Driver in your link covers the midrange, the side firing unit we’re talking about here is (I think) this..
What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Yes, absolutely.
As bonzo75 said, it’s more “you are there” than “they are here”.
I wouldn’t say unusually solid but better than most systems I have heard.
Again, yes absolutely but that depends on other parts of the system too. Sigmas can be silky smooth or fatiguing if you pair them with aggressive amps or other electronics or bad sounding accessories.
OK, I understand. Enhance the 3D image impression. The front midrange drivers are used for a narrow frequency range; otherwise, 100 dB/1 watt wouldn't be possible. I was mistaken; they 're using SEAS X2 with a woodphase plug.
Yes, you only understand the concept of dynamics, right? By placing TAD in the Horn league, lol. Those who had TAD and switched to horns like AG have realized what dynamics and liveliness truly mean. Your opinions are only beneficial to you and to increasing Pioneer’s profits, not to anything else.
Speakers with low efficiency, complex crossovers, difficult impedance loading, and over-damped cabinets, even with good AC power and no ground noise, do not produce a lively sound or an overall good sound at low volumes because they lack the ability to properly move the air and deliver natural dynamics at lower levels. The design compromises, such as excessive damping and challenging impedance, limit their ability to maintain coherence and energy, resulting in a flat, lifeless sound at reduced volumes.
I prefer a sound that is soulful and tactile, one that gives you the feeling of being there, over a lifeless, analytical speaker that only delivers an impressive studio sound. If someone values more bass extension with DeVore, this can be achieved by adding subs, which is what Jim Smith did by adding REL subs to Tannoy/Fyne Audio two-way speakers. This improved both bass extension and spatiality, giving more depth to the sound. However, the issue of lifeless and analytical speakers that are ultra-neutral and only impress the listener, turning them into an analyst rather than someone who connects emotionally with the music, cannot be solved by anything. You just need to be careful not to fall into the trap of the "wow" factor created during the first listening session.
Yes, these theories are good for those who want to avoid the deceptive, high-tech speakers you mentioned and, instead of listening to overpriced, market-pleasing devices, directly connect to the music on a simpler path.
TAD has such a significant impedance spike that it goes off the graph! A speaker that focused a bit more on driver matching rather than marketing wouldn’t have such poor impedance and phase response. In comparison, the phase response of the Wilson Alexia V is more controlled and flatter than the TAD, which exhibits more extreme phase shifts, suggesting less than ideal driver matching or integration.
LOL, is the papyrus fiber, which comes from the stem of the Egyptian reed, plastic?! Maybe they've been injecting microplastics into these reeds recently, and we didn't know about it! It's like saying fast food made from processed ingredients is more organic than plant-based food.
Last edited:
Avantgarde Uno SD or Zellaton Plural Evo? What would you choose? BTW, Kedar, I already know your choice
Kedar would say "neither"?Avantgarde Uno SD or Zellaton Plural Evo? What would you choose? BTW, Kedar, I already know your choice
If you said uno SD or Zellaton Classic line then I might have a tougher choice because those have drivers with all the same material. Against the Plural Evo I take the Uno SD hands down. I heard it last year with a good quality 300b amp and it sounded superb.Avantgarde Uno SD or Zellaton Plural Evo? What would you choose? BTW, Kedar, I already know your choice
In that price range, Duo GT is superior to both of them, of course, assuming space is not an issue.Avantgarde Uno SD or Zellaton Plural Evo? What would you choose? BTW, Kedar, I already know your choice
Duke LeJeune
Manufacturer - Illusio Audio and AudioKinesis
The MAAT's presentation being more "you are there" than "they are here" is what I suspected, and I think the aimed across-the-room side-firing energy contributes to that.
The shape of that driver's native frequency response between 400 Hz and 2500 Hz looks like what I would expect if one of its roles is to somewhat correct the spectral balance of the reflection field.
I am extremely impressed with the priorities and creativity of the designers of the MAAT.
Last edited:
No, he’d go for Zellaton due to supposedly poor bass integration of all Avantgarde models except Trio.
