I am aware of what you are talking about. The information regarding the properties of the "beryllium" in question however - which I take it you are referring to - is information released by a third party after testing this product. I cannot see how this can be contrued as a business relationship.
The deeper problem however is the process: a material gets peddled to the "high" end or audiophile market, and as in the case of silver cables or twisted configurations of wire it apparently gets accepted as a superior product without any other than anecdotal and subjective proof as to its efficacy.
I think those duped bear the responsibility for this fraud to some extend, as they have shown to be willing victims of the "anything" goes" - the more outrageous the claims, the more believable the claims are - school of audiophoolery.
Member
Joined 2003
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted in this thread yet:
Zaph's measurements of an Usher Be tweeter here.
Zaph's measurements of an Usher Be tweeter here.
My personal thoughts are:audio-kraut said:
1. One particular test cannot cover all models. If blanket accusations are going to be made, one needs to have a good amount of samples covering varous models to make a blanket claim credible.
2. We do not know the details about the terms under which the information was generated, so I can only say "just be careful". If someone really wants to blow the whistle, a safer way is to get samples from the market and do the tests so that you make sure you have yourself covered.
3. A diaphragm manufacturer can express what they sell, but unless we get down to the specific model and specific order, there is no way we can know what a specific model contains. The driver manuafacturer and speaker system manufacturer are the ones that should know what they are getting. If they are not getting what they expect, they should bring it up with the parts supplier.
4. The information should be used by consumers to assist in selection of products they wish to buy. You will find that there are much more so claimed exotic material stretching the truth. Even Diamond diaphragms.
5. Audio is probably one of the really small market where problems like this exist. I would spend more time trying to develop a better product.
In the matter of the name about diaphragms , there¡¯re must be contains all kinds of element at diaphragm. No matter how many element percentage included ,it could be called ALLOY .and i don¡¯t think there¡¯s rule stated that BE ALLOY could be called unless the proportional of BE should measure up to a certain percentage.
And today i¡¯m very gald that i have the opportunity to discuss the topic with STEPHEN. Because the thing in common is to search for real good loudspeaker with OK performace.
But i wonder why Mr Stephen just pay attention to the proportional of material but no any comments or words to the performance of sound quality. For this , i think it¡¯s no meaning or significance ,just like wrangle for an ***¡¯s shadow. As a member of speaker industry, SONIC¡¯s mission is to produce reasonalb cost and high quality diaphragms for speaker or audio systems. How comes you forget the mission and only comparing the percentage of Be in the materials. If the performance of 1-2% Be diaphragm is identical to the performance of 100% Be diaphragm or even better, and the price is much cheaper and can be accepted by the consumers, then which one should you recommend?
Genaral all above-mentioned, i doubt, does he was instructed or on purposed from somewhere to put the issue at everywhere, People who confuse right and wrong to it ,
Personally speaking , it should proceed from actual conditions and impartial view to all the questions . just not be restricted to the elements proportional from Stephen¡¯s ponits of view.
It¡¯s doesn¡¯t matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice . name could be changed , but the point is , the performance of a diaphragm from our technical art is better than you could privide.
If Mr Stephen you have any opinions to this post , you may take with your BE loudspeaer with high-purtiy to participate in the competition at CES exhibitiion or , you may hold an trial hearing test of your BE loudspeaker , let the industry fellows to judge it and see the feedback . .
And today i¡¯m very gald that i have the opportunity to discuss the topic with STEPHEN. Because the thing in common is to search for real good loudspeaker with OK performace.
But i wonder why Mr Stephen just pay attention to the proportional of material but no any comments or words to the performance of sound quality. For this , i think it¡¯s no meaning or significance ,just like wrangle for an ***¡¯s shadow. As a member of speaker industry, SONIC¡¯s mission is to produce reasonalb cost and high quality diaphragms for speaker or audio systems. How comes you forget the mission and only comparing the percentage of Be in the materials. If the performance of 1-2% Be diaphragm is identical to the performance of 100% Be diaphragm or even better, and the price is much cheaper and can be accepted by the consumers, then which one should you recommend?
Genaral all above-mentioned, i doubt, does he was instructed or on purposed from somewhere to put the issue at everywhere, People who confuse right and wrong to it ,
Personally speaking , it should proceed from actual conditions and impartial view to all the questions . just not be restricted to the elements proportional from Stephen¡¯s ponits of view.
It¡¯s doesn¡¯t matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice . name could be changed , but the point is , the performance of a diaphragm from our technical art is better than you could privide.
If Mr Stephen you have any opinions to this post , you may take with your BE loudspeaer with high-purtiy to participate in the competition at CES exhibitiion or , you may hold an trial hearing test of your BE loudspeaker , let the industry fellows to judge it and see the feedback . .
