Be or not to Be
found at :
http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-whole-truth-about-beryllium-diaphragms
Response from Usher Audio
AudioXpress contributing editor Stephen Mowry, has been threatening Usher Audio over the past 10 months regarding the composition of Usher's Be drivers. Mr. Mowry threatened Usher with the "widespread" release of his article, "The Whole Truth about Beryllium Diaphragms", unless his demands were met:
“If you fail to reply to me in a reasonable manner, then I will do the following.
1. Work with Brush Wellman and FOCAL; they will purchase Be-718's and perform physical tests on the "Beryllium" tweeter diaphragm.
2. Publish the results within a discussion article on Beryllium and the Loudspeaker Industry and utilize the Internet to distribute the results.”
Mr. Mowry’s latest demand/deadline:
"Contact me for a quick solution to your PROBLEM on Monday, 8 June 2009 at +6676 378051".
Mr. Mowry’s e-mail tone wafts of papal syndrome. Answer to me or else!
We are posting Mr. Mowry’s article (on the Usher Web site) so you can decide what his motivation is. We have also catalogued all of Mr. Mowry's e-mail threats from the past 10 months and will supply the entire exchange on request.
Per the quote above, Mr. Mowry implies that he is working in conjunction with Focal/JM Labs and Brush Wellman, a U.S. maker of beryllium products, (we have not verified this) in his quest to eradicate "fake beryllium" speaker drivers from the world market. Mr. Mowry has been very thorough in describing all the positive aspects of pure beryllium and why it's the best speaker driver material currently available. Mr. Mowry's article reads like an infomercial for beryllium and evidently, like ShamWow, beryllium needs a paid spokesman to deliver the “truth."
On the other hand, Mr. Mowry is so intent on the materials aspect of speaker drivers that he seems to have left out some very important aspects of speaker driver performance; specifically, speaker/driver measurements and listening evaluation. Not once does Mr. Mowry offer any laboratory measurement comparisons of Usher's Be line speakers and Be driver-equipped speakers from Focal/JM Labs or any other brand. Isn’t the ultimate performance of the speaker what really matters? In addition, Mr. Mowry cites materials tests of a "fake beryllium" driver, but those tests were not performed on a driver specifically manufactured for Usher. The remainder of Mr. Mowry's "truth" article is based on hearsay, a mysterious "source" and inference: pretty flimsy stuff from a seasoned speaker designer with Bose cube speakers at the heart of his Hi-Fi credentials. Now there's some irony!
The following are the facts:
1. Usher's original Be driver material was supplied by a major Taiwanese supplier. Upon being notified by Mr. Mowry of possibly suspect materials being offered by this supplier, Usher had several samples of the original Be driver material tested by an independent materials content lab. The results, as disclosed earlier in our "News" section, showed a smaller beryllium content than their supplier's claim. Testing confirmed that the original Be driver is composed of titanium and a smaller portion of beryllium than claimed.
2. Usher's main concern in this matter is the ultimate performance of their speakers. Therefore, Usher also re-tested the acoustic performance of the original Be drivers and found it to be superb and to easily meet Usher's minimum criteria for the Dancer Series. In short, there was no performance deficiency in any of the Usher Be models. Usher Dancer speaker models, along with the original Be drivers, have received rave reviews by nearly every relevant audio publication in the U.S. and abroad, including Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. In fact, the Dancer Be-718 was probably the most scrutinized stand mount speaker on the U.S market during 2007-2008. All independent party laboratory measurements were superb including complete testing done by Stereophile's John Atkinson and the National Research Council of Canada. Their test results are are available online at the following addresses:
(http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/usheraudio_be718/)
(http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html).
Bottom line: measured speaker performance cannot be faked and is not an issue here. Mr. Mowry's so called "beryllium placebo" effect does not apply.
