Right on! To me it sounded like a PA system. What annoyed me the most was the showtimes format with the BS video presentations. Such marketing approach may have worked in the 70s selling time-shared condos in Florida. Such approach for audio in 2023 it seems highly counterproductive. 🤔The worst sound of the show. Embarassingly bad.
Do you know of any modern, say below $500, that comes close?
Well, it depends on how you define "close".
If bought new, these are approx $1,500 (driver) + $500 (diaphragm) + $4,000 (horn) each, so $ 12,000 total for the pair.
$500 (I presume each, and for driver+horn) would be $ 1,000 total, i.e. over a factor of 10x cheaper.
Clearly, the law of diminishing returns always applies. I'm not suggesting for a minute that any such alternative would be 10 times worse in any objective measurable way.
I also agree with Dr. Geddes that good system and crossover design is more important than the compression driver used (but not to the point of making all drivers equal and fully interchangeable).
Having said all of the above, I'm afraid I don't have a straight answer to your question.
What I can say, is that I do not think that any $500 combo would ever be "just as good".
Then, whether it would be "good enough" for you... will depend on how easily pleased (or otherwise) you are!
Last edited:
Ouch if i have paid 8000$ for a pair of exotic wood horn sure i will claimed everywhere that they are the best you could buy 🙂
Must say I do like my cheapskate system, faar from the ultimate but probably on par with many quite expensive commercial systems. Battered Altec VOT cabs with 515s, and either Altec 1505b with 299-8a with original alu or paper diaphrams or SEOS 30 with Celestion axi2050. Subwoofers are JBL 2242H ( one yet, number to in progress) all bought used and cheap or exchanged with other audio stuff. I use autoformer 6db filters or active with miniDSP flex 8. Amps are a selection of DIY tube, class A and D. Regrettably the SEOS axi combo sounds better than the beutiful multicells.
i understand what you mean , i have a pair of Seos Horn as well but I put them away in the garage since my wife pointed out to me that they looked like big sinks ...Regrettably the SEOS axi combo sounds better than the beutiful multicells.
Ouch if i have paid 8000$ for a pair of exotic wood horn sure i will claimed everywhere that they are the best you could buy 🙂
You're free to think whatever makes you happy... 🙂
They do look like big sinks 🙂i understand what you mean , i have a pair of Seos Horn as well but I put them away in the garage since my wife pointed out to me that they looked like big sinks ...
My system has a extremely low waf, but my wife is quit understanding.
What's your opinion about horns from Joseph Crowe?I'll give you three current products that would qualify as "cream of the crop" out of the box:
TAD TD-2002 (1" throat)
TAD TD-4001 (2" throat)
GT SOUND GSU-D04R (2" throat)
Horns:
Yamamoto SS-500 (1" throat)
Yamamoto SS-300 (2" throat)
I'll let others summarise on the "reasonably priced" options (none of which I can guarantee will be as good as the above).
The biradial horns seem a bit similar to the Yamanoto horn.
Time domain behavior on Joseph's horn is really good (with good driver) so does the multi-tone measurement.
You're free to think whatever makes you happy... 🙂
don't be offended i respect your choice , it s your money not mine 😉 but for those that are located in E.U there is a nice factory in Hungary making clones of TAD and Yuichi Horns wih exotics wood options too at fair price .. https://www.athosaudio.com/
I've been doing some research and finding that TAD products are generally ridiculously expensive, similar to some boutique capacitors with exorbitant cost and dubious performance advantages. See this for example:I'll give you three current products that would qualify as "cream of the crop" out of the box:
TAD TD-2002 (1" throat)
TAD TD-4001 (2" throat)
GT SOUND GSU-D04R (2" throat)
There is no demonstrable advantage that they are providing to justify the higher costs, and seems like their drivers are the same as 30 years ago. TAD had a reputation for top quality engineering and products but looks like development of CDs stopped many years ago. This is my opinion and I'm sure the folks at TAD are doing their best.
I have personally heard the TAD 2001 on a tractrix horn and besides the obvious last octave advantage, there was not much difference in sound compared to two inch drivers with Be diaphragms. In fact, side by side comparison showed more dynamic ease at the lower end compared to the TAD 2001. My other TAD experience was with their Reference One loudspeaker at a show. It sounded okay on simple vocals songs, but as soon as I asked them to play a symphonic piece (the famous RR recording of Rachmaninov's symphonic dances) it fell apart badly. I'm sure TAD 2001 is kind of up there with the best, but it misses the point of this thread. Technology has evolved, and compression driver design has evolved too. To me at least, it is exciting to figure out what folks are doing to push performance in new designs (improved motors, phase plugs, diaphragm materials, voice coil design, and coupling to horns).
