Eventually I'll be using a 2405 that will be crossed over at about 8-10k hz @ 24db/oct. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that either the 2425 or the 2446 operate well above about 8k hz. However to begin with, I'll start with the system as a 2 way (2206 & CD of choice) then add the 2405 and finally the 2245 all using the miniDSP 4x10hd
The 2425's biggest issue was the sound of the titanium. Otherwise a good driver but not a proper midrange nor a super tweeter. Upper midrange only. 1 to 10 kHz is a good place to cross it, yes.
Bump on the Berylliym experiment!
Its a pity andosised and thick/hard anodising is not being pursued, as it is much cheaper than Be and shows better properties than Al Mg Ti including the alloys.
It has been around for a century so if it is all to do with lightness and Youngs modulus why should Be abe any better
So how much does the surround (and phasre plug in CD'S) figure compared to Be metal and Al anodising differences. Perhaps the surround is the criticality.
It has been around for a century so if it is all to do with lightness and Youngs modulus why should Be abe any better
So how much does the surround (and phasre plug in CD'S) figure compared to Be metal and Al anodising differences. Perhaps the surround is the criticality.
Thank you for these great links. I read perhaps an earlier article which gave one an update, but this is excellent to me as a retired aerospace coatings man. I was in on some of this stuff
I have to say that the old SEAS TBFCG is pistonic in the audio band breaking up at around 27Khz. It is a proven low cost winner. Have the diamond Rolex or tweeter if you can afford it. I really mean that. but dont break yourself that you must have it The human ear and brain cannot reach the limits of these other materials unless you know something different. Be and the other esoterics are really a winner in larger compression drivers when used with appropriate mounting/surrounds where the cheaper materials start to flap around
Last edited:
I believe durability is a factor that holds anodizing back - they can have a tendancy to shatter.
It is very difficult to control the hard anodising of the Al alloy diaphragms without burning through it.
Any updates?
I do. I have used both horns and worked my way through the 3 CD's. I have (TAD 4001 w original Be phram, 2446 ribbed Ti, 2446 Truextent Be). To me, the clear winner is the 2446 with the Be phram. You can see my mule system here next to my reference system (Linkwitz LX521).
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I like the 2386
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
with the more open throat but don't like it's physical length. So I've opted to do some fabricating to the the 2380 to open up its throat. I may wind up ruining the horn but they are cheap and easy to replace on eBay if need be. An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Mind you the difference (to me) was based solely on my hearing and I restricted the freq resp from 300 to 10000 using only the 2123 and the CD/horn combo. I have all the electronic tools (I just got my Dirac and can't wait to use it but that is well down the road) to measure it, but I wanted to make sure it passes the first test of producing natural sound. So, at this point, I'm using just the crossover point, slope, PEQ and time delay adjustments in the minDSP 4x10Hd. The differences between the two horns was minuscule but I had to pick one or the other and I like the physical size of the 2380 better for my system, so I'll try to make that work.
I'll report back.
Actually i also have the 2446J with original phragms, I'm considering buying Truextent diaphragms. What was most notable difference 2446J Ti vs. 2446J Be? What about the 2nd and 3rd place, what did you like 2446J Ti vs. Tad 4001?
This won't help you much, but the Ti had a harsher/harder sound. Both Be's were softer and smoother. Almost like the old tube vs solid state amplifier designs of years ago. The TAD was just slightly less revealing than the Truextent.
One of the things about DSP is that you can't change the natural character of a given driver. If it sounds harsh, you can't EQ that out.
I don't want you to think these were night and day differences. They weren't. But I just felt the Truextent would be the best driver and produce the least listener fatigue.
Weird. Mine are in a 745NEO, but sound fantastic. Response shape is different from the aluminum ones, though, which required some reworking in the crossover. I think the Be diaphragms are lighter and have a higher resonant frequency than the aluminum ones. In my experience, the cleaner upper octaves result in superior reproduction of orchestral strings. The aluminum has extra output, but to me it's not clean enough.
Definitely not a drop-in replacement, though. A speaker optimized for aluminum diaphragms won't sound better with Be unless one compensates for the response differences.
Definitely not a drop-in replacement, though. A speaker optimized for aluminum diaphragms won't sound better with Be unless one compensates for the response differences.
I see, but my crossover is DEQX HDP-4. Of course it was optimised. Response of the Be diaphragm is more smooth, but less interesting. I'm was surprised - sensivity on 1kHz comes 3 dB down with Be. 10kHz drop more down. I had to compensate for the loss of high frequencies. I guess, truextent is heavier than aluminium diaphragm. It is very strange, can't understand.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.