Insightful and recognizable comment that touches on the importance of system integration.
The superior material properties of Be are also the problem imo.
I have never listened to the TAD studio monitors (2402 etc.), but based on the material characteristics of the TL16.. woofers and the TD40.. compression drivers it's easy to see that these are literally 2 'separate worlds' that cannot possibly be forged into a homogeneous sounding whole.
Ok, some will argue, then you use 'superior' materials for all drivers, right?
Possible. After a major financial loss, you eventually may end up with something like this:
To put these aside after several unsatisfactory upgrades in the audio chain in order to enjoy 'natural sound' again.
Not really necessary to illustrate the difference in material resonances, especially in the treble (> horns are different).
Drivers are DE500 and the older RCF.
Although the HF108 is not exactly 'clean' in the highest octave, the driver does sound pleasant.
The same applies to both titanium drivers (> described by professionals as 'warm sounding').
It's all related to material/mechanical properties.
Last edited:
Sorry, but you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.
No offence intended!
Both those units (woofer and compression driver) use the best available materials for their intended pass-bands and applications.
Blending them into a homogeneous sounding whole is the job of competent crossover design.
Mine is that they sound fundamentally similar to the myriad of 1" dome tweeter + (multiple) small mid-woofer(s) slim towers that the market is flooded with.
With minor variations, of course.
But they sound NOWHERE near as realistic as a properly driven TAD studio monitor (and yes, I have listened to both).
i have to disagree too , before the the Faital HF108 ,i havre tried 18sounds 1095N TAD 2001 , and FAITAL HF10AK and the TAD was no better than the others 1inch driver sorry for the legend.. on the french melaudia forum there have compared the HF10AK and the 2001 and they mesures nearly the same ..
Last edited:
Except, that's a terrible horn plagued by diffraction. As such, its shortcomings will dominate and mask any audible or measurable differences between the two compression drivers...
One can't just casually and quickly "try" a range of drivers and expect to be able to say the last word on which is better...
Agree 100%, the HF10AK is a very close match sound wise to the 2001. It is really very, very good. Cross it over properly and you will be amazed!
Not all that similar to the TD-2001, except for the dip in the response. the TD 2001 needs a high impedance source or a resistive padding for it to performs it's best, and that dip will disappear from it's response, as shown numerous times.
The Pioneer /TAD Polymer Graphite cones are a better/easier match to they're BE diaphragm drivers at least, no argument there. Although the TAD 16xx cones are free of the usual paper cone breakup/hash far beyond any other woofers I've seen. If you slice a TAD 16xx cone you will find a large amount of the cone is not actually paper, almost half it's thickness (by eye) is the damping material polymer/composite or similar.
While not having the advanced modelling tools of today, they were still optimized for a clean response without breakup, by using optical laser measurements.
Last edited:
Hi Arez,
Kindest regards,
M
Would you please have any reference to this? I had read on one of the fora that the break-up free frequency was up to about 400 Hz; unfortunately no reference was provided. I am rather suspicious about that claim since TAD used the drivers with crossovers as high as 650 Hz (Pioneer Exclusive 2402).
Kindest regards,
M
You can see it remains very clean in terms of breakup far beyond usual 15-16" paper cone woofers. The linearity up to 1k is remarkably good.
The second pic linked is a "normalised" measurement.
Don't know where your info is from, the Response is not completely flat, but it is not because of paper breakup/hash, as is common with most paper cone woofers, the cones are as mentioned unusually well damped, with whatever polymer coating or similar that is used on them.
But they are not power handling monsters, and thermal compression is not they're strong side, meaning a lot of surface area/ smaller excursion and large enclosures, all going against modern tiny speakers.
Compare it to the factory response measurements of the 160X from they're manuals/tech sheet and you see very good coherence between them.
Last edited:
With a little DSP the Jubilees can sound and measure prettty good: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/202770-klipsch-jubilee-and-dsp/
I use a JBL 2453H-SL 1.5" exit driver on a JBL 2384 waveguide. The aquaplas coating seems to work well. Sounds good, but always looking for better...
I use a JBL 2453H-SL 1.5" exit driver on a JBL 2384 waveguide. The aquaplas coating seems to work well. Sounds good, but always looking for better...
