Well, it is certainly not our objectives to define were one or another driver, in this case TADs, would punch up in regards to other drivers. I presume that any driver if a sufficient amount of time, effort and love invested might blossom with different sound then it does out of it’s box.

I hardly see point and take with a great grain of salt in internet collaborations on the subject what “driver is better”. Over internet we have no ability to objectively recognize each other reference points and the ability to recognize other objectives. Without it - many of our judgments not really useful for others. I pretty much abandoned my interest about compression drivers since 2002 when I stated to use S2. I would not necessary feel that it is “better” (it is better on my own scale that might be irrelevant to others) but I invested a lot of time and self-edition how to use this diver and what S2 does in my playback now it very different what it did in 2002. It is possible that if I spent 6 years with some kind of TADs then I would be able to take it what I would like it to do. If there are any serious S2 users out there then feel free to drop in – I am sure I can demonstrate some results with S2 that are fan from what expected from S2 diver.

Interesting that despite that I do not use any other drivers since 2002 but I am always looking for different drivers as some kind of inspiration. The sound of compression drivers is in many in instances is an accidental mystery – so in my imagination there is always some kind “more interesting driver”. Still, although I try to have very open mind to other drivers I most likely would not change anything in Macondo’s drivers until I experience the BLISS from other drivers or until I recognize some kind of fault of S2 driver. The bliss was something how I discovered the S2, thanks to David Karmely…

So, in the end it is not important what driver would it be if a person knows what he needs to accomplish with Sound. The demands for specific sonic attributes would naturally lead a person to one or another direction from one to another driver…. It very much might be the TADs. Until an experienced in TADs user with evolved reference objectives sit with me in the same room and demonstrate to me his evolved results I do not think I will change my opinion about the TAD compression drivers.  It is not the my opinion maters…

Merlin wrote:

Where Romy is wrong is the cost of TAD drive units.

coops wrote:

…. Avantgarde charge how much for their large Trios yet the modified conventional drivers they use cost only a few bucks each…

Avantgarde Trios were $38K retail, overprized but still conventional in the world where the Morons buy two-ways monitors for $20K. The street price for Avantgarde Trios was way lower. As you can see it is far away from $230K, though I do admit the since then the US Dolor went deep to drain.

Coops, what I am curios – what do you know about the “modified conventional drivers they use cost only a few bucks each” that Avantgarde used. Do you personally know those drivers that make you to demean them? Does the fact that Avantgarde’s drivers cost “few bucks each” made them worst then the Cressaro’s alleged “$5000 drivers”?

coops wrote:

Romy Hi, I didn't particularly set out to 'demean' Avantgarde, they have a good business model, I don't believe it is a secret that they modify conventional drivers, I simply mean that the constituent parts of a Cessaro horn , add up to a far higher percentage of the final  retail than any other 'hi-end' speaker I can think of . Keith.

Keith, I ask again: do you have ANY personal experience with Avantgarde drivers?  You said that it is “not secret that they modify conventional drivers” but it is a pure foolishness, sorry. If you wish then please explain yourself. If not then please stop to spread BS.

coops wrote:

Romy Hi, I didn't particularly set out to 'demean' Avantgarde, they have a good business model, I don't believe it is a secret that they modify conventional drivers, I simply mean that the constituent parts of a Cessaro horn , add up to a far higher percentage of the final  retail than any other 'hi-end' speaker I can think of . Keith.

Merlin wrote:

If they are modifying conventional drive units by hand, the labour costs alone can be prohibitively expensive. The fact that they are using heavy Alnico magnets and coating the diaphrams suggests that these units do not cost a "few bucks" each. It's also worth noting that with the likes of the Omega Duo you are also buying some fairly robust amplification and rather clever crossovers from what I can see. in short I think it's wrong to discount them - especially as the likes of the Duo are considerably less expensive than the base Cessaro

I did hear that Avantgarde went Alnico and it is very good – ceramic must not be used for HF drivers, unless the speaker is driver by SS PP transformer-less amplification.

In my time Trio used ceramics. It is not necessary to view Avantgarde’s Trio as some kind serious speaker manufacture from whom you might ask a lot. Avantgarde was happed what Avantgarde owner inherited plastic manufacturing shop after his father. For him it was absolutely irrelevant what plastic to press – tooth brushes or any other commercial molds. Somebody proposed to make bid ABS-made horn – why hot – and the Avantgarde Acoustic was born. Avantgarde people know absolutely nothing about sound or even audio and they outsource the entire speaker’s R&D to third party. It is a routine thing in Europe – many manufactures do it. So, there were found drivers for Avantgarde. Here what Trio used.

Bass channels: Trio came with 4 active twin woofer sealed enclosures – they were garbage and did not spent a lot of time to investigate the drivers and I got rid of the Avantgarde woofers…

Upperbass channels: Avantgarde used 8” Italian-made (I do not remember the company name), paper-cloth, 103dB sensitive cone driver with open back into 4” 115Hz horn. The driver was nice but de-tonal and with zero articulation. There are many reasons why it was so; one of the reasons was that Avantgarde did not high-bass the channel, there were other reasons …

MF channels: Avantgarde used aluminum cone 110dB driver from 600Hz to 5000Hz, with no phase plug. It was very interesting – it had no back chamber and the cone was damped with ferrofluid. It was very interesting performer but also very much tonally immuned. I mean it had “tone” but very “contemporary”, the high tech tone. Still, we never know when tone comes in audio. I would LOVE to have the same type of the driver with Alnico magnet and to see how it behaves, though I am not a big ferrofluid drivers fun. The idea was very lucrative and to my knowledge no one try it now.

HF channel: was off the time alignment reservation, 110dB, aluminum cone, ceramic with no back chamber. Again, the concept is very interesting – free suspended aluminum cone bouncing off the front chamber…

So, regardless how Avantgarde performed but they had many thoughts in their driver – not just buy out the ready to go TADs (if it was what Cessaro did)…

be wrote:

The TAD 4001 and 4002 have a number of sharp narrow resonance peaks  in the  range  10kHz-20kHz

I would think it was lover – somewhere around 8kHz. That was exactly what did not like in the TADs – it was some kind of “alien syrupiness” that wrapped all music. There was some kind complete sonic vacuum anywhere before or after the “alien syrupiness” and then in the region in the “alien syrupiness” the driver suddenly threw some “glyceriny pings”…

Thanks, Paul

I have seen your comment about the TAD bug screens at AA. The bug screens are a touchy subject – with some driver removing them works fine with some made sound worse. I did not experiment with TAD’s bug screens…

Generally the bug screens do slightly more than preventing the cockroaches to crawl down into the gap and to build a colony in the driver. The bug screens acts s very effective diffuser. Also, and probably the most important, the bug screens has own acoustic impedance and create a very mild additional contra-pressure from the trout. Some drivers with reliving from this contra-pressure behave better and some worse.

There is another interesting aspect of it – the compression drivers do suck dirt from air and I usually once in a whale clean them. It is good idea perhaps to use very fine nylon stockings atop or instead the bug screens.  I use black nylon condom around my Water Drop tweeter - the nylon is perfectly transparent but has much higher dirt catching capacity then any mesh metal screen.

vuki wrote:

I was also in Munich this year. Cessaro had one of the best sounding systems at the Show, but I thought I could hear some droning bass from BLH. Of course it could also be the room, but somehow I doubt it - I have heard few (some even made myself) BLHs and that kind of bass keep bothering me. Avantgarde Trios were mechanical, unmusical and just wrong as usual (to my ears). The best sound at the Show (to my ears, again) was in Hiraga/Melody room.  Regards, Vuki