家电论坛

京东旗舰店
 注册  找回密码

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

手机号码,快捷登录

12
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: diamondmeng

[音箱] 出传输线式音箱TDL studio 1m

[复制链接]

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2014-3-25 14:20 | 显示全部楼层
这个算不算孤品?还有那位兄弟有TDL STUDIO 1,或者2,3,4?
如果能收到Reference Standard,就爽死了!
tdl_electronics_reference.jpg
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2014-3-27 09:22 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 diamondmeng 于 2014-5-9 10:41 编辑

由于音箱大多数时间只能靠墙放,因此按照“杭州小烧友”兄的建议,导向孔处换上新的玻璃纤维,这样低频更易控制。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2014-3-27 09:28 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 diamondmeng 于 2014-5-9 10:41 编辑

了解TDL的兄弟都应该知道,TDL的精髓在于丰满的中频和“无与伦比”的低频,
手边旧有老版小七,那高频大牛们也都明白,
手边也有ROGERS 黑牌LS3/5A,那低频大牛也都明白,
HIFI玩的就是“钻牛角尖”和“妥协”的平衡,
我觉得ROGERS 黑牌LS3/5A就是听过最好听的音箱,那低频恰到好处,
我也觉得TDL就是听过低频最给力的音箱,中频又醇厚,
欣赏其优点,包容其缺点,在能力所及的范围精益求精,这就算我的发烧理念吧。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

92

主题

242

帖子

0

威望

禁止访问

交易诚信度
8
注册时间
2004-1-5
发表于 2014-6-4 03:48 | 显示全部楼层
问一下楼主这个tdl和小7比那个低音质量更好些那?谢谢
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2014-6-4 11:10 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 diamondmeng 于 2014-6-6 14:00 编辑

因为房间摆位的问题,现在推得都不太满意,TDL的低频感觉潜力更大,因为迷宫箱说白了就是琢磨怎么做好低频。小七应该才五寸的中低音单元吧,低频不像小箱子,但无疑不能苛求它像大箱子一样宽松!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

92

主题

242

帖子

0

威望

禁止访问

交易诚信度
8
注册时间
2004-1-5
发表于 2014-6-6 03:51 | 显示全部楼层
diamondmeng 发表于 2014-6-4 11:10
因为房间摆尾的问题,现在推得都不太满意,TDL的低频感觉潜力更大,因为迷宫箱说白了就是琢磨怎么做好低频。 ...

谢谢楼主的回答
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

2

主题

123

帖子

5

威望

中级会员

Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3

交易诚信度
6
注册时间
2006-8-17
QQ
发表于 2014-10-12 21:27 | 显示全部楼层
音箱还在吗?有意。
回复

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2018-3-8 09:22 | 显示全部楼层
传输式的代表TDL Studio 3喇叭
当前分类: 器材评析 2011-08-29 发表 已被阅读:3138 次        音响发烧站 音响论坛

试听Studio 3的时候给了我一个不大不小的惊喜,很久没有听到的极低频出现了。Studio 3在低频和极低频的部份的确是延伸得非常好,量感又足,让我在听「Cantate Domino」的Julsang及「Staccato」第八首的管风琴时,得到了极大的满足。

TDL Studio 3是传输线式的喇叭,从外表看不出传输式的伟大之处,如果剖开喇叭箱,就会看到箱体内如迷宫式的传输管道了。

传输线式(Transmission Line)喇叭在音响圈中,一向被认为是吃力不讨好的设计。为什麽呢?因为传输线式设计的喇叭箱製作非常複杂,几乎每一部份的结构都必需由熟练的老师傅手工组装而成,根本不可能大量生产,因此,对于规模较大的喇叭厂而言,结构简单的气垫式及低音反射式设计才是能够赚钱的最佳选择。当然,这二种结构在设计及製造上也自有其困难的地方,只是相对于传输线式设计,它们仍然算是简单。至于传输线式,就只剩下一些坚持理想的精品小厂在坚苦奋斗了。

