I use it daily with the satori and can't agree more. My brother uses the raal with the satori, so a direct comparison has been made. The raal replaced the original satori tweeter.
Last edited:
I suppose you are all familiar with the Tang Bang bogus Be domes. Are you sure this SB thing is the real deal? See a comment below from a DIYAudio post from 2009. The text seems to come from Zaphs site.
Steve Mowry, a well known consultant in the speaker industry, has been a proponent of what he considers to be "pure" or "real" beryllium diaphragms all while pointing out what he considers fake based on a percentage of beryllium content. He's recently raised some additional awareness by writing and widely distributing a document called THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT BERYLLIUM DIAPHRAGMS.
Steve's paper points out what he considers are manufacturers using "fake" beryllium. Tangband uses a copper and beryllium alloy that has less than 2% beryllium content. Usher uses a dome manufactured by a company called Sonic that is primarily Titanium with less than 1% beryllium content. I don't doubt that those numbers are true. Steve throws around terms like counterfeit and fraudulent, and even goes so far as to invent new material names of Bogusium and Deceptium. I think this is very unprofessional behavior, especially when you consider that Steve's got his own products that use high beryllium content diaphragms. His paper reads like an advertisement for Brush Wellman, a beryllium foil manufacturer. A direct and accurate quote, he says "Brush Wellman Electrofusion Products’ Truextent® is simply the “best” diaphragm material on the planet." It's obvious Steve has a vested interest in Brush Wellman products and/or pure beryllium diaphragms and this article should not be held as any sort of definitive text whatsoever. It's interesting, one sided reading and nothing more. Steve has had some great and informative articles in the past, many of which I have read, but this recent article is commercially driven in a sickening way.
Tangband and Usher are not evil companies. They both make some great products, regardless of how their marketing departments play the beryllium card.
Mowry's article was not really about performance but about claims that he thinks were deceptive in nature. The problem is that most of us in DIY land don't care about "claims". We're smart enough to care only about overall driver performance and price. So far none of us have seen that use of a pure beryllium diaphragm could offer anything other than a higher driver price. Anyone can rattle off Young's modulus and tensile strength for a given material. Some of the best performing traditional dome tweeters are coated fabric, and obviously extreme material properties were not part of the equation to reach that level.
I'll withhold final judgment of beryllium as a diaphragm material until I get some more experience with it. Until then I hold a healthy case of skepticism. I've extensively tested pairs of drivers where the only difference between them was the diaphragm material. Aluminum or titanium has not been proven to be better than a fiber or fabric based diaphragm, just different in the set of tradeoffs that an individual may or may not favor. Likewise, I wouldn't expect beryllium to pose much difference over aluminum or titanium provided the diaphragm geometry is optimized for the particular material used. I've got a Yamaha beryllium tweeter on the way for testing. It's the model pictured on the first page of Mowry's article. This may not really answer all (or any) questions but it will be interesting to look at.
Regards,
Eelco
Steve Mowry, a well known consultant in the speaker industry, has been a proponent of what he considers to be "pure" or "real" beryllium diaphragms all while pointing out what he considers fake based on a percentage of beryllium content. He's recently raised some additional awareness by writing and widely distributing a document called THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT BERYLLIUM DIAPHRAGMS.
Steve's paper points out what he considers are manufacturers using "fake" beryllium. Tangband uses a copper and beryllium alloy that has less than 2% beryllium content. Usher uses a dome manufactured by a company called Sonic that is primarily Titanium with less than 1% beryllium content. I don't doubt that those numbers are true. Steve throws around terms like counterfeit and fraudulent, and even goes so far as to invent new material names of Bogusium and Deceptium. I think this is very unprofessional behavior, especially when you consider that Steve's got his own products that use high beryllium content diaphragms. His paper reads like an advertisement for Brush Wellman, a beryllium foil manufacturer. A direct and accurate quote, he says "Brush Wellman Electrofusion Products’ Truextent® is simply the “best” diaphragm material on the planet." It's obvious Steve has a vested interest in Brush Wellman products and/or pure beryllium diaphragms and this article should not be held as any sort of definitive text whatsoever. It's interesting, one sided reading and nothing more. Steve has had some great and informative articles in the past, many of which I have read, but this recent article is commercially driven in a sickening way.
Tangband and Usher are not evil companies. They both make some great products, regardless of how their marketing departments play the beryllium card.
Mowry's article was not really about performance but about claims that he thinks were deceptive in nature. The problem is that most of us in DIY land don't care about "claims". We're smart enough to care only about overall driver performance and price. So far none of us have seen that use of a pure beryllium diaphragm could offer anything other than a higher driver price. Anyone can rattle off Young's modulus and tensile strength for a given material. Some of the best performing traditional dome tweeters are coated fabric, and obviously extreme material properties were not part of the equation to reach that level.
I'll withhold final judgment of beryllium as a diaphragm material until I get some more experience with it. Until then I hold a healthy case of skepticism. I've extensively tested pairs of drivers where the only difference between them was the diaphragm material. Aluminum or titanium has not been proven to be better than a fiber or fabric based diaphragm, just different in the set of tradeoffs that an individual may or may not favor. Likewise, I wouldn't expect beryllium to pose much difference over aluminum or titanium provided the diaphragm geometry is optimized for the particular material used. I've got a Yamaha beryllium tweeter on the way for testing. It's the model pictured on the first page of Mowry's article. This may not really answer all (or any) questions but it will be interesting to look at.
Regards,
Eelco
Many thanks Tony. It is post #86 I was trying to find and the amount was $35.
What is giving a best sounding tweter ?
Damping, rapidity of pushing air, polar response ? (dome tweeter the best here ?)
I never understood, but the whole design of a speaker, what people consider the best sounding speaker ?
Copression tweeter à la JBL because the high subjective dynamic ?
AMT : because ????, the subjective fastness and upper light range ??
Domes, because the way they radiate?
Large Ribbons à la Maggie
Large ESL diagphragm ?
Well what is the roll of the material damping ? (avoiding upper high resonnances only? - important for more détails or is it just the ratio weight/BL?)
.....deserves an other thread yet ? (as here off topic) !
Last edited:
Or do we need two different tweeter for best sounding, so one other crossover to make better than a standalone tweeter between 1500-20 000 (or more if the dogs...)
for instance some are liking much for instance phenomelic diagphragm in tweeter compression driver ! .... and an AMT or ribbon upon 10 000 Hz !
for instance some are liking much for instance phenomelic diagphragm in tweeter compression driver ! .... and an AMT or ribbon upon 10 000 Hz !
Yes, it may only cost the manufacturer an additional $35 in material, but what about the additional engineering costs and handling costs when dealing with its high toxicity. To expound on what was mentioned in the other thread, since manufacturers and middle men need to turn a profit to stay in business, a 10x difference in price from manufacturing cost to retail price is completely normal.
It was Usher as far as I remember.
I am sure SB are true Be we're talking former Scan/Vifa engineers here.
So you think the Scan and SEAS Be tweeters at $520 don't have some extra margin compared to their other top tweeters? Given the Tranducer Lab Be tweeter is sold at half that price at $267, the chap Tony found stating he could sell profitably at $150 and the Scan Be tweeter reported to be the most profitable driver Scan produce? Well we won't have to wait long find out the price for the SB Acoustics Be tweeter. My guess would be significantly less than Scan and SEAS and then falling in a year or two.
Well to be honest anyone can do a diamond dome as can anyone do a Be dome. As far as I am aware third parties either buy the Be as sheet material and press it into domes, or they buy the domes already formed.
The danger of with working with the metal is inhalation of any dusts that could be created during the manufacturing process. If the domes are bought pre formed then there will be no dust and no additional health hazards vs aluminium. Even if the material is bought as sheet foil and is pressed into domes at the factory I wouldn't have thought that this would create much, if any, dust either. The pressing processes no doubt both cutting and forming the domes out of the sheet.
I believe the mark-up in price is simply a charge what we can scenario. For example the actual differences between a SEAS prestige and SEAS excel driver? In actual production costs? Very little. But the prices don't reflect that.
All the current Be domes out there are premium devices, ie Excel, Satori, Illuminator and Revelator. These ranges command high prices without any consideration (or very little) of attempting to keep prices low(the price on the SB is yet to be seen).