3. Despite superb test results, and due to what’s been described by Usher as “broken trust,” Usher elected to drop their original supplier and try driver material from another supplier. Usher is currently working on a "pure beryllium" driver, but has run into several issues regarding the performance of the new drivers. Specifically, there is ringing present in some regions of the driver bandwidth. Mr. Tsai, Usher's CEO, (not “Usher’s transducer engineer,” as Mr. Mowry incorrectly describes him) tells us that as soon as the kinks are tuned out we will be receiving the new drivers. However, we are skeptical about any performance increase. We are concerned with the "ringing" issue and have heard complaints from several of our dealers regarding this same issue with other Be drivers from brands we won’t name. Upon arrival of the new drivers, Usher customers will have the option of trading in their original drivers at no cost. We'll keep you posted.
4. Converse to Mr. Mowry’s opinion cost was not a factor in Usher's original driver supplier choice. The cost difference between beryllium driver diaphragms provided by Brush Wellman versus Usher's original source is negligible, especially in speakers starting at $2795/pair. (Focal JM Lab Micro Utopias retail for $7500.00/pair as opposed to the Usher Be-718s, which compete in the same class but are priced much lower at $2795/pair. That’s a fairly significant difference, but not because of the beryllium driver.) Usher chose their original supplier based on measured performance of the materials supplied and location logistics. Usher had no reason to doubt the content validity of their original supplier’s materials. This particular company has been in business for many years and supplies drivers to some of the largest and best-known speaker manufacturers in the world, including some of the companies offering purportedly “legitimate” Be drivers, as mentioned by Mr. Mowry.
5. Usher has obtained one of the “pure” or “legitimate” Be drivers offered by one of the manufacturers Mr. Mowry endorses, and had it tested for material content. The result: it turned out the diaphragm contained less than 14% Beryllium. Our point: it would appear that even the diaphragms Mr. Mowry suggests are made of pure Beryllium are, in fact, alloys of one sort or another.
6. Mr. Mowry’s claim that “You (Usher) have gone to great lengths to misrepresent your products” is pure bunk. Besides cost/performance, what motivation would Usher have to use “fake beryllium?” Conversely, our question to Mr. Mowry is this: What’s your motivation? And, who’s paying you for your time? Could it be an angry competitor that continues to lose market share in the U.S.?
found at :
http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-whole-truth-about-beryllium-diaphragms
Response from Usher Audio
AudioXpress contributing editor Stephen Mowry, has been threatening Usher Audio over the past 10 months regarding the composition of Usher's Be drivers. Mr. Mowry threatened Usher with the "widespread" release of his article, "The Whole Truth about Beryllium Diaphragms", unless his demands were met:
“If you fail to reply to me in a reasonable manner, then I will do the following.
1. Work with Brush Wellman and FOCAL; they will purchase Be-718's and perform physical tests on the "Beryllium" tweeter diaphragm.
2. Publish the results within a discussion article on Beryllium and the Loudspeaker Industry and utilize the Internet to distribute the results.”
Mr. Mowry’s latest demand/deadline:
"Contact me for a quick solution to your PROBLEM on Monday, 8 June 2009 at +6676 378051".
Mr. Mowry’s e-mail tone wafts of papal syndrome. Answer to me or else!
We are posting Mr. Mowry’s article (on the Usher Web site) so you can decide what his motivation is. We have also catalogued all of Mr. Mowry's e-mail threats from the past 10 months and will supply the entire exchange on request.
Per the quote above, Mr. Mowry implies that he is working in conjunction with Focal/JM Labs and Brush Wellman, a U.S. maker of beryllium products, (we have not verified this) in his quest to eradicate "fake beryllium" speaker drivers from the world market. Mr. Mowry has been very thorough in describing all the positive aspects of pure beryllium and why it's the best speaker driver material currently available. Mr. Mowry's article reads like an infomercial for beryllium and evidently, like ShamWow, beryllium needs a paid spokesman to deliver the “truth."
On the other hand, Mr. Mowry is so intent on the materials aspect of speaker drivers that he seems to have left out some very important aspects of speaker driver performance; specifically, speaker/driver measurements and listening evaluation. Not once does Mr. Mowry offer any laboratory measurement comparisons of Usher's Be line speakers and Be driver-equipped speakers from Focal/JM Labs or any other brand. Isn’t the ultimate performance of the speaker what really matters? In addition, Mr. Mowry cites materials tests of a "fake beryllium" driver, but those tests were not performed on a driver specifically manufactured for Usher. The remainder of Mr. Mowry's "truth" article is based on hearsay, a mysterious "source" and inference: pretty flimsy stuff from a seasoned speaker designer with Bose cube speakers at the heart of his Hi-Fi credentials. Now there's some irony!
The following are the facts:
1. Usher's original Be driver material was supplied by a major Taiwanese supplier. Upon being notified by Mr. Mowry of possibly suspect materials being offered by this supplier, Usher had several samples of the original Be driver material tested by an independent materials content lab. The results, as disclosed earlier in our "News" section, showed a smaller beryllium content than their supplier's claim. Testing confirmed that the original Be driver is composed of titanium and a smaller portion of beryllium than claimed.
2. Usher's main concern in this matter is the ultimate performance of their speakers. Therefore, Usher also re-tested the acoustic performance of the original Be drivers and found it to be superb and to easily meet Usher's minimum criteria for the Dancer Series. In short, there was no performance deficiency in any of the Usher Be models. Usher Dancer speaker models, along with the original Be drivers, have received rave reviews by nearly every relevant audio publication in the U.S. and abroad, including Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. In fact, the Dancer Be-718 was probably the most scrutinized stand mount speaker on the U.S market during 2007-2008. All independent party laboratory measurements were superb including complete testing done by Stereophile's John Atkinson and the National Research Council of Canada. Their test results are are available online at the following addresses:
(http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/usheraudio_be718/)
(http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html).
Bottom line: measured speaker performance cannot be faked and is not an issue here. Mr. Mowry's so called "beryllium placebo" effect does not apply.
3. Despite superb test results, and due to what’s been described by Usher as “broken trust,” Usher elected to drop their original supplier and try driver material from another supplier. Usher is currently working on a "pure beryllium" driver, but has run into several issues regarding the performance of the new drivers. Specifically, there is ringing present in some regions of the driver bandwidth. Mr. Tsai, Usher's CEO, (not “Usher’s transducer engineer,” as Mr. Mowry incorrectly describes him) tells us that as soon as the kinks are tuned out we will be receiving the new drivers. However, we are skeptical about any performance increase. We are concerned with the "ringing" issue and have heard complaints from several of our dealers regarding this same issue with other Be drivers from brands we won’t name. Upon arrival of the new drivers, Usher customers will have the option of trading in their original drivers at no cost. We'll keep you posted.
4. Converse to Mr. Mowry’s opinion cost was not a factor in Usher's original driver supplier choice. The cost difference between beryllium driver diaphragms provided by Brush Wellman versus Usher's original source is negligible, especially in speakers starting at $2795/pair. (Focal JM Lab Micro Utopias retail for $7500.00/pair as opposed to the Usher Be-718s, which compete in the same class but are priced much lower at $2795/pair. That’s a fairly significant difference, but not because of the beryllium driver.) Usher chose their original supplier based on measured performance of the materials supplied and location logistics. Usher had no reason to doubt the content validity of their original supplier’s materials. This particular company has been in business for many years and supplies drivers to some of the largest and best-known speaker manufacturers in the world, including some of the companies offering purportedly “legitimate” Be drivers, as mentioned by Mr. Mowry.
5. Usher has obtained one of the “pure” or “legitimate” Be drivers offered by one of the manufacturers Mr. Mowry endorses, and had it tested for material content. The result: it turned out the diaphragm contained less than 14% Beryllium. Our point: it would appear that even the diaphragms Mr. Mowry suggests are made of pure Beryllium are, in fact, alloys of one sort or another.
6. Mr. Mowry’s claim that “You (Usher) have gone to great lengths to misrepresent your products” is pure bunk. Besides cost/performance, what motivation would Usher have to use “fake beryllium?” Conversely, our question to Mr. Mowry is this: What’s your motivation? And, who’s paying you for your time? Could it be an angry competitor that continues to lose market share in the U.S.?
I enjoy reading the information. But the more I look into the situation, the more I get a feeling that Beryllium and possibly other exotic material do not warrent the additional cost from a performance point of view. It is quite common for one so called specialist to persuade development of such material, only to find out that it does not live up to expectations. How will a consultant face this kind of situation?
Not too long after the 911 incidence, some company was trying to look for investors in Taiwan to invest in a very cost effective missle warning system that supposedly all ailines would buy to warn the pilot of any shoulder launched missle that terrorists might use. With my personal experience in flying various aircraft, my only question was "what do you expect the pilot to do if he gets the warning at low altitude?" The guys got really upset.
During my search for data on beryllium based driver/speaker performance, I did notice that Mr. Mowry spread this same report like virus. I think it is very sad to see someone in his position to react that way. It just reminds me of terrorists.
Not too long after the 911 incidence, some company was trying to look for investors in Taiwan to invest in a very cost effective missle warning system that supposedly all ailines would buy to warn the pilot of any shoulder launched missle that terrorists might use. With my personal experience in flying various aircraft, my only question was "what do you expect the pilot to do if he gets the warning at low altitude?" The guys got really upset.
During my search for data on beryllium based driver/speaker performance, I did notice that Mr. Mowry spread this same report like virus. I think it is very sad to see someone in his position to react that way. It just reminds me of terrorists.
soongsc said:
I enjoy reading this too and being a personal friend of Mr. Mowry, I know how he can be, but here is how I see it:
1) its NOT Be unless there is more than 50% composition
2) its unethical to call something Be if its not
3) its no excuse to say that your "supplier did it"
4) (and I like this point Soongsc) more than not these kinds of materials fall far short of expectation. It's all marketing and claims and this is very obvious in this case where the "best material composition" was found (low Be, NOT pure Be), but marketing insisted on advertising it as Be. Classic
I use Mylar diaphragm drivers in all my products, not alluminum or titanium or Be, because they work and sound better. These other materials are all marketing driven NOT engineering driven.
Member
Joined 2003
I definitely agree with Gedde's 4th point. It is unfortunate that the industry is driven so much by marketing claims rather than the raw performance, but this is not news to any of us.
I still think that manufacturer's should just say the diaphragm is "metal" and leave it at that, similar to how manufacturer's describe paper diaphragm. Let the performance of the product speak for itself. But the marketing department does not like this approach at all, it is easier for them to try and convince people that Be = good therefore you should buy the things that have Be on the label. No need to listen, it is exotic and expensive therefore better.
I still think that manufacturer's should just say the diaphragm is "metal" and leave it at that, similar to how manufacturer's describe paper diaphragm. Let the performance of the product speak for itself. But the marketing department does not like this approach at all, it is easier for them to try and convince people that Be = good therefore you should buy the things that have Be on the label. No need to listen, it is exotic and expensive therefore better.
"During my search for data on beryllium based driver/speaker performance"
Hello Soongsc
In case you missed this we have measurements for the JBL K2 drivers over at Lansing Heritage. The 045be is a horn loaded compression driver and goes out to 40K+ Definately a "bat killer"
Rob
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/projectmay/data/factory-measure.htm
Hello Soongsc
In case you missed this we have measurements for the JBL K2 drivers over at Lansing Heritage. The 045be is a horn loaded compression driver and goes out to 40K+ Definately a "bat killer"
Rob
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/projectmay/data/factory-measure.htm
angeloitacare said:
Agreed! My point is more that its not a clear cut case of X-material always equals better product. Its not that simple.
I actually think that diaphragm material in a compression driver is a relatively small factor audibly - much smaller than its measured performance and much much smaller than its marketing performance. I can live with titanium, or alluminum, or Be, I just don't see paying so much money for an aspect that adds so little value. Remember, I don't do "cost is no object" designs, I never have and quite honestly I don't see the point. I do "cost effective" designs and in this aspect most of these exotic materails fall short IMO.
But don't touch my "Oxygen-free mega cables"!
Member
Joined 2003
In the meantime I am a very, very happy listener of my beloved thirty odd years old Yamaha NS1000 loudspeakers.
Midrange and treble domes are pure beryllium here. As I understand it is not easy, maybe impossible, to force pure beryllium into some form like a cone or dome, and as turns out Usher's technology is based on the technique of forming a foil containing "some" beryllium.
Yamaha's domes on the contrary are formed by vacuum depositing pure beryllium on a former (copper). After the process the former is removed by melting to yield a pure beryllium dome. At the time Yamaha did not make any fuss about it, they just developed a speaker which is among the finest up to this day. When you happen to live with this speaker you will agree that it is not easy to match it's transparency and neutrality using other materials.
Cheers,
Pieter
Midrange and treble domes are pure beryllium here. As I understand it is not easy, maybe impossible, to force pure beryllium into some form like a cone or dome, and as turns out Usher's technology is based on the technique of forming a foil containing "some" beryllium.
Yamaha's domes on the contrary are formed by vacuum depositing pure beryllium on a former (copper). After the process the former is removed by melting to yield a pure beryllium dome. At the time Yamaha did not make any fuss about it, they just developed a speaker which is among the finest up to this day. When you happen to live with this speaker you will agree that it is not easy to match it's transparency and neutrality using other materials.
Cheers,
Pieter
angeloitacare said:
Yes, but its not as if any of these material studies are actually new. This stuff goes back decades. Those materials that have "real value" persist, those that don't are sold to audiophiles.
Take Neo. At first everybody thought that the extra cost was ridiculous, it would never survive. Turns out it's worth the extra cost, it will become the dominate magnet at some point. Funny though, I don't use it, its still too expensive.
Earl,
Of course it is a personal opinion. Audio is a kindergarten of personal opinions.
Everything is debatable; especially at this forum it is easy to bring up some items for debate.
I just wanted to express my enthusiasm for a loudspeaker developed over thirty years ago.
Has there been any substantial improvements in loudspeaker technology since? I am afraid not.
I've heard them all: electrostatics, horns, ceramic drivers, socalled single driver but I stick with my pure berylium monitors.
Cheers,
Pieter
Of course it is a personal opinion. Audio is a kindergarten of personal opinions.
Everything is debatable; especially at this forum it is easy to bring up some items for debate.
I just wanted to express my enthusiasm for a loudspeaker developed over thirty years ago.
Has there been any substantial improvements in loudspeaker technology since? I am afraid not.
I've heard them all: electrostatics, horns, ceramic drivers, socalled single driver but I stick with my pure berylium monitors.
Cheers,
Pieter
I have no "dog in this fight".
However, the terminology for an alloy is that the alloy is an alloy of the MAJORITY material, not a minority, and certainly not a material that contains a very small percentage of the material.
For example Aluminum alloy is mostly Aluminum.
Copper alloy is mostly Copper.
Steel alloy is mostly iron (processed iron called steel).
Stainless Steel is a special alloy of iron containing iron and nickel plus other metals.
Etc.
_-_-bear
However, the terminology for an alloy is that the alloy is an alloy of the MAJORITY material, not a minority, and certainly not a material that contains a very small percentage of the material.
For example Aluminum alloy is mostly Aluminum.
Copper alloy is mostly Copper.
Steel alloy is mostly iron (processed iron called steel).
Stainless Steel is a special alloy of iron containing iron and nickel plus other metals.
Etc.
_-_-bear
Re: Be or not to Be
lol, Its cool to read the other side but to me Usher should just stop marketing with the term Be?
If they acknowledge the speaker performs great without Be then just come clean, apologize and remove it from all documentation.
Mr. Mowry's claim is a simple one and its based on false advertising which Usher still seems to commit...sigh.
angeloitacare said:
lol, Its cool to read the other side but to me Usher should just stop marketing with the term Be?
If they acknowledge the speaker performs great without Be then just come clean, apologize and remove it from all documentation.
Mr. Mowry's claim is a simple one and its based on false advertising which Usher still seems to commit...sigh.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.