难定长短

当然,如果仅仅是製作过程複杂,也不见得大厂就没有办法利用完善的工作流程设计来克服,另外一个主要的原因便是传输线式本身有着难以克服的特性,也就是在低频的量感和速度感上,非常不容易控制得恰到好处。大家都知道,所谓的传输线式设计是低音反射式的变型,只不过传输线式的反射管特别的长,使单体的背波能够延伸到低一倍的音域中;另外,这条反射管 (或者叫传输线) 之中必需铺设大量的各种吸音材料,以便使最后传送出来的音波能够被控制在一定的频率以下,才不会与喇叭的正面波相冲突。问题就出在这一条吸音反射管之上。首先,愈长的反射管固然可以使音波 (喇叭单体的反相背波) 得以延伸到更低的音域,但是大家仔细一想便会发现,当这一个背波经过了如许长的传输管道输出来之后,固然低是低了,但是在速度感上必然会与原来的正面音波发生了延迟的现象,并且在量感上不容易控制 (这可能也是为什麽早期的IMF喇叭会被人评为是卡拉丝之声-高、中、低三段音色不连贯-的原因)。可是,若是反射管切短了,低音的延伸度就不够了,传输线的特色也无法得到充分的发挥。于是,如何决定一个长短适中的传输管,便成了考验设计师的一大难题。

吸音材料学问大

其次,传输线内吸音材料的选择及用量也是一门艺术。若是用少了或用错了,出来的声音便可能不在原先设计上应被控制的范围之中。传输出来的声音若是高过原来设计的频段,则会与原来单体的正面波冲突,造成声音的不乾淨;低了,正面波与反射波的衔接便会出现断层,声音的连贯性就差了。要将吸音材料用得恰到好处,使反射波顺利地接上正面波,声音才会自然、悦耳。事实上,对于吸音材料的控制,很多时候连老猫都会烧到鬍鬚。读者们如果不健忘的话,该记得本刊第四期曾经刊登过郑大为先生玩TDL Reference的经过,那时我们大为兄也是在传输管道内加塞了一大堆吸音的玻璃棉才驯服了Reference的低音 (据大为兄表示,目前TDL原厂也在彷效他传输线内增加了玻璃棉来吸音,由于未获厂方证实,读者姑妄看之即可)。由此可见传输线设计之难。

声音太迷人了

既然传输线式这麽难作,为什麽还有那麽多人锺情于设计生产传输线式喇叭呢?答桉很简单:因为设计优良的传输线式喇叭声音实在太迷人了。较之于低音反射式或着垫式,传输线式设计的喇叭只须要它们几分之一的体积,就可以得到更为丰满深沉的低音。例如TDL的Studio 2,体积只有85×27×36cm (H×W×D),但是低音却可以去到24Hz,而所使用的中低音才只有八吋。反观JBL的4344或者Tannoy的E.R.F Memory,二者都是身高一公尺以上的大喇叭,低音口径也都是十五吋,但是低频响应却只到35Hz和29Hz,由此即知传输线式设计确有独到之处,值得芸芸众生为之倾倒 (当然JBL和Tannoy的设计也自有其优秀之处,否则这二家公司的设计工程师岂不是全体可以「午门候斩」)。

这次评论的TDL便是一家被传输线迷给逼出来的公司。TDL原本自己是不生产喇叭的,製造喇叭的是它的子公司IMF,而IMF便是以传输线式喇叭闻名于世界,IMF MK IV更已成了Hi-Fi史上的珍品,后来IMF因为经营不善而宣告倒闭之后,全世界的音响迷都一致感到惋惜,有的人甚至投书要求IMF继续生产。在强大的市场压力之下,TDL终于在1985年伦敦音响大展时正式展出新一代的传输线式喇叭,并且大幅调低了售价,使得以往高不可攀的传输线式喇叭一下子变成了人人皆可享用的中价精品。不过,售价虽然调低了,音质反而更有进步,最近的Stereo-phile器材排行榜上便赫然出现了TDL的名字,足可证明现今TDL音质的不凡。当然,本刊一向强调本土化评论的重要性,在外国人的豪宅巨室中恰到好处的喇叭,进入中国人中小型的试听室中反而可能是峰值连连 (这也是为什麽大为兄要在TDL Reference中狂塞玻璃棉的原因之一),于是,一对TDL的Studio 3便这样送入了本刊的试听室中。

中大型喇叭

TDL Studio 3是一对中大型的喇叭,体积是95×30×40cm (H×W×D),聆听时还要加上一对十几公分高的加钉脚架。虽然对清晰度有所助益,但是加了钉脚之后的Studio 3实在很难移,以它的重量来说,一定要二个人才能搞定 (除非你阁下是阿诺或史特龙)。在单体的配置上,Studio 3是近年来很流行的二音路三单体彷同轴式设计,二支八吋的胶盆中低音单体夹住一支TDL着名的金属摸凸盆的高音单体,但是,虽然是二支中低音单体并联,由剖面图看来,这二支单体背后的传输管并不完全一样,我想大概是因为单体距离地面的高度不同所做的调整吧!至于造型,Studio 3是很传统的方正造型,并且有着打磨到滑不留手的原木外饰,相信一般的中国人会很讨喜。还有,Studio 3的阻抗是8Ω,频率响应20~20,000Hz,厂方的建议使用30瓦以上的扩大机,最新的Studio 3并有二组巨大镀金的输入端子 (请用香蕉插,谢谢,因为使用过四条线的Y型叉都无法锁上),可以玩Bi-Wire。

搭配器材

由于Studio 3送来时是一对全新未开箱的新喇叭,故此,整个漫长的试听过程中更换了不少匹配器材,中途也换上过几对喇叭作为比较,透过这样一个过程,使得我可以充分了解到TDL的特点,也才能将这一对喇叭的优点充分发挥。试听时主要用过以下器材,Run-In期间扩大机使用Isem一套三件头的西装,线材用全套Cardas Quadlink,CD机则是Meridian 208、Marantz CD11及Museatex三组交互使用。正式试听时则换上了MBL 4005及8010的前后级组合,这一套西装有着清丽的高音及控制力极佳的低音,配传输线式刚刚好 (传输线式不需要大功率来「挤」低音,但是一定要有良好的控制能力);CD则用上Mod Squad的Prism Ⅱ,这也是一部相当中性的器材;至于线材,前后级线用Cardas,喇叭线因为用了Cardas之后低频会太厚,且中频以上不够通透,故此换上了vdH的Magnum。CD至前级之间原本用了Thorens的银线,结果高音有Peak,换掉。换上了本刊主笔湾岚兄自製的银绞线 (连WBT头成本不超过二千元,但实力超过五千元-有但书的),老天,竟然左右不同声 (事后湾岚兄说有一边的线他加上了线圈,加了声音比较差,如果二边都不加,实力就超过五千元),再换上vdH的Thunderline,算是满意。试听地点则在社内新闢的大聆听室,这个聆听室是个约六坪大的开放式空间,内部有不少杂物,替好声创造了极佳的条件,但因未经细部处理,在音场及音像的精确度尚有更进一步的可能,故本人在相关项目的评分中加入了对潜质预估的分数。对了,正式试听时,器材全部换上了Tiffany的电源线,特此公告。

极低频出现了

TDL Studio 3的喇叭端子,以目前流行的趋向而言,双喇叭线几乎是标准的配备。

试听Studio 3的时候给了我一个不大不小的惊喜,很久没有听到的极低频出现了。Studio 3在低频和极低频的部份的确是延伸得非常好,量感又足,让我在听「Cantate Domino」的Julsang及「Staccato」第八首的管风琴时,得到了极大的满足。那深沉而富弹性的低音一波接一波地汹涌而来,整个人彷彿被一团柔软而温暖的低频所包住,非常的过瘾,这是我在同价位喇叭上所仅闻的。不过,为什麽这麽深沉的低音仅给了我一个不大不小的惊喜呢?是的,你猜对了,Studio 3在低频以下的威力必须要有足够的空间和控制力良好的器材才能充分表现。以我来说,六坪以上应该是起码的空间要求;器材方面,音色清越而偏瘦的较为适合,后级能有大电流则更妙,这些对于收紧Studio 3充沛的低频段有正面的功效。除了Isem及MBL之外我也曾试过别的前后级,坦白告诉你,以社裡的空间而言,它们是统统不及格,特别是真空管后级。因此,若你购入了Studio 3,匹配时请注意这二个互动的因素 (空间大些,后级控制力可以小些;反之亦然),不然,若是声音沉闷不堪,请勿要本人负责。

英式微暗的音色

自中低频以上至中高频,Studio 3均属于英式微暗的音色,愈往上走并带有一丝的甜味。如果低频以下处理得当的话,Studio 3的中低频会异常地沉实有力,我听JVC唱片的「鬼太鼓座」时甚至一度有打心口的感觉。同样的,在听The Who 的Tommy时,贝斯的劲道也是十足的心脏一跳一跳的。我想,Studio 3的频率曲线不太可能是平直的,大概在中低频有一点强调,但是这种强调不妨害它分辨器材及录音之间的差别,只是增加了过瘾的程度而己。其情况略似于BBS的LS 3/5A,中频方面厚实润泽而有适度的甜味,但透明度稍逊色一点。用伯恩斯坦的马勒第二 (DG新版) 便可试出,第五乐章的人声饱满,中气十足,和声亦气势磅礡,不过,不要奢求能有数人头的透明度。在这裡TDL是音色重于Hi-Fi,喜不喜欢,端看你阁下的口味矣。至于中高频大致一如中频,但是多一种柔和的光泽,解析及透明度仍然是普普通通,也就是说,你可以得到一个质感良好并有几分光泽的弦乐组,可是究竟一共有几把琴?请勿追究。

高频及其以上的部分是典型的英国声,我甚至嫌紧了一些。这可能与Run-In时间有关,虽然我Run了快一个月,或许仍旧不够,我想,多Run三、五个月情形应会再有改善。以目前的声音而言,Studio 3的高音是清澹如水的,它不像ProAc或Infinity给人一种极强的高频透感及声音,反而像是雨后近傍晚昏黄的阳光,光泽足够,延伸足够,但请不要煞风景地叫高音乐器全体立正点名,这有违Studio 3的英国本色。

相当有音乐性

整体而言,TDL Studio 3的解析力及透明感都不算很好,但是以听音乐的角度而言,Studio 3算是一对相当有音乐性的喇叭。特别在表达规模感方面,不论是马勒第二或柴可夫斯基第六 (Mravinsky指挥,DG版),Studio 3有充分的能力把一队百多二百人的乐团及合唱团的规模及气势表达在你面前。在摇滚乐及电子音乐上,它也是少见的可以「爆」得起来的英国喇叭,无论是The Who,是Genesis,是Kenny G或是「南极物语」,Studio 3都能让你享受到爆棚之乐 (我想是Bass和Midbass的功劳)。Studio 3的定位感也好,在小编制的情况下 (例如Songs My Mother Taught Me),乐器的位置感及其形体感都有中上的表现,大场面的定位受到解析度的影响,不要要求太多,毕竟你才花了多少钱。至于速度,大致上是好的,稍可挑剔的则是低频尾音收得较慢一点点,微有拖泥带水的感觉。这不一定是缺点,在一般的使用上,特别是AV,由于它尾音较长,听起来反而过瘾一些,如果你听音乐是感性派的话,这是你的cup of tea。

对了,当Studio 3的音量大过某一程度之后,在解析力、透明度、动态、速度等项目上均可再加五到十分,可是此时声音实在太大,并且低频量感不易控制 (除非你的空间很大),在考量了一般可能的使用情形后,我不把它列入优点,而仅写出作为参考。空间足够的人士,建议慎重考虑TDL (其实小小声听TDL也不错,低音也够,可惜发烧友一定嫌不过瘾,奈何!)

低音控制是关键所在

为TDL Studio 3作结论不太容易,它使用上的关键全在于低音的控制,成则好声,败则衰声,但是控制它并不需要很高的技巧,并且,收服低音总比增加低音来得容易。对于低音狂 (即要求「够力」的低音,而不在乎准不准的人) 及AV迷而言,可能Studio 3正是他们日追夜求的喇叭,它在极低频延伸上的能力确实一流,你所要知道的,只是这种低频你喜不喜欢 (或者有没有本事搞定),以及它的中高音合不合你口味,如此而已。当然,若是你仍然在意无瑕的音场及百分之百的透明,那种就是增加预算。以Studio 3的售价而言,我所想到在解析力及透明度上有极佳表现的同级喇叭,低频下限都在约40Hz。即是说,没有极低频。

去听听看吧!也许它会是你追求的梦想。
回复

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2018-3-8 09:36 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 diamondmeng 于 2018-3-8 09:40 编辑

TDL Studio 1 loudspeaker
John Atkinson  |  Apr 11, 2017   |  First Published: Feb 1, 1990        

[color=rgb(0, 51, 153) !important][url


TDL is part of ELAC, one of the most successful OEM drive-unit manufacturers in the UK, particularly renowned for the 1" aluminum-dome tweeter that they make for Monitor Audio, Acoustic Energy, and British Fidelity (footnote 1). Perhaps of even more interest to readers of Stereophile is that the TDL system designer is one John Wright, who designed the classic series of IMF loudspeakers (footnote 2) and who also was one of the leading equipment reviewers in the UK back in the 1960s. (For a while John was also a contributor to this magazine, his comprehensive reviews of tonearms appearing in Vol.2 Nos.10 & 12.)