Last edited:
If bass integration is a critical factor in your speaker selection, the newer G3 models from AG, particularly the Duo GT/SD, UNO SD, and Mezzo, offer significant advancements over their predecessors. These improvements provide a more seamless and powerful bass experience.
Unfortunately, I am not able to audition either Avantgarde, or Zellaton. Not sure if it’s true, but I’ve read that the classic line has somewhat flatter presentation compared to the Plural Evo line, and some people describe it as one of the flaws of the older Zellaton range.
To me, the classic line had something special and what I heard from Plural Evo was just another box cone/dome speaker. I don’t recall the classic ones I heard sounding flat, that might have more to do with what electronics people are using.
Been fascinated by your explanations and posts. Thanks for taking the time. I have the AG Trio G3 was for the first time (as a not-particularly-experience horn listener) very impressed by what I heard.
I have not heard the Mezzo G3, but note that they have now designed the cone woofers with a horn element...do you think that is a good reason behind why I have read that its integration is very good and an improvement over prior generations? Are there others in your mind?
That’s what has been said about duo and uno after each iteration.
Thank you for taking the time to share your industry expert view and explication of the design. This is fascinating for me, and likely for many members here who do not possess your technical expertise and clear industry experience in designing and producing speakers.
I have PM'd you privately if you have time to check your WBF Message Inbox here.
I’m not saying you’re wrong and @Amir is right, or vice versa. I just want to point out a few mistakes in your post.TAD has such a significant phase shift that it goes off the graph! A speaker that has focused a bit more on driver matching rather than marketing wouldn’t have such a terrible phase response. In comparison, the phase response of the Wilson Alexia V is more controlled and flatter than the TAD, which exhibits more extreme phase shifts, suggesting less than ideal driver matching or integration.
First of all, @Amir is talking about the TAD R1, but the measurement you shared belongs to a completely different TAD speaker — in fact, a much lower line bookshelf model. Not relevant. More importantly, the phase angle doesn’t go “off the graph” in the measurements as you claimed. Phase is shown with a dashed line, while impedance is solid, and it looks like you confused the two.
That said, the impedance graph going to extremes is a clear sign of problems and likely nasty resonances. I agree that TAD’s graph looks messy, but Wilson Alexia V’s isn’t exactly clean either. It drops to around 2.2 ohms, and at about 50 Hz the phase shift exceeds 45 degrees.
The Trio in previous generations also provided good integration between the basshorn and the main horn because the bass module is crossed over at lower frequencies, around 100-120 Hz, compared to the Duo and Uno. Additionally, due to being horn-loaded, it shares the same DNA as the main horn, ensuring no delay in response compared to the other horns, and it doesn't lag behind. However, in the Duo and Uno models, since the woofer is crossed over to the midrange horn at 170 Hz and 290 Hz and is not horn-loaded, there was always an issue with lag and integration. This problem of delayed response and poor integration was addressed in the XD series and onward, with the introduction of new active modules and DSP, allowing for seamless and integrated sound from both the Duo and Uno.
Most people, like you, noticed this lack of integration in the older Duo models, but in the XD series and beyond, this issue was no longer present.
Yes, I mean there was a large phase angle and significant impedance spikes, which went beyond the graph. In the reference model, the graph situation is no better than Wilson's; at least Wilson's drivers are physically time-aligned. Although its phase alignment is not perfect, TAD's drivers are neither time-aligned nor do they have proper phase integration. All of these issues are addressed with all-pass filters in the crossover.
So does the Wilson Alexia V.
If you have the TAD R1’s impedance and phase graphs, why are you showing data from a completely different speaker? That’s not a valid comparison.
Are you aware that TAD uses a coaxial midrange and tweeter? The key feature of coaxial drivers is that the voice coils share the same physical center, which naturally ensures time alignment at the driver level. Of course "time alignment" or in better words "time coherent" is not the result of just physical arrangement of drivers but also electrical adjustments. So, don't rely solely on "physical" about this.
How can you claim that based solely on an impedance-phase-frequency graph from an entirely different speaker? That evidence doesn’t support your conclusion.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |