Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
tysontom

A/D/S/ L1590

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, tysontom said:

I think the different crossovers and slight differences between the 2-inch dome midrange drivers between the two speakers probably accounts somewhat for the difference in perceived transient performance.  Except for the more robust L1590 woofers, I don't understand why the L1590 has greater overall power-handling capability than the L1290, especially since the 2-inch dome is driven to a lower crossover frequency in the big speaker.  How this could represent greater power-handling, I don't know!  The upper end should be equal across the board.  Thoughts?

The L1590 has different tweeters, mids and woofers than the L1290.  I assume that each one of the components in the L1590 is rated for more power, but can't find any data right now to back up my theory. 

18 hours ago, tysontom said:

Also, do you have any copies of your measurements on these speakers?  I would love to see them if you have saved any.  If you could do some impulse tests—even the old transient-response tests—it would be interesting to see if there are any differences in the two speakers' midrange performance.

I'm sure that I have data from the L1290 and L880 drivers somewhere on my computer.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty thorough at testing and analyzing data, but usually not very good at documenting the results.  If I found the data, it might not be clear what I actually tested.

It all may be a moot point since I tested individual drivers from the L1290 and L880, but didn't disassemble the L1590 for individual driver testing.  My comparisons between the L1290 and L1590 were done with the speakers side by side connected to a speaker selector switch.  In the past, I've tried to run quantitative comparisons of overall speaker performance, but never obtained results that I thought I could trust.  I typically end up doing qualitative evaluations (which may be too subjective to be useful to anyone else).

18 hours ago, tysontom said:

I would not think so, as both use the same magnet and voice-coil assemblies.

I recall reading somewhere that the L1590 mids and tweeters had stronger magnets than the L1290.  However, I can't recall where I read that.

18 hours ago, tysontom said:

Did you actually find the Ferrofluid dried up in the 1290s?  Was it partially dry or what was the case?

I've only experienced one ADS driver with a ferrofluid issue.  The best way I can describe it is that the fluid "crusted over".  The fluid under the crust seemed fine.  I originally repaired the driver by cleaning out all of the dried fluid "chunks" and running the driver with the remaining fluid.  I've since completely replaced the fluid (several times) in the course of my various experiments.

18 hours ago, tysontom said:

Also, as for imaging, I would think that the L1290 and L890 speakers, with their higher midrange crossover, might image slightly better than the 1590, but the latter would have somewhat greater "spaciousness" in the reverberant field.  More three-dimensional in the far field.

I believe that improvements in imaging in my L1290 (and L880) were more from using matched driver pairs than anything else.  I'd love to be able to repeat the driver matching experiment on the L1590s, but I don't have a suitable pool of spare parts to make it happen.

19 hours ago, tysontom said:

These were all great speakers!  Do you also have a pair of L980s?

Unfortunately, no.  There are only a couple of ADS speakers that are on my watch list and the L980 is one of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Glitch,

Great message.  Regarding the L980s, I wonder how it would compare, ultimately, with the AR-3a?  There would be a fairly close resemblance in terms of bandwidth and spectral balance, except that the ADS speakers would have noticeably greater upper-midrange and treble output in comparison with the AR-3a.  As for accuracy, it would be a close call, with both speakers representing a very high level of smoothness and low distortion.

I am quite surprised that at least one of ADS's later designs didn't make it to Stereophile magazine's "Best Top Speakers of the Past 40 Years."  You just never know how these things will go, but there were several ADS speaker that could easily have outmatched several of the magazine's top picks.  Of course, Stereophile magazine (much like TAS) reviews and articles were heavily weighed on subjective evaluation and judgment, and the results were usually more emotional than objective.  

https://www.stereophile.com/content/40-years-istereophilei-hot-100-products-page-7

By the way, you are exactly right about the different part numbers for the ADS 1590 and 1290!  For some reason I thought the tweeters were identical, but it's not the case.  According to what I found in my files: 

L1290: tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0211, woofer 206-0349

L1590: tweeter 206-0119, mid 206-0213, woofer 206-0350.

I'm not positive that these are the Series 2 part numbers or the original series, but I think so.  You may know for sure.

--Tom 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tysontom said:

Regarding the L980s, I wonder how it would compare, ultimately, with the AR-3a?

Setting up a listening comparison between those two speakers would be a real treat.  I have neither, so it could be a long while until I have the opportunity.  Based on my experience with the L1590, L1290 and L880, I would think that you would be able to A/B your 3a's and L1290's and get a very good feel for how they stack up.  The tricky part of the experiment might be getting the room setup right since each of those speakers would have a fairly different "ideal" spot in the room.  I'm guessing that you already thought of this and is one of the reasons why you suggested the 3a to L980 comparison.  (i.e. both would benefit from a similar setup position, etc.).

The Stereophile Magazine article was a trip down memory lane.  To me, it seems "right" that there weren't any ADS offerings on the list.  I've never thought of ADS as one of those companies that was targeting the stereotypical audiophile personality.  Sure, there were other companies on the list that are arguably similar in this regard.  IMHO, there products were more revolutionary than anything ADS did.  As big of an ADS fan as I am, I don't feel slighted at all by the list.