As has been mentioned the true benefit of Be is simply it's stiffness to weight ratio and reasonable internal damping. This pushes the bell-mode resonance of the tweeter dome up higher in frequency than aluminium/titanium/Mg, whilst keeping the resonance less pronounced (usually). This has knock on effects for distortion amplification products due to cone resonances and helps to push the 'metal dome' characteristics further out of band.
Personally I couldn't care less if a Be dome was attached to a SEAS prestige or SB Acoustics standard range motor. Those are proven motor systems with excellent performance, just look at the performance of the aluminium dome from SB...
??-????????
It is exemplary and inexpensive. Why not simply replace the alu dome with a Be dome and keep the thing reasonably (less than $100) priced?
The danger of with working with the metal is inhalation of any dusts that could be created during the manufacturing process. If the domes are bought pre formed then there will be no dust and no additional health hazards vs aluminium. Even if the material is bought as sheet foil and is pressed into domes at the factory I wouldn't have thought that this would create much, if any, dust either. The pressing processes no doubt both cutting and forming the domes out of the sheet.
I believe the mark-up in price is simply a charge what we can scenario. For example the actual differences between a SEAS prestige and SEAS excel driver? In actual production costs? Very little. But the prices don't reflect that.
All the current Be domes out there are premium devices, ie Excel, Satori, Illuminator and Revelator. These ranges command high prices without any consideration (or very little) of attempting to keep prices low(the price on the SB is yet to be seen).
As has been mentioned the true benefit of Be is simply it's stiffness to weight ratio and reasonable internal damping. This pushes the bell-mode resonance of the tweeter dome up higher in frequency than aluminium/titanium/Mg, whilst keeping the resonance less pronounced (usually). This has knock on effects for distortion amplification products due to cone resonances and helps to push the 'metal dome' characteristics further out of band.
Personally I couldn't care less if a Be dome was attached to a SEAS prestige or SB Acoustics standard range motor. Those are proven motor systems with excellent performance, just look at the performance of the aluminium dome from SB...
??-????????
It is exemplary and inexpensive. Why not simply replace the alu dome with a Be dome and keep the thing reasonably (less than $100) priced?
Is there one most prefer between diamond, Be, or even ceramic (heavier I assume) ? Or is the old 9900 Revelator with fabric dome still better to ears ???? (ok I assume all is question of integration....) But sometimes when seing the good sound of some aluminium driver like the old Altec 288-16 G (mid unit if aplfes to potatoes can be compared!) , one can ask as a bove if the rest is not more important (motor, etc)....
Correct.
Yes, their $520 model is a bit over the top, but keep in mind it's based off of a $277 tweeter: https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...d2904/7100-03-wide-surround-black-face-plate/
And their $280 Be tweeter is based off a $122 tweeter: https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...minator-d3004/6020-10-1-tweeter-deep-chamber/
As far as TL goes, they appear to perform well, but I can't get past the 1980's Peerless tweeter look.
smoke and mirrors
stuff sold as "pure gold" in many places range anywhere from bad electro-plating to solid 24 carat, as always 'buyer beware'.
also I would NOT assume new SB designs to be done/reviewed by former engineers, that is usually for a limited transition period (tech transfer ) to the new owners, always specified in biz. contracts. Just like Lenovo 'Thinkpads' are not driven by IBM design decisions anymore, no matter what the old name may lead you to believe. IBM sales and support are different things.
stuff sold as "pure gold" in many places range anywhere from bad electro-plating to solid 24 carat, as always 'buyer beware'.
also I would NOT assume new SB designs to be done/reviewed by former engineers, that is usually for a limited transition period (tech transfer ) to the new owners, always specified in biz. contracts. Just like Lenovo 'Thinkpads' are not driven by IBM design decisions anymore, no matter what the old name may lead you to believe. IBM sales and support are different things.
Last edited:
Yes, they were so good those old Thinkpads... very good stuff !
So nobody listened yet the new carbon and also the new Be drivers but if in the same league than the 6.5 Satori we can assume them to be good !
Question: is Be really a plus in your everyday listenings ? Worths the extra cost and don't worry anymore with the bad vertical dispersion of planars and ribbons ?
So nobody listened yet the new carbon and also the new Be drivers but if in the same league than the 6.5 Satori we can assume them to be good !
Question: is Be really a plus in your everyday listenings ? Worths the extra cost and don't worry anymore with the bad vertical dispersion of planars and ribbons ?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.