I also used more general language and thought it was obvious, sorry for the miscommunication!
Need advice on cables for full TAD setup
- Thread starter Ibragim
- Start date
I also used more general language and thought it was obvious, sorry for the miscommunication!
This valid criterium is one of the reasons why sometimes cables get a bad wrap. If a bad recording is reproduced in an honest way, a cable often gets blamed. But I totally agree with you: this is sometimes the price to pay.
I've heard them many times. I own the Pioneer S-1EX, which use the same drivers as the TAD Evolution towers, which have Mg mid and Be tweeters.
I think it will depends a lot on electronics used and personal preference. One of the best TAD demos I've experienced was setup by Andrew Jones, used all TAD top-end Electronics and the TAD Evolution tower speakers. It was extremely clear and neutral with no fatiguing artifacts. I've heard some big class-D amps produce a fatiguing presentation, and I've also heard tube amps produce a warm and mushy sound out of the same TAD speakers.
For my preferences, I use all UPOCC silver or silver/gold cables with my system. The system is intended to be a neutral reference more than a system for casual listening so this works well for me. I could certainly see a preference to warm things up a bit in a TAD system, which could be done using some UPOCC copper instead of silver. I also offer silver/gold ICs with two levels of gold, just a touch to get more realistic sounding timbre and more gold to add a noticeable warmth similar to a good tube preamp. Power cables can also make a BIG difference in the amount of warmth cabling can add to a system, so many times I recommend using copper power cables for the amp(s) and silver for sources and preamps, this also saves a lot of cash as a system full of silver power cables can get expensive, especially if you go for a cable like Siltech Triple Crown.
I have a horn speaker and SET amp I designed and built myself as well, it gets more use overall as it's quite a bit better vs the Pioneer S-1EX in many ways, one of which is the bass... the big downside of TAD and many other brands of speaker going for technical perfection is you need to buy a top end speaker to get excellent bass. The TAD Evolution line as well as my Pioneer S-1EX use the dual 7" woofers, they are only ok. The 15" woofer I use in my speaker is much better and measures a lot less distortion. The top end TAD Reference-1 is really required if you also want top of the line bass quality, but I could see the smaller version working ok in a small room. I wish TAD's Evo series had better bass, the coax Mg mid/Be tweet is one of the best, the TAD full-Be reference coax is one of the few drivers that is better.
I had the Pioneer EX, including their center channel, while I was transitioning from Reference M1s to R1s. They were a bargain when they came out as these were really baby TADs at a Pioneer price point. But comparing these lower end TAD and Pioneer speakers to Reference TADs is like comparing a Porsche Boxster to a 911 GT3. Same brand, same house sound and engineering courtesy of A Jones, but they are totally different performance levels.
In the R1 and CR1 everything from 250hz up is coming from the beryllium coax that’s a mere 6” in diameter. There are many beryllium tweeters out there, but there are very few beryllium midrange drivers. Much of the magic of these TADs is this driver, and also Andrew’s brilliant cabinet and crossover design. And you’re correct in that the woofers in the Reference line are much better than what’s in the other TADs and Pioneer. Same holds for the crossover components.
I surely cannot rule out that there could be synergies between a fancy cable and the Reference TADs, but the only way to know would be to try your cables with a Reference TAD. Other than that, it’s just speculation.
I have had TADs since the M1 came out. Andrew has been to my home several times. He modified my M1s and biamped them using Belcanto Ref1000 amplifiers with a built in crossover that his twin brother designed. That made a huge difference in bass extension and clarity. Most recently with Andrew’s help, I biamped the R1. That also made a huge difference in bass extension and clarity.
Changing cables and amplifiers over the years made some difference with the M1 and R1s, but these were all subtle compared to a full active biamp where the woofers are directly connected to their dedicated amplifiers. To be fair, all the amps and cables were of very high quality, so you would expect subtle differences.
The low pass in the R1 has an iron core inductor in series with the woofers, and this will dynamically impact the impedance/control between the woofers and the amplifier driving them. Using an active crossover ahead of the amplifiers driving the woofers allows one to bypass the LPF completely.
But since most of us aren’t about to open up a Reference TAD and modify it, I would suggest instead of fussing around with cables to hire an acoustical engineer to apply sound treatment and use DSP to equalize your room. The Reference TADs are incredibly transparent, low distortion, high output transducers, but you will not get their full potential without treating the room and applying some judicious EQ.