Rosa has a point, in the end the sound quality of the speaker is what matters. Who can argue against that?
It very well may be that SONIC has found a combination of materials that sounds good and is not expensive to manufacture. If the performance is there, then a rose by any other name still smells the same right?
However if you have a better smelling flower than a rose, then why call it a rose? Or if SONIC's diaphragm is better than a pure BE diaphragm ( as is claimed above ), then why attach the name beryllium to the product at all?
The concern is that products like SONIC are represented as beryllium when in fact they only contain trace amounts of the material. I do not think it would be too bold of me to claim that these products were intentionally marketed as beryllium because of the perceived value of that material. There is evidence that steps were taken to make the product even resemble the appearance of beryllium, and surely this wasn't done to improve the sound quality.
The issue here is a dilution of the term beryllium. From Rosa's reply above it is obvious that SONIC is willfully participating in a play of semantics regarding "Beryllium Alloys", and appealing to the idea that the sound of the diaphragm is all that matters only discredits SONIC's position further.
-David
It very well may be that SONIC has found a combination of materials that sounds good and is not expensive to manufacture. If the performance is there, then a rose by any other name still smells the same right?
However if you have a better smelling flower than a rose, then why call it a rose? Or if SONIC's diaphragm is better than a pure BE diaphragm ( as is claimed above ), then why attach the name beryllium to the product at all?
The concern is that products like SONIC are represented as beryllium when in fact they only contain trace amounts of the material. I do not think it would be too bold of me to claim that these products were intentionally marketed as beryllium because of the perceived value of that material. There is evidence that steps were taken to make the product even resemble the appearance of beryllium, and surely this wasn't done to improve the sound quality.
The issue here is a dilution of the term beryllium. From Rosa's reply above it is obvious that SONIC is willfully participating in a play of semantics regarding "Beryllium Alloys", and appealing to the idea that the sound of the diaphragm is all that matters only discredits SONIC's position further.
-David
I m quite interested in knowing more about how pure Be would further enhance performance? Normal Aluminum and Titanium drivers have the breadkup mode around 20KHz. This seems to have a breakup mode up to around 30KHz. Where would the breakup mode be fore pure Be diaphragm? B&W claims breakup mode of Diamond domes of 70KHz which I have not seen any data showing such fact, only some simulation data.DcibeL said:
So does anyone know how well pure Be Domes would perform in reality? I think we want to know the "Whole" truth.
If Sonic says in their homepage, the diaphragm uses Be Alloy, their client, Usher Audio, doesnt.
at their website, we read :
http://www.usheraudio.com/speaker-Be-20.html
They are the world's first Beryllium inverted dome midrange drivers.
This is a clearly missleading statement.
Drivers with Be diaphragm sound different, not necessairly better, than others, using other materials.
at their website, we read :
http://www.usheraudio.com/speaker-Be-20.html
They are the world's first Beryllium inverted dome midrange drivers.
This is a clearly missleading statement.
Drivers with Be diaphragm sound different, not necessairly better, than others, using other materials.
TAS wrote at their revue of the Usher BE20 :
http://www.usheraudio.com/news/TAS-BE-20_eprint.pdf
Usher began a development effort to create a new series of drivers based on beryllium ( or more accurately , a light, stiff , and very strong ceramic material, called beryllium oxide. )
we see no word, there is used only a little percentage of beryllium.
These speakers cost us$ 16.400.00 per pair. For this price, should the end consumer not receive a true high-end product, not employing materials, which are " much cheaper and can be accepted by the consumers " .... ???
http://www.usheraudio.com/news/TAS-BE-20_eprint.pdf
Usher began a development effort to create a new series of drivers based on beryllium ( or more accurately , a light, stiff , and very strong ceramic material, called beryllium oxide. )
we see no word, there is used only a little percentage of beryllium.
These speakers cost us$ 16.400.00 per pair. For this price, should the end consumer not receive a true high-end product, not employing materials, which are " much cheaper and can be accepted by the consumers " .... ???
What I really want to know how pure Be drivers perform. I believe that we may be led to believe that pure Be is better, but I just cannot find any real measured data that show it. Stereophile measurements of speakers using what many have referred to as pure Be tweeters actually have less high frequency extension. So what is the big fuss about Be?
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/921/index4.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...eeter&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=N&um=1
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/921/index4.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...eeter&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=N&um=1
http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d3004_664000.pdf
Assuming this uses a pure Be diaphragm, certainly don't see any advantage.
Assuming this uses a pure Be diaphragm, certainly don't see any advantage.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.