b&w 800 series
Really? You're serious?
I will have to take a look at that, I've heard of crazy, but not like this.
Diasgreed, Nige.
There's nothing wrong with tweeters as such, although there are very wide differences among them, from the price to the sound they provide. Over the years, I have had many opportunities to hear the same tweeter model applied in different ways, and even that way, the sound differences were enormous, from obnoxious, spitting and shreaking to calm, composed and detailed.
Two good examples of this which spring to mind are the late Son Audax' titanium tweeter TW25A16, sold as such, or as a JBL part, and Focal/JM Lab inverted dome tweeter, sold in their own loudspeakers, or as an OEM part for others. I've heard both well used and misused.
Ditto for just aboput any type of tweeter, including ribbons - some are really good, most just so-so, and some are pretty poor. It all comes down to what you're willing to pay, although I readily agree that many of their prices are well inflated.
Regarding Quads, I assume you refer to the electrostatics, frankly, I don't find it all that good. It does have a certain charm of its own, but it mostly sounds rather lean bass wise, and that starts to irritate me when I know for a fact that the musical piece I'm listening to does posses some mighty good bass which I cannot hear with them.
There's nothing wrong with tweeters as such, although there are very wide differences among them, from the price to the sound they provide. Over the years, I have had many opportunities to hear the same tweeter model applied in different ways, and even that way, the sound differences were enormous, from obnoxious, spitting and shreaking to calm, composed and detailed.
Two good examples of this which spring to mind are the late Son Audax' titanium tweeter TW25A16, sold as such, or as a JBL part, and Focal/JM Lab inverted dome tweeter, sold in their own loudspeakers, or as an OEM part for others. I've heard both well used and misused.
Ditto for just aboput any type of tweeter, including ribbons - some are really good, most just so-so, and some are pretty poor. It all comes down to what you're willing to pay, although I readily agree that many of their prices are well inflated.
Regarding Quads, I assume you refer to the electrostatics, frankly, I don't find it all that good. It does have a certain charm of its own, but it mostly sounds rather lean bass wise, and that starts to irritate me when I know for a fact that the musical piece I'm listening to does posses some mighty good bass which I cannot hear with them.
By the way Beryllium itself in the form of a foil, for example, is not deadly poison. The dust however is nasty when inhaled, hence machining operations are very tricky.
Lew Soloff used to play a beryllium trumpet. It was very light, to say the least. Lew is alive and well, based on the last time I saw him in town backing a singer.
Lew Soloff used to play a beryllium trumpet. It was very light, to say the least. Lew is alive and well, based on the last time I saw him in town backing a singer.
Hi Fi Choice were wrong . Journalists hey ? Better safe than sorry I guess . Peter my engineer at my old job built A bombs ( Aldermaston ) . I asked him about special protection . There was none . When I said how many of you still alive , after much thought he said all of them . His point was it machined easily and the swarf seldom broke . Certainly no dust . Not even a glass case ! It won't be a lie .
He did say you never try the parts together to see if you did a good job .
Another friend confirmed this and said the risk of radiation is 70 microns . In theroy the epidermis would protect us . Marigold gloves certainly enough . The same friend said don't lick it . He also said if he left me a big lump of it on my desk I would not suffer . File it and breath it in is different .
He did say you never try the parts together to see if you did a good job .
Another friend confirmed this and said the risk of radiation is 70 microns . In theroy the epidermis would protect us . Marigold gloves certainly enough . The same friend said don't lick it . He also said if he left me a big lump of it on my desk I would not suffer . File it and breath it in is different .
Still disagreed, Wayne.
I never ever try anything with just one amp, that can never be conclusive in my view. And amps is something I have no shortage of, a multitude of H/K models, some marantz, some Philips, some Sansui, and if required, I have access to many more from friends.
The Quad consistently made me feel like I was hearing bass second harmonics rather than the original signal.
However, its mid and treble are indeed very good.
If one has a system with diamond tweeters, I think one should use boron arsenide heatsinks in the power amplifiers, so the diamonds won't get too smug about their superiority (the analysis, yet to be experimentally confirmed afaik, is that BAs has superior thermal conductivity, and betters diamond especially at high temperatures.Everyone is dancing with diamonds these days ...
There is an inverse relationship between C and density and a positive relationship with stiffness. So, based on some sense of materials you can guestimate titanium to be far slower than berrylium. Looked it up in a table and indeed it is; even slower than aluminium.
By increasing the stiffness by for example creating a thick oxide coating on aluminium, you can make C larger.
For dome tweeters I think this can be benificial, although there are very good domes made out of soft material. A problem with stiff materials is energy retention, so this is one of those trade offs that makes creating drivers somewhat of an art-meets-science.
For cone drivers, my experience is that most fast materials have downsides. Paper or PE cones still sound superior to my ears, with some notable exceptions. PE is a fairly slow material and I have never been able to find information on C in paper, which makes sense because there are so many different types. I would like to try a material with a C comparable to that of air, but alas, no such solids exist to my knowledge.
It is very hard to work with as it cracks when formed or will gall when you try to cut it.
When I dealt with 9-track capstan wheels of Be and Mg, they both seemed very "dead" which I always thought would make a great tweeter. What I never calculated is when the mass of the dome becomes irrelevant compared to the rest of the motor, so lighter material is just not needed. That may be why no one has made a 3 inch cone midrange of it.
D , the amps you list will not drive an ESL , with the right amp bass is not an issue with quads, believe me ...
@Brad ,
accuton® Carefully selected loudspeaker drivers. | Drivers
Diamonds are for heeeevar ...
Last edited:
Paper cones and mylar diaphragms are the two best materials for midrange sonics....
Have you looked at Kevlar ? Just today I experimented with a Kevlar woofer/mid to 5khz and it is unusually clear and full sounding, not that muted sort of sound, but not sassy. I will be doing more tests, then might take my Kevlar's out of a two speaker center channel I do not use and use them as a midrange in a 3 way.
Kevlar, ceramic, fiberglass, fiberglass mixed with pulp, poly, blah , blah , yes tried them all and still found treated paper best In the midrange . Unfortunalty keeping up with current zeitgeist will require usage of current "boutique" material if one wants to be taken seriously...
Treated Paper is well ......
Treated Paper is well ......
Last edited:
Those do look impressive. How much?
Cheaper by the dozen?If you have to ask .....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.