TAD 2201 Speakers

[TLS Guy]

I think so too. These TAD 2201 and the Pioneer EX speakers have been discontinued; thus the price break. I think these TAD were originally $3200, now you can get them for $1691. The Pioneer EX are 30-40% off as well if you can find them.

I wish the TAD CR1 were discontinued and I could get them for 80% off.

What on Earth was the point of developing those speakers and discontinue them before the ink is dry? I bet if a driver fails you are out of options. In a review I read a driver failed during review, so best of luck to anybody that owns them.

 

[monkish54]

I bet if a driver fails you

You'll listen to one of the other 43 speakers you have.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What on Earth was the point of developing those speakers and discontinue them before the ink is dry? I bet if a driver fails you are out of options. In a review I read a driver failed during review, so best of luck to anybody that owns them.

It's pretty rare unless you drop the speakers or abuse them.

Hopefully they last at least 5 yrs parts & labor.

These TAD have been sold overseas for several years now. I guess they never made it to the US.

 

[GranteedEV]

What on Earth was the point of developing those speakers and discontinue them before the ink is dry? I bet if a driver fails you are out of options. In a review I read a driver failed during review, so best of luck to anybody that owns them.

It probably has to do with the recent rise in rare earth metal costs. Neodymium costs 300+ percent of what it did a few years ago. While ferrite weighs more and needs flux modulation / shorting rings to get the same distortion levels, you can be a lot more cost effective today using a ceramic magnet without sacrificing performance. My guess is that TAD is retooling its consumer lines with ceramic magnets, which require a new driver design from the ground up.

 

[TLS Guy]

It probably has to do with the recent rise in rare earth metal costs. Neodymium costs 300+ percent of what it did a few years ago. While ferrite weighs more and needs flux modulation / shorting rings to get the same distortion levels, you can be a lot more cost effective today using a ceramic magnet without sacrificing performance. My guess is that TAD is retooling its consumer lines with ceramic magnets, which require a new driver design from the ground up.

You may well be correct. Ceramic magnets may well be OK for the low to middle end of the market. You won't get the flux densities from a Ceramic magnet you will from a rare earth one.

The rare earth metals are all going into stupid windmills and electric cars.

Neither of the above two scale to really widespread deployment on that fact alone.

There is something unique to the modern mindset, that it is incapable of scaling a technology before introduction.

 

[TLS Guy]

It's pretty rare unless you drop the speakers or abuse them.

Hopefully they last at least 5 yrs parts & labor.

These TAD have been sold overseas for several years now. I guess they never made it to the US.

With Far Eastern manufacture, I would not bet on that!

 

[monkish54]

I wish the TAD CR1 were discontinued and I could get them for 80% off.

I would much rather the TAD R1 be discontinued and be 90% off. The CR1 is awesome but I (perhaps foolishly) would rather have the Philharmonic 2 for 2K than the CR1 for 8K.

I wouldn't gain enough to warrant the price.

-The CR1 might have a little bit better power handling, but not much.

-The TAD CR1 is even less sensitive than the Phil 2. The TAD is rated as 86db (2.83V @ 1m free space) which is 83db @ 1 watt, while the Phil 2 is 84.5db @ 1 watt. That's a 1.5db difference. Twice the power only increases SPL by 3db, so that 1.5db is significant.

-Both have only a single 8" woofer...I wanna hang onto any extra sensitivity I can get!!

-Both are very detailed and well behaved on & off axis.

-Both cabinets are well braced and don't distort the sound.

The TAD R1, however, is a significant upgrade from the Phil 2. At only $76,000 more, I'm not quite sure why I chose the Phil 2 over the TAD R1.


FUN FACT: The TAD CR1 stand costs more than my Philharmonic 2.

To be fair, I spoke to Andrew about the stands (more accurately the dealer did while I was listening) and they are very well made and very expensive to produce, which explains the high cost.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would much rather the TAD R1 be discontinued and be 90% off. The CR1 is awesome but I (perhaps foolishly) would rather have the Philharmonic 2 for 2K than the CR1 for 8K.

I wouldn't gain enough to warrant the price.

-The CR1 might have a little bit better power handling, but not much.

-The TAD CR1 is even less sensitive than the Phil 2. The TAD is rated as 86db (2.83V @ 1m free space) which is 83db @ 1 watt, while the Phil 2 is 84.5db @ 1 watt. That's a 1.5db difference. Twice the power only increases SPL by 3db, so that 1.5db is significant.

-Both have only a single 8" woofer...I wanna hang onto any extra sensitivity I can get!!

-Both are very detailed and well behaved on & off axis.

-Both cabinets are well braced and don't distort the sound.

The TAD R1, however, is a significant upgrade from the Phil 2. At only $76,000 more, I'm not quite sure why I chose the Phil 2 over the TAD R1.


FUN FACT: The TAD CR1 stand costs more than my Philharmonic 2.

To be fair, I spoke to Andrew about the stands (more accurately the dealer did while I was listening) and they are very well made and very expensive to produce, which explains the high cost.

My TAD 2201 is listed as 86dB/w/m, yet it is louder than every speaker I have except the 802D2.

My TAD is 3dB louder than my Salon2, 4dB louder than my Orion, 5dB louder than my Phil3, 6dB louder than my 201/2.

So I'm not so sure the TAD CR1 is actually less sensitive than the Phil2 in real life.

 

[ratso]

To be fair, I spoke to Andrew about the stands (more accurately the dealer did while I was listening) and they are very well made and very expensive to produce, which explains the high cost.

ummm....

no it doesn't.

 

[monkish54]

ummm....

no it doesn't.

I didn't say justifies.

 

[PENG]

So I'm not so sure the TAD CR1 is actually less sensitive than the Phil2 in real life.

You probably can find the answer from the impedance and phase angle curve. I prefer sensitivity given in dB/2.83V/m.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You probably can find the answer from the impedance and phase angle curve. I prefer sensitivity given in dB/2.83V/m.

Oh, I see. The CR-1 is spec as 2.83V/m, but the 2201 is spec as W/m.

NRC, Stereophile, HTM also list 2.83V/m.

B&W, KEF, Revel, and most speakers list 2.83V/m, but ATC lists 1W/m.

So 2.83V doesn't always equals 1 watt?

 

[cpp]

.

So 2.83V doesn't always equals 1 watt?

I think it does = 1 watt
I read this somewhere;

The standard input level is 2.83 volts (V), which translates nicely into 1 watt (W) if the speaker presents to the amplifier an impedance, or load, of 8 ohms. A speaker’s power output in watts is calculated by squaring the input voltage and dividing the result by the resistance. In this case, that would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 8 ohms = 1W. If the impedance is 4 ohms, then the power output would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 4 ohms = 2W.

 

[PENG]

Oh, I see. The CR-1 is spec as 2.83V/m, but the 2201 is spec as W/m.

NRC, Stereophile, HTM also list 2.83V/m.

B&W, KEF, Revel, and most speakers list 2.83V/m, but ATC lists 1W/m.

So 2.83V doesn't always equals 1 watt?

Correct, not always equals 1 watt.

Power(watt)=Voltage(V)XCurrent(I)XPower Factor

Power Factor=Cosine (Phase Angle)

So you can see as impedance dips, current increases, so if you hold the voltage at 2.83V as a constant, assuming phase angle is the same, you end up with more watts, for the same SPL. CPP just gave a simple numerical demo, but I think he might have make a typo. Basically if you compare dB/W/m with dB/2.83V/m you are not exactly comparing apple to apple, not even if you restrict that to 1 kHz.

 

[TLS Guy]

Oh, I see. The CR-1 is spec as 2.83V/m, but the 2201 is spec as W/m.

NRC, Stereophile, HTM also list 2.83V/m.

B&W, KEF, Revel, and most speakers list 2.83V/m, but ATC lists 1W/m.

So 2.83V doesn't always equals 1 watt?

No! We have been over this before ATDG. If the load is 8 ohms, then 2.83 volts will deliver one watt into the load. If the load is 4 ohms it will deliver two watts.

So for an 8 ohm speaker the 1 watt I meter spec. are the same. However if the speaker is four ohm it will have 3db less sensitivity on the 1 watt 1 meter rating but the same as the 8 ohm on the 2.83 volt 1 meter. But the four ohm is drawing double the amp power for the same spl.

Now to your TAD speakers, they claim to be 8 ohm. If they are then the spec in under rated and they are more sensitive than specified.

However if they are actually four ohm then if rated at 1 watt 1 meter, then the TAD speakers would be 3db more sensitive, at 89 db 2.83 volts one meter.

You would have to have an impedance and phase curve to really sort this out, to see what load the amp is really driving where the bulk of the power is.

It is highly likely that these are not 8 ohm speakers from your description of events.

 

[cpp]

I found this

Thiele/Small - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

However if they are actually four ohm then if rated at 1 watt 1 meter, then the TAD speakers would be 3db more sensitive, at 89 db 2.83 volts one meter.

Thanks. That makes sense.

TAD does list the 2201 as a 4 ohm speaker.

TAD should have been listed the 2201 as 89dB/2.83V/m to be more consistent.

 

[cpp]

Correct, not always equals 1 watt.

Power(watt)=Voltage(V)XCurrent(I)XPower Factor

Power Factor=Cosine (Phase Angle)

So you can see as impedance dips, current increases, so if you hold the voltage at 2.83V as a constant, assuming phase angle is the same, you end up with more watts, for the same SPL. CPP just gave a simple numerical demo, but I think he might have make a typo. Basically if you compare dB/W/m with dB/2.83V/m you are not exactly comparing apple to apple, not even if you restrict that to 1 kHz.

Didn't I say that I can't find my typo

I noted "In this case, that would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 8 ohms = 1W.
If the impedance is 4 ohms, then the power output would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 4 ohms = 2W."

 

[PENG]

Didn't I say that I can't find my typo

I noted "In this case, that would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 8 ohms = 1W.
If the impedance is 4 ohms, then the power output would be 2.83V x 2.83V ÷ 4 ohms = 2W."

No typo in your numerical example but here:

"I think it does = 1 watt"

I think you might have meant to say it doesn't always = 1 watt, because your numerical example did show two scenarios, 1 watt in one case, 2 watt in another..., hence not always..

 

[monkish54]

CPP just gave a simple numerical demo, but I think he might have make a typo.

He's not the only one.