The IMF designs represented the first commercially successful application of the "transmission-line" woofer-loading principle, and the TDL models continue that tradition. Even though the Studio 1 ($1445/pair, not including stands) is the smallest speaker in the TDL range, it still loads its 6.5", Cobex-coned woofer with a resistively damped line that is intended to absorb the cone's back wave. (The cabinet interior contains internal partitions that produce a folded line.) In practice, the short line possible in the modest-sized enclosure cannot totally absorb the sound, so it is arranged to vent at the foot of the front baffle, its output supplementing the frontal radiation of the woofer in the bass to give good low-bass extension. A practical transmission line therefore takes on some of the characteristics of a reflex design.

A two-way design, TDL's Studio 1 uses a version of the same aluminum-dome tweeter that appears in the Acoustic Energy AE2. This is mounted vertically beneath the woofer, an arrangement that, provided the correct drive-unit electrical polarities are observed, tilts the main response lobe upward toward the listener's ear—important in a modest-sized speaker such as this. The crossover circuitry is mounted on a printed circuit board fastened to the rear of the terminal panel, which has four knurled, gold-plated, all-metal binding posts to allow the speaker to be biwired. The crossover is relatively simple, a series non-polarized electrolytic capacitor in the tweeter feed providing a first-pass high-pass slope, with a series resistor to lower the tweeter level; the woofer filter is basically second-order low-pass, with a series air-cored coil and a shunt electrolytic capacitor. There is also an RC Zobel network shunting the drive-unit terminals.

The Studio 1 cabinet has a small plinth attached to its base which slots into a small space-frame stand, some 4" high, which is fitted with carpet-piercing spikes. A pair of these stands costs $180, but as the Studio 1 really does need the stand to sound its best, in my opinion, it's a shame that they are not included in the purchase price. Surprisingly at this price level, though the cabinet sides, top, and bottom are finished in real wood veneer, neither of the drive-units is rebated into the black-painted baffle. The woofer frame does have a degree of profiling, however. The grille consists of brown jersey cloth stretched over a fiberboard frame. Though its internal edges do have a slight flare in the vicinity of the drive-units, it appears to present a significant acoustic obstruction, so I left it off for most of the auditioning (see later).

The Sound
Preliminary listening suggested that it was important not to sit at too high a listening position with the Studio 1s, an audible "hollowness"—probably due to a crossover suckout—developing when you can see a significant amount of cabinet top. I therefore used the adjustable spikes to ensure that my ears were in line with the cabinet top, which gave the smoothest response trend at my listening seat with pink noise. (I sat 8' from the speakers; because the tweeter-under-woofer topology results in a slightly tilted-up main response lobe, the further you sit from the Studio 1s, the less critical will be this transition between flat and hollow-sounding treble.) Slight but persistent excesses of energy in two regions could still be heard on the optimum axis with pink noise, however, one in the midrange centered around 750Hz or so, the other in the mid-treble. It remained to be seen how audible these would be with music. (Noise signals are useful—read, notorious—for revealing slight balance problems.)

I couldn't resist the temptation: having been exposed to years of being told how good the bass is of a transmission-line speaker, I broke my rules—I normally start my auditioning with spoken voice—and reached first for an organ recording, the Telarc Bach set from Michael Murray (CD-80088), which features the infamous Toccata and Fugue in d. (Trivia lovers might be interested to learn that this most organic of all organ works was probably originally written for violin!) I was not disappointed. Though the very lowest notes did lack substance, the reproduction of the pedals was excellent for what is basically quite a small two-way speaker with a single 6.5" woofer. The only indication that this was a smallish two-way was at high replay levels, when things became rather congested. In fact, this congestion set an upper replay-level limit of around 95dB in my room, which may not be enough for some tastes. In this respect, the Studio 1 fell considerably behind the Acoustic Energy AE2.

Upon further listening, however, it became apparent that not all the congestion could be laid at the feet of the woofer's limited radiating area. At the end of the Fugue in D on the Telarc disc, the organ pedals take up the half-scale passage that has been the subject of the fugue. Even at moderate replay levels, there was some confusion in the upper bass that somewhat obscured pitch definition.

Rob Wasserman's double bass, on the "Ballad of the Runaway Horse" from his Duets album (MCA MCAD 42131), was also rather lumpy in this same region, and when he duets with himself on this album, in the Aaron Neville track "Stardust," for example, the two double basses tended to interfere with one another's sounds to a greater extent than through either of the other two loudspeakers reviewed this month. Spoken male voice also had a rather chesty quality, there being an underlying bass "grumble" to the voice character, similar to that obtained when you speak too close to a directional microphone, and low-pitched drums sounded rather "slow." However, this wasn't to anything like the same degree as with a typical high-Q reflex design, and in fact it was the excellent clarity and extension of the mid- and lower bass that accentuated its audibility.

