I think you're probably spot on.You would think that on packaged "system" like this A6, the "pad" should be built in to the crossover. It's not like I'm mixing components. This system was sold this way. Like I mentioned, the only think I can think of is that it was meant for an environment where a lot of ambient noise was expected and the HF is hot to overcome this. I'm sure it was not meant for a small room like my living room where someone would be sitting 9' away.
The 288 produces far more acoustic energy. Most of the horns designed to be used on the 288 had significant damping. Seems logical that some of the fiberglass horns might benefit from the application of some type of damping as well.The 802s seem a bit mellower in the mids, well more than a bit, and more extended in the highs. To be honest, at first blush I don't feel like I'm missing anything. That surprised me. I might measure them, then again I might not. I tend to prefer measuring with my ears. I have several 'reference' songs that tell me what I need to know. And a major factor for me is whether the music pulls me in, or pushes me away, especially after a longer session. First impression is that I could listen to these all day.
Part of what I think it might be is with the 288s I can here the horn itself. I can hear the fiberglass resonate as certain points. The 802s don't seem to 'ring the bell' as much. I wish I could try them with a different horn, but this is all I have at the moment.
I recently had to return the 288C's i had been loaned so my listening comparisons are pretty limited at this point. But, your listening impressions seem to more or less mirror mine where the drivers are concerned, and would further seem to support the upward shifted response(GM and OG been tellin us this for a while) of the small format tangerine drivers.
Bookmarks