TAD vs JBL

[bstleve]

Hi all,

for my first post here, I would like to have your opinion :

TL-1601a are still most wanted (and so expensive) woofers, but I do not understand why. Technically, nothing special if you look the magnetic assembly cross-section (especially compare to JBL SFG concept), the cone diaphragm looks like any other one...

I would like to try them by myself, they are sold 750€ each in Europe (yes, more than $1100 !), and no discount is allowed by Pioneer.

So, how do they sound to your ears, are they really the best ?
Is there a JBL equivalent : a woofer able to reach a compression driver up to 700/800Hz, but with a reasonable low end ?

Regards.

Bertrand.

[speakerdave]

Comparisons are difficult, especially trying to do one for somebody else, and so in effect your question is unanswerable. The lastest technology is the JBL 1500Al, a very fine woofer. You might be able to get some in Europe, but they won't be cheap.

As for TAD woofers--Alnico magnets, stout frames, underhung voice coils, FAR in the 20's, worldwide reputation for quality--seems worth trying.

JBL and TAD both have made recent flagship speakers with 15" woofers playing to a horn (Everest II at 750 and TAD 2404 at 650).

David

[Mr. Widget]

Comparisons are difficult, especially trying to do one for somebody else, and so in effect your question is unanswerable.:yes:

I have never made a direct comparison, but do think the JBL 1500AL at about the same price or slightly higher than those TADs is probably a little better... that said, I wouldn't use any 15" woofer up to 750Hz in an all out best of the best type of project.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think that is a broad generaliation and perhaps true for straight profile cones only (real piston range woofers). There is also a dilema on selecting the right compression driver and horn if you go that route.

In point of reference straight cone profile drivers have a pronounced break up mode that is deemed undesireable unless the crossover is carefully managed. The degree of breakup depends on a lot of other factors such as the cone material (mix) and the surround termination.

No doubt the Tannoy transducer engineers would take you to task (and GPA 604 people) but of course their 15 inch driver profiles are curved exponential or a derivate of such which have controlled break up modes.

Perhaps the more pressing issue is finding an affordable compression driver that can really handle it and sound good and a horn that does not sound like a horn crossing over at 750 hz.

In this respect the compression driver & horn bit is potentially for worse of both evils X@ 750hz.

They can sound horrible and be horribly expensive...... based on Tad/jbl diy systems I have heard unless you have a really strong technical support base. Be warned your project that might take years and not weeks or months to perfect even with a DEQX.

Hence 12 inch woofers are a good compromise on the contraints of woofers, compression drivers and horns as you can get away with a higher crossover point without getting too excited breaking any golden rules. They are also more affordable for us humble and sensible diy people who aren't interesting in re mortgaging the house.

Visation and Eignteen Sound make some exceptional drivers in case you are havng difficulty finding the right tad or jbl.

[Mr. Widget]

I think that is a broad generaliation and perhaps true for straight profile cones only (real piston range woofers).Interesting point. In my sordid past I built some very "pleasing" systems using large JBLs with curvlinear cones and crossed them over way above 750Hz. However I wouldn't put those systems in the class of systems worthy of a TAD or AL1500. The curvelinear cone or any other cone operating beyond it's pistonic region is adding significant distortion into the mix.


Widget

[bstleve]

Thanks for your answers !


... the JBL 1500Al, a very fine woofer. You might be able to get some in Europe, but they won't be cheap....

David

That's a great speaker, but, as you said... not really cheap !


:yes:
... that said, I wouldn't use any 15" woofer up to 750Hz in an all out best of the best type of project.
Widget

Well, I totally agree with you, and I do not understand how it is possible, but TSM1/TAD2401 seems to work very well, with a higher cross over frequency :blink:


I think that is a broad generaliation and perhaps true for straight profile cones only (real piston range woofers). There is also a dilema on selecting the right compression driver and horn if you go that route.

In point of reference straight cone profile drivers have a pronounced break up mode that is deemed undesireable unless the crossover is carefully managed. The degree of breakup depends on a lot of other factors such as the cone material (mix) and the surround termination.

No doubt the Tannoy transducer engineers would take you to task (and GPA 604 people) but of course their 15 inch driver profiles are curved exponential or a derivate of such which have controlled break up modes.

Perhaps the more pressing issue is finding an affordable compression driver that can really handle it and sound good and a horn that does not sound like a horn crossing over at 750 hz.

In this respect the compression driver & horn bit is potentially for worse of both evils X@ 750hz.

They can sound horrible and be horribly expensive...... based on Tad/jbl diy systems I have heard unless you have a really strong technical support base. Be warned your project that might take years and not weeks or months to perfect even with a DEQX.

Hence 12 inch woofers are a good compromise on the contraints of woofers, compression drivers and horns as you can get away with a higher crossover point without getting too excited breaking any golden rules. They are also more affordable for us humble and sensible diy people who aren't interesting in re mortgaging the house.

Visation and Eignteen Sound make some exceptional drivers in case you are havng difficulty finding the right tad or jbl.

I see what you mean... straight cone = low end with energy, but big troubles above break-up frequency.
I tried exponential cone, several years ago (Focal Audiom15H built with Altec 416 recone-kit), but it did not enjoy how it sounded : no deep bass, mid-bass coming from a cave...

My present loudspeakers are composed of :

- Beyma 15LX60 : 40-200Hz
- Monacor SPA-30/200PAM : 200-1000Hz
- Altec 909-8A + multi-sectorial exponential horn : 1000-7000Hz
- JBL 2405 alnico above 7000Hz
- modified Behringer DCX2496 active cross-over (passive cross-over between 909 and 2405)

It sounds not too bad, but I thought that I may go back to a three-way arrangement, by using TL-1601 and an Altec 288G instead of the 909...

[Mr. Widget]

Well, I totally agree with you, and I do not understand how it is possible, but TSM1/TAD2401 seems to work very well, with a higher cross over frequency :blink:The JBL Everest II also breaks this "rule"... :)

I am not so sure that all three of those systems might not be "improved" with a midbass driver. Of course when you add a third driver to a two way there are trade offs. As always we are talking about juggling compromises.



...but I thought that I may go back to a three-way arrangement, by using TL-1601 and an Altec 288G instead of the 909...I think you are in uncharted waters here and will have to try it for yourself. :)


Widget

[bstleve]

The JBL Everest II also breaks this "rule"... :)

I am not so sure that all three of those systems might not be "improved" with a midbass driver. Of course when you add a third driver to a two way there are trade offs. As always we are talking about juggling compromises.


compromises, as usual...



I think you are in uncharted waters here and will have to try it for yourself. :)
Widget

Well, I think I'll have to speak money with my wife :D

Bertrand.

[Ian Mackenzie]

An interesting contraption

My suggestion is if you plan to spend up big on drivers go for a proven engineered design. Otherwise its like going a Bunnings and buying a stack of lumber and trying to build a plane and hoping it will fly...the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Here is my first attempt at a 4 way. it started out as a two way Altec 515 with the horn you can see, then I added with 077, then the 8 inch Audax mid cone and eventually the 2245s..

I confess the 515 and the horn did not quite cut it as a two way. No top and no bottom. Madonna sounded okay though.

I actually sounded quite good as a 4 way after I had the crossover sorted out with IMP.

The guys at the Audio Club loved to hate me after the editor of Australian HiFi Greg Borrowman lifted an article in the club magazine I wrote about it and published it.

In the article which was titled "How to build a great loudspeaker without really trying" referred to it as full piston range system that could accurately play any genre of music at live levels without distortion.......................something you could never do with a panel speaker or full range driver.

I was of course referring to the Maggie and Lowther crowd which caused a religious up rising.

[speakerdave]

. . . . My suggestion is if you plan to spend up big on drivers go for a proven engineered design. . . .

I agree, that is, if you can get the information, drivers and horns. Could you give us an example, please?

What I figured out early on was that if you are building a design that can be purchased in the used market for $2-3000 or under it's better to lurk in the used markets and do the necessary bidding. I don't see how it's easier to build a good speaker out of less expensive drivers than with pricey ones. Maybe one's standards would be lower.

No, I think it only makes sense to go through what you have to do to make a good speaker if you are trying to make an equivalent of a really expensive speaker system (for me, $20k plus) that you know you would never go buy. Of course it's a bigger game, but so?

David

[bstleve]

An interesting contraption

My suggestion is if you plan to spend up big on drivers go for a proven engineered design. Otherwise its like going a Bunnings and buying a stack of lumber and trying to build a plane and hoping it will fly...the bigger they are the harder they fall.

In the article which was titled "How to build a great loudspeaker without really trying" referred to it as full piston range system that could accurately play any genre of music at live levels without distortion.......................something you could never do with a panel speaker or full range driver.

I was of course referring to the Maggie and Lowther crowd which caused a religious up rising.

Well, you're right : I've spend a lot of time building my system ;), but know it works fine (of course I've made a lot of measurements, with SpeakerWorkshop and a good sound card, and it was very helpful).

Honestly, my question is not how to spend more money in it :), but is there a way to obtain more fidelity with three drivers instead of four... by using higher level speakers ?

For instance, the Beyma 15LX60 (very close from a 2226 I guess...) is a good bass driver, but the sound is very poor above 250Hz (heavy straight cone but 4" voice coil and strong magnetic assembly BL:20Tm)
In the other hand, the well known Altec 909-8A provide a non-aggressive detailed sound, but works better above 1000Hz, that's why I added the fourth speaker :

I've found it by reading this French site : http://perso.orange.fr/francis.audio2/Comparaison_31cm_r1.doc

Bertrand.

PS : I have to confess that full range drivers are not my cup of tea ! I listen a lot of jazz, not mandolin (with my apologize for full range lovers)

[demon]

hello bertrand!

i cant help you with technical stuff, but i can tell you, and im a pro in those things, that the LOOKS of your system are absoluteley OVER THE TOP!!!!

:banana:

(this is my system, its brandnew and has a similar feel, somehow:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=211484&postcount=2 )


cheers,
mikey

[Ian Mackenzie]

Not really, if you go the 2 1/2 or 3 way route there are always going to be compomises.

[scott fitlin]

IMO, and I have TAD 1601A,S, 4 of them, I am currently using twelve TAD 1603,s in my basshorns, and I also have 12 JBL 2226H, a complete set for my system @ Eldorado.

I have listened to all of them extensively, and I like each woofer model, and brand for the things each excel at.

TAD 1601A, classic woofer with Al magnet, fairly compliant suspension, very clear, yet smooth sounding and makes HUGE sounding bottom end. In my particular application, the 2 reasons I didn't use all 1601A,s instead of the 1603, AND IN THIS order, are the alnico magnet woofers heavier bass sound, as compared to the 1603, or JBL 2226H, also was softer to my ears, and with todays dance music, I prefer the slightly tighter, and chalkier sound of the ferrite magnet woofers. The 2nd reason was price, BUT, If I had LOVED the 1601A or 1601B, I would have probably gone that way, in spite of alnico mag drivers HELLACIOUSLY expensive cost.

The TAD 1603. Great woofer. Great sounding cone. The low end TAD,s reproduce is HUGE, building rocking, but clean, well defined, and the 1603 is a TOUGH driver. Reliabilty is fantastic, they don't break, they take whatever I have thrown at them, and sound fantastic. They have a nice deep sounding, and round bottom end, and SMOOOOOTH low mid register. Drums have such a nicely, well damped sound, very articulate, clear, punchy and slightly warmish sounding too. Kick drum has a definite JBL,ish tone IMO, BOMP BOMP BOMP, tight, taught, rhythmically propulsive toe tapping sound. The 1603,s higher flux density in the magnetic gap gives this woofer a slightly more prominent low mid register than the comparable JBL 2226H, and THIS is the main reason why I used this woofer over the JBL 2226H. And they are smooth, clean, and CLEAR, with snap, and dynamic transient response capabilities as well. At the time when I purchased my set of 14 TAD 1603,s, gotta have spares, they only cost 25.00 more than the JBL 2226H. So, cost wasn't even a thought. Of course, today, 2-3 years later, with the prices of everything rising to PROHIBITIVE EXTREMES, COST is a concern, and can alter a decision I may have to make, even if not my 1st choice sonically.

The JBL 2226H. GOOD woofer. INCREDIBLE slam, and punch, well it,s JBL, what else is new? Snare drums punch out at you with scary and dynamic force. Tight, clean, and snappy bass. It isn't as deep sounding as it,s TAD counterpart, and I liked the slightly deeper and quite audible bass response of the TAD, rounder sounding IMO. The JBL surpasses the TAD in the sheer explosive, transient response department with music that has large scale dynamics, but the TAD is no slouch either, JUST that the JBL does the JBL things in a more pronounced fashion. As I said, for sheer, clean, and DEFINITELY JBL bass slam, the 2226H is IT! The JBL 2226 has a more recessed sounding low mid, though, than the TAD, and since I MUST use my 15,s up to 750hz, this was the DECIDING factor of driver choice. Due to ceiling height limitations of my place, and that my stacks have ONLY 2 inches of clearence from the steel grid, DC electrified drop ceiling, I cannot go 4 way in my full range, and add 10in or 12in dual low mid horns, so, low mid performance is critical to me. I'm not saying the JBL wasn't good. IT IS, but, I prefer the slightly more prominent low mid register of the TAD. The 2226 is also a REALLY TOUGH driver, hard to break em, and IF you do, your doing something wrong.

I prefer JBL compression drivers to ANY of the TAD comp drivers, and to date, the only setups I have liked the TAD compression drivers in , are 2 ways, woofer and horn.

Since the 1500AL is not a driver intended for my application, I have no experience with it, and I base my opinions within the confines of the specific models I have used, that are suitable for my application.

My 2 cents!

[Andyoz]

The guys at the Audio Club loved to hate me after the editor of Australian HiFi Greg Borrowman lifted an article in the club magazine I wrote about it and published it.

I used to read Australian HiFi.

Can you post a scan of the article, I'd like to read it :)

[scott fitlin]

TL-1601a are still most wanted (and so expensive) woofers, but I do not understand why. Technically, nothing special if you look the magnetic assembly cross-section (especially compare to JBL SFG concept), the cone diaphragm looks like any other one...



Bertrand.What one is paying for when purchasing any PREMIUM products, is quality of materials used, AND TIGHT manufacturing tolerances, and ultimate performance.

The TAD,s cone may LOOK like any other one, but thats about it. However, if you look carefully at the cone of a JBL 2226H and a TAD 1603, you will notice differences. The JBL cone has shiny slivery, shiny threads, that are glass threads,. Fiberglass to be exact. The TAD cones do not seem to have these in their cones. So, while a cone may LOOK like almost any other, unless you know the exact composition of the cones, I assure you, they are not the same. And the cone is MAJOR important, it has MUCH to do with the sound of the driver. JBL uses good cones, made to tight specifications, and size, and weight, and what they consider the best materials for their drivers. And TAD cones are made from what they consider to be the best materials for the particular type of driver. Weight, shape, and size is important, variations of just a few grams of cone weight, can have very audible effects on woofers sound.

Baskets used for premium models of a brands drivers also tend to be of higher quality, with more exact tolerance as well. You pay for this, and the basket is important.

Alnico magnets need cobalt to make them, and cobalt is extremely expensive. ANY driver that uses an alnico magnet will be dramatically more expensive than a similar looking driver that uses a ferrite magnet.

Voice Coils! Very important, and VERY critical component of any loudspeaker. Unfortunately, we don't get to see the VC until we blow a speaker, and see the coil at the recone shop! LOL! but, wire, and type, edgewound cost more than round, and TAD still uses copper edgewound ribbon wire for their windings, with manufacture of VC to be made to exacting specifications. JBL uses aluminum edgewound ribbon wire, for the VC of the 2226H. Comparable woofers, yes, but made with different materials, even though, they may look very similar. And looking similar is where it all ends, as both woofers each sound distinctly " DIFFERENT " from each other.

Now, engineers at companies choose the materials of construction for their products with great care. They don't just use this or that. Cost of materials may be one reason, performance aspects another, and when premium drivers are designed, they usually use better grades of materials than lower eschelon products. With the TOP END COMPONENTS OF A BRAND, utilizing cost no object materials.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I agree, that is, if you can get the information, drivers and horns. Could you give us an example, please?

What I figured out early on was that if you are building a design that can be purchased in the used market for $2-3000 or under it's better to lurk in the used markets and do the necessary bidding. I don't see how it's easier to build a good speaker out of less expensive drivers than with pricey ones. Maybe one's standards would be lower.

No, I think it only makes sense to go through what you have to do to make a good speaker if you are trying to make an equivalent of a really expensive speaker system (for me, $20k plus) that you know you would never go buy. Of course it's a bigger game, but so?

David

I knowof several instance where people have cloned the Westlake and JBL K2's

Not discounting Scottys expierences for a home constructor/ diy person a lot of these less savy users expect a Golden hi end driver to deliver out of the box. Sometimes as we can see above without knowing the right applications they end up using the wrong driver for the wrong reasons and the same applies to horns.

Hi end drviers tend to be application specific in terms of delivery their best.

There is no magic or snake oil it. If you know how to engineer a transducer their are people in the trade who can deliver hi quality OEM drivers for virtually any application.

[speakerdave]

I knowof several instance where people have cloned the Westlake and JBL K2's . . . .
Ok. Those are the kinds of speakers I'm talking about, but I think in both cases it is fair to say that necessary information and components are a little difficult to come by.


. . . . Hi end drviers tend to be application specific in terms of delivery their best.

There is no magic or snake oil it. If you know how to engineer a transducer their are people in the trade who can deliver hi quality OEM drivers for virtually any application.


I can't tell whether you are talking about amateurs or pros. Anyway, I guess I'm focusing on the amateur pushing his envelop, because that's where the game is for me.

David

[bstleve]

hello bertrand!

i cant help you with technical stuff, but i can tell you, and im a pro in those things, that the LOOKS of your system are absoluteley OVER THE TOP!!!!


Thanks a lot :)


Not really, if you go the 2 1/2 or 3 way route there are always going to be compomises.

I guess you're right... no magic. :(


IMO, and I have TAD 1601A,S, 4 of them, I am currently using twelve TAD 1603,s in my basshorns, and I also have 12 JBL 2226H, a complete set for my system @ Eldorado.

I have listened to all of them extensively, and I like each woofer model, and brand for the things each excel at.

TAD 1601A, classic woofer with Al magnet, fairly compliant suspension, very clear, yet smooth sounding and makes HUGE sounding bottom end. In my particular application, the 2 reasons I didn't use all 1601A,s instead of the 1603, AND IN THIS order, are the alnico magnet woofers heavier bass sound, as compared to the 1603, or JBL 2226H, also was softer to my ears, and with todays dance music, I prefer the slightly tighter, and chalkier sound of the ferrite magnet woofers. The 2nd reason was price, BUT, If I had LOVED the 1601A or 1601B, I would have probably gone that way, in spite of alnico mag drivers HELLACIOUSLY expensive cost.

The TAD 1603. Great woofer. Great sounding cone. The low end TAD,s reproduce is HUGE, building rocking, but clean, well defined, and the 1603 is a TOUGH driver. Reliabilty is fantastic, they don't break, they take whatever I have thrown at them, and sound fantastic. They have a nice deep sounding, and round bottom end, and SMOOOOOTH low mid register. Drums have such a nicely, well damped sound, very articulate, clear, punchy and slightly warmish sounding too. Kick drum has a definite JBL,ish tone IMO, BOMP BOMP BOMP, tight, taught, rhythmically propulsive toe tapping sound. The 1603,s higher flux density in the magnetic gap gives this woofer a slightly more prominent low mid register than the comparable JBL 2226H, and THIS is the main reason why I used this woofer over the JBL 2226H. And they are smooth, clean, and CLEAR, with snap, and dynamic transient response capabilities as well. At the time when I purchased my set of 14 TAD 1603,s, gotta have spares, they only cost 25.00 more than the JBL 2226H. So, cost wasn't even a thought. Of course, today, 2-3 years later, with the prices of everything rising to PROHIBITIVE EXTREMES, COST is a concern, and can alter a decision I may have to make, even if not my 1st choice sonically.

The JBL 2226H. GOOD woofer. INCREDIBLE slam, and punch, well it,s JBL, what else is new? Snare drums punch out at you with scary and dynamic force. Tight, clean, and snappy bass. It isn't as deep sounding as it,s TAD counterpart, and I liked the slightly deeper and quite audible bass response of the TAD, rounder sounding IMO. The JBL surpasses the TAD in the sheer explosive, transient response department with music that has large scale dynamics, but the TAD is no slouch either, JUST that the JBL does the JBL things in a more pronounced fashion. As I said, for sheer, clean, and DEFINITELY JBL bass slam, the 2226H is IT! The JBL 2226 has a more recessed sounding low mid, though, than the TAD, and since I MUST use my 15,s up to 750hz, this was the DECIDING factor of driver choice. Due to ceiling height limitations of my place, and that my stacks have ONLY 2 inches of clearence from the steel grid, DC electrified drop ceiling, I cannot go 4 way in my full range, and add 10in or 12in dual low mid horns, so, low mid performance is critical to me. I'm not saying the JBL wasn't good. IT IS, but, I prefer the slightly more prominent low mid register of the TAD. The 2226 is also a REALLY TOUGH driver, hard to break em, and IF you do, your doing something wrong.

I prefer JBL compression drivers to ANY of the TAD comp drivers, and to date, the only setups I have liked the TAD compression drivers in , are 2 ways, woofer and horn.

Since the 1500AL is not a driver intended for my application, I have no experience with it, and I base my opinions within the confines of the specific models I have used, that are suitable for my application.

My 2 cents!

Very interesting and useful, because made in real life, comparison between these two "similar looking" and close T&S parameters loudspeakers !

According to many people, TAD compression drivers are intended to work with TAD horns and TAD cross-over...


What one is paying for when purchasing any PREMIUM products, is quality of materials used, AND TIGHT manufacturing tolerances, and ultimate performance.

The TAD,s cone may LOOK like any other one, but thats about it. However, if you look carefully at the cone of a JBL 2226H and a TAD 1603, you will notice differences. The JBL cone has shiny slivery, shiny threads, that are glass threads,. Fiberglass to be exact. The TAD cones do not seem to have these in their cones. So, while a cone may LOOK like almost any other, unless you know the exact composition of the cones, I assure you, they are not the same. And the cone is MAJOR important, it has MUCH to do with the sound of the driver. JBL uses good cones, made to tight specifications, and size, and weight, and what they consider the best materials for their drivers. And TAD cones are made from what they consider to be the best materials for the particular type of driver. Weight, shape, and size is important, variations of just a few grams of cone weight, can have very audible effects on woofers sound.

Baskets used for premium models of a brands drivers also tend to be of higher quality, with more exact tolerance as well. You pay for this, and the basket is important.

Alnico magnets need cobalt to make them, and cobalt is extremely expensive. ANY driver that uses an alnico magnet will be dramatically more expensive than a similar looking driver that uses a ferrite magnet.

Voice Coils! Very important, and VERY critical component of any loudspeaker. Unfortunately, we don't get to see the VC until we blow a speaker, and see the coil at the recone shop! LOL! but, wire, and type, edgewound cost more than round, and TAD still uses copper edgewound ribbon wire for their windings, with manufacture of VC to be made to exacting specifications. JBL uses aluminum edgewound ribbon wire, for the VC of the 2226H. Comparable woofers, yes, but made with different materials, even though, they may look very similar. And looking similar is where it all ends, as both woofers each sound distinctly " DIFFERENT " from each other.

Now, engineers at companies choose the materials of construction for their products with great care. They don't just use this or that. Cost of materials may be one reason, performance aspects another, and when premium drivers are designed, they usually use better grades of materials than lower eschelon products. With the TOP END COMPONENTS OF A BRAND, utilizing cost no object materials.

Yes, of course... I have no doubt that TAD & JBL are high class speakers, manufactured with care and high level material (that's certainly why copies do not sound as well than the originals !)

I wondered how these 15" may provide clear mid-bass. After reading you, I understand that despite using these I class speakers, I would not be able to remove the dedicated mid-bass driver :(

Whatever, I learn a lot by reading you !

Bertrand.

[Mr. Widget]

I prefer JBL compression drivers to ANY of the TAD comp drivers...

ANY TAD? Have you heard all five models in similar circumstances? Doesn't matter. Consider yourself lucky... those pesky TADS are damned expensive. :D

I thought you recently switched back over to TAD 4002s? ...and why do you and Shorty use the 4002s? The 4001s are the better 2" driver... at least in a monitoring or home Hi-Fi scenario.



Since the 1500AL is not a driver intended for my application...Now that is a good point. Your application while somewhat like a Hi-Fi on steroids, isn't really the same as a Hi-Fi stereo system in a typical home environment.

According to many people, TAD compression drivers are intended to work with TAD horns and TAD cross-over...Not sure about the networks, but careful matching of horns and drivers isn't trivial. This is true for all drivers from all manufacturers.

When I was first introduced to TAD I compared the TAD 4001 and the JBL 2441 on a Westlake horn and I was blown away by the greater detail and nuanced sound I heard from the 4001. Yes, the TADs were also slightly more extended up top and the distortion may have been a bit better too, but it was the detail that got me. I don't think Scotty has ever popped several TAD 4001s in his room to compare, but if he did it may not work for him in his application or be the type of sound he is after anyway.


Widget

[scott fitlin]

ANY TAD? Have you heard all five models in similar circumstances? Doesn't matter. Consider yourself lucky... those pesky TADS are damned expensive. :D

I thought you recently switched back over to TAD 4002s? ...and why do you and Shorty use the 4002s? The 4001s are the better 2" driver... at least in a monitoring or home Hi-Fi scenario.

Now that is a good point. Your application while somewhat like a Hi-Fi on steroids, isn't really the same as a Hi-Fi stereo system in a typical home environment.Not sure about the networks, but careful matching of horns and drivers isn't trivial. This is true for all drivers from all manufacturers.

When I was first introduced to TAD I compared the TAD 4001 and the JBL 2441 on a Westlake horn and I was blown away by the greater detail and nuanced sound I heard from the 4001. Yes, the TADs were also slightly more extended up top and the distortion may have been a bit better too, but it was the detail that got me. I don't think Scotty has ever popped several TAD 4001s in his room to compare, but if he did it may not work for him in his application or be the type of sound he is after anyway.


WidgetYES, I DID switch to the 4002,s but switched back to the JBL 2441,s. I love the TAD woofers, they rock the house. But the very extended HF response of the 4002, just makes me grow tired of them. IN MY APP, 2 way full range + tweeter, the extended response of the TAD 4002, makes the music too bright sounding, and smears the sound of my tweeters, that extended response, doesn't let me hear the tweeters like I do when I use the 2441,s/aluminum diaphragm with admittedly rolled off response above 10k.

And no matter how steep a filter slope I tried with the TAD 4002,s it just didn't make them sound completely satisfactory to me. And as we have discussed in the past, I just don't like the sound of speakers using 4th order and higher filter slopes and types, I am a Butterworth lover, and nothing higher than 3rd order for me. The coherence and seamless image are things I love in my sound and beyond 3rd order, butterworth, various driver ranges within a sound system, like the 15,s 12,s horns and tweeters sound like separate entities to me, playing out of sync with each other, but maximally in phase and minimal out of passband signal reaching separate driver ranges, and lowering distortion but allowing higher power to be used as opposed to 12db Butterworth slopes allowance of certain amount of overlap, which TO MY EARS, and IN MY OPINION, offers a sound that emerges from 15,s horns and tweeters, but arrives to the listener as 1 complete single whole sound image, and sounds seamless. What I mean by seamless is the coherency of the sound is heard as the entire sound, not lows, mids, hi,s etc. which to my ears, creates the soundstage and image that leads listeners to think they can almost SEE David Sanborn blowing his horn, or puts Ella Fitzgerald in your room visually, through speakers. BTW, 12db Butterworth is what I'm doing now, throughout my entire system, 18,s, 15,s 2in drivers and tweeters, MMM, very NICE and has a sweet, more natural, and very dynamic sound, IMO.

Now, I learned another thing about WHY I love certain drivers like 2441,s. It isnt only the alnico magnet, or sweeter, rolled off sound HF of the aluminum diaphragm. Something guys like Steve Schell, speak about their speakers that i understand WHY THEY PROMOTE THEIR SPEAKER TYPES with SUCH staunch conviction. I LOVE the lower frequency sound of aluminum diaphragms TOO! The speed and detail of that bass you get from the 15,s or whatever was being used, oh wow, but, it isn't actually coming from the 15! Its coming from the 2in compression driver. Such an audible illusion, but, thats it.

Just as when my bottom roars, growls, rumbles and THUMPS you like with visceral impact, the audible bass kick, and definition don't come from the subs, its the 15,s and the 18,,s underlying the sound of the 15,s adding the feel of the sound com ing from the 15,s.

When I put the 2441,s back in this time, not only did the trumpets vibes, and pianos have that lovely chunky sound, THE BASS, THE BASS HAD SO MUCH MORE PUNCH, KICk, I MEAN POUNDING!

I love audio, sometimes nothing is as it sounds like it is, and as much as one might think they know? They find out they have so much more to learn and know, as one may not know that much at all! In The grand Scheme Of Things!

Thats what it is, for me, beginning about a MONTH AND A HALF AGO!

[Mr. Widget]

Just as when my bottom roars, growls, rumbles and THUMPS...:slink:

I'd rather not think about your bottom doing all that. :rotfl:



Thats what it is, for me, beginning about a MONTH AND A HALF AGO!Well, I am glad you are happy with the 2441s for now... I'll eagerly await the next posting to see what you change next. :D


Widget

[scott fitlin]

:slink:

I'd rather not think about your bottom doing all that. :rotfl:

Well, I am glad you are happy with the 2441s for now... I'll eagerly await the next posting to see what you change next. :D


WidgetWell, im happy with my JBL,s and never bought any othe comp drivers except the TAD,s and a few Altec 288,s and 8 Altec 808,s from the early days of our disco sound endeavors.

I was never unhappy with JBL compression drivers. I always like the 2441, in particular, on lens horns, and I also like JBL 2446J,s on CD horns too these days.

When I put the 2441,s back, it was on two stacks, and because I wanted a more percussive and dynamic sound with music that has percussion sounds, and rimshots, etc. Having listened to the TAD,s extensively on my system for months, I had become familiar with thier sound, the TAD definitely has a shine on female vocals in the upper ranges, and a very clear and high resolution rendering fine micro dynamics and revealing of very minute details in recordings, but I sort of wanted my chunkier JBL sound bsck in this range. That was achieved, but, and all my guys heard it, the center stacks, the ones with YOUR cabinets, not only had that specific JBL sound but the bass was incredible, I mean we are in the room, playin this or that, and the center stacks had this pounding and intense but pleasant kick, and bass notes rore and growled, I love Growl. I do. Now we are walikg the floor, front stacks to center stacks, then rear stack to center stacks, etc. The 2441,s not only had the sound in the 750hz-7k range, for whatever reason, the bass in these two stacks were improved dramatically and the corner stack which still had TAD comp drivers DID NOT have the THUNDEROUS OMG bottom end the center stacks had. OK, that week, I go in early, my assistant and I turn cabs, take drivers dow, put drivers up, etc. Man the place was rocking with a low end intensity, we all just said, OH WELL, USE THE JBL,s then!

YOUR CABINETS ARE THUMPING, it,s a particular sound you get when running a suitable amp @ 2 ohms, that LOVE for dance music, 4 ohm JBL loads on Crown amps have leaner, muscular, kick, and snap, but not the HEAVY THUMP and subterranean roar. OK! Crown on J Horns, Crown on scoops, QSC or Crown on Widgets. And it,s combining nicely, and integrated into the system very nicely. Some recordings that are mixed with a midbass kick, the 2242,s reproduce very nice, tight, taut, fast.

But, I admit, YES the 42,s outdo the older drivers in the extreme LF region. And the TAD 15,s wow.

I am playing modern music, some older technologies still sound good with todays music, but, oh well, the 2242,s go deeper, and play the deep stuff cleaner, and it rocks.

And the J Horns and YOUR cabinets seem to reinforce each other, with very positive results.

Now EQ,s, thats a diferent story. I tried the BSS, the K-T, the ranes, my old ureis too, The White 4200A,s still works for me. With the White EQ,s in system, the fuckin bass has a weight and impact, the highs hi,s sound sparkly. OK, leave the Whites in there. I went to buy cigs and soda at the conveniece store three doors down from me, and Ahmed, the stores owner said, "Scotty, what are doing in there" ? Tje music, we are hearing and feeling it in the store, and my products are vibrating from shelves, this never happend before, what u doing?

Oh I was SOOOOOOOOO happy, WIDGET thats what your cabinets do!

:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy: