TAD Evolution 2 Speaker Review

[AudioJester]

I think we need to be realistic about the luxury goods market. Its not about absolute performance, it also includes aesthetics, prestige, pride of ownership, having the money etc. I get a lot of people may not relate to this, but TAD is not aiming at people who are after Arendal Towers. Its more than just fit for purpose.
Its a niche boutique brand like some of those exclusive watch makers or car manufacturers.

 

[MattHooper]

I agree with others: No way I'd be happy with the uninspiring look of these speakers at that price, even putting performance aside.
I hope Amir finds some time to give some listening impressions, though.

BTW: Why do speaker designers choose 2.5 way designs?

Just curious about why a designer goes 2.5 vs, say, a 3 way?

I actually own a pair of 2.5 way speakers - Joseph Audio Perspectives - and really like the sound. Very impressive bass for a small, narrow speaker.

My layman's intuition is that the choice for going 2.5 way design is that it's easier to keep a narrow profile for the speaker, while increasing bass response?

Any other pluses or minuses for these designs?

 

[fineMen]

... but the design is consistent and it's clear that form follows function.

As You said, not here, +1.

My layman's intuition is that the choice for going 2.5 way design is that it's easier to keep a narrow profile for the speaker, while increasing bass response?

Problem is the neglect of intermodulation distortion. The 'multitone' test is too low in bass content as to represent the actual load with contemporary pop music. All looks better than in real operation. With so called 'classic' music it might be o/k, though. But, honestly, who wants to listen to Mozart anymore?!

The idea of a 2.5-way is to compensate the 'baffle step'. First there was the idea to have two individual windings in the motor of a single driver. Only later two individual drivers were used for the same purpose.

Next step is to sacrifice a little bit of bass heft for the sake of midrange clearity in having the real three-way resurface again. The BBC attempt to ommit the mid-driver because--on axis alone, a plastic cone would suffice to cover the lower treble also, has proven to be false. We'll see how long it will take the designers to understand ;-) Even the most elaborated bass drivers with intended mid coverage lose against an additional mid, by a big margin.

As a DIYer I've got a of a 7" bass plus a 3" mid for 50$ combined that puts a Purify single bass/mid driver for 450$ to shame in regard to HD and IM. Don't oversimplify.

 

[C. Cook]

Is it $20K each or for the pair? Not that it matters since I'll never drop that kind of coin on audio equipment. Call it morbid curiosity.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for the response.

Problem is the neglect of intermodulation distortion. The 'multitone' test is too low in bass content as to represent the actual load with contemporary pop music. All looks better than in real operation. With so called 'classic' music it might be o/k, though. But, honestly, who wants to listen to Mozart anymore?!

Really? I'd say the percentage of audiophiles who listen to classical music seems to be much higher than the general population. I still listen to some, but I'm especially a massive sound of symphonic soundtracks. So the sound of orchestras are very important for me.

The idea of a 2.5-way is to compensate the 'baffle step'. First there was the idea to have two individual windings in the motor of a single driver. Only later two individual drivers were used for the same purpose.

Next step is to sacrifice a little bit of bass heft for the sake of midrange clearity in having the real three-way resurface again. The BBC attempt to ommit the mid-driver because--on axis alone, a plastic cone would suffice to cover the lower treble also, has proven to be false. We'll see how long it will take the designers to understand ;-)

Hmm..which designs are you referring to? Maybe some of the classic Spendor designs that just use a woofer/tweeter? If so, such designs have a rep for very natural sounding reproduction of the human voice, and that is certainly what I hear from those designs (and Harbeth). So I'm a bit unclear on what is "proven false."?

Even the most elaborated bass drivers with intended mid coverage lose against an additional mid, by a big margin.

As a DIYer I've got a of a 7" bass plus a 3" mid for 50$ combined that puts a Purify single bass/mid driver for 450$ to shame in regard to HD and IM. Don't oversimplify.