(Marco, I am looking for evidence, I promise. It's slow going with all the other things in life.)
Not offended in the least.
And yes, Athos' horns are very nice, and I would recommend them, too.
ALG in France is another option.
And yes, Athos' horns are very nice, and I would recommend them, too.
ALG in France is another option.
What's your opinion about horns from Joseph Crowe?
The biradial horns seem a bit similar to the Yamanoto horn.
Time domain behavior on Joseph's horn is really good (with good driver) so does the multi-tone measurement.
I think they're very good, and another very good option.
TAD had a reputation for top quality engineering and products but looks like development of CDs stopped many years ago.
True, it did.
I have personally heard the TAD 2001 on a tractrix horn and besides the obvious last octave advantage, there was not much difference in sound compared to two inch drivers with Be diaphragms. In fact, side by side comparison showed more dynamic ease at the lower end compared to the TAD 2001.
To be expected. A larger diaphragm will always be more at ease at lower frequencies, because of lower excursion.
My other TAD experience was with their Reference One loudspeaker at a show. It sounded okay on simple vocals songs, but as soon as I asked them to play a symphonic piece (the famous RR recording of Rachmaninov's symphonic dances) it fell apart badly.
Those have nothing, zero, in common with the older TAD units (apart from a logo).
Not the same design team either.
I'm sure TAD 2001 is kind of up there with the best, but it misses the point of this thread.
Fair enough.
Technology has evolved, and compression driver design has evolved too. To me at least, it is exciting to figure out what folks are doing to push performance in new designs (improved motors, phase plugs, diaphragm materials, voice coil design, and coupling to horns).
This is where we disagree perhaps. I see most of the "evolution" after the time when the TAD drivers were designed (1980s for the original 4001 and 2001, and then 1990s for the improved 4003 and 2002) as having been directed at trying to approach the same level of performance while cutting costs as much as possible. A worthy goal in its own right, for sure, but it does not mean that any actual improvements have been made in terms of absolute performance.
Quite the contrary, in fact. Those TADs are still unsurpassed.
Thanks for the above and I appreciate your nuanced opinion. I wish the performance advantages were obvious though. Top end extension and smoothness throughout seems to be clear—the latter being very important—but I am not finding comparative distortion measurements to say for sure. Also, the 2001 seems to be better above 800 hz and may be improved upon when mating to a 15” woofer using drivers that go just a bit lower.
True enough and admirable IMO, and also successful, what's not to like.I see most of the "evolution" after the time when the TAD drivers were designed ... as having been directed at trying to approach the same level of performance while cutting costs as much as possible. A worthy goal in its own right, for sure, but it does not mean that any actual improvements have been made in terms of absolute performance.
Unsurpassed?! Maybe. Equaled, absolutely.Quite the contrary, in fact. Those TADs are still unsurpassed.
I don't know, does it?Regrettably the SEOS axi combo sounds better than the beutiful multicells.
The CNC shop in China is carzy affordable. I've contact one store and he said he'd made the horn before and he also shows the product picture to me.I think they're very good, and another very good option.
Maybe I'll order one someday...
Major concern would be the wood selection. Is there suggested wood type or the type one should avoid?
Picture below is the product from seller.
Equaled, absolutely.
I wouldn't be so quick to state that so categorically... but I accept that for many applications, some more recent and much less expensive drivers may well be "good enough".
That is not what I am saying.I also agree with Dr. Geddes that good system and crossover design is more important than the compression driver used (but not to the point of making all drivers equal and fully interchangeable).
Once a companies engineering expertise and quality control reaches the highest levels, the differences in sound quality are insignificant.
This is not true of all manufacturers, PAudio comes to mind and many others. I've tried dozens of drivers and only ones at the top work for me, but there are several at the top and price is not a factor.
The psychoacoustic test are on my side.I wouldn't be so quick to state that so categorically... but I accept that for many applications, some more recent and much less expensive drivers may well be "good enough".
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Best Compression Drivers today 2022?