Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Curb Find - Original "The Advent Loudspeaker"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Curb Find - Original "The Advent Loudspeaker"

    On my home from my once-a-week visit to the office ...

    What I believe to be the very first Advent speaker designed by Henry Kloss in 1969 and offered by Advent as "The Advent Loudspeaker". It could also be it's updated version of the same name referred to as the "New Large Advent".

    These do not appear to be a "collectors item" as many were sold, especially given their condition.

    The grills are missing and they are not the solid wood version. Most of the veneered cabinets have been covered in "wood" contact paper likely hiding corner and joint distress. The baffle is also covered in that paper. And from some short research, the original 10" woofers with mounting rings have been replaced with 12" woofers in the original 12" baffle cutouts. These replacements are also shot. The tweeters show no distress behind their metal grills.

    Advent Collage.jpg
    Last edited by Millstonemike; 11-29-2017, 10:11 PM. Reason: Henry Kloss' first Advent design, not his first speaker design.

  • #2
    Locally we have a nice set of the new large advents for sale near the bottom of the page http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=104016.380
    John H

    Synergy Horn, SLS-85, BMR-3L, Mini-TL, BR-2, Titan OB, B452, Udique, Vultus, Latus1, Seriatim, Aperivox,Pencil Tower

    Comment


    • #3
      Too bad about the woofers, no way will they have the specs that the originals did. Henry had four of them in his office, two per side, stacked with the upper cab inverted, creating an M-T-T-M arrangement. It was his first Advent design, but by no means his first speaker design.
      www.billfitzmaurice.com
      www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

      Comment


      • #4
        Uh, . . . while your cabs, "fried-egg" tweeters, and most likely (minimalist) XO are original, those woofers (IMO) are NOT. 4thtry just had a pretty good sounding pair at DIYIA last month.
        The easiest way to (ballpark) date a pair is to look for a date stamped in ink on the metal tweeter "flange". His were stamped "1974".

        I have a pair I originally bought, stamped 1973. They had the original "masonite-ring" woofers, which looked like a 10" (nom.) cone in a 12" frame (for added Xmax) using about a 1" wide "ring" of masonite between the frame and foam-rubber surround. My surround dry-rot became known to me approx. in the mid/late '80s when I had one of my 1st TELARC CDs turned up a tad too loud. When the surround first "split", I couldn't get my PAT-4's volume knob cranked down fast enough to prevent the left hand woofer from getting about a 1" to 2" tear. My OEM replacement woofers (from Jensen, at that time) looked like a std. 12" nominal woofer (no masonite ring) w/a VERY wide frame, w/the cone being the same size as the original 10" model. BOTH my orig. AND replacement drivers only used 4 large wood screws to hold them in (not 8 screws, like yours).

        So, the orig. woofers lasted about 14 yrs, and the foam on my replacements ALSO ripped at about 14 yrs. (2000-01), which is when I became a PE customer !
        Woofer specs: m-ring orig. Qts = 0.46, Vas = 5 to 8 cf (or so), Fs = 24 +/-. These are back in place (after refoaming) and have the same specs as originally.
        The all-steel framed replacements: Qts = 0.39, Vas = 9.3, Fs = 24 (by box model, SEEM to loose about 1/3 octave of extension).

        Both 4thtry and I have measured these, and (the funny thing is that) they NEED the old grill to get a fairly flat response. W/out it, there's pretty bad diffraction off the edge of the tweeter's metal flange, and more when the sound hits the protruding cab edge. The original grill was (also) made from a 1/8" masonite panel, wrapped in grill cloth, and velcroed to six little wooden "blocks" (about 3/4" to 1" cubes) that held the grill barely proud ot the tweeter frame. You can see those 6 support positions on YOUR pics as little square "bumps" under the vinyl on the baffle. Back in the day, I almost ALWAYS left the grills off so I could watch the woofers pump - didn't know they sounded worse that way!

        A friend also had a pair of ADVE\TS, and when we doubled them up (bill's "double-Advents" post), the 4ohm load blew my STEREO 120 (not its 1st time, or last).

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
          U... the 4ohm load blew my STEREO 120 (not its 1st time, or last).
          Great read.

          " ... the 4ohm load blew my STEREO 120 (not its 1st time, or last)." LMAO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
            they NEED the old grill to get a fairly flat response. W/out it, there's pretty bad diffraction off the edge of the tweeter's metal flange, and more when the sound hits the protruding cab edge. The original grill was (also) made from a 1/8" masonite panel, wrapped in grill cloth, and velcroed to six little wooden "blocks" (about 3/4" to 1" cubes) that held the grill barely proud ot the tweeter frame.
            That grill arrangement duplicated the effect of flush mounting the drivers at a lot lower cost. Henry knew that he wouldn't capture AR market share by any other means than price, so between going 2-way instead of 3-way and other measures, like the vinyl covering and masonite grille, he managed to compete with the AR sound at about half the price. However, the diffraction controlling effect of that grille design was serendipitous, because AR had used it too, with rear mounted drivers. Where Kloss got the savings was that the original AR grille framing was 7/16 particle board. The Advent masonite was less expensive, and lighter weight.
            www.billfitzmaurice.com
            www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

            Comment


            • #7
              I had a pair, along with my AR turntable, Dynaco amp and tuner, and later an Advent cassette deck. Boards and cement blocks, I was so cool.

