Well, you guys left out a few things and need a minor correction. Regarding the speakers, the A-25 did not vent internally; there is a horizontal vent at the bottom of the front panel. The A-50 was divided into two chambers and was internally vented. I don't know about the others. Supposedly, each A-25 was "stuffed" while the assembler was looking at something that measured the "back EMF" from the speaker. The idea was to minimize that value. In more modern terms, the impedence peak characteristic of all speakers was reduced. In yet another fit of misplaced zeal, JGH gooshed over the A-25, claiming that its bass went lower than the AR 3a -- the gold standard of the time -- claiming that the A-25 was "flat to 30 hz." The statement is utter nonesense. The A-25 doesn't have anything below 50 Hz. That said, it is a much better sounding speaker than the AR-3a, which, despite its superior performance at the frequency extremes, has a rather discontinuous sound. The A-25 is a great example of the design principle of "get the midrange right and the rest will take care of itself."
Among the tube classics produced by Dyna was the FM-3 vacuum tube stereo tuner. Using the "tuning eye" tube, the home builder could align and adjust the tuner to meet it's specs without a signal generator or a 'scope. The FM-3 wasn't the most sensitive tuner out there, but featured a very steep quieting curve, so in the typical urban or suburban environment, it was very quiet. Of course, it had the classic "tube sound" of soft bass and gentle highs . . . but it was very musical, like the rest of Dyna's tube gear.
Contemporary tests of the time showed that the Stereo 120 did meet its specs, in compliance with what would become the FTC standard (other than the 1/3 power thermal-stress preconditioning period). It had a fully regulated power supply. The Stereo 80 had an unregulated supply, so it would equal the stereo 120 on transients, but had a lower continuous power. Oddly, and perhaps because of the difference in power supply, the Stereo 80 sounded better.
Julian Hirsch's gaga review of the Phase Linear 700 was not based the AR-3a, but on AR's "LST" which used the same woofer as the 3a but multiple midrange and tweeters from the 3a on a faceted cabinet. It was even more inefficient than the 3a, but unlike with the 3a, the non-ferrofluid cooled tweeters and dome midranges would not blow up under higher power. Hirsch's comment at the end of the review (having discovered the virtues of avoiding the dynamic compression inherent in driving such an inefficent speaker with a modestly powered amp) was "I wonder if 700 watts is enough?!!"
Among the tube classics produced by Dyna was the FM-3 vacuum tube stereo tuner. Using the "tuning eye" tube, the home builder could align and adjust the tuner to meet it's specs without a signal generator or a 'scope. The FM-3 wasn't the most sensitive tuner out there, but featured a very steep quieting curve, so in the typical urban or suburban environment, it was very quiet. Of course, it had the classic "tube sound" of soft bass and gentle highs . . . but it was very musical, like the rest of Dyna's tube gear.
Contemporary tests of the time showed that the Stereo 120 did meet its specs, in compliance with what would become the FTC standard (other than the 1/3 power thermal-stress preconditioning period). It had a fully regulated power supply. The Stereo 80 had an unregulated supply, so it would equal the stereo 120 on transients, but had a lower continuous power. Oddly, and perhaps because of the difference in power supply, the Stereo 80 sounded better.
Julian Hirsch's gaga review of the Phase Linear 700 was not based the AR-3a, but on AR's "LST" which used the same woofer as the 3a but multiple midrange and tweeters from the 3a on a faceted cabinet. It was even more inefficient than the 3a, but unlike with the 3a, the non-ferrofluid cooled tweeters and dome midranges would not blow up under higher power. Hirsch's comment at the end of the review (having discovered the virtues of avoiding the dynamic compression inherent in driving such an inefficent speaker with a modestly powered amp) was "I wonder if 700 watts is enough?!!"