It‘s funny how no one would think of buying a $50,000 projector and using a beige wall as a movie screen and rabbit ears as an antenna. But this is what you’re doing when you throw R1s or CR1s in an room and hope to tune them in with fancy cables.
You can see below the response of R1s in my heavily treated room (professionally by RPG) before and after EQ. This is with the speakers near the corners. DSP is applied to smooth out the bass lift that’s typical of a corner placement, but it also is quite important to EQ above the frequencies that are boosted by the corners.
The effects of the room on the overall response is huge. I’ve measured my R1s near field, so you minimize room effects, and they are reasonably flat near field. But in a room the frequency response is far from flat. Cables will make little difference. You need a much more powerful tool. And most rooms will measure as poorly as mine. Fortunately DSP has come a huge way in recent years. But you will need a real acoustics expert and something like Audiolense. The turnkey systems are not powerful enough and will do more harm than good. Everything else is like putting aluminum foil on your rabbit ear antenna.
The effects of the room on the overall response is huge. I’ve measured my R1s near field, so you minimize room effects, and they are reasonably flat near field. But in a room the frequency response is far from flat. Cables will make little difference. You need a much more powerful tool. And most rooms will measure as poorly as mine. Fortunately DSP has come a huge way in recent years. But you will need a real acoustics expert and something like Audiolense. The turnkey systems are not powerful enough and will do more harm than good. Everything else is like putting aluminum foil on your rabbit ear antenna.
Attachments
-
Paul FS4 Harman target.jpg
I honestly don't understand what you mean when you say "fancy cables". This terminology is meaningless.
There are many very expensive dealer-sale cables that maybe you are referring to, but without knowing the materials and electrical characteristics painting them all with the same brush is both not logical and certainly counterproductive to any real understanding of the subject.
Honestly the same could be said of TAD speakers themselves. "Fancy". They cost way more than the materials used might indicate. The "TAD" coax drivers aren't even built by TAD, they are SEAS drivers, lol. And neither are the woofers. They are simply built to TAD specs and honestly they aren't super-special and now I think many other speakers have surpassed them. However when the R1s first came out they were head and shoulders better than most, but TAD/Pioneer hasn't kept up with the Joneses. YG, Wilson, Magico, etc are now better speakers. Part of this is AJ's coax design has too many issues and the problem it addresses isn't as much of an issue vs the issues using the coax design creates.
I don't consider my cables "fancy", they are direct-sale cables intended to provide the highest value possible.
Anyways, it's clear you're very biased, and it's not possible to actually address anything you say when you use meaningless terminology like "fancy" to describe all cables that cost more than what? More than Mogami? Some would say they are overpriced too. I'm probably not going to reply again because of this and the fact this is seeming more like a status-seeking contest, which I have no interest in. Also, your EQ vs cable thing is a false dichotomy and a flawed argument. Your comparing cables to putting Al foil on an antennae is simply ridiculous and is also flawed logic. It's really too bad people can't overcome their biases, your postings are a perfect example of how bias overcomes logic and reason.
There are many very expensive dealer-sale cables that maybe you are referring to, but without knowing the materials and electrical characteristics painting them all with the same brush is both not logical and certainly counterproductive to any real understanding of the subject.
Honestly the same could be said of TAD speakers themselves. "Fancy". They cost way more than the materials used might indicate. The "TAD" coax drivers aren't even built by TAD, they are SEAS drivers, lol. And neither are the woofers. They are simply built to TAD specs and honestly they aren't super-special and now I think many other speakers have surpassed them. However when the R1s first came out they were head and shoulders better than most, but TAD/Pioneer hasn't kept up with the Joneses. YG, Wilson, Magico, etc are now better speakers. Part of this is AJ's coax design has too many issues and the problem it addresses isn't as much of an issue vs the issues using the coax design creates.
I don't consider my cables "fancy", they are direct-sale cables intended to provide the highest value possible.
Anyways, it's clear you're very biased, and it's not possible to actually address anything you say when you use meaningless terminology like "fancy" to describe all cables that cost more than what? More than Mogami? Some would say they are overpriced too. I'm probably not going to reply again because of this and the fact this is seeming more like a status-seeking contest, which I have no interest in. Also, your EQ vs cable thing is a false dichotomy and a flawed argument. Your comparing cables to putting Al foil on an antennae is simply ridiculous and is also flawed logic. It's really too bad people can't overcome their biases, your postings are a perfect example of how bias overcomes logic and reason.