Moving higher up in frequency, the midrange was clean, apart from a slight "hoot" noticeable on piano and female voice around the top of the treble staff (the 600$n800Hz region), where it made the latter sound rather "shouty." This was less noticeable on orchestral music than it had been on voice, piano, and pink noise, however, and the upper midrange and treble were very smooth, overall. There was a slight wispiness to the extreme highs, however, that slightly accentuated the wire-sound of a typical snare-drum, and was unkind to the sound of closely miked violins. Naturally miked violins were presented with just the correct degree of astringence. (This was via the dark-toned [color=#03399 !important]Kinergetics KCD-40 player; via the brighter [color=#03399 !important]Proceed, there was too much treble energy.)

Where the Studio 1s scored, however, was the way they presented a good sense of recorded space. The guitar and double-bass track on the Stereophile [color=#03399 !important]Test CD is a good test of this: the way in which the guitar's upper register slaps the surrounding chapel acoustic into motion seems to be very system-dependent. Via some speakers, although the instruments' tonalities are reproduced correctly, the "space" on the recording, that I heard from the microphone feeds, is almost entirely diminished. Via the TDLs, however, you could well hear the dome of ambience around and behind the instruments. Midrange images seemed to be a little more forward than strictly accurate, to judge by the way the speakers reproduced my own piano recordings, but there was still a considerable degree of depth apparent. The horns, for example, at the start of the Ashkenazy/Philharmonia recording of Sibelius's Karelia Suite (London 414 534-2), were set way back. And on Stereophile's [color=#03399 !important]Poem LP, though the tonal balance was a little on the "cold" side, the piano was set the correct distance behind the stable flute image. It was actually listening to this track with the grilles on that convinced me that they were a sonic no-no. The grilles rendered the piano both less well-defined in space, and too forward.

Conclusion
When auditioning the TDL Studio 1s, be sure that the grilles are removed and that you are on the optimum listening axis, as the balance is otherwise unmusically hollow-sounding, with the upper treble left unsupported. The short stands are essential to achieving this, in my opinion. But on the correct axis, and provided the replay level isn't too high, the Studio 1 will provide a good degree of low-frequency extension for such a small speaker. The colorations noticed in the upper bass and midrange were a little too apparent for my tastes, but as the audibility of both will be very much dependent on music type, they may or may not detract from the clean, detailed treble and excellent imaging offered by these speakers.

At $1625/pair including stands, the Studio 1 comes under strong competition from the [color=#03399 !important]Magnepan MG2.5R and [color=#03399 !important]Vandersteen 2Ci, both of which will play louder without strain or congestion, but it is sufficiently differently balanced from either that it could well find a successful niche in the US market.




Footnote 1: After ELAC was purchased by Harman in 1989, John Wright organized a management buyout of the TDL brand.

Footnote 2: "IMF" stood for [color=#03399 !important]Irving M. ("Bud") Fried, who was associated with John for a long while. When John and Bud split up, however, the English company retained the rights to use the name IMF, which is why Bud's own brand of American loudspeakers, some of which also feature transmission-line bass and midrange loading, are known as "Fried."


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/cont ... hyueDAZY2r3hcuGZ.99

回复

使用道具 举报

0

主题

28

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
2
注册时间
2009-3-15
发表于 2018-3-9 03:20 | 显示全部楼层
没实物图片,没价格。。。。

点评

也不着急出。TDL Studio很少见,出了,以后想收未必收的到。 最近在进一步了解,就把更多资料贴出来了。  详情 回复 发表于 2018-3-9 08:22
回复

使用道具 举报

10

主题

198

帖子

0

威望

初级会员

Rank: 2Rank: 2

交易诚信度
3
注册时间
2008-5-25
 楼主| 发表于 2018-3-9 08:22 | 显示全部楼层
wzls2000 发表于 2018-3-9 03:20
没实物图片,没价格。。。。

也不着急出。TDL Studio很少见,出了,以后想收未必收的到。
最近在进一步了解,就把更多资料贴出来了。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

关闭

活动推荐上一条 /1 下一条

Archiver|手机版|客服:010-60152166 邮箱:zx@jd-bbs.com|广告合作|账号注销|家电联盟网

京公网安备 11010602010207号 ( 京ICP证041102号,京ICP备09075138号-9 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-6 05:24 , Processed in 0.142471 second(s), 29 queries , Gzip On.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表