Printable View
Just dug out a pair, put them on and remembered that I quite like these, sort of LS3/5a sound with more guts. Pretty inefficient and seem to need a fairly powerful amp. Units are Audax 8" with Bextrene cone and a KEFT27 in a reasonably compact cabinet.
Anyone remember these speakers? opinions?
http://www.thunders.ca/tangent/rs2.php
Yip I do. They were one of the first pair of speakers I ever owned. I was quite impressed when I first heard them back in early 1978, but they did not have enough bass for me back in those days. They were very inefficient and I replaced them with a pair of TM1's which were even more inefficient and they kept failing because my old Rotel RX402 just couldn't handle the transients :doh:
I can thank Tangent for my lasting love affair with the Quad 33/303 as Martin at Eastern Audio at Kings Lynn assured me that the 303 could handle them with ease!! So I bought the Quad 33/303 and the rest is history ;)
We sold loads of Tangents of this era and John Greenbank was a regular visitor to our store.
The generic response of these Tangents was a sort of "W" shape, although the RS2 didn't over-do it as the larger but electrically identical RS4 did.
The RS4 was the first speaker where purely subjective testing (courtesy of Chris Frankland) enabled it to win a group test when put up against the KEF 104ab and Spendor BC1, the neutrality of the KEF and sublime midrange of the BC1 were as nothing compared to the overt and exaggerated "musicality" of the RS4.
My one-time mastering engineer friend used RS4's with a Sony TA-5650 amp for many years because the wiry quality of the T27 in this implementation aided string tone, however, after fifteen years, the adhesives on the over-worked Audax bass units started to fail and as replacements were no longer available, the speakers were replaced by Harbeth HL5's, which he deemed acceptable replacements.
Very interesting, I have Tangent RS2's and RS4's and did not know that they are electrically identical. I have not drawn out the crossover diagrams.
The RS4's that I have use the large magnet Audax bass unit, whereas the RS2's use the smaller magnet version.
The RS2's are good, but just put on a nice pair of B&W DM4's and they are staying on for the moment. I had forgotten just how nice these sound too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
I thought from memory that the RS2 was electrically the same, but obviously cannot be certain thirty five years on.
I do have a "Recommended" review of the RS2 from HiFi Choice.
After the rise and fall of the firm, John bought some "revised" models for us to listen to. That "W" shaped response disguised the "box" and also the crossover matching issues, making for a very pleasant listen. The "revised" models honked and screeched but were far more efficient. having said that, on modern gear/ancilliaries they might have been superb. We carried on with the original designs for a while, but the company folded soon after and eventually the brand-name was "collected" by Richer I believe.
As I recall, they had the tweeter connected out of phase to give a huge suckout in the upper mid. I have a response curve somewhere in my files, which I did at the GEC facility.
We used to keep a pair of the RS4 on demo which demonstrated this nicely, as it gave false depth to the soundstage. Put it up against a speaker with a flatter response and you can clearly hear all the things lost in the Tangent suckout.
In fact, I have two pairs of RS2, they seem identical, except for the front grille badges, one pair has much bigger Tangent badges.
Can you explain more of what the "W" shaped response is please? Certainly comparing them to B&W DM4's there is less mid range presence with the RS2's.
I would be very interested to see the "Recommended" review of the RS2 is not too much trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
I think it was Hyper-Fi in Barking - not Richers - they did a range of 3 or 4 speakers under the Tangent name - a small bookshelf, larger 2 way and a 2 & 1/2 way floorstander. They were very cheap but the cabs were well built.Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
A pal had the smallest version, they were not up to much but for about £60 new you could a hardly complain - the croosover was just a capacitor in front of the tweeter, the bass mid ran all the way up. He upgraded to B&W 601 mkII, didn't look back.
I'll scan the RS2 review...
With the RS4, the deep square section port was tuned to honk "tunefully" at around 60Hz as I remember, the resulting peak then falling into the midrange. The design had no baffle-step correction, so the mid rose and rose to crossover, followed by the phase thing with the tweeter. The RS2 didn't look too bad in all honesty, but the RS4 really did push images well behind the speaker. Jimmy Hughes was the first person to demonstrate these to me..
P.S. The small TM3 and BC1 sized TM1 (a huge sales favourite with us) used the B200/T27 as I remember, although the box was unlagged from memory.
Thanks for offering to do the scan. Yes, the RS2 seem quite laid back in the midrange. I usually find the KEF B200 more objectionable (quacky/ coloured) in the midrange than the Audax 8" Bextrene unit as used in RS2 and RS4.
I've done the scan, but the internet went to pieces for this evening and I couldn't post it (different computer). I'll post it tomorrow.
Lest you think I'm being hard on these Tangents, I'm not really, as the resulting sound was similar in feel to a good pair of electrostatics of the era, as the midrange "box" colouration was rendered less of a problem due the recessed midband a la LS3/5A and the crossover dips hid the harshness and vagueness that many two-way passive crossovers can suffer from. On orchestral music and using decent valve or FET style amps, the results were enchanting, if not "monitor-accurate."
Here we go...
Hope it's readable :)
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q.../RS2Review.jpg
Thanks, yes fine. Better than my scanner does with things that don't sit flat on the glass. It's the only problem with my Canon scanner, think it may be due to being LED lit.
The book this came from is well read, so I laid it as flat as possible and weighted down the scanner lid............ I scanned it in greyscale and used ACD-See to "remaster" the image a little ;)