TAD Evolution 2 Speaker Review

[eddantes]

Based on what? One speaker review? LOL.

I agree. We have a let down with this speaker, but this is a company that created some of coolest (and possibly performant) speakers of all time. I'd suggest that thinking TAD is "meh" is a bit of an overshoot. I mean... behold:

A

 

[fpitas]

Yes, they used to be a leader in pro audio. Their compression drivers are still the ones to beat. I guess the conspicuous consumer stuff makes more money.

 

[anphex]

It looks like the chubby brother of the Sonos Faber Aria!

 

[fpitas]

View attachment 243514View attachment 243515

It looks like the chubby brother of the Sonos Faber Aria!

Yeah, it's not my cuppa either.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Since Amir's priorities have given us more time to focus on this speaker, would like to share a bit of my experience having been on the other side of pricing debates. One of my earlier products would be considered high-end and was premium-priced. I had a wise friend on our negotiations team that was fond of reminding me "once you lower your price, you'll never get it back to the higher price point". With a given customer, this was almost always true.

While most of us lament over what appears to be price gouging, it may just be a new market for the manufacturer and (in TAD's case), it might be that they are seeking to gain some entry into a higher volume market. In my later years, I ended up working on a newer, more value-oriented product that served a very competitive, higher volume market. While I did get my management to market a free version of the software, any time a feature simply sniffed like it might cannibalize the more premium high-end offering, management got all bunged up. So, I can see why TAD or any other management team might behave comparably. Even if I could show that volumes might be healthy and help prevent competitive erosion, it is very difficult for management to risk (even potentially) cannibalizing their existing revenue stream. I can see how the same behaviors might be in play here.

So, it may not be this TAD speaker fits the particular scenario I just outlined, but just thought it might be useful to walk in someone else's shoes. You may find that their situation is not just a simple money grab. As we all know, speakers are a very competitive market. Mess up your margins and you may not be around for long.

 

[eddantes]

Since Amir's priorities have given us more time to focus on this speaker, would like to share a bit of my experience having been on the other side of pricing debates. One of my earlier products would be considered high-end and was premium-priced. I had a wise friend on our negotiations team that was fond of reminding me "once you lower your price, you'll never get it back to the higher price point". With a given customer, this was almost always true.

While most of us lament over what appears to be price gouging, it may just be a new market for the manufacturer and (in TAD's case), it might be that they are seeking to gain some entry into a higher volume market. In my later years, I ended up working on a newer, more value-oriented product that served a very competitive, higher volume market. While I did get my management to market a free version of the software, any time a feature simply sniffed like it might cannibalize the more premium high-end offering, management got all bunged up. So, I can see why TAD or any other management team might behave comparably. Even if I could show that volumes might be healthy and help prevent competitive erosion, it is very difficult for management to risk (even potentially) cannibalizing their existing revenue stream. I can see how the same behaviors might be in play here.

So, it may not be this TAD speaker fits the particular scenario I just outlined, but just thought it might be useful to walk in someone else's shoes. You may find that their situation is not just a simple money grab. As we all know, speakers are a very competitive market. Mess up your margins and you may not be around for long.

It's not the pricing strategy, I guess, that seems to set us off... It's the apparent lazyness. It smaks of disrespect. The aforementioned Sonus Faber have an entry level speaker that was built to a pricepoint (performance is unconsidered, only appearance) that at least does credit to the brand. How is the Evolution 2 doing credit to the TAD brand?

There are other brands, whose visual appeal was never part of their UVP - looking at you Totem - if they put out an expensive speaker that looked like this, no one would bat an eye and if it measured well - we'd be all ooing and hawing and saying "good for you!".

Then there are brands like B&O... Does one even care how they measure, or that they're over 50K, when they look like this?

Now imgine a B&O speaker that looks like big box store Klipsch... and costs like compact car...

This is what TAD produced here.

 

[eddantes]

Ok... Let me add the following since I'm being a dick already...

The roundover bottom n top - nice. Roundover is usually a sign of quality. The arc at the bottom and platform stand - also nice. So there was an attempt... but what stopped them from giving the top and sides (never mind the back) a little design? Sure AF wasn't the price point!

Sorry rant over. Don't know why I care. Enjoy my idiocy as entertainment.

 

[fpitas]

Ok... Let me add the following since I'm being a dick already...

The roundover bottom n top - nice. Roundover is usually a sign of quality. The arc at the bottom and platform stand - also nice. So there was an attempt... but what stopped them from giving the top and sides (never mind the back) a little design? Sure AF wasn't the price point!

Sorry rant over. Don't know why I care. Enjoy my idiocy as entertainment.

They're valid points that TAD should have considered. We can't be the only ones having these impressions.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

It's not the pricing strategy, I guess, that seems to set us off... It's the apparent lazyness. It smaks of disrespect. The aforementioned Sonus Faber have an entry level speaker that was built to a pricepoint (performance is unconsidered, only appearance) that at least does credit to the brand. How is the Evolution 2 doing credit to the TAD brand?

View attachment 243526

There are other brands, whose visual appeal was never part of their UVP - looking at you Totem - if they put out an expensive speaker that looked like this, no one would bat an eye and if it measured well - we'd be all ooing and hawing and saying "good for you!".

Then there are brands like B&O... Does one even care how they measure, or that they're over 50K, when they look like this?

View attachment 243530
View attachment 243531

Now imgine a B&O speaker that looks like big box store Klipsch... and costs like compact car...

View attachment 243533

This is what TAD produced here.

Sonus Faber did exactly what TAD seem to be doing when they brought out a range made in China. The cabinet work compared to the previous models made in Italy were crap. Was using Sonus Faber speakers at home and was shocked how shoddy the new range was. Maybe TAD will realise their mistake?
On B & O speakers went to Liverpool on holiday and the B & O dealers on South John Street were closing down. Loved the look of the speakers in there, booked an appointment, went in for a listen couldn’t get out fast enough

 

[Spocko]

I don't quite understand the general resistance to EQ often expressed here. EQ is cheap and repeatable. To me it would make total sense to create speakers where the design emphasis is on all the other parameters which make a difference to SQ, and for the manufacturer to then provide recommended EQ settings to use on your platform of choice. Even better, also provide EQ settings for each driver, to enable bypassing the crossover and going fully active.
(eg like Linkwitz did for his designs)
Maybe one day it will catch on...

I dunno about that, I'm a BIG fan of DSP/EQ/RoomCorrection and this applies to most Genelec afficianados as their GLM speaker tuning software is like EQ on steroids.

 

[fpitas]

I dunno about that, I'm a BIG fan of DSP/EQ/RoomCorrection and this applies to most Genelec afficianados as their GLM speaker tuning software is like EQ on steroids.

My speakers are active and EQd to death. My position is simple though: you pay top dollar, you don't expect a fixer-upper.

 

[Rick Sykora]

It's not the pricing strategy, I guess, that seems to set us off... It's the apparent lazyness. It smaks of disrespect. The aforementioned Sonus Faber have an entry level speaker that was built to a pricepoint (performance is unconsidered, only appearance) that at least does credit to the brand. How is the Evolution 2 doing credit to the TAD brand?

I hope you enjoyed your rant.

Just thought I should point out that (shy of some use of precious metals in quantity), I do not think these speakers are worth $20K either. My point was that there are often other factors that go into pricing a product. Also note that I stated that my scenario did not necessarily apply to this speaker.

I am not insulted by TAD's pricing; I simply would not buy or recommend anyone spend $20K for it. I might consider it for $2K, but the blame for the price is TAD's alone. It does not appear to be a bad speaker, but agree it certainly is considerably overpriced!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Flat enough for me, the distortion at 86 looks great that I'd love to hear how this speaker sounds. Still, Revel is near the top of my list right now as expensive speakers go. When a hurricane wipes out my system, Revel.

 

[xplo5iv]

I dunno about that, I'm a BIG fan of DSP/EQ/RoomCorrection and this applies to most Genelec afficianados as their GLM speaker tuning software is like EQ on steroids.

Agree completely, and I guess that's partly the point I'm trying to make.
When you buy Genelecs you expect to use EQ to get the FR right, and that's all good,because it comes with it.

When you buy a passive speaker you need to use an amplifier, cables etc., so why do people consider it 'broken' if it needs EQ too? Why would anyone willing to spend money on this hobby not have DSP? (unless you are into retro stuff and are willing to take all the compromises that entails)
It would help of course if the manufacturer recognised that and made EQ recommendations.

If we're going to get better speakers we need to encourage manufacturers to deliver what really matters, and having a response that doesn't need EQ isn't one of those things.

 

[Eetu]

When you buy Genelecs you expect to use EQ to get the FR right, and that's all good,because it comes with it.

This is misleading because:
1) only the SAM models work with GLM
2) it's designed to correct the in-room response, not the speakers' (anechoic) response and
3) practically all the current models in the Genelec line-up have more linear freq response out of the box than this speaker

Back to your point about speakers not needing to have good FR: how do you expect to know what to correct if there's no accurate measurements available.. or you don't have EQ available.. or don't have a measurement mic..

If you buy a $20K speaker you would expect it to be engineered to it's fullest potential and be plug & play, not 'this is ok, but wait till I take some gated near-field measurements and create EQ filters, then you'll see'

 

[xplo5iv]

This is misleading because:
1) only the SAM models work with GLM
2) it's designed to correct the in-room response, not the speakers' (anechoic) response and
3) practically all the current models in the Genelec line-up have more linear freq response out of the box than this speaker

Back to your point about speakers not needing to have good FR: how do you expect to know what to correct if there's no accurate measurements available.. or you don't have EQ available.. or don't have a measurement mic..

If you buy a $20K speaker you would expect it to be engineered to it's fullest potential and be plug & play, not 'this is ok, but wait till I take some gated near-field measurements and create EQ filters, then you'll see'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to produce a speaker that needs EQ and then not provide the settings, however if a speaker I was considering only needed EQ to be the best option, and the settings were readily available, e.g. on ASR, then I'd buy it. (NB this doesn't apply with this specific speaker, for reasons other than FR)

Re the Genelecs, unless I'm much mistaken I'm pretty sure that the out of the box FR of almost any active speaker uses EQ, it's the other capabilities that vary, so what I'm saying is electronic EQ is recognised as ok, it doesn't have to be be inherent in the drivers.

Hope that makes a bit more sense.

 

[DMill]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to produce a speaker that needs EQ and then not provide the settings, however if a speaker I was considering only needed EQ to be the best option, and the settings were readily available, e.g. on ASR, then I'd buy it. (NB this doesn't apply with this specific speaker, for reasons other than FR)

Re the Genelecs, unless I'm much mistaken I'm pretty sure that the out of the box FR of almost any active speaker uses EQ, it's the other capabilities that vary, so what I'm saying is electronic EQ is recognised as ok, it doesn't have to be be inherent in the drivers.

Hope that makes a bit more sense.

The problem is that providing EQ settings to make it flat only work anechoic. So now I’ve spent $20k and have EQ settings for my room If that’s my thing. So the provided measurements really don’t help me at all to correct for my fireplace on the left wall and two open doorways on the right wall. At least if I start from flat FR I can correct for the room before adding another variable. This is all assuming I want to deal with EQing in the first place. I won’t knock TAD for making a very understated looking speaker, nor will I knock the price, but make it measure like God blessed it for $20k or there are too many better options.

 

[xplo5iv]

The problem is that providing EQ settings to make it flat only work anechoic. So now I’ve spent $20k and have EQ settings for my room If that’s my thing. So the provided measurements really don’t help me at all to correct for my fireplace on the left wall and two open doorways on the right wall. At least if I start from flat FR I can correct for the room before adding another variable. This is all assuming I want to deal with EQing in the first place. I won’t knock TAD for making a very understated looking speaker, nor will I knock the price, but make it measure like God blessed it for $20k or there are too many better options.

Agree that you need to EQ flat prior to room correction, but my whole point is that if given the settings it's a simple task and shouldn't rule out a speaker.
Not disagreeing that there's better options to spend 20k on though!

 

[Entropy]

Really expected better from a brand like this, especially for 20k. I see no reason why this would sell over kef's reference meta/blade meta lineup, and those are far classier speakers in my opinion. Not competitive.

 

[preload]

16 pages of criticism and not a single post with first hand experience about how they sound?
As others have pointed out, the directivity is pretty smooth. And there’s a presence dip, which isn’t always a bad thing. Flame suit on.