TAD Grand Evolution One loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the TAD Grand Evolution 1's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a small, ¼" diameter capsule, for the nearfield responses. I examined the loudspeaker's impedance with Dayton Audio's DATS V2 system.


Fig.1 TAD Grand Evolution 1, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

My B-weighted estimate of the GE1's voltage sensitivity was 87.5dB(B)/2.83V/m, which is within experimental error of the specified 88dB/2.83V/m. TAD specifies the GE1's impedance as 4 ohms. The impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) was close to 4 ohms in the upper bass and midrange, rising above 8 ohms for most of the treble. The minimum value is 3.84 ohms at 70Hz. However, the electrical phase angle (fig.1, dotted trace) is occasionally high, which means that the effective resistance, or EPDR (footnote 1), is significantly lower. The EPDR lies below 3 ohms below 30Hz, between 43Hz and 95Hz, between 197Hz and 1183Hz, and above 7kHz. The minimum EPDR values are 1.6 ohms at 27Hz, 1.76 ohms at 56Hz, and 2 ohms at 608Hz. The GE1 is a very demanding load for the partnering amplifier.


Fig.2 TAD Grand Evolution 1, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to side panel level with the lower woofer (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

The impedance traces are free from the small discontinuities that imply the presence of cabinet resonant modes, and the enclosure's panels seemed inert when I rapped them with my knuckles. The only resonances I found with a plastic-tape accelerometer lay at 293Hz on the sidewalls level with the lower woofer (fig.2) and 379Hz on the top panel and on the front baffle below the woofers. As these modes are both extremely low in level and have a high Q (Quality Factor), I can safely predict that they won't have audible consequences.


Fig.3 TAD Grand Evolution 1, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the midrange unit (green), woofers (blue), and port (red), and their complex sum (black), respectively plotted below 340Hz, 700Hz, 420Hz, and 300Hz.

The two woofers behaved identically, and the sum of their nearfield responses (fig.3, blue trace) has the expected minimum-motion notch at 32Hz, which implies extended low frequencies. The downward-firing port's nearfield output (fig.3, red trace) peaks slightly below the tuning frequency and, other than slight low-level discontinuities at 150Hz and 300Hz, its upper-frequency rollout is clean. The output of the woofers crosses over to that of the midrange unit (fig.3, green trace) close to the specified 250Hz. There is little sign of the usual nearfield low-frequency boost in the complex sum of the midrange, woofer, and port responses (fig.3, black trace below 300Hz). This suggests that while the TAD GE1's low-frequency alignment offers excellent extension, it is optimized for articulation rather than maximum bass weight.

The black trace above 300Hz in fig.3 shows the GE1's quasi-anechoic farfield response, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis. Other than a slightly elevated midrange and a slight lack of energy in the presence region, the balance is even. The small peaks and dips between 6kHz and 20kHz are likely due to interference between the output of the coaxially mounted tweeter and the reflections of that output from the midrange cone's surround. The tweeter's response also rises above the audioband, with a peak just below 29kHz. The GE1's behavior in the treble is very similar to that of the TAD CE1TX standmount that HR reviewed in June 2023 (footnote 2), which also used a coaxial high-frequency/midrange unit.


Fig.4 TAD Grand Evolution 1, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.

The TAD's horizontal dispersion, normalized to the response on the central tweeter axis, which therefore appears as a straight line, is shown in fig.4. The dispersion is well-controlled up to 6kHz, and above that frequency, the peaks and dips in the on-axis response tend to even out. Both factors correlate with stable, accurate stereo imaging.


Fig.5 TAD Grand Evolution 1, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 15–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–15° below axis.

With the speaker sitting on its cone-shaped feet, the GE1's tweeter is 39" from the floor, which is a little higher than the average height of seated listeners. (A survey performed by Thomas J. Norton for Stereophile in the 1990s found this height to be 36".) The dispersion in the vertical plane, again normalized to the response on the tweeter axis (fig.5), shows that the frequency response is maintained up to 15° above and below the tweeter axis.


Fig.6 TAD Grand Evolution 1, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).


Fig.7 TAD Grand Evolution 1, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

In the time domain, the GE1's step response (fig.6) indicates that all the drive units are connected in positive acoustic polarity. The decay of each unit's step blends smoothly with the start of the next driver's step, which implies optimal crossover topology. The GE1's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.7) features a clean initial decay with a ridge of delayed energy at 9144Hz, indicated by the cursor position in this graph. This is the frequency of a small peak in the speaker's on-axis response, again very similar behavior to that of the TAD CE1TX.

Putting to one side that demanding impedance, the TAD Grand Evolution 1-WN offers excellent measured performance.—John Atkinson

Footnote 1: EPDR is the resistive load that gives rise to the same peak dissipation in an amplifier's output devices as the loudspeaker. See "Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads," JAES, Vol.42 No.9, September 1994, and stereophile.com/reference/707heavy/index.html.

Footnote 2: See fig.3 here.

COMPANY INFO
Technical Devices Laboratories, Inc.
Bunkyo Green Ct. 2-28-8, Honkomagome
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0021
Japan
info@padhifi.com
(781) 982-2600
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
supamark's picture

There are only 10 brick and mortar locations in all of N. America where you can hear these according to the TAD website, 7 in the US (and none in NYC, LA, Chicago or any of the other 10 largest US cities, though Atlanta is a top ten MSA). Only 2 West of the Mississippi (Portland and San Francisco). They do NOT have 75 US brick-n-mortar dealers. A ton of dealers in Europe and the UK though.

windansea's picture

Very interesting technology, with the bottom bass port channeled to front and rear. I'm interested in auditioning these.

The biamping option (and crossover frequencies) remind me of my Magnepan 3.6Rs. So I'm guessing that biamping would route power to the two woofers, and the other amp would still go through a crossover for the duplex speaker.

I'm surprised that speaker companies don't offer an active crossover upgrade option. MiniDSP is a "good enough" crossover option for testing out biamping, but I'd prefer an analog option from the speaker maker.

dan3952's picture

The name TAD was on my AXPONA pass, but I hadn't listened to their products once, because there were so many people in the room. What does this company offer, that justifies the $65k price of these speakers? Lots of people can do concentric drivers for less. So, TAD makes their own woofers; I doubt they are better than the SB Acoustics Textreme woofers I had heard recently. I think that's what Perlisten is using in their S line. I'm not a fan of biamping unless I am able to bypass the passive crossover that's in the speaker, as well. I'd take ATC speakers (they were at AXPONA too) for an active solution. They have been doing this for a long time, and make everything in house. They only do sealed cabinets, so that's a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement. There are interviews on YouTube where the advantages of doing away with coils are clearly explained. I used to use an Ashly op amp based active crossover that had cost me about $300, but had to abandon a DIY project and it's just sitting there now. MiniDSP offers an 8 channel crossover which I might be inclined to try under certain circumstances. You do have to get an amp and a DAC for every channel. I currently use a Flex 2 channel digital.

georgehifi's picture

Sasha Matson: "I took them Upstairs to my reference setup. I placed them in the spots previously occupied by my Wilson Sasha V's"

You didn't say it in so many words, but it "sounded like" you preferred them over the Sasha's?? Would be nice to know in what areas they were better/worse (as many of us have heard Sasha's) seeing they were given the exact same equipment and exact room position.

Cheers George

call me Artie's picture

Subtle and witty there george. As if anyone in the industry is actually going to say they preferred xyz over a Wilson product.

georgehifi's picture

Yep, they say I'm a bit of a sledgehammer when it comes to skirting around a subject.

Cheers George

Sasha Matson's picture

Guys, I actually discussed this aspect recently with Editor Jim Austin. If a reveiwer does a direct A/B between a new component and their 'Reference System',that new component may be at a disadvantage? A writer picks something as a 'reference' because they like it best- it's then not a level playing field. Right now, I have 4 different systems running, priced at 4 different levels. This I think allows for more 'horses for courses'comparisons, in terms of trying to make relevant descriptions of value for money, along with objective performance behavior.

georgehifi's picture

And if he hints at it being in the exactly the same setup, then an A/B should be in order as a reviewers duty, to compare it.

Cheers George

Metalhead's picture

Not interested in the speakers but have an immense respect for TAD after listening to a friends setup with TAD drivers

Have to say "amen" to the AJA UHQR shout out. I had no intention of springing for it as I have the MoFi from back in the day and thought it excellent until a young audio guy brought over the UHQR and we threw it on. Just flat ass killer. I ordered it the next day. Expensive but one of the best vinyl records I have ever heard, and (Sigh) I have been listening for a long long time to vinyl

Cheers!

X