Differences entre TAD 1601A , B et C ?
#11
RE: Differences entre TAD 1601A , B et C ?
j'ai fait un doc complet, qui ne passe pas sur Melaudia, comme d'hab malheureusement...
Amicalement
FRED
Répondre
#12
RE: Differences entre TAD 1601A , B et C ?
Dominique a écrit :Bonsoir fresonqc,
Il eut été préférable de citer votre source...

These replaced a pair of JBL 2234H (I had to rout out the recess to accommodate their larger diameter), which are something of a mix between the foam surround of the TL-1602 and the ferrite magnet of the TL-1603. Unlike the JBLs you mention, the 1601c uses Alnico, not neo (or ferrite).

For one thing, the TL-1601c is more efficient. Before, you could almost make out the transition between the LF cone and the horn. Now, at least I cannot. The 1601c blends much better.

Most telling are plucked instruments: there is an increased immediacy with the 1601c. It is more dynamic all the way down to the lower registers. Guitars and other plucked strings (for, example, Andrew Bird's music) jump at you. You feel them on your face -- if such a thing is possible.

Why TAD stopped making them is anybody's guess. Cost? They still make other cone woofers (and of course compression drivers, but not big horns), but these were the best.

oui en effet,
dans cet exemple comparatif , le TAD 1601c a remplacé un JBL 2234H ,
qui est un JBL 2235H , avec un MMS allégé de 35g :

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ling-Rings
Répondre


Atteindre :


Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce sujet : 1 visiteur(s)