It's amazing how emotional audiophiles get when anyone questions their thoughts on cables. If I told you that a Hermes tie is a fancy tie, a Rolls is a fancy car, the Peninsula Hotel is a fancy hotel or Johnny Walker Blue is a fancy Scotch ...would you ask me to define the word fancy, almost as if there is some wrong with the choice of the word?
That said, I'll define "fancy" in the context I was using it. I would say a cable that costs more than 300% of what is typically used by esteemed professionals like Bob Katz, who has made some of the best recordings ever, is a fancy cable.
In the interest of full disclosure, this is purely a hobby for me.
But getting back to my main points. I would think that someone that has actually had experience with an M1s, R1 or CR1 in their home could offer valuable insights on the questions of what cables to use with CR1s or R1s.
The M1, on which the R1 and CR1 are based, was introduced in 2002. I got mine a year or two after that. I've had Andrew disassemble and reassemble M1s in my home to repair cracked cabinets. Eventually TAD replaced my M1s with R1s. So I think I know these speakers reasonably well and have been working on optimizing them for almost two decades, with direct input from Andrew.
Perhaps SEAS is making drivers for TAD. Apple also does not manufacture their phones. That's not the point. Regardless, the CST driver in the R1 and CR1 is the only driver that's commercially available with a beryllium midrange and the process for manufacturing this size beryllium part is proprietary to TAD. The CST in the less expensive TAD and Pioneer speakers is a different driver. And of course, the CST in ELAC speakers (designed by Andrew) is also very different.
There are surely pros and cons to coaxial drivers. Anyone that has studied engineering will know that one is always asked to make choices on what will be optimized in a product. You can optimize a car to be fast or you can optimize it to be comfortable, but one comes at the expense of the other.
There are many benefits with coaxial drivers (and this is why Andrew used them at KEF, TAD, Pioneer and ELAC), mostly having to do with how the tweeter and midrange integrate as this affects the horizontal and vertical dispersion pattern. But there are also disadvantages. One is that the tweeter is effectively horn loaded by the midrange, so when optimizing the geometry of the midrange, one also has to consider its effects on the tweeter's dispersion. And also the midrange has to move to do it's job at lower frequencies than the tweeter, and this will then cause the dispersion pattern of the tweeter to fluctuate as a form of intermodulation distortion.
The large Wilson speakers take a completely different approach in which each driver is optimized in its own cabinet. The culmination of this was the WAMM. This also has big benefits, but it comes at a cost in how the drivers integrate since the drivers are far apart from each other and are not symmetric in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Wilson deals with this by offering adjustments so one can focus the "image" on the listening position. The newer Wilson speakers are a bit smaller than the WAMM, and the drivers are closer than in a WAMM, but still very far apart in comparison to a TAD CST that covers the range from 250 hz up with a 6 inch device.
But this all misses the my most important points. First in the R1 there is about 1 meter of OFC zip cord that connects the terminals on the back to the LPF for the woofers. So no matter what, you are listening to zip cord that is in the circuit before the crossover. I highly doubt this is impacting the sound in any way, but I also don't think much will be improved by using something other than zip cord for the woofers, as long as the length is short, the cable is high quality OFC, the plus and minus conductors are close to each other and the connections are tight and clean.
Second, one real culprit limiting the performance of the R1 is the iron core inductor in the LPF for the woofers. This has a much bigger effect than the zip cord on performance of the woofers. After all, this inductor is a long wire wound up around a piece of iron, like a spool of cable or fishing line. The problem is not so much with the wire, but with the iron core that gets saturated at high current levels. This LPF also has electrolytic capacitors. There is one way around it, which is to implement the LPF electronically ahead of the amplifier. That's what I did with my M1s and R1s with Andrew's help. But this is surely not easy to do. Fortunately the crossovers for the coax only has air core inductors.
Third and perhaps most important is to understand that the room is having a much bigger effect than almost anything else. One can calculate the Schroeder Frequency for a room based on its dimensions. A larger room will have a lower Schroeder Frequency. This is a physics problem that was solved in the 1950s. For my mid size room this is at about 250 hz. Below that, the room is in control, which means that even with very large custom bass traps, the room will dictate how things sound. Fortunately above that frequency, much can be done with absorbers and diffusers. But there are also aesthetic limits to what most of us will do to a room.
