244309
Utility
Thanks very much. I had forgotten than the original came in a utility cabinet. I owned the rounded veneer version.
 

komhst

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
50
Likes
61
A belated thank you Amir!

I am amazed that Henry Kloss and Co got it this right considering their methodology and the era.

As for too bright? I do not recall thinking that at the time. I graduated high school that year and had exceptional hearing. I was able to hear north of 20KHz back then and the 15 KHz scanning frequency of CRT TVs drove me insane! (Yes, that was the cause.)

Listening to these at the time, they didn't wow me, but as I recall they were rather average and considered excellent value. Admittedly toeing in a speaker was not something I remember seeing until a few years later and much of the gear that we would have been using at that time would have been lower fidelity than we regularly see today.

All in all though, very cool to see these tests!
Back in the day, when I was 20, I could also hear the scanning frequency of CRT TVs that drove me insane too! None of the Advent models sounded bright to me. On the contrary I loved those speakers because of their balanced sound with no exaggerations to any frequency.
 

Dennis Murphy

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
1,071
Likes
4,542
Back in the day, when I was 20, I could also hear the scanning frequency of CRT TVs that drove me insane too! None of the Advent models sounded bright to me. On the contrary I loved those speakers because of their balanced sound with no exaggerations to any frequency.
The New Advent was introduced to meet comments that the original was too laid back in the highs. Lacking a time machine, I can say for sure whether the sample I sent Amir was in spec, but the tweeter impedance measurement matches others that have been published. There's no question that my sample sounds bright, and that's how it measures.
 
Top Bottom