I'am owner of an Accuphase 600 ....and this TAD ME One... ~ exactly this combinantion. What should i say...yes...this is an incriddible great sound combination. Even my wife is enthusiastic. ☝️😄
I think it’s a big scam: directly recorded sound doesn’t include a speaker, microphone, room acoustics. We don't hear the speakers, the subwoofers don't vibrate. We should see the light dancing on it as it moves. The music signal recorded directly was applied to the input of the amplifier, so you can see the control meter move. This is a big lie.
If you qualify for the ranks of Audiophile , at all levels, you will hear the difference between various equipment , even on the most simple of playback setups. This one is not bad. In fact, the clip from Elvis @3:40 made me rethink the ME1 after writing them off some time ago.
@@chasehatton3691 I don't think there is a place on Earth where somebody can qualifies some ones as an audiophile who after that can qualifie perfectly any audio device by listening. (It would be interesting if there was such a thing.) Everyone should be able to rate an audio device based on their own expectations (and hearing ability) for itself. It is only due to luck (who can listen to which audiophile devices in their life) and the many hundreds (in the case of professionals, many thousands) of hours of attention that someone is able to learn to distinguish the small details. It is also true that the more details the attentive listener can distinguish, the more imperfections he will discover in the artificial sound compared to the original sound. And the audio chain tested side by side will reveal each other's imperfection: neither will be perfect, although both may be better than the other due to various aspects. And yes, even a cable change can make a dramatic difference in hearable sound quality. But the electro-acoustic conversion is a thousand times bigger problem technologically (not solved) than the amplification of the signal (where the situation is better) or compared to the cables we listen through. The acoustic space, in which we try to qualify the whole thing by our hearing, is even more problematic. Therefore, HiFi shows are generally not suitable for presenting products. There is usually a lot of ambient noise (cross-talk between rooms, visitors talking loudly, etc...) and the rooms are not acoustically dampened enough, they are too small for high volume and are full of resonance. Despite all this, the diligent visitor develops an ability to recognize and find the right sound from afar. If a low-distortion, tonally balanced sound can evenly and powerfully fill the listening room, then it is truly worthy of attention and deserves a more thorough listening. When someone puts a sound chain, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, in such a far from perfect acoustic space, records its sound with an unassuming microphone built into a junk handheld video, and sends it all over the Internet to me, which I mean by a cheap player I'm listening on a monitor next to the computer, then it's almost impossible to tell what we're hearing and whether it deserves attention at all. In such cases, the image shown by the moving camera during the recording, while observing the change in sound intensity and tonality, tells a lot about the local room acoustics. If the loudspeaker radiates homogenious at a wide spatial angle, neither the tonality nor the intensity will change significantly despite the change of location during recording. That's about all you can find out from a HiFi show "presentation" on the internet. On the other hand, when a still image is subjected to a playback, then not even that much. So it's like a musical blank postcard. Good for nothing. The Internet is capable of more than that. I heard the TAD Reference One and the Reference Compact versions and it was a great experience in every respect. I haven't heard the CE1 (Compact Evolution) and the ME1 (Micro-Evoilution) yet, but the CE1 is so much more serious with its larger CST speaker and it has a much more serious box, which suggests a big difference in the audible sound.
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
Отличный звук. Даже неожиданно. From Russia with LOVE 🇷🇺❤️🎼👍
I'am owner of an Accuphase 600 ....and this TAD ME One... ~ exactly this combinantion. What should i say...yes...this is an incriddible great sound combination.
Even my wife is enthusiastic. ☝️😄
die Musik spielen die auch auf der großen TAD Reference on TX .Es ist so der Hammer unter dem Titel: TAD Is this the Speaker-Need ?
TAD and Accuphase a great synergy.
Bravo phenomenal sound
Thanks! :)
Have you tried listening to the CE1 with the E480? Grateful for any comments on this combination
Yes, it is great combination! :)
Just curious about the amp. Is this the A75? Do you find class A or AB better for TAD ME1/CE1?
MEGA SOUND 🔊🔊🔊
Perfect!
Bunch of noise shame
I agree with you!
Thanks for your reply! :)
I think it’s a big scam: directly recorded sound doesn’t include a speaker, microphone, room acoustics. We don't hear the speakers, the subwoofers don't vibrate. We should see the light dancing on it as it moves. The music signal recorded directly was applied to the input of the amplifier, so you can see the control meter move. This is a big lie.
I know the TAD Reference 1 is one of the best speakers on our planet . The CE1 not so bad also. Why did you have to cheat?
If you qualify for the ranks of Audiophile , at all levels, you will hear the difference between various equipment , even on the most simple of playback setups. This one is not bad. In fact, the clip from Elvis @3:40 made me rethink the ME1 after writing them off some time ago.
@@chasehatton3691 I don't think there is a place on Earth where somebody can qualifies some ones as an audiophile who after that can qualifie perfectly any audio device by listening.
(It would be interesting if there was such a thing.)
Everyone should be able to rate an audio device based on their own expectations (and hearing ability) for itself.
It is only due to luck (who can listen to which audiophile devices in their life) and the many hundreds (in the case of professionals, many thousands) of hours of attention that someone is able to learn to distinguish the small details. It is also true that the more details the attentive listener can distinguish, the more imperfections he will discover in the artificial sound compared to the original sound.
And the audio chain tested side by side will reveal each other's imperfection: neither will be perfect, although both may be better than the other due to various aspects. And yes, even a cable change can make a dramatic difference in hearable sound quality. But the electro-acoustic conversion is a thousand times bigger problem technologically (not solved) than the amplification of the signal (where the situation is better) or compared to the cables we listen through. The acoustic space, in which we try to qualify the whole thing by our hearing, is even more problematic. Therefore, HiFi shows are generally not suitable for presenting products. There is usually a lot of ambient noise (cross-talk between rooms, visitors talking loudly, etc...) and the rooms are not acoustically dampened enough, they are too small for high volume and are full of resonance. Despite all this, the diligent visitor develops an ability to recognize and find the right sound from afar. If a low-distortion, tonally balanced sound can evenly and powerfully fill the listening room, then it is truly worthy of attention and deserves a more thorough listening.
When someone puts a sound chain, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, in such a far from perfect acoustic space, records its sound with an unassuming microphone built into a junk handheld video, and sends it all over the Internet to me, which I mean by a cheap player I'm listening on a monitor next to the computer, then it's almost impossible to tell what we're hearing and whether it deserves attention at all. In such cases, the image shown by the moving camera during the recording, while observing the change in sound intensity and tonality, tells a lot about the local room acoustics. If the loudspeaker radiates homogenious at a wide spatial angle, neither the tonality nor the intensity will change significantly despite the change of location during recording. That's about all you can find out from a HiFi show "presentation" on the internet. On the other hand, when a still image is subjected to a playback, then not even that much. So it's like a musical blank postcard. Good for nothing. The Internet is capable of more than that. I heard the TAD Reference One and the Reference Compact versions and it was a great experience in every respect. I haven't heard the CE1 (Compact Evolution) and the ME1 (Micro-Evoilution) yet, but the CE1 is so much more serious with its larger CST speaker and it has a much more serious box, which suggests a big difference in the audible sound.
The TAD CE1 or ME1 for remastering audio? Which is more accurate?
ME1 is more!
@@TechnicalPie thank you! i will need to replace some studio monitors soon.
How do they compare to the ME1 ?
ME I like more! :)
@@TechnicalPie thank you
Ah, small speakers with a BIG sound.
Holy crap, the spatial imaging is amazing.
nice but i prefer my 25$ hitachi
今なら～明菜かよぉ♪👻ヒェ～😱