              Comment


              • #8
                I had the AR-XB (I believe) too. First I had a Stanton 681EE (?) cartridge, but ended up w/an ma. Dust bug (for a little while), a "Preener", and a Staticmaster.
                When my ADVE\T surrounds rotted, it made me wonder. I took the foam mat off my AR and squeezed it into a ball (the size of a large plum) FULLY expecting it to "bounce back", but it stayed squished just like a blob of modeling clay ! ! Time for a new mat (and belt).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah my AR mat turned to mush too, got a new felt one at Anderson"s Stereo Lab.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I peeled the contact paper off the tops (top, bottom and baffle, front edge were covered). to my surprise, the veneer is in excellent condition with only small nicks at the back corners (still can't see the front edge yet). Now I have to deal with the adhesive, yuck.

                    Pulled the woofers - Radio Shack / Realistic 40-1025s. They're in the garbage.

                    Not sure what I want to do. Given the lack of grills, the age of the caps in the XO, etc., etc. The cabinets size is ideal for ported RS225 - F3 of 30 Hz (maybe 29) and xmax is in check at the full 80 W rated power. Maybe a 2-Way for me and my poor hearing - the RS225 and a mid or full range for others (I can't hear much anything in the K hz range). RS100?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Millstonemike View Post
                      I peeled the contact paper off the tops (top, bottom and baffle, front edge were covered). to my surprise, the veneer is in excellent condition with only small nicks at the back corners (still can't see the front edge yet). Now I have to deal with the adhesive, yuck.

                      Pulled the woofers - Radio Shack / Realistic 40-1025s. They're in the garbage.

                      Not sure what I want to do. Given the lack of grills, the age of the caps in the XO, etc., etc. The cabinets size is ideal for ported RS225 - F3 of 30 Hz (maybe 29) and xmax is in check at the full 80 W rated power. Maybe a 2-Way for me and my poor hearing - the RS225 and a mid or full range for others (I can't hear much anything in the K hz range). RS100?
                      Well, because of your circumstance, at least part out the tweeters to someone that may want them. That is if you won’t use em.

                      Cool find! Wish I was you! Mark

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Psycoacoustics View Post

                        ... at least part out the tweeters to someone that may want them. That is if you won’t use em.

                        Cool find! Wish I was you! Mark
                        Yes, I'll test them and let the community know.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you go w/a "FAST" design (FR for the top, instead of a tweeter), the DCS305-4 should get lower than the orig. ADVENT woofer in THAT box - closed !
                          Orig. woofers in that Cb had a Q approaching 1.0. The DCS would be more like 0.8, but I bet it would sound pretty good.
                          My npe caps (and 4thtry's) still measured good after 40+ years in the XO. Advent claimed an Fc in the 1.0-1.5kHz range (I THINK closer to 1.0).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
                            If you go w/a "FAST" design (FR for the top, instead of a tweeter), the DCS305-4 should get lower than the orig. ADVENT woofer in THAT box - closed !
                            Orig. woofers in that Cb had a Q approaching 1.0. The DCS would be more like 0.8, but I bet it would sound pretty good.
                            My npe caps (and 4thtry's) still measured good after 40+ years in the XO. Advent claimed an Fc in the 1.0-1.5kHz range (I THINK closer to 1.0).
                            Chris, thanks, especially since I'm rethinking this. I've pulled most of the contact paper off one speaker and the cabinet is in very good condition. So far just very small nicks on the rear top corners. Nothing a furniture pencil wouldn't cure.

                            I had passed over the DCS305 in the WSG based on the posted PE Bassbox calculations. WinISD models the F3 in the upper 40s - would like to do better. But that's before accounting for stuffing.

                            I could use a quick tutorial on the WinISD stuffing parameter.

                            I've looked at new manufacture of the original woofer for ~$120 each. But I have yet to find any reviews on that driver's performance in the Advent.

                            I've looked at the Goldwood GW8028, models close to the DCS305 in terms of F3. I could glue in MDF to close up the 12" driver opening for a smaller woofer.

                            And I have to test the tweeters. I've no problem replacing XO parts if needed.

                            Back to removing contact paper adhesive. I'd like to smack the guy that did this

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I WAS using older sub parms: Qts=0.41, Vas=4.1; but even w/the latest ones: Qts=0.40, Vas=3.2 . . . I see the same F3 as the orig.
                              Orig. ADVENT: Qes 0.51, Qms 4.8, (Qts 0.46), Re 5.1, Le 1.6, Sd 341cm^2, Xmax 6.0mm, Pe 60w (orig. Qtc "in box" close to 1.0).
                              The older specs had a Qtc near 0.8, whereas the newer ones yield more like 0.7, still I think it would have the flavor of the original.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X