Here are some relevant part numbers (from the ADS parts list)

L880:       tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0211, woofer 206-0346

L880/2:   tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0215, woofer 206-0357

L1290:     tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0211, woofer 206-0349

L1290/2: tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0215, woofer 206-0359 or 206-0360

L980:       tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0212, woofer 206-0347

L980/2:   tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0214, woofer 206-0353

L1590:     tweeter 206-0119, mid 206-0213, woofer 206-0350

L1590/2: tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0214, woofer 206-0361

I'm a bit surprised that drivers pattern on the L980/L1590 doesn't follow the same pattern as the L880/L1290.  I wonder if the L980 was introduced "late" relative to the L1590? (i.e I expected that it, L980/1, would have a 206-0119 tweeter & 206-0213 mid)


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess I had mis-remembered this.  My 1590s and 980s are both series 1, so they aren't identical (mid/tweet) drivers after all.  Drat.

Not going to try to "cure" that though!

 

Best,

- Jeff

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 8:07 PM, Glitch said:

Setting up a listening comparison between those two speakers would be a real treat.  I have neither, so it could be a long while until I have the opportunity.  Based on my experience with the L1590, L1290 and L880, I would think that you would be able to A/B your 3a's and L1290's and get a very good feel for how they stack up.  The tricky part of the experiment might be getting the room setup right since each of those speakers would have a fairly different "ideal" spot in the room.  I'm guessing that you already thought of this and is one of the reasons why you suggested the 3a to L980 comparison.  (i.e. both would benefit from a similar setup position, etc.).

The Stereophile Magazine article was a trip down memory lane.  To me, it seems "right" that there weren't any ADS offerings on the list.  I've never thought of ADS as one of those companies that was targeting the stereotypical audiophile personality.  Sure, there were other companies on the list that are arguably similar in this regard.  IMHO, there products were more revolutionary than anything ADS did.  As big of an ADS fan as I am, I don't feel slighted at all by the list.

Here are some relevant part numbers (from the ADS parts list)

L880:       tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0211, woofer 206-0346

L880/2:   tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0215, woofer 206-0357

L1290:     tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0211, woofer 206-0349

L1290/2: tweeter 206-0117, mid 206-0215, woofer 206-0359 or 206-0360

L980:       tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0212, woofer 206-0347

L980/2:   tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0214, woofer 206-0353

L1590:     tweeter 206-0119, mid 206-0213, woofer 206-0350

L1590/2: tweeter 206-0118, mid 206-0214, woofer 206-0361

I'm a bit surprised that drivers pattern on the L980/L1590 doesn't follow the same pattern as the L880/L1290.  I wonder if the L980 was introduced "late" relative to the L1590? (i.e I expected that it, L980/1, would have a 206-0119 tweeter & 206-0213 mid)


 

Glitch,

Thanks for your interesting comments and for the part numbers as listed.   

The L980 and AR-3a are very similar, of course, in layout and function.  Both are low-resonance acoustic-suspension designs with dome midrange and dome tweeters (both ¾-inch) and similar crossover characteristics.  A direct A-B comparison would be very interesting.  I've never read a report on a comparison between these two fine speakers, but I think there were far fewer L980s out there than AR-3as or its later iterations (AR-10, AR-58, AR98Ls, etc).  On the other hand, I did compare my L1290/2 and AR-3a speakers, and I can comment a bit on that comparison.  It was difficult to compare them, as the optimal spot for the 3a is flush in a bookshelf, and the 1290 has to be out slightly from the front wall, toed-in a bit, to be positioned optimally.  I am fond of both the 1290/2 and the AR-3a; unfortunately, the 50-year-old AR-3a dome tweeters are beginning to deteriorate, causing lower output from the domes.  Perhaps a better comparison for the L980 would be an AR-10π, AR58 or AR78 with their cloth-dome tweeters.

In the bass, the AR-3a has a slight advantage in low-frequency extension, but the differences are subtle and only noticeable on organ or electronic music or jazz with prominent kick drum or orchestral bass drum.  The 1290 isn't deficient, but it's slightly less prominent and less "warm."  Part of this difference, too, is the relative balance between the woofers and high-range drivers in the ADS vs. AR speakers.  AR's midrange and treble are more reticent, on-axis, and the output is slightly downward-sloping in the higher frequencies; this is not the case with the 1290, as it is quite uniform throughout the midrange and treble.  Therefore, the 1290 is more "forward" and brighter-sounding than the AR-3a; however, well back in the reverberant listening area, where the predominant sound is reflected, there are fewer differences in the balance of the sound between these two systems, mainly because the dispersion of the 3a's hard-dome tweeter is somewhat wider than that of the soft-dome ADS tweeter.  Therefore, the excellent power response of the AR-3a makes up for its on-axis reticence.  The AR-3a's 1½-inch dome midrange also has better dispersion than the 2-inch dome in 1290, but the clarity of the output from the ADS tweeters is just about unsurpassed.  Both of these speaker systems are so good that it would be hard to find too much fault with either system.

Therefore, I never found a favorite.  The ADS seems to bring you a bit closer to the music and there is that outstanding midrange and treble clarity.  The AR-3a is more laid-back, but it has a smooth, very natural reproduction of midrange and treble.  In the bass, the AR-3a is more solid, but the differences are subtle.  Perhaps a draw.

—Tom Tyson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×