Hi All,
First I'd like to say that it's great to find a forum with so much information about the TAD's. I've lurked here for some time, but not posted. Off topic, Is it me, or is A'gon a former shadow of itself (as it has seem to become stricter, more corporate, and not allowing members to PM each other)
Before I get to my main line of questioning, I'd like to suggest a little experiment for TAD owners that have access to other high end speakers. Hook up one single TAD and hook up one other speaker at the same time, one left, the other right. Now play a mono signal. (since mono recordings tend to be older, and not as wide a bandwidth as some recent recordings, you can often make a mono recording by choosing only 1 channel on a software playback application on a PC, then feed it to a USB DAC, and now you have a wide band recording)
Now play this through both speakers, and move back and forth from one to the other. This gives one a very clear idea just how good the TAD's are, and how free and non-mechanical they can sound in comparison to conventional drivers. TAD's also tend to image, even on a mono recording.
If anyone tries this, I'd love to see if others get the same result, and a new perspective on what the TAD's are actually doing.
A While back I heard the Magico Q1 with some audiophile material I hadn't heard before, and thought they were fantastic, perhaps better than the CR1. But upon returning home a few hours later, and hearing some of the same non audiophile tracks on the CR1, I was hearing so much more inner detail, so naturally that even these standard recordings which didn't so amazing on the Magico's suddenly sounded like audiophile recordings! The Magico may have imaged and dissapeared better, but these sonic fireworks, while spectacular, didn't offer the same level of musical insight as the CR1's.
There was a time when I was hearing live music many times a week, and after coming home and hearing the TAD's, I really felt as if I was hearing a good slice of the real thing, a feat not many other speakers seem to do.
Finally to my questions:
1- Has anyone listened to the CR1 with a top quality pair of subs, and if so, can you compare that to the R1's? It would seem to me that it might be possible to best the R1's performance by extending the CR1's low end but with the ability to place the low end in a more optimum position. I have used a monitor with matching seperate woofers in this manner before and found that spacially separating the monitor from the sub section (putting it on a stand as opposed to the WATT type woofer section that was designed to go under it) yielded the best results since the monitor's position didn't need to be dictated by where the best low end was found.
One sub that comes to mind is the Wilson Benesch Torus. While extremely expensive, it's design seems to say that it is fatser and more articulate than most others subs Around. I did talk with one owner Who replaced the WB electronics with much more powerful class D amps and got a significant benefit vs. the 250 watt amps the Torus is normally paired with.
I also ponder whether the CR1's smaller cabinet and possibly higher ratio of aluminum to MDF might provide a Stiffer cabinet than the larger R1, though this is pure conjecture. I also wonder what benefits the smaller baffle provides?
On to question 2. Has anyone here biamped the CR1? I am toying with the idea of finding the sweetest most musical amp for the CST driver, and then driving the woofer with another amp that has been routed through a digital room correction system. This would leave the mids and highs untouched, and allow for most of the benefits of digital room correction from 250hz down. This combined with a sub (if needed) could in my mind present a truly full range refererence system.
Not that is is ready for such yet, but one amp that comes to mind for the CST driver is Nelson Pass's new SIT first watt amps. They don't have the power needed yet, but as this technology develops, it seems like it could be extremely sweet sounding. I'm sure ther are many mid powered amps that could do this duty, as well as offer the option of running tubes on top and SS on the bottom, for a bi or tri amped (if subs are used) system.
I'd love to hear some Other TAD owners thoughts on such a system. The only speaker system I would think about replacing the TAD with is Sound Lab electrostats, and they are so large they are not practical for most. Someone
I know that owns them thought the TAD was a speaker worth keeping, and I have never heard him say anything good about almost any cone speaker.
Finally I wanted to add that when I brought my CR1's out from the back wall an extra foot (from close to 4 feet away to close to 5 feet away) I got a considerable clarification of a large portion of the spectrum. I didn't think they would benefit since they were pretty far from the back already, but they truly did. Those of you with TAD's close to the back wall should try pulling them much further out into the room, even if just temporarily to hear what the speaker is capable of given the proper room to breath.
First I'd like to say that it's great to find a forum with so much information about the TAD's. I've lurked here for some time, but not posted. Off topic, Is it me, or is A'gon a former shadow of itself (as it has seem to become stricter, more corporate, and not allowing members to PM each other)
Before I get to my main line of questioning, I'd like to suggest a little experiment for TAD owners that have access to other high end speakers. Hook up one single TAD and hook up one other speaker at the same time, one left, the other right. Now play a mono signal. (since mono recordings tend to be older, and not as wide a bandwidth as some recent recordings, you can often make a mono recording by choosing only 1 channel on a software playback application on a PC, then feed it to a USB DAC, and now you have a wide band recording)
Now play this through both speakers, and move back and forth from one to the other. This gives one a very clear idea just how good the TAD's are, and how free and non-mechanical they can sound in comparison to conventional drivers. TAD's also tend to image, even on a mono recording.
If anyone tries this, I'd love to see if others get the same result, and a new perspective on what the TAD's are actually doing.
A While back I heard the Magico Q1 with some audiophile material I hadn't heard before, and thought they were fantastic, perhaps better than the CR1. But upon returning home a few hours later, and hearing some of the same non audiophile tracks on the CR1, I was hearing so much more inner detail, so naturally that even these standard recordings which didn't so amazing on the Magico's suddenly sounded like audiophile recordings! The Magico may have imaged and dissapeared better, but these sonic fireworks, while spectacular, didn't offer the same level of musical insight as the CR1's.
There was a time when I was hearing live music many times a week, and after coming home and hearing the TAD's, I really felt as if I was hearing a good slice of the real thing, a feat not many other speakers seem to do.
Finally to my questions:
1- Has anyone listened to the CR1 with a top quality pair of subs, and if so, can you compare that to the R1's? It would seem to me that it might be possible to best the R1's performance by extending the CR1's low end but with the ability to place the low end in a more optimum position. I have used a monitor with matching seperate woofers in this manner before and found that spacially separating the monitor from the sub section (putting it on a stand as opposed to the WATT type woofer section that was designed to go under it) yielded the best results since the monitor's position didn't need to be dictated by where the best low end was found.
One sub that comes to mind is the Wilson Benesch Torus. While extremely expensive, it's design seems to say that it is fatser and more articulate than most others subs Around. I did talk with one owner Who replaced the WB electronics with much more powerful class D amps and got a significant benefit vs. the 250 watt amps the Torus is normally paired with.
I also ponder whether the CR1's smaller cabinet and possibly higher ratio of aluminum to MDF might provide a Stiffer cabinet than the larger R1, though this is pure conjecture. I also wonder what benefits the smaller baffle provides?
On to question 2. Has anyone here biamped the CR1? I am toying with the idea of finding the sweetest most musical amp for the CST driver, and then driving the woofer with another amp that has been routed through a digital room correction system. This would leave the mids and highs untouched, and allow for most of the benefits of digital room correction from 250hz down. This combined with a sub (if needed) could in my mind present a truly full range refererence system.
Not that is is ready for such yet, but one amp that comes to mind for the CST driver is Nelson Pass's new SIT first watt amps. They don't have the power needed yet, but as this technology develops, it seems like it could be extremely sweet sounding. I'm sure ther are many mid powered amps that could do this duty, as well as offer the option of running tubes on top and SS on the bottom, for a bi or tri amped (if subs are used) system.
I'd love to hear some Other TAD owners thoughts on such a system. The only speaker system I would think about replacing the TAD with is Sound Lab electrostats, and they are so large they are not practical for most. Someone
I know that owns them thought the TAD was a speaker worth keeping, and I have never heard him say anything good about almost any cone speaker.
Finally I wanted to add that when I brought my CR1's out from the back wall an extra foot (from close to 4 feet away to close to 5 feet away) I got a considerable clarification of a large portion of the spectrum. I didn't think they would benefit since they were pretty far from the back already, but they truly did. Those of you with TAD's close to the back wall should try pulling them much further out into the room, even if just temporarily to hear what the speaker is capable of given the proper room to breath.
Last edited:
