|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
|
|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
In Reply to: Re: AR 2ax vs New Large Advent Comparison before i try to bypass the pots on the ARs (long) posted by Soundmind on December 20, 2004 at 09:20:46:
We are saying the same thing vis-a-vis the box size. You say it was a necessity and I a design goal. I think it is semantics. As for JansZen, Art never entered into any R&D or marketing arrangement with AR though his add-on tweeters are so identified with the AR-1W. Vilcher was only interested in the woofer design and it was actually Kloss who expanded Vilcher to move from a small speaker experiment to consider the actual application and provided the production for AR originally. Vilcher's original concept was his woofer coupled with the WE drivers and the company would also build based on other drivers. Actually, he had the concept most speakers are built on today which was simply find compatible drivers from others and make a speaker. Before then and even during the heyday of NE manufacturers, most drivers were built in-house. Kloss felt that outsourcing had significant limitations and hence only house designed, developed and manufactured drivers could be used - which was the conventional thinking at the time. Vilcher as the owner of the design and key inventor won out at first but then Kloss learned and took over the designs for the mids and tweeters subject to Vilcher's approval. This started the divde between them and finally the breakup. Of course Kloss went to KLH with a settlement allowing him the AS rights and using them plus the learning obtained at AR designed some very good midrange drivers and tweeters and with his move to Advent he brought all of the learning together in a wonderful package that most of us still honor and respect today. Do wish he had gone on in Advent and developed a no holds barred premium system without the cost constraints he had placed on the speaker - can only imagine what the outcome would have been and I'm not speaker about something like the powered Advent. Maybe a double Advent in a single box, bi-ampable. Better cabinet design.While in the business, I never was able to recreate any of the claims AR made about their speakers even when I worked for Teledyne the then owner of AR. Did not mean not a really decent speaker and a "little wonder" but nowhere near a faithful recreation of any live music at least in the Boston area.
Vilcher's design was an experiment to see if his hypothysis was correct and it was. Why it is not in general use today I think is simply because to make AS work well there needs to be some decent RMS power and headroom in an amp and in the late 60s and 70s amps were designed to accomodate the AS speaker which was popular. With newer electroncis the power is simply not there any longer to accomodate multiple speakers and hence more efficient ported designs were reverted to (remember there were around long before AS but then as now had low end limitations except in big boxes). This issue first started to be raised with the introduction of quad systems in the 70s so it is not as new as some may think.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: AR 2ax vs New Large Advent Comparison before i try to bypass the pots on the ARs (long) - Brian Levy 12/20/0411:42:23 12/20/04 (1)
- Re: AR 2ax vs New Large Advent Comparison before i try to bypass the pots on the ARs (long) - Soundmind 13:17:00 12/20/04 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