This is where DSP comes in, but it needs to be done correctly by someone that understands the science. Fortunately computers these days are so fast that they can do all the calculations needed to implement DSP solutions that were simply not possible 10 years ago. Also, one can buy a $140 calibrated microphone and download for free REW on a laptop and measure every important acoustic parameter of your speakers in your room. This will almost certainly show a response curve that is very far from ideal with deviations that are 5, 10 db and much more. The very subtle differences that cable can make are totally insignificant compared to what's happening in your room.
In the end this hobby is all about enjoying the system we have. If fancy cables make you happy, you should surely buy them. But understand this is a bit like chrome headers on a Corvette. They will look great and make you happy, but the car will not go any faster.
That said, I'll define "fancy" in the context I was using it. I would say a cable that costs more than 300% of what is typically used by esteemed professionals like Bob Katz, who has made some of the best recordings ever, is a fancy cable.
In the interest of full disclosure, this is purely a hobby for me.
But getting back to my main points. I would think that someone that has actually had experience with an M1s, R1 or CR1 in their home could offer valuable insights on the questions of what cables to use with CR1s or R1s.
The M1, on which the R1 and CR1 are based, was introduced in 2002. I got mine a year or two after that. I've had Andrew disassemble and reassemble M1s in my home to repair cracked cabinets. Eventually TAD replaced my M1s with R1s. So I think I know these speakers reasonably well and have been working on optimizing them for almost two decades, with direct input from Andrew.
Perhaps SEAS is making drivers for TAD. Apple also does not manufacture their phones. That's not the point. Regardless, the CST driver in the R1 and CR1 is the only driver that's commercially available with a beryllium midrange and the process for manufacturing this size beryllium part is proprietary to TAD. The CST in the less expensive TAD and Pioneer speakers is a different driver. And of course, the CST in ELAC speakers (designed by Andrew) is also very different.
There are surely pros and cons to coaxial drivers. Anyone that has studied engineering will know that one is always asked to make choices on what will be optimized in a product. You can optimize a car to be fast or you can optimize it to be comfortable, but one comes at the expense of the other.
There are many benefits with coaxial drivers (and this is why Andrew used them at KEF, TAD, Pioneer and ELAC), mostly having to do with how the tweeter and midrange integrate as this affects the horizontal and vertical dispersion pattern. But there are also disadvantages. One is that the tweeter is effectively horn loaded by the midrange, so when optimizing the geometry of the midrange, one also has to consider its effects on the tweeter's dispersion. And also the midrange has to move to do it's job at lower frequencies than the tweeter, and this will then cause the dispersion pattern of the tweeter to fluctuate as a form of intermodulation distortion.
The large Wilson speakers take a completely different approach in which each driver is optimized in its own cabinet. The culmination of this was the WAMM. This also has big benefits, but it comes at a cost in how the drivers integrate since the drivers are far apart from each other and are not symmetric in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Wilson deals with this by offering adjustments so one can focus the "image" on the listening position. The newer Wilson speakers are a bit smaller than the WAMM, and the drivers are closer than in a WAMM, but still very far apart in comparison to a TAD CST that covers the range from 250 hz up with a 6 inch device.
But this all misses the my most important points. First in the R1 there is about 1 meter of OFC zip cord that connects the terminals on the back to the LPF for the woofers. So no matter what, you are listening to zip cord that is in the circuit before the crossover. I highly doubt this is impacting the sound in any way, but I also don't think much will be improved by using something other than zip cord for the woofers, as long as the length is short, the cable is high quality OFC, the plus and minus conductors are close to each other and the connections are tight and clean.
Second, one real culprit limiting the performance of the R1 is the iron core inductor in the LPF for the woofers. This has a much bigger effect than the zip cord on performance of the woofers. After all, this inductor is a long wire wound up around a piece of iron, like a spool of cable or fishing line. The problem is not so much with the wire, but with the iron core that gets saturated at high current levels. This LPF also has electrolytic capacitors. There is one way around it, which is to implement the LPF electronically ahead of the amplifier. That's what I did with my M1s and R1s with Andrew's help. But this is surely not easy to do. Fortunately the crossovers for the coax only has air core inductors.
