Comparing JBL Everest with TAD Reference One

[jpw]

At Audio Video Logic in Des Moines, IA, we are an authorized dealer for both the TAD product and the JBL Everest. After listening to both of these fine speakers for 60-90 days, I'm able to offer a mini review for those who follow very high end speakers.
TAD Reference One $70,000 pair. JBL Everest $60,000 pair.

Bass extension: Advantage TAD which hits 25hz flat even in a very large room.
The JBL is flat to around 32hz, a surprise based on it's spec to 45hz.
The difference here isn't meaningful on most music.

Bass linearity: Advantage TAD which avoids a upper bass emphasis the Everest
appears to have built into it between 100 and 200hz. This bump slightly obscures the octaves below and is the Everest's single biggest short coming.

Bass slam: Advantage JBL. Not many speakers can compete with the Everest and the
TAD is no exception, but it is by no means weak.

Bass definition: Closer here and is set up and pretty amplifier dependent. The JBL wins if you can place the speaker to minimize the 100-200hz bump.

Large scale dynamics: Advantage JBL by quite a margin. Again the TAD is better than most audiophile speakers and is no weak sister.

Driver integration: The TAD wins hands down. With it's concentric midrange/treble driver no other speaker I have heard competes here. It sounds like a one way speaker with out all of the problems one would have. There is some sense of discontinuity
between the JBL woofers and the midrange horn/driver when compared to the TAD's.

Stereo imaging: The TAD images and focuses like a mini monitor but with a huge scale to the sound. The JBL has a huge sound as well but considerably less focused.

Overall clarity and naturalness in midrange and treble: Pretty close here. Better micro detail with the TAD, better sense of ease with the JBL.

Overall smoothness in midrange and treble: Advantage TAD. Since it measures
better than any speaker I've ever tested, JBL should be proud of honorable mention here.
The main demerit is a 4db peak or so around 16khz that is probably the midrange
compression driver break up frequency. Never the less, excellent measurements for a horn speaker.

Treble extension. Both measure flat to 20khz and beyond and sound effortless and very extended.

Overall tonal balance. TAD is octave to octave flatter. The JBL has more of a front row presentation, but not too forward sounding unless the recording is poor.

Equipment sensitivity: Both highlight weakness's of components down stream. Despite their high sensitivity and reasonable impedance curve, the JBL's are more amplifier sensitive than you would think particularly in regards to bass control. The TAD's can sound thin with the wrong power amp.

In a review where they total points by category, the TAD would win. But the JBL has more of that elusive "you are there quality" which shows that you can't assign equal points to each category. Most non audiophiles who compare the two pick the JBL. Most audiophiles pick the TAD because of it's imaging but are surprised by how good the JBL is.

[timc]

Very nice

[Rolf]

jpw: did you bi-amp or used the internal network? What pre and power amps did you use? Was any of the amps using mosfets? It is my experience that good hi-end mosfet amps make JBL sound better in general.

Would be nice to know.

[spkrman57]

It's nice to hear a review that is for the most part limited in bias!

Thanks for sharing with us!

Regards, Ron

[Mr. Widget]

In a review where they total points by category, the TAD would win. But the JBL has more of that elusive "you are there quality" which shows that you can't assign equal points to each category.

Thank you very much for the "as objective as possible" review. I am a big fan of Andrew Jones and his work and have listened to the various TAD (home speakers) numerous times in quite a few settings. We are JBL Synthesis dealers and have the Evrests in our demo room so I have been able to become quite familiar with them. Based on my experience with both speakers, I would tend to agree with everything you have posted.

We have run the Everests both with a single amp and bi-amped using a Pass Labs crossover and a filter setting developed by Greg Timbers. The Everests do improve with bi-amping but most of the areas where they do not match or exceed the TADs in your review would not be changed all that much by bi-amping. The bass does get tighter with bi-amping but is significantly amp dependent. With the wrong amps the bass of the Everests can be muddy and dominant, with the right amps that can control these behemoths, the bass is shockingly good and even our "audiophile" customers are drawn to them. As you point out, few if any other speakers have the slam and real music dynamics of the Everests (especially creating a realistic sense of scale) while still being so sonically accurate. While I am a huge fan of mini-monitor imaging and audiophile playback, the Everests offer a sense of "realism" that is hard to find with any other speakers.


Widget

[jpw]

Widget: Thanks for validating my ears. Andrew Jones did a seminar for us. A very intelligent man and a very good speaker. He put on a good show and had the crowd in his hand. Clearly he is a star designer. The Compact Reference One in some ways is even more impressive given it's size. I agree that the Everest's have an intangible quality to them maybe best described as "alive". Lots of jump factor too. This is why I bought the Everest.

I did not bi-amp the Everest's, just using their internal networks. I've bi-amped a lot of JBL's in the past, most recently with the excellent Pass XVR-1 crossover, always finding more dynamics and particularly improve bottom end linearity and control. However I had a conversation some time ago with Greg Timbers who didn't feel the Everest's benefited that much from bi-amping. I guess I won't know until I try. Unfortunately I've sold my Pass Crossover so for now, they only get a single amp. My main complaint about the Everest is their overabundance of the 100-200hz range. Without amplifying the woofer that does LF only separately from the full range woofer, I don't think that the amplitude response issues could be easily solved by just bi-amping. I would agree that subjectively you could probably reduce these issues via the greater damping of bi-amping.
I should add that I EQ'd the Everest's to within plus or minus 2db in room response via my Z Systems digital equalizer.

I tried three amps on the Everest's, all with balanced Audioquest or Nordost cables (my ultimate preference), including the Krell EVO 402e, ARC DS-225 and McIntosh MC-452. A Z Systems digital equalizer into a PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC drove the amps directly with no preamp. I used a couple of different CD players including a cheap JVC DVD player and then a MAC MCD-500 SACD (no surprise the MAC sounded cleaner and more dimensional). All of the amps sounded good but I thought the Krell ($18,500) best overall. It was the best combination of bass control, spaciousness, transparency, treble extension and overall naturalness. The Mac had the least bass control but was big and relaxed with a slightly soft top end. It was eminently listenable as well as running cool and beautiful to look at, plus a bargain at $7500. The Class D ARC ($5000) I'm still trying to get a handle on how to describe. The highs are not unpleasant or harsh, but possibly a bit synthetic in character. There is also a difference in the leading edge and decay of transients compared to the two other AB amps that I am unsure about how to rate. Still I liked this amp overall and how light it was and it's cool running. It had the lowest power at 225 wpc, but still had very good bass grip. I'm not a Class D basher and hear promise with this so I want to give this amp a little more listening and break in time.

[4313B]

I posted several graphs and such yesterday and then retracted them thinking that this really wasn't the place to put them.

Bi-amping the Everest II can help in mitigating the 100 Hz to 200 Hz "bump" if this "bump" is apparent in certain rooms/placements. I also posted yesterday that I thought it was interesting that in the original Everest an adjustable passive notch filter was used to help mitigate any 100 to 200 Hz "bump" occuring with certain rooms/placements.

Without going into all the gory details, I've run these dual woofers in several configurations and there is no love lost in removing high value inductors with relatively significant DCR (especially in comparison to these low Q woofers) from the signal path. These woofers coupled with the Everest II enclosure/tuning can offer unbelievably stunning realism and detail, especially in a purely active configuration with all passive components removed from the signal path.

Obviously there has to be a passive solution for consumer products and the Everest II passive solution is top-shelf. That said, an active solution is simply better, providing the active filters are also top-shelf. Greg ended up tri-amping (one amp/filter per woofer and one amp/filter on the HF/UHF) his Everest II's and stated that the result was spectacular. I have zero doubt that he is correct. I also understand that this solution isn't for everyone and most people simply won't go there; They can thoroughly enjoy the loudspeakers as presented from the factory. Room/placement is arguably a big part of it. EQ is also a solution.

[JBLAddict]

The gear and technical assessments here a well over my head and budget to fairly participate, just an awe-struck observer like most I'm sure.

However.... I will add that the E2s I heard, hooked to DartZeel pre and amp gave a sound that I'm unable to properly define in words, like the Heavens opening up and glory radiating down....serioiusly. On the same day I heard 27K Watt Puppies, K29900 hooked an an all MAC ensemble, 4338, S4600, TS8000, LS80, blah blah blah....but nothing, nothing, compared, without bias, to the E2. A revelation and at the same time depressing to know this is possible in home audio

anyway, with the upstream differences being cited, wonder if one of you dealers considered DartZeel or know anything about them. My vague recollection of the Yen conversion were about $25K ea. for the pre/amp

[jpw]

To 4313B.

I agree that the 100-200hz bump could be related to the passive network and DCR etc.
My understanding so far is that I can passively biamp the Everest's from their back panel but one is still going through the passive network when doing this. Without a way around the passive network I doubt that biamping will give me the improvement I am looking for.

Please give some specifics on your experience with bi or tri amping the Everest's.
Is there a way to bypass the passive network with out modifying the Everest?
Please give details, I'm interested in taking them to the next level.

[jpw]

Regarding the 100-200hz bump and room placement, from a combination of demo, my personal Everest's and a pair I sold, I have tried these three different pairs of Everest's in four different rooms. Each time I took measurements with a 1/3 octave RTA.
Regardless of what placement I used, this full octave was always substantially elevated to some degree. Obviously you can make the bump worse or less with placement but it seems to always be there. I have found 4.5 feet out (half wave of 125hz) from the back wall to be a good starting point to minimize this hump. What is interesting is that the hump usually measures worse than it sounds. Presumably the fact that the bass is low in distortion and low in overhang makes the extra amplitude subjectively more benign. I would love to hear Greg's tri-amp set up.

[Mr. Widget]

Please give some specifics on your experience with bi or tri amping the Everest's.
Is there a way to bypass the passive network with out modifying the Everest?
Please give details, I'm interested in taking them to the next level.

The jumpers on the front panel will remove the passive filter elements between the woofers and HF section. The passive bit on the "helper" woofer remains and the compensation elements on the HF horn remains, but this will give you a true bi-amped speaker. We have been toying with the idea of using one side each of a stereo amp on the two woofers and placing an Audyssey Bass EQ on the "helper" woofer, but this would require a wiring change.

Widget

[4313B]

Is there a way to bypass the passive network with out modifying the Everest?
Please give details, I'm interested in taking them to the next level.

We have been toying with the idea of using one side each of a stereo amp on the two woofers and placing an Audyssey Bass EQ on the "helper" woofer, but this would require a wiring change.

Widget

I designed the Everest input plate with 3 sets of binding posts. The center 2 are covered by the foil cal. I just drilled through the foil cal and mounted 2 additional posts. I now have tri-amp binding posts! - Greg

In room response 6th octave smoothing and 1 octave smoothing.

[jerry_rig]

Without going into all the gory details, I've run these dual woofers in several configurations and there is no love lost in removing high value inductors with relatively significant DCR (especially in comparison to these low Q woofers) from the signal path. These woofers coupled with the Everest II enclosure/tuning can offer unbelievably stunning realism and detail, especially in a purely active configuration with all passive components removed from the signal path.

Amen! I made the mistake of trying to mimic the Everest II setup with my dual 15" DIY project. In order to get a low pass for the lower woofer (a 2235H in my case) starting at 100Hz, I used a pricey Jantzen 18mH 14 AWG C-Coil Toroidal Inductor. This monster inductor literally choked the life out of the speaker. There was no deep bass whatsoever. Moving to active and hooking the amp directly to the 2235Hs made a tremendous difference. Now the house moves.

[pos]

I designed the Everest input plate with 3 sets of binding posts. The center 2 are covered by the foil cal. I just drilled through the foil cal and mounted 2 additional posts. I now have tri-amp binding posts! - Greg

nice trick

[jpw]

To 4313B. My past experience tells me that there is no substitute for a direct amplifier connection to the actual woofer input terminals.

Two questions:

So to triamp, drill my own binding post holes (plus and minus) directly between the top and bottom row of existing posts?

I would assume for the maximum bass transient response that I have to get inside the speaker and remove the LP inductor on the helper woofer. Is it obvious how to do it once inside or are instructions necessary?

I assume JBL will sell me an extra set of matching binding posts.

What about my warranty status?