Aha! A DIYer! Anyone who spends significant time trying to build/design gear will tend to come to some firm personal conclusions as to the right way to do things.
Understandable.

I admit I found some of your reply a little vague (or maybe hard for me to understand), but it seems to imply poor performance from 2.5 ways? Or have I misunderstood? I ask because the 2.5-ways I own impress me as among the cleanest, clearest speakers I've heard.

 

[amirm]

Is it $20K each or for the pair? Not that it matters since I'll never drop that kind of coin on audio equipment. Call it morbid curiosity.

Pair.

 

[norman bates]

I think a 2.5 way is a valid option.

For example, I may want an 8", but a 6" may be much better if I want to cross at 2.5k to the tweeter I want to use.

I had a "big" rig a long time ago.
piezo, mid horn, 15" and another 15 for baffle step, and 4 x 18's (push pull slot loaded, 6th order boosted at F9 tuning, so -3db@27hz).
Active crossed, quad amp, crossed at 80, 700, and 5k.

Anyway, when I added in the baffle step to the bottom same model 15 (in its own box), at low volume I could not tell a difference.
At medium volume, some difference.
And at cranking volume, definitely a difference.

 

[Everett T]

Thanks for the response.



Really? I'd say the percentage of audiophiles who listen to classical music seems to be much higher than the general population. I still listen to some, but I'm especially a massive sound of symphonic soundtracks. So the sound of orchestras are very important for me.




Hmm..which designs are you referring to? Maybe some of the classic Spendor designs that just use a woofer/tweeter? If so, such designs have a rep for very natural sounding reproduction of the human voice, and that is certainly what I hear from those designs (and Harbeth). So I'm a bit unclear on what is "proven false."?




Aha! A DIYer! Anyone who spends significant time trying to build/design gear will tend to come to some firm personal conclusions as to the right way to do things.
Understandable.

I admit I found some of your reply a little vague (or maybe hard for me to understand), but it seems to imply poor performance from 2.5 ways? Or have I misunderstood? I ask because the 2.5-ways I own impress me as among the cleanest, clearest speakers I've heard.

He's been giving fits with replays lately and I have no clue what he is going on about at times. Seems he is the only one that can design a speaker correctly,..

 

[AndreaT]

Ideally, for $ 20k you expect better performance. The shelved down bass might be reinforced by the room, the unevenness of the mid-treble somewhat improved. However, a little more acoustic engineering in the design could have been added to the product, the competition by Finnish and US manufacturers seems to offer a better price/performance ratio, as clearly shown by recent Amir’s reviews.

 

[TonyJZX]

i was a TAD blown away by the price vs. what i'm seeing here with the slab sides and all

if you say they were $2,000 i would beleive you

be that as it may, and with all due respect to the graphs here, I am now even more curious to find out how they actually sound because i suspect the sound would bely the numbers

 

[Tangband]

As You said, not here, +1.


Problem is the neglect of intermodulation distortion. The 'multitone' test is too low in bass content as to represent the actual load with contemporary pop music. All looks better than in real operation. With so called 'classic' music it might be o/k, though. But, honestly, who wants to listen to Mozart anymore?!

The idea of a 2.5-way is to compensate the 'baffle step'. First there was the idea to have two individual windings in the motor of a single driver. Only later two individual drivers were used for the same purpose.

Next step is to sacrifice a little bit of bass heft for the sake of midrange clearity in having the real three-way resurface again. The BBC attempt to ommit the mid-driver because--on axis alone, a plastic cone would suffice to cover the lower treble also, has proven to be false. We'll see how long it will take the designers to understand ;-) Even the most elaborated bass drivers with intended mid coverage lose against an additional mid, by a big margin.

As a DIYer I've got a of a 7" bass plus a 3" mid for 50$ combined that puts a Purify single bass/mid driver for 450$ to shame in regard to HD and IM. Don't oversimplify.

Very good describing.
A 2,5 speaker is also simpler constructed than a threeway, because one only needs a coil in series with the bass unit at the bafflestep frequency. This kind of speaker can be slim and domestic acceptable with high WAF. But IMD will suffer compared to any good three way. I would say that the 2,5 way concept is better though than most WTW building- it dont mess up the crossover range at 2-3 kHz .
This is a picture of Linn kaber from 1989. A 2,5 way , good looking speaker. I had this speaker a couple of years long time ago. Monitor audio rx6 is another example of a 2,5 way speaker.

 

[Tangband]

Thanks for the response.



Really? I'd say the percentage of audiophiles who listen to classical music seems to be much higher than the general population. I still listen to some, but I'm especially a massive sound of symphonic soundtracks. So the sound of orchestras are very important for me.




Hmm..which designs are you referring to? Maybe some of the classic Spendor designs that just use a woofer/tweeter? If so, such designs have a rep for very natural sounding reproduction of the human voice, and that is certainly what I hear from those designs (and Harbeth). So I'm a bit unclear on what is "proven false."?




Aha! A DIYer! Anyone who spends significant time trying to build/design gear will tend to come to some firm personal conclusions as to the right way to do things.
Understandable.

I admit I found some of your reply a little vague (or maybe hard for me to understand), but it seems to imply poor performance from 2.5 ways? Or have I misunderstood? I ask because the 2.5-ways I own impress me as among the cleanest, clearest speakers I've heard.

A good 2,5 way speaker can be a better choice than an ordinary 2 way speaker with the same drivers . With two bass drivers working together, there will be possible higher SPL below the baffle step frequency . A 2,5 speaker also dont need any loudspeaker-stand.

 

[Eetu]

Re: 2.5 vs 3-way. I think most people would agree that if this speaker would have an additional 6" woofer and used a dedicated midrange it would not only have better performance potential it would also make the 20k slightly easier to stomach.

 

[Tangband]

In a three way thats only 22 cm wide, one or two 6 1/2 inch drivers and a 3 or 4 inch midrange - those crossed at 500 Hz ( at the baffle step freq. ) is a better choice if done right.
It can look like this :

 

[NADKEF listener]

Sensitivity of 87 and max 150W? thought most owners of 20K speakers also own heavy duty amplifiers.

 

[Deleted member 19122]

I think we need to be realistic about the luxury goods market. Its not about absolute performance, it also includes aesthetics, prestige, pride of ownership, having the money etc. I get a lot of people may not relate to this, but TAD is not aiming at people who are after Arendal Towers. Its more than just fit for purpose.
Its a niche boutique brand like some of those exclusive watch makers or car manufacturers.

Yeah... where EGO gets in the way of anything else,which renders them worthless in my opinion and not defending Arendal either,they are overpriced as well for Chinese manufactured speakers.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Yeah... where EGO gets in the way of anything else,which renders them worthless in my opinion and not defending Arendal either,they are overpriced as well for Chinese manufactured speakers.

Think his analogy is a good one many buy a Name when in practical terms it’s no better than something costing many times less.
My Seiko watch keeps perfect time, why do people pay thousands on a Rolex? It’s all about image.

 

[eddantes]

One can save themselves 19K, avoid that midrange shout, and not have speakers, whose looks best can be described as
"inoffensive"...

Credit to: https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/

 

[fpitas]

I think we need to be realistic about the luxury goods market. Its not about absolute performance, it also includes aesthetics, prestige, pride of ownership, having the money etc. I get a lot of people may not relate to this, but TAD is not aiming at people who are after Arendal Towers. Its more than just fit for purpose.
Its a niche boutique brand like some of those exclusive watch makers or car manufacturers.

But do you honestly think these even look boutique? If i didn't know, I'd say excellent DIY or expensive box store.

 

[AudioJester]

But do you honestly think these even look boutique? If i didn't know, I'd say excellent DIY or expensive box store.

Me personally - definitely not lol.
But I also dont think much of Patek Philippe.

Its all relative. I mean I know people who think any speakers are a waste of money as the buds that were chucked in with their phone are good enough...