There is 4 pair of Tad Tl 1602 woofers for sale in the area but i know nothing about them. Can someone explain the difference and the purpose with Tads woofers ? 1601a, b, c, 1602, 1603.
mats
Printable View
There is 4 pair of Tad Tl 1602 woofers for sale in the area but i know nothing about them. Can someone explain the difference and the purpose with Tads woofers ? 1601a, b, c, 1602, 1603.
mats
Hi Mats,
by all accounts TAD are a very fine woofer. However, I know of a few that feel the 1500al are superior. These are the the 1601's with 4001 horn and a driver.
I believe Widget and Merlin are the best for the real info on TAD.
Rich
Ps . How about an up-date on the K2 project
Rich,
You have to stop posting that lovely picture of those Tads. It gets me so excited I have to go and have a cold shower now...:blink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by matsj
http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/products/4.../overview.html
You think thats a turn on , check this......http://www.reyaudio.com/large.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Andyoz
:jawdrop:
TAD 1601A- accordian surround, alnico magnet, Fs 28Hz, 300w power handling, 97DB 1w@1m 900hz or lower crossover recommended.
TAD 1601B= accordian SURROUND, alnico magnet, Fs 28Hz, ventilated VC former, 500w power handling, 97.5DB 1w@1m. 900hz crossover or lower recommended.
TAD 1601C- accordian surround, alnico magnet, Fs 28Hz, triangular metal weight to counterbalance against lead weight, 97DB 1w@1M, 500w power handling, was $995 list, now discontinued.
TAD 1602- Foam surround, treated cone, high compliance suspension, 21Hz Fs, alnico magnet, 300w max power handling, similar to JBL 2235.
TAD 1603- accordian surround, ceramic magnet, Fs 28Hz, 500w power handling, 97Db 1w@1m, 900hz or lower crossover recommended.
I have never heard the 1602, so I have no comments.
The 1601 A & B, and 1603 I know well. 1601A is clean, smooth, big deep low end, flat response. 1601B takes more power, and is also an excellent sounding woofer. The 1601A and B sounds great, but PRICEY, alnico costs.
The 1603, I use them, and know others who use this model as well. Deep, heavy, big thump, smooth low mid, very clean, purrs on low notes, handles a great deal of power, very durable, and produces a large amount of low end. I have them horn loaded in my Altec cabinets, and they produce, definitely deeper and smoother sounding to my ears than the JBL 2226. Real drums sound phenomenal through these, as well as bass guitar and keyboard notes and vocals.
I tried EVERYTHING, JBL 2226, TAD, 18Sound, B & C, EV, TAD was the best sounding to me. Low end is HUGE and clean, with a touch of warmth. Price just under $500.00ea. Works very well powered by BGW, Bryston, Crown, QSC, Crest, Lab or any other suitable high quality amplifier with proper power. TAD 1603,s THUMP, and have great low end definition, and are really reliable, they dont break.
I am comparing these to modern woofers, in production today, not vintage drivers, EVERY modern driver mentioned will outperform yesterdays drivers in terms of power handling, thermal compression, and reliabilty, in demanding use.
Sonically, TAD sounds great, JBL,ish, to a large degree, but deeper low end than the 2226H, and TAD paper cones are of great quality. TAD drivers are CLEAN, and play GREAT low end.
The JBL 2226 has more mid bass kick, but the TAD 1603 snaps, and is warmer and easier and fuller sounding. I tried B & C and JBL, 18Sound, The TAD won. What can I say?
:D
:)
1601A is even smoother, but, not as robust, the 1601B is robust, sounds great, but $775.00 or higher, list pr OUCH!
Basically, TAD is the Japanese answer to JBL, cost no object, super high quality designs. They are THAT good, but are very expensive, and hard to get. When TAD is out of stock, you just gotta wait.
Thank you very much scott.
mats
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fitlin
I have never A/B'd them, but through listening to both of them in various systems, I think I'd stick with the 2235H.
If you can get the TL1602s at a good price, you could always do your own comparison.
Widget
550 usd for 2 1602.
mats
I have two questions, one about voice coil depth, the other about frames:
TAD is explicit that 1601A, B and C and 1602 voice coils underhang the magnetic gap, but seems to equivocate on the 1603. Is the 1603 voice coil depth the same as the others?
The 1601C is a special unified casting, Alnico motor of recent issue and has been discontinued. The 1603 is ferrite. The 1601 frame, no letter, I take it, precedes the time of differentiation between the A, B, and 1602. Is the 1601 no letter frame the same as the 1601A? In general, what is the interchangability of these Alnico frames, setting aside the 1601C? And, specifically, will the 1601 no letter frame take a 1602 cone and be a 1602?
Thanks
David
1601A and B share same frame, 1603 looks the same too, different magnetic motors.
1601C had a different frame and magnetic assembly, alnico 7, and a different VC. The triangular counterweight on the cone was said to improve reaction time of drivers cone. Could be, the TAD AFAST horns with their special filter type tube or chamber built in to horn was effective at doing whatever, those horns sounded CLEAR!
TAD has a unique sound, their cones sound smooth yet present, and really clear. Drums that are recorded well, you can hear if the kick drum has the blanket in it, or the reverb, low mids are present, but very seductively smooth
LF is huge they thump, and have a round sound, but, they do snap too. With TAD you need great electronics and amps, you hear what you have with them good bad, or indifferent. Same for the compresssion drivers.
The LF is just LARGE and has that prmominet low end kick, The Eargle On Everest CD sounds terrific through my 1603,s. Even my dad, who is up for the week was totally impressed. I will confess that I am recieving help from my friend Shorty, who has it down pat when it comes to TAD. And my McIntosh 2125 on the JBL 2395/2441J,s were the surprise of the year. Really wonderful Mid/hi, Sweet, and the Bryston 3B SST and 2B Pro are wowking out on tweeters.
The Bryston 10B xovers are about the finest I have ever had, no matter what you hit them with, they just dont fall apart and distort. And Bryston is INCREASING my input gain for me, THEY just blow IC based units away with their discrete topology. CLARITY, man, America-Horse With No Name, WOW! Guitar notes you can pluck right out of the air.
Vocals sound natural, and smooth, and my room is not ringy since I put TAD,s in, and have no more aluminum dustcap woofers. Their power handling and HUGE transient capability is fantastic. JBL 2226,s have more of a midbass kick ( slam ) but, I love the low mid smoothness, and hefty deeper lf energy.
I was going to take my 2402 bullets out, but the Bryston 3B SST has them sounding airy, and far more extended than I have ever heard, in my place or any other. Fast, and delicate, yet crisp, and detailed, no edginess or CHH, CHH, CHH!
I going back and forth on subs, crest or Crown. I like Crest, BUT I love the Crown growl and KICK! Tried my I Tech 4000 on J Horns, SURPRISE, elepahnt thump, but tight Crown KICK, the building was trembling. Oh, weel, Macro techs and I Tech this week, Crest next week. Ther nice thing with the I tech is the ability to set input sensitivity, and average power limiter. Avg power limiter set to 800we per channel with ther HUGE folded horns is TREMENDOUS low end beyond anything I expected, dad said WTF, you think your Dr. Frankenstein, that is A MONSTER bass. And Widgets cabs, JBL 2242 loaded sound great on two Crown 3600,s, they ROAR!
ZZ Top - Eliminator, Legzz, and Aerosmith - Walk This way, the kick drums were OFF THE HOOK!
Donna Summer - McArthur Park sounded beautiful, and I wasnt pushing either.
From the 15,s on up, I love what we have done, but subs, dad said stay Crown, and I guess I agree. DRAMATIC< MONSTER< and MUSICAL!
Bob Ho, president of TAD, favors the TAD 1601B. I actually like the sound of the 1603,s. Ferrites sound a bit chalkier, and slightly stiffer than alnico motors, maybe?
Gives todays source material a tight, defined sound.
For home hi fi, I like the TAD 1601A. Many people I know still favor the 1601A.
:blink: Oh yeah, 12.5Hz sure.... and let's put a cute little wood horn on top of the machined horn on the ET-703... to do what exactly?
While this system may sound fine, it appears to be designed to look impressive rather than be a functional design.
Widget
sorry,
can someone explain to me how the efficiency of 106dB is to be achieved? The TAD 1601 has 97-97,5 dB efficiency.
regards
juergen
Quote:
Originally Posted by rs237
(97+97)=100 dB
(100+100)=103 dB
:p
Ok... but not at 12.5Hz. I doubt it can do 95dB at 12.5Hz before self destruction. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stephane RAME
Widget
Ok, then we would have 103dB. The addition 3dB for 2 Woofer and 6dB for 4 Woofer affects only the maximum sound pressure and not efficiency. The efficiency grad remains the same regardless of one , two or 1000 Woofer.
regards
juergen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Is the answer "SUPER GLUE" ? :p
What do you reckon the volume of that cabinet is ?
I like the little 2 way 2002 and 1102. :D
Rich
The advertising department will know, may be it is the "subjectiv" efficiency. :bs: (Influenced by that design :barf:)
___________
Peter
4430 = 93 dB -- 1 JBL 2235Quote:
Originally Posted by rs237
4435 = 96 dB -- 2 JBL 2234
????????
Bigger than a 4345. :rotfl:Quote:
Originally Posted by richluvsound
It may be very nice, but I would go with TAD's own version. It has a more sophisticated horn. The JK speaker uses a simple plywood radial horn. Interestingly the JK speaker uses the same crossover point as the TAD. To be sure, the JK looks cooler, but I'd go with the sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by richluvsound
Widget
TAD TSM1
2 TAD 1601 = 98 dB
Hello Stephane
This is OK. This is not the mistake at the efficiency of 3 dB for the second Woofer add.
regards
juergen
The increased efficiency has been recognized by the 2234-founded. The 2235 has a heavier membrane (mass ring) and therefore a lower efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephane RAME
regards
juergen
Not exactly true. The sensitivity does increase with added woofers. Take a look at the 4350 vs. the 4333. 95.5dB vs. 93dB. Here you have identical woofers, but you gain a bit of sensitivity due to mutual coupling.Quote:
Originally Posted by rs237
I doubt that the large JK system actually is 106dB, but then I doubt quite a lot about them.
Widget
Hello Mr widgetQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
I am a different opinion. If I have a speaker with a 97dB/W/m Woofer, and give 1 watt performance in the box then, I have a sound pressure at 97db by 1m. If I have a speaker with 2 woofers have given each of the woofer only 1 / 2 watt. Each woofer produces only 94dB sound pressure. Both Woofer together again produce 97 dB SPL.
I think that at the definition of 1 watt little problems. 1 watt is an 8 ohm Box at 2.88 volts. Many manufacturers are now simply measuring 2.88 volts. We all know that the speaker does not ohmic resistance. If the impedance measurement for now is only 6 ohms, we have not 1 but already watts 1.38 watts, and we have a higher sound pressure.
Sorry for my bad english, its from online-translater.
regards
juergen
Widget,
There is a pair for sale here in Europe @ 7000 euros . The horn is kinda ugly though. As the 1102 is NA would 1200 fe do the same job I wonder ?
Rich
Ps . I still have a workshop big enough:p
Hi Juergen
When you have two drivers doing the same frequencies, close on the baffle they are acoustic coupled, and the sum will be +6dB, not +3dB.
You will find much a better description here: http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ic+coupling%22
Well, if you want to get all technical and all... (sorry about MY poor English, but I hope you can see my slight "tongue in cheek" response.:))Quote:
Originally Posted by rs237
You are correct if you want to get into the actual efficiency of the woofer system based on 2.83 Vrms at 1 meter. However, as a system you do gain from mutual coupling and as in the case of the JBLs mentioned you also gain due to the lowering impedance. That's why I said that I doubted JK's claims of 106dB. I doubt you can gain anywhere close to that from mutual coupling and as you point out, if we limit the power input to 2.83Vrms, each woofer will only see 1/4 of that.
Widget
Edit: Johnny beat me to it by a few seconds.
I apologize Mr.Widget it would be very sad if I have annoyed them. I will post her by my friend translated so that I am sure that I have understood it correctly.
regards
juergen
Quote:
Originally Posted by yggdrasil
Hello yggdrasil,
thanks for the link. Learned again what.
@Widget again apologised, but only asks who can learn.
regards
juergen
No apologies needed... and your posts are quite welcomed and I am particularly impressed that you manage this well while struggling with the crazy English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by rs237
Yep, that horn is none too pretty, but if it sounds great... well, it's certainly no worse looking that a 2370. :applaud:Quote:
Originally Posted by richluvsound
I don't know anything about the 1200FE. Work up a pair and let's find out. :)
Widget
Hello all, I have been reading here for a few years now, I never post because I don't have much to tell or show, but 2 weeks ago my dad and I got some TAD drivers and I'd like to share some pics and info with you guys...
Someone mentioned about AFAST on TAD horns earlier on this thread, my father and i got a pair of TH-2002 with TD-2002 drivers and I must say this combination is the best we've ever heard. Very clean and lots of detail, every instrument's texture is defined like listening to live music. We're comparing to systems we've had over the years (JBL olympus, wilson watt/puppy, tannoy super red monitor, tannoy westminster, westlake bbsm10 with SWP, Altec A5/A6 to name some of the bigger systems) IMHO they really are one of the best and worth every penny.
I don't know how much the AFAST is in effect here because we never tried the 2002 drivers with other horns, but I'll let you guys know as soon as I get some 1" horns. The other interesting thing is that the horn doesn't have an identical curve on top and bottom. I'm an art student so I can't give you much info from the engineering side of things, someone else here can probably explain why the curves are different.
Sorry about the pics, I used a cell phone... :banghead:
About the pictures Mr. Widget posted, those JK audio SL-10s (2002 + 1102) are over $20,000 USD!!! JK seems to just throw everything together and expect people to buy it because they're powered by TAD... I really don't see much engineering on their products. To top it off, check out these uglies by JK below...
The quad 15" SL-01s cost as much as Westlake's SM-1s... and the only way they can justify the 12.5 hz response is that they're talking about 12.5-45k (+/- 120db) :p
Alright, enough bashing on JK. I have a pair of 1102s that I'll be using to make the TAD 2251. My friend has the specs of the cab from TAD. I'll post some pics next month when they're done, they should look exactly like the little pic next to my name on the bottom :applaud:
Hmm, a helmholtz resonator placed in the mouth of a horn. Reminds me of a certain trick that Urei used on the 811A, 813A, 815A's back in the day. :applaud:Quote:
Originally Posted by KCCT82
Hello, do you have a pic showing the whole Urei horn? Is the helmholtz resonator placed on the top only? or both?Quote:
Hmm, a helmholtz resonator placed in the mouth of a horn. Reminds me of a certain trick that Urei used on the 811A, 813A, 815A's back in the day. :applaud:
They are on both sides. There is an open cell material under the blue side walls to act as the cavity, and the blue disk is the "mouth".
Thanks KCCT82 for sharing. ...and thanks for sharing the pics, though maybe a real camera is in order.:D I believe you when you say that the 2002 combo is about the best you have ever heard.
I have never heard the TAD 2251, but I have used the TL-1102 woofer and have played around a bit with the TD-2002 driver. The TH-2002 horn is a baby version of the TH-4003 that I have quite a bit of familiarity with. I have been making mineral filled cast resin clones of it (a material quite similar to JBL's sonoglas) and have played around with AFAST and non AFAST versions. I believe the AFAST tuning is to control resonance in the Maple for the larger TH-4003 horn and in the fiberglass of the smaller TH-2002 horn. In my massive cast clones, I ended up omitting the port as it actually added a resonance. My horns are ~65lbs. compared to the ~25lbs of the maple original.
I hope to build my own version of the 2251 in the future when time permits. Here is a review from the Feb. 2002 Absolute Sound magazine. I found it a few years ago online.
Widget
- Can you describe the sound of TAD4003 in compare to the TAD4001?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
- Does it still have the 5dB peaking around 3kHz, like the TAD4001?
- What changes did TAD4003 made from4001, beside the phase plug?
Thank you
It is really hard to do since you never listen to just a compression driver. The TD-4003 is a 1.5" exit driver and the TD-4001 is a 2" exit, so they won't mount on the same horns without adapters. Below are plots of both drivers which may shed some light on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by YGoh
I am not sure what you mean. The TD-4001 doesn't have that sort of a peak on the JBL plot or on my own plot below.Quote:
Originally Posted by YGoh
The TD-4003 has a much lighter diaphragm due to directly bonding the VC to the diaphragm without the use of a former and a back cap chamber that was designed to reduce unwanted reflections and resonance. The TD-4003 also uses a neodymium magnet instead of an alnico.Quote:
Originally Posted by YGoh
Thank you Mr. Widget,
- So how is VC directly attach to the diaphragm without former?
- Is the surround of the TAD4003 also made of Beryllium, and it's all one piece as the dome part of the diaphragm too?
Hell if I know... that is just what the literature says and that the resulting moving mass is around a gram. Pretty amazing for a 4" diameter diaphragm.Quote:
Originally Posted by YGoh
I think that is responsible for the amazing subjective resolution these drivers have.
Widget
Widget, I would love to see a "how-to" on this process. Can you provide some info on how you do this? I've been tempted to clone the 2342 Bi-Radial horns, as they are scarce, and awfully expensive when they do show up on eBay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
widget...
would such a horn be better w my tad 2002 than the jbl 4341 horn that i currently have it hooked up to? i would need to place it on top, which could lead to many other problems though...
It is dirty, gooey, and I wouldn't want a camera near it.Quote:
Originally Posted by UreiCollector
Basically, I took an original and made a silicone mold of it using about $2K of industrial silicone, and then I take a urethane resin and pour it into the mold. Sounds simple doesn't it? To get usable results actually takes years of screwing around with this sort of thing. I've been doing it for over 2 decades. There are so many variables and nuances that I really don't want to bore you with.
Widget
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by spwal
At that point you are designing an entirely new system. Unless you are prepared to go the whole way, I'd say stay with what is working for you.
Widget
spawl- the 2002 horn is bit bigger than 7x10", in case you ever want to cut into that baffle, looks like it'll fit :DQuote:
would such a horn be better w my tad 2002 than the jbl 4341 horn that i currently have it hooked up to? i would need to place it on top, which could lead to many other problems though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
I think Widget has it right... the Tad 2002 are working for me, thats for sure, ill keep it as is.
Hi,
I have TAD 2251 speakers. I bought them today in fact.
I used to have TAD 2402 until I sold them to Moscow last week.
Heres a pic of both. Like the 2402's before (which I converted to 3 way active with TAD et-703 tweeter) I will make the 2251's active and add a Pioneer PT-R100 ribbon.
Only got back with them this evening! Quite late so no chance to listen properly yet.
Cheerio
R
Where can you buy them?
-Tim
The wood look is very nice, and if its half as nice as the sound, they must be pretty fine. Congrats
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjoy_the_music
Tim,Quote:
Originally Posted by timc
they were about 7000 euro's . The 1102 (woofer) is discontinued, the 2002 ,you can get them for 1250 euro each, and the horn ???? maybe someone could make you one . I only know of one person I would ask :)
Rich
I added the Pioneer PT-R100 Ribbons today...very nice and much larger than the 703's or r9's...and heavier!
Have Shindo sinhonia's powering them above 10khz. Yamamoto 45 tubes powering below.
The sound is fantastic. These speakers allow you to listen 'into' a piece of music and have maybe 75% of the 'being there' factor of the 2402's.
People often miss out on the 'being there' factor. This is what BIG paper cone woofers bring...horn loading being the next step up in the bass obviously but then the horns are HUGE!
I'd like them a bit higher to be honest...I don't like looking down into a soundfield. I am pretty tall :o:
Apparently the guy before me looked for them for 4 years. I looked for 2 years before I found my 2402's. The 2251's are just here until I get a pair of Rey Audio speakers or maybe 2404's later this year.
7000 euros...massive bargain really. They still sell for almost this price used!
I sold my 2402's with TAD 703 tweeters for 13600 euros, which just shows how sought after they still are.
And for those who want to see better pics of the components... cross over is coming soon ;)
enjoy_the_music - you have to change your avatar to mine now :p
Hmmm Keith, you can get my adress and send it to me. I will take good care of the 1102 ;).
mats
Don't rub it in! :)
I am actually considering the construction of twin bass cabinets underneath the 2251's...housing TAD 1601c or JBL 1500AL like Merlin used. I could be waiting a long time to find a pair of TAD 2404.
I don't have the room at the moment for REY Audio speakers.
Good luck with the build..look really nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCCT82
Good luck finding the 1601c, probably harder to find than the 2404 which in my opinion is already too hard :( Better off trying to find b's. Enjoy, they look very nice :)Quote:
I am actually considering the construction of twin bass cabinets underneath the 2251's...housing TAD 1601c or JBL 1500AL like Merlin used. I could be waiting a long time to find a pair of TAD 2404.
Anyone having the schematics of the filter of the 2251?
Regards
Harry
The big sound :applaud:
Hmmm . . . . having double horns in a home stereo system is silly and counterproductive. Unless owner's a deaf old rocker he doesn't need them. Anybody else playing that system to the volume potential of the speakers is going to be deaf soon. The double HF sources will screw up the soundstage and imaging, even with excellent treble drivers like that. In my experience, even double woofers playing up to a 650 crossover point can give a discernible and unwelcome sense of multiple sources. I believe systems with multiple drivers covering a given bandwidth will work well at a certain focus point only. Those woofers above and below, for example, will only be working together when the listening position is centered between them at some certain distance. Before and after, below and above, it will be smeared. With the added problem of side by side woofers playing out of the frequency range of effective acoustic doubling, in speakers that cannot be toed in, there will be no spot that is entirely satisfactory. I doubt very much this system is focused anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephane RAME
Owner of this system should do himself and some other lucky person a big favor by selling him the extra HTF (Hard To Find) horns and drivers. I would even use just one woofer per side, and if he wants more low bass, cut the extras in low as in the JBL 4435 and Everest II or get some good subwoofers.
This system looks like a show piece to me, and that's about it. (photo reproduced below)
David
I assume everybody here knows that Bart Locanthi designed the TAD stuff.
I think, mostly, yes, although the most recent generation, the 1601C, 1102, 4003 and 2002, would have to be somebody else's work, wouldn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst
David
I raised this question a few months ago and never got an answer. Today I've (unofficially) been told the voice coil winding depth of the 1603 is 24mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
It apparently has become common to recone the TAD Alnico frames with the cone kit for the 1603 (ferrite). The TAD 1601, 1601a, 1601b and 1602 woofers are designed with an underhung voice coil/gap. With the 1603 cone in those frames I believe they will be OVERHUNG.
I don't know why this is being done. Durability? Efficiency? A current seller on ebay says his TAD tech tells him it gives the 1601c sound. I doubt that myself.
BUYER BEWARE: However you feel about the underhung/overhung question and its effect on sound quality, here's the thing. If you buy a used TAD 1601, 1601a, 1601b or 1602 Alnico woofer that has had a 1603 cone installed, if that in fact makes it overhung, and if it has been used in sound reinforcement or in a commercial studio (where most TAD woofers are), or even, possibly, at home, it is very likely the magnet has been partially discharged, for as Greg Timbers has told us, it is Alnico woofers with overhung voice coils that will desensitize if they are driven hard. So, if you are thinking of bidding on one of these FrankenTAD's you should count on having it remagnetized at least, and, probably, reconed.
David
Interestingly while I think all of these later designs are remarkable and offer exceptional performance, the 1601C and 1102 have been discontinued and the 2002 and the 4003 are now only available through special order. I wonder how long they will be available at all. The ET-703 which is a very old design has also been put on the special order list. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
For you classic Bart Locanthi TAD fans, the 1601 A and B as well as the 4001 and 2001 compression drivers are still quite available, and still quite good too.
Widget
Thanks for the info... pretty interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
Funny how there are many guys out there who are certain that they "know" what it takes to "fix" these drivers from JBL, TAD, Altec etc. :bs:
Widget
Very Interesting
Dave , where is this explicit info that states those models are underhung ?Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
- All my digging about for info has led me to the conclusion ( perhaps wrongfully ) that all TAD 16" woofers are overhung ( 1601x , 1602 & 1603 ) .
- Additionally,
- I've never seen ( from the pics I've perused ) enough top-plate height to support the underhung topology ( especially with the claimed Xmax & power handling specs. ) .
<> Earl K
You are right Earl. I once did the maths but people like to believe in rumours. It's more exciting than plain reality ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl K
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...99&postcount=2
I hope my reading is better than your "maths." I quote from the paragraph on the voice coil: "Since the coil stays completely within the magnetic gap even during peak excursions . . . ." Since the woofer is modeled on the LE15A, this would be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido
This is available on any TAD PRO website; the entries for the other mentioned woofers read similarly:
Hi Dave,
- I have to admit that I do have all the "displayed" TAD info, saved here as pdf files .Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
- I interpreted the above phrase differently .
- I can understand your interpretation & see where your conviction comes from .
:)
260.000 Maxwell in a deep enough gap for an underhung construction and 1.18 Tesla is physically not possible! These numbers mean a short gap.
You do not need math you just need to understand magnetism and the meaning of maxwell and Tesla.
As english is only my second language it is too difficult to explain it. Let's make it simpler:
The huge 1500AL Magnet reaches 675.000 Maxwell (Flux lines throughout gap thickness) but only 0.53 Tesla (conversion to flux density). That is because of the veeeery deep gap.
Calm down, I didn't understand this in 4 years university. Later when my interest in speakers was growing I digged out my old notes and finally got it.
I think what we need, and what I was hoping for to begin with, is a reconer to jump in here with some measurements, or someone privy to TAD technical details to share them.
David
From the description of the 1602:
"The voice coil is relatively short so that it remains within the magnetic gap even during peak excursions."
David
OK, Guido. Looks like your maths are MUCH better than my reading, or rather, my ability to decode TAD's technophile advertising doublespeak. TAD uses the same language for the 1102, but at the same time states the gap depth is 6mm and the winding depth 18.4mm (or 13mm, depending where on the page you look). Only the 1602 description, with its emphasis on the shortness of the voice coil depth may (I don't know what to think now) be describing an underhung voice coil.
David
Now we're back into discussion.
David, the 1602 is very very similar to the 2234(35). It is an overhang design.
The description isn't an opposition to overhang design
In an overhang design the voice coil does also not leave the magnetic gap. Within Xmax of course.
Hope that helps.
It is also very, very discontinued and unlike JBL they are not offering recone kits for discontinued product. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido
I'd stick with the 2235. At least for now JBL is still supporting it.
Widget
Obviously we can't expect reconers to 'stock-up' on 2235 kits so how does an individual put some aside for that eventual rainy day ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Cooky
And even if they did... the foam has a limited shelf life. You always want fresh recone kits when dealing with foam surrounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by cooky1257
The best thing to do is keep abreast of what's going on at JBL. They still maintain repair parts for quite a few vintage drivers... however as supplies of recone kits and new diaphragms have run out and JBL has opted not to run them again, we typically hear about it here early enough to snag a set for ourselves.
Widget
There is 4 Tad 1601 on the way home to me for testing. I hope i´ll get them on monday or tuesday.
Can someone help me with box ideas ?
mats
That is a bit of a shame about the tad recones...all those Tad woofers in studios installed by George Ausberger.
This is my 4 Tads.
mats
how's the project comming along?
Hi, I've just bought a used pair of TAD 2252 and I have some questions about the binding post : if I use a passive bi-amplification must I remove the CGR strap ? Does someone know how to use an active bi-amplification on these monitors ?
Thanks !
The connection between the LF and HF drivers? Yes, otherwise when you connect both amps they will be short circuited by each others outputs and may be damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by PP_65
Don't spend money on another amp to passively biamp as it's a waste of money.
If I had the $$$, The TAD 1601's or JBL 1501AL's would be the ticket for me.:)
Since I'm poor however the JBL 2226 seems to be the closest contender that I can afford/obtain and plays well enough to keep me happy.:D
Lookout if I were to find a bunch of expendable $$$ to play with though!;)
At least I enjoyed drooling over all the cool pics on this thread.
I started at the beginning and decided to read the whole way through to see what I can't afford in life!:(
Regards, Ron:applaud:
I already have the amps , so I'll try . Thanks .Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X
Some TAD notes:
It's my understanding that Tom Hidley designed the TSM-1?
That TAD HF horn might have been made by Community. I know they OEM'd fiberglass for a lot of companies.
Community used to buy alot of TAD 2001's to use as benchmarks. Beryllium is highly, highly toxic. They developed their VHF-100 to have less distortion than the 2001 and the diaphragm is a mylar composite.
Not to jump on the Community bandwagon, they've pretty much abandon horns and most of their manufacturing has moved to China.
Radley
thanks for the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephane RAME
looks good from here .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9HUrBbVXw
seems these sound quite good as well -
http://youtu.be/S11nqJmqYKs
looks like Bart is the father of the modern low frequency loudspeaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst
and utilized computers even before they were digital.
and all tube.
all analog.
you just know those computers sound better ...
looks like Shozo Kinoshita did design for tad as well -
http://www.reyaudio.com/history-e.html
I just visited Rich in London and really enjoyed his TAD 4003/1601c monitor. I have heard many Cessaros before but frankly these simple TAD monitors integrated so much more nicely. I am also investigating Altecs. Overall he had excellent flow with high resolution and openness like the TAD drivers are known for, and great integration in the bass.Quote:
Originally Posted by richluvsound
Does anyone here especially in the EU have TAD speakers that they are running on SETs? I would like to listen to similar speakers on SETs.
Thanks