Third and perhaps most important is to understand that the room is having a much bigger effect than almost anything else. One can calculate the Schroeder Frequency for a room based on its dimensions. A larger room will have a lower Schroeder Frequency. This is a physics problem that was solved in the 1950s. For my mid size room this is at about 250 hz. Below that, the room is in control, which means that even with very large custom bass traps, the room will dictate how things sound. Fortunately above that frequency, much can be done with absorbers and diffusers. But there are also aesthetic limits to what most of us will do to a room.
This is where DSP comes in, but it needs to be done correctly by someone that understands the science. Fortunately computers these days are so fast that they can do all the calculations needed to implement DSP solutions that were simply not possible 10 years ago. Also, one can buy a $140 calibrated microphone and download for free REW on a laptop and measure every important acoustic parameter of your speakers in your room. This will almost certainly show a response curve that is very far from ideal with deviations that are 5, 10 db and much more. The very subtle differences that cable can make are totally insignificant compared to what's happening in your room.
In the end this hobby is all about enjoying the system we have. If fancy cables make you happy, you should surely buy them. But understand this is a bit like chrome headers on a Corvette. They will look great and make you happy, but the car will not go any faster.
Last edited:
I know, right? You get so emotional your biases are overcoming any ability you had to make reasonable arguments wrt cables. And pretty much everything else you're saying is naïve and and/or flat-out wrong. Making judgements about things based solely on price and not construction, materials or electrical properties is simply ridiculous. But cable-haters are so blinded by hatred and bias that they can't think clearly. This is common. Cable derangement syndrome maybe...
Your thoughts about passive xo's are simply wrong... Modern iron-core inductors like Mundorf zero-ohm have some significant advantages. I've compared a good 4th order passive vs DSP and the fact is, under ~400 Hz, you won't be able to tell a difference as long as both xo's were implemented properly. In a woofer the electrolytic caps will be in parallel, but yeah, what's up with the super-cheap parts used in a 6-figure speaker?
Also, using zip cord internally is a disappointment, but it doesn't mean you can't hear any differences upstream. If that was true why bother with decent electronics either? The signal is just going to go through that cheap zip-cord.
Also I'm well aware of the differences between Wilson and TAD and others. TAD simply hasn't kept up with other brands and part of the reason is the coax mid/tweeter. Compared to separate drivers you can localize the coax in many kinds of music because the mid modulates the tweeter and isn't a perfect waveguide for it either. Both of these issues result in the ability to localize the drivers and the inability for the speakers to completely "disappear" in the room. I'm not the only one to hear this massive shortcoming in coax drivers. Now that modern speakers and electronics have advanced as far as they have this shortcoming is much more apparent vs the competition and it's simply unacceptable for the price you pay as other companies offer a product that doesn't have this issue.
Your explanation of room effects and DSP shows you really have no idea about WBF and the audience you're addressing. While not wrong, it's naïve to think you're doing anything but regurgitating things that have been said ad nauseum and it's certainly not new info for anyone here.
I was considering doing some upgrades to my Pioneer S-1EX speakers but after some time with them I realize you can't fix the problems this speaker has and it's not worth it. While the Ref series is less compromised it's just a larger version and it's now an outdated design with too many flaws vs it's competition and the price is too high for what you get. Even lower-priced alternatives like JTR and JBL M2 or 4367 have surpassed TAD imo. Right now, comparing TAD to YG will result in an embarrassment for TAD.
Can I remind you that this all started with someone that owns an all TAD system and is asking how to optimize it? So because you disagree with my approach on how to optimize TAD Reference speakers, you trash TAD speakers? So then is your solution to optimizing the all TAD system replacing them with YG speakers?I know, right? You get so emotional your biases are overcoming any ability you had to make reasonable arguments wrt cables. And pretty much everything else you're saying is naïve and and/or flat-out wrong. Making judgements about things based solely on price and not construction, materials or electrical properties is simply ridiculous. But cable-haters are so blinded by hatred and bias that they can't think clearly. This is common. Cable derangement syndrome maybe...
Your thoughts about passive xo's are simply wrong... Modern iron-core inductors like Mundorf zero-ohm have some significant advantages. I've compared a good 4th order passive vs DSP and the fact is, under ~400 Hz, you won't be able to tell a difference as long as both xo's were implemented properly. In a woofer the electrolytic caps will be in parallel, but yeah, what's up with the super-cheap parts used in a 6-figure speaker?
Also, using zip cord internally is a disappointment, but it doesn't mean you can't hear any differences upstream. If that was true why bother with decent electronics either? The signal is just going to go through that cheap zip-cord.
Also I'm well aware of the differences between Wilson and TAD and others. TAD simply hasn't kept up with other brands and part of the reason is the coax mid/tweeter. Compared to separate drivers you can localize the coax in many kinds of music because the mid modulates the tweeter and isn't a perfect waveguide for it either. Both of these issues result in the ability to localize the drivers and the inability for the speakers to completely "disappear" in the room. I'm not the only one to hear this massive shortcoming in coax drivers. Now that modern speakers and electronics have advanced as far as they have this shortcoming is much more apparent vs the competition and it's simply unacceptable for the price you pay as other companies offer a product that doesn't have this issue.
Your explanation of room effects and DSP shows you really have no idea about WBF and the audience you're addressing. While not wrong, it's naïve to think you're doing anything but regurgitating things that have been said ad nauseum and it's certainly not new info for anyone here.
I was considering doing some upgrades to my Pioneer S-1EX speakers but after some time with them I realize you can't fix the problems this speaker has and it's not worth it. While the Ref series is less compromised it's just a larger version and it's now an outdated design with too many flaws vs it's competition and the price is too high for what you get. Even lower-priced alternatives like JTR and JBL M2 or 4367 have surpassed TAD imo. Right now, comparing TAD to YG will result in an embarrassment for TAD.
Have you heard R1s in a treated room that controls first reflections and correctly implemented DSP to smooth out the bass and tune the midrange/treble? They totally disappear and the imaging is razor sharp.
DaveC, you sell cables, right? I haven't in any way implied that your product is not good or not worth the money. I'm just saying that the room makes a much bigger difference than almost anything and cables will do very little to change that.
And I'm sharing what's worked for my TADs over my 18 year history with them. I was on the change cables and electronics train for many years. For me this was not productive. Just want people to understand that.
It's quite possible that for a particular speaker/amp combo, your cables have a synergistic effect. It's just that that effect will be minor compared to other things one can do given the current state of DSP technology. As far as I can tell from your posts, you've listened to R1s but don't have much experience working with R1s yourself. And the EX1 is not an R1.
You make make it seem like your understand everything and I don't understand anything. You confuse people with generalized statements that have some truths in them. Of course materials make a difference, of course a poorly implemented DSP crossover can be worse than a great passive one.
BTW I'm not using a DSP crossover, but mostly because I haven't found a great multichannel DAC that works well for my application. I'm using a Pass XVR1, which is the best and most flexible active crossover I could find, and one that Andrew Jones was very familiar with. There are very few great active crossovers.
There are many ways to optimize TAD R1s and CR1s. I have a friend that totally rebuilt the passive crossovers on his CR1s with premium parts and deliberately changed the response curves somewhat. I have not heard them, but he was very happy with the results. Those crossovers were redesigned by an engineer, not Andrew Jones. That's a valid approach that has pluses and minuses. I choose instead to work with Andrew on making my R1s sound the best they could, while keeping his sound signature.
I agree the CST in the R1 is now approaching 20 years since it was designed. It's too bad Andrew is not at TAD as the R1 has been pretty much frozen in time since he left. But these are still great speakers that can sound fantastic in the right set up.
As to my understanding of WTB, I thought it was about sharing ideas on how to move forward the state of the art. Clearly you and I disagree on how one can make meaningful improvements on R1s. But I’m neither wrong nor naive.
Last edited:
I listened to TAD D600/C600/M700/R1 ($400k) recently and the cables were Skogrand Stravinsky ($200k) , you can not imagine this level of perfection in sound.
DaveC, I listened to Wilson Alexandria beside TAD R1 , i have also listened to new wilsons and i am familiar with wilson speakers.
if you have listened to WAMM or XVX beside TAD reference please let me know your experiance.
In my idea The key point is TAD R1 needs good Room (more damp) and TAD electronics need good AC quality.
AC quality make huge huge huge difference in sound of TAD system.
In my idea The room acoustics and speaker placement is the biggest factor for sound and judging speakers without optimising room/placement is not right.
Last edited:
@DaveC this is quite an interesting take on the Reference series and I agree that the speakers don't disappear as much as other designs might (at least in my setup). My question is how critical is this effect. I used to be completely enamored by the MBL 101s and heard them at quite few time at shows and once in a home . They pull an amazing disappearing act but once I got my CR-1'S I found I could never live with the MBL tweeter (at least with their electronics). I recently read a Ralph Karsten comment from quite a few years ago that their own all tube preamp (the MP-1) which I use made the 101's sound much better.
I used to hear quite a few shortcomings in the TAD design, but as the sources and amps in my system got better, they mostly disappeared.
I know cognitive dissonance keeps people loving their choices, but since my reference is live music played in homes and small venues (which sadly I don't get to tune up my ears with often anymore thanks to pandemic) the TAD'S, at least in my setup with subs and added super tweeter, in a room with 15' ceilings and 28' width, consistently offer the closest thing I've heard to that experience (sans the dynamics). Incidentally, when I listen from my mezzanine level looking down on the speaker stage, which the highs fall off, (though I have at times aimed the super tweeters up to bring them back in) the speakers disappear completely and reveal a 3D soundstage that truly sounds and images like I'm in a theater in the mezzanine watching a fully fleshed out band on a deep stage. It's not as detailed as the sweet spot 10 feet or so below, but the illusion is so enjoyable I often just hang out up there while listening. Also having a lot of tubes in the system helps and the hybrid BHK-300's are an amazing value and a perfect (IMO) Amp for the CR-1s. Also as I've stated too many times, I've heard other systems just kill spacially with perfect audiophile records and then die with normal music, where the TAD makes those cuts into an audiophile experience.
@PGA i have bit of an idea as I own the Elac Adante center speaker for my home theater rig in the same room, and will probably pick up the now discontinued matching bookshelves for L and R.
I used to hear quite a few shortcomings in the TAD design, but as the sources and amps in my system got better, they mostly disappeared.
I know cognitive dissonance keeps people loving their choices, but since my reference is live music played in homes and small venues (which sadly I don't get to tune up my ears with often anymore thanks to pandemic) the TAD'S, at least in my setup with subs and added super tweeter, in a room with 15' ceilings and 28' width, consistently offer the closest thing I've heard to that experience (sans the dynamics). Incidentally, when I listen from my mezzanine level looking down on the speaker stage, which the highs fall off, (though I have at times aimed the super tweeters up to bring them back in) the speakers disappear completely and reveal a 3D soundstage that truly sounds and images like I'm in a theater in the mezzanine watching a fully fleshed out band on a deep stage. It's not as detailed as the sweet spot 10 feet or so below, but the illusion is so enjoyable I often just hang out up there while listening. Also having a lot of tubes in the system helps and the hybrid BHK-300's are an amazing value and a perfect (IMO) Amp for the CR-1s. Also as I've stated too many times, I've heard other systems just kill spacially with perfect audiophile records and then die with normal music, where the TAD makes those cuts into an audiophile experience.
@PGA i have bit of an idea as I own the Elac Adante center speaker for my home theater rig in the same room, and will probably pick up the now discontinued matching bookshelves for L and R.
Last edited:
The ELAC Navis ARB 51 is also a bargain, especially at the current discounted prices. I bought a pair for my son when he was in college. They are exceptionally good at that price point. I recently got him a subwoofer for graduation. He’s in
high fi heaven for under $3000, including amplifiers since the ARB 51 has them built it.
Glad to see we’re back on topic with opinions from people that have owned the speakers.
Last edited:
I think CR1s with subs may outperform R1s. I loved my M1s. These were 4 way speakers in some ways closer to CR1s with subs than to R1s. But unfortunately TAD could not get the cabinets to stay together. After a year or two they simply would unglue and come apart. That’s when Andrew Jones came to my home to replace the cabinets of my M1s. Eventually the M1 was taken off the market. I got a full retail price refund. What company does that these days?
Being a 4 way, the M1 had better mid bass than the R1. It was also tuned differently. But the R1 cabinets are bigger and they do go deeper. In my room the R1s are flat to about 18 hz, and with quite a lot of power there.
My experience also is that the R1s are very sensitive to upstream components. Any glare comes right through. Most recently switching from a Berkeley Reference DAC to a Meitner MA3 resulted in a more natural and organic top end. Switching from Constellation mono to Benchmark mono amps also was a surprising improvement.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |