hi there,
I am planning to build my own 3-way studio reference monitor speakers.
Now I am hesitant which tweeter to choose. I know I want something from ScanSpeak.
First I was sure to take this ScanSpeak beryllium tweeter as its claimed to be their best in line:
Tweeter – Scan-Speak A/S
But they are super pricey with 960€ for the pair.
So I started looking into other tweeter and came along this one:
Tweeter – Scan-Speak A/S
This one looks great too and is used by some reputable monitor manufacturers.
They are "only" 450€ for the pair, so about 50% less pricey than those beryllium ones.
Can anybody here report experience of either of these?
I am wondering if the beryllium tweeter is worth the extra cost.
Is it really that so much more better?
Has anyone here experience with this and maybe even compared to others?
thanks on andvance for any help and suggestions
I am planning to build my own 3-way studio reference monitor speakers.
Now I am hesitant which tweeter to choose. I know I want something from ScanSpeak.
First I was sure to take this ScanSpeak beryllium tweeter as its claimed to be their best in line:
Tweeter – Scan-Speak A/S
But they are super pricey with 960€ for the pair.
So I started looking into other tweeter and came along this one:
Tweeter – Scan-Speak A/S
This one looks great too and is used by some reputable monitor manufacturers.
They are "only" 450€ for the pair, so about 50% less pricey than those beryllium ones.
Can anybody here report experience of either of these?
I am wondering if the beryllium tweeter is worth the extra cost.
Is it really that so much more better?
Has anyone here experience with this and maybe even compared to others?
thanks on andvance for any help and suggestions
I've only heard it's variant on the Magico S1 Mk II. VERY smooth, and VERY wide dispersion. Should also consider the SB Be tweeter. It is even smoother measuring and there are recent discussions here.
SS also makes some less expensive, "low profile" (small faceplate) versions that I am very interested in.
Best,
E
SS also makes some less expensive, "low profile" (small faceplate) versions that I am very interested in.
Best,
E
sounds like vintage Yamaha Beryllium tweeter
for DIY a JA-0516A from NS500 is an interesting budget alternative for SS
check it out on auctions
Guten Abend,
Why not consider the SB Acoustics berylium - Satori TW29BN Beryllium Dome Tweeter - Silver Face Plate - Audiostatus
SB Acoustics stands fo Sinar Baja in Indonesia, one of the largest OEM driver manufacturers. Danesian Audio, co-founded by the engineers (I`m sure of Frank Nielsen and Ulrik Schmidt, have exchanged e-mails with Frank) that built the most reputable Scanspeak drivers (the Revelator line) design the drivers and they`re build to their specs in Sinar Baja. Build quality is on par with anything in the EUR150-400 range, I have used lots of their drivers. I even have a damaged SB15MFC which I will cut in a matter of days and post pics (a clamp fell on it and went through the poly cone...).
Why not consider the SB Acoustics berylium - Satori TW29BN Beryllium Dome Tweeter - Silver Face Plate - Audiostatus
SB Acoustics stands fo Sinar Baja in Indonesia, one of the largest OEM driver manufacturers. Danesian Audio, co-founded by the engineers (I`m sure of Frank Nielsen and Ulrik Schmidt, have exchanged e-mails with Frank) that built the most reputable Scanspeak drivers (the Revelator line) design the drivers and they`re build to their specs in Sinar Baja. Build quality is on par with anything in the EUR150-400 range, I have used lots of their drivers. I even have a damaged SB15MFC which I will cut in a matter of days and post pics (a clamp fell on it and went through the poly cone...).
Last edited:
I have used both the 6640 and the 9900 tweeters, and I've listened to both a lot (see here and here). The 9900 is a very good tweeter, but the the newer 6640 is much better in overall objective terms. In fact, it's one of the best tweeters I have used or heard. Also, some say the 9900 is a PITA in terms of getting the xover right due to the wave guide. If you don't want to spend the money for the 6640, I'd suggest to look at some of the other (newer) ScanSpeak tweeters (like the 6600). But in the end it's not just how much money you want to spend and how "good" the tweeter is in overall objective terms, it's more about how you're going to use it and how it fits in your overall system design.
Don't mean to hi-jack the thread but how about Eton ceramique 29HD2 tweeter?Eton 29HD2 Magnesium Ceramic Dome Tweeter
Curious to see if anyone has experienced with this?
Curious to see if anyone has experienced with this?
I read somewhere SB doesn’t apply authentic beryllium but a composite foil and makes false claims. Their domes don’t reach max possible performance. Lost that article though...
But already interesting to see difference in different compression drivers all claiming to have beryllium.
Seems like so far only TAD manages to shape pure beryl without stress and highest possible breakup.
So beryl is not always the same.
But already interesting to see difference in different compression drivers all claiming to have beryllium.
Seems like so far only TAD manages to shape pure beryl without stress and highest possible breakup.
So beryl is not always the same.
I believe the Usher drivers were coated titanium, and the Tang Band drivers were 2% beryllium and approximately 90% copper.
Josh,
Are you sure you aren't confusing the latest SB tweets with an article discussing Usher and other's of using Be colored copper domes?
Best,
E
Could be
Still, amongst the "real" beryls are differences already between good and premium.
What does that mean? You have not yet provided any criteria. To be fair to everybody, you need to state what these are as it will not be universally accepted that they are to be adopted as the definitive arbiter of quality.
Going by manufacturer and various independent measurements, the beryllium dome Satori appears to be maintaining pistonic / non resonant action out to roughly 40KHz. The Seas T29B001 seems to manage high 30KHz regions while the Scan 6640 (Illuminator range) gets well above 30KHz, as does the pricier 7140 (Revelator range). This is shunting resonance much higher than is usually possible with, say, an aluminium dome of roughly the same dimensions. And what else in the tweeter design would you sacrifice to get it any higher (since dome resonance is only one factor & motor design, basket, distortion performance, power-handling, SPL & overall FR shape etc. are also design factors that cannot be ignored just to achieve the highest possible resonant frequency for the main dome mode)?
Going by manufacturer and various independent measurements, the beryllium dome Satori appears to be maintaining pistonic / non resonant action out to roughly 40KHz. The Seas T29B001 seems to manage high 30KHz regions while the Scan 6640 (Illuminator range) gets well above 30KHz, as does the pricier 7140 (Revelator range). This is shunting resonance much higher than is usually possible with, say, an aluminium dome of roughly the same dimensions. And what else in the tweeter design would you sacrifice to get it any higher (since dome resonance is only one factor & motor design, basket, distortion performance, power-handling, SPL & overall FR shape etc. are also design factors that cannot be ignored just to achieve the highest possible resonant frequency for the main dome mode)?
Last edited:
More or less; it's from the Truextent wing of Materion. Truextent Acoustic Beryllium Speaker Cones and Domes
Back on the OP's topic, you ask about beryllium & whether it's worth the extra cost over alternatives. Short answer is 'it depends'.
Assuming regular dome tweeters, you've two basic options in terms of the dome material, soft & hard. No surprise there. They share some operating principles, but not all.
A soft dome tweeter typically produces a goodly proportion of the top octave through resonance in addition to 'pistonic' motion in the front-rear plane (I don't much like the piston analogy, but we're not likely to get shot of it any time soon, so stick with it). Hard dome tweeters attempt to maintain purely pistonic action throughout the audio band. Above that they will have a concentrated / high Q resonant mode or modes.
In theory pistonic operation is a good thing, in practice achiving it is problematic. For a start, the moving mass can cause a reduction in output at the top end. How much & where depends on the dome size, material. With most 1in aluminium domes you'll typically see that around 15KHz - 16KHz. Some like Scan's 9800 stick a small Helmholtz resonantor over the front to try to prop that top end up a bit, which can work but isn't without its own issues too. A lighter, stiffer dome material like beryllium can help reduce or prevent that HF loss in the audio band. It's not the sole factor involved, but it has the potential to help.
In addition to that, you run into the question of the high Q ultrasonic resonance / resonances of a hard dome. This isn't audible per se, but if triggered (and we're in an era of recordings possessing an extended HF response) its subharmonics lower down can be excited. Some people find a number of aluminium domes unpleasent to listen to, possibly as a result of this. Going to a beryllium dome should mean the dome resonant mode are shunted to a higher frequency & will therefore potentially have less impact on the audio band. Other dome materials like ceramics are used for similar reasons.
Whether any of this is 'worth it' is a matter of opinion / taste, and the nature of the rest of the system. Assuming the rest of the setup is up to it, a high end hard-dome may sound a little different, arguably more neutral, than a soft dome when both used to produce an identical FR due to reduced distortion, but dome material is just one factor; the rest of the design, especially the motor has a huge influence so it's not as simple as just going by dome material; high quality soft domes will far outperform a lesser quality hard dome, or be preferred to hard domes of equal technical merit for other reasons. For example, I prefer the SB Satori [soft] ring-dome to most hard dome designs up to a couple of hundred pounds, and I'm not certain I'd take some more expensive tweeters (of any dome material) over it either.
The Scan 9900 is the original Revelator; it's waveguide loaded & has a different presentation to the 6640; some of this is due to the dome materials, some to the different FR responses on & off axis / DI, some to the different distortion characteristics. The former is an older design & as I recall aims for low overall HD levels, following the contemporary practice. The latter (IIRC) is following a more recent trend, aiming for hyper-low higher order distortion & accepting elevated levels of 2nd harmonic < 2KHz as the price. Which is 'better'? YMMV. It depends specifically what you're wanting to achieve and thinking about partnering the tweeters with as to which might end up giving you the results you prefer. The soft dome equivalent of the 6640 is the 6600 AirCirc or the 6620 if you wanted a slightly waveguide loaded version of that basic Illuminator dome & motor design, so those are theoretically better comparative baselines than the 9900.
Assuming regular dome tweeters, you've two basic options in terms of the dome material, soft & hard. No surprise there.
They share some operating principles, but not all. A soft dome tweeter typically produces a goodly proportion of the top octave through resonance in addition to 'pistonic' motion in the front-rear plane (I don't much like the piston analogy, but we're not likely to get shot of it any time soon, so stick with it). Hard dome tweeters attempt to maintain purely pistonic action throughout the audio band. Above that they will have a concentrated / high Q resonant mode or modes.
In theory pistonic operation is a good thing, in practice achiving it is problematic. For a start, the moving mass can cause a reduction in output at the top end. How much & where depends on the dome size, material. With most 1in aluminium domes you'll typically see that around 15KHz - 16KHz. Some like Scan's 9800 stick a small Helmholtz resonantor over the front to try to prop that top end up a bit, which can work but isn't without its own issues too. A lighter, stiffer dome material like beryllium can help reduce or prevent that HF loss in the audio band. It's not the sole factor involved, but it has the potential to help.
In addition to that, you run into the question of the high Q ultrasonic resonance / resonances of a hard dome. This isn't audible per se, but if triggered (and we're in an era of recordings possessing an extended HF response) its subharmonics lower down can be excited. Some people find a number of aluminium domes unpleasent to listen to, possibly as a result of this. Going to a beryllium dome should mean the dome resonant mode
Whether any of this is 'worth it' is a matter of opinion / taste, and the nature of the rest of the system. Assuming the rest of the setup is up to it, a high end hard-dome may sound a little different, arguably more neutral, than a soft dome when both used to produce an identical FR due to reduced distortion, but dome material is just one factor; the rest of the design, especially the motor has a huge influence so it's not as simple as just going by dome material; high quality soft domes will far outperform a lesser quality hard dome, or be preferred to hard domes of equal technical merit for other reasons. For example, I prefer the SB Satori [soft] ring-dome to most hard dome designs up to a couple of hundred pounds, and I'm not certain I'd take some more expensive tweeters (of any dome material) over it either.
The Scan 9900 is the original Revelator; it's waveguide loaded & has a different presentation to the 6640; some of this is due to the dome materials, some to the different FR responses on & off axis / DI, some to the different distortion characteristics. The former is an older design & as I recall aims for low overall HD levels, following the contemporary practice. The latter (IIRC) is following a more recent trend, aiming for hyper-low higher order distortion & accepting elevated levels of 2nd harmonic < 2KHz as the price. Which is 'better'? YMMV. It depends specifically what you're wanting to achieve and thinking about partnering the tweeters with as to which might end up giving you the results you prefer. The soft dome equivalent of the 6640 is the 6600 AirCirc or the 6620 if you wanted a slightly waveguide loaded version of that basic Illuminator dome & motor design, so those are theoretically better comparative baselines than the 9900.
Last edited:
Hi Scott
The resonant frequency height gives the main key performance indicator of how stiff the membrane is.
Best creations reach 100mm diameter membrane about 15k breakup.
50mm about 27.
And 37mm about 45k.
Having a 25-30mm dome it shouldn't break below 50, otherwise something is wrong.
According to whose criteria in stating something is 'wrong'? And is the dome the only thing they are bothering to look at and ignoring every other aspect of design & the varying requirements involved?
First you state without bothering to support it that SB are making false advertising claims (not according to all the evidence I've seen). Now you are taking arbitary numbers (source and specifics unspecified) and applying them to tweeters apparently without regard to the vast host of other design factors that come into play beyond the raw material itself.
Come on. We all know a primary object behind using beryllium to form a tweeter dome is to shunt its main resonant mode as high as possible, and theoretically 50KHz may be achievable in certain applications, but in practice the material alone is not the sole arbiter of whether this will be attained, and if it is not, that does not mean the manufacturer is lying about the material, or incompetent. Just that they may actually have to consider other factors also. Or are you claiming Materion, SB, Scan Speak, Seas, TL & others are all a pack of liars? Note that the Materion supplied product information & hazard sheet with the Scan tweeters for e.g. states '100%' for Beryllium content (Section 3). You don't muck about with safety data. Since you are claiming the opposite, I can only assume you have inside information about extensive materials analysis that has been performed on the dome material used in these products?
First you state without bothering to support it that SB are making false advertising claims (not according to all the evidence I've seen). Now you are taking arbitary numbers (source and specifics unspecified) and applying them to tweeters apparently without regard to the vast host of other design factors that come into play beyond the raw material itself.
Come on. We all know a primary object behind using beryllium to form a tweeter dome is to shunt its main resonant mode as high as possible, and theoretically 50KHz may be achievable in certain applications, but in practice the material alone is not the sole arbiter of whether this will be attained, and if it is not, that does not mean the manufacturer is lying about the material, or incompetent. Just that they may actually have to consider other factors also. Or are you claiming Materion, SB, Scan Speak, Seas, TL & others are all a pack of liars? Note that the Materion supplied product information & hazard sheet with the Scan tweeters for e.g. states '100%' for Beryllium content (Section 3). You don't muck about with safety data. Since you are claiming the opposite, I can only assume you have inside information about extensive materials analysis that has been performed on the dome material used in these products?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.