beryllium vs the best soft domes

I am interested in peoples subjective evaluation of a good beryllium dome tweeters (such as Satori TW29B-B) compared to the very best soft domes (such as ScanSpeak D2904, Morel ST1108, Seas Excel.

To put this in context, I am planning to use a tweeter in an active system with a 200 mm wide baffle, crossed at 1.6k to 2.2k 4th order.

Thanks for any thoughts...

Jim
 

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
-depends on the specific tweeter.

Be is usually clearer with more "pin-point" imaging.


BTW, I've yet to hear a typical design loudspeaker with a 4th order high-pass that really portrayed depth well (..even in an active system).


If you want a hard dome with good extension and excursion there is BlieSMa and Transducer Labs (TL).

-you can get TL's in ceramic or carbon fiber for half the price. (..you'll have to search for subjective responses to these tweeters).

Products - Meniscus Audio
 

Oneminde

Member
2014-06-22 11:14 pm
BlieSMa is soon launching their T26 series that show really good dispersion and harmonic control. T26B-6 is the beryllium version in that series. The break up is above 40kHz. Comparing that to perhaps the SB Acoustics SB26STC/STAC which also has good dispersion. A soft dome I really like is the SEAS 27TFF, very detailed and open. Viawave have perhaps among the best ribbon tweeters on the market, very close in terms of sound to SBA Be, but is cheaper. And as a final input, Accuton C25-6-158 is perhaps the most silky smooth and effortless tweeter I've ever heard, not as detailed as a Be but damned good.

Hope that helps.
 
I appreciate everyone's thoughts. Thanks. The TL drivers were not even on my radar, so thanks for making me aware.

I plan to use the new Hypex ncore DSP-controlled 3 way amp. I am designing a speaker architecture frame-work that will allow easy experimentation in the future. I will experiment with various crossover topologies and baffle shapes, and also with various drivers.

BTW, I've yet to hear a typical design loudspeaker with a 4th order high-pass that really portrayed depth well (..even in an active system).

I have heard that from others as well, and I am curious about that. It is one of the things I want to experiment with.
 
BTW, I've yet to hear a typical design loudspeaker with a 4th order high-pass that really portrayed depth well (..even in an active system).

Same here. I've found high order crossovers to lack depth and dynamics. I wish someone could offer a good explanation as to why.

Meanwhile I'll still try to use as few components as possible because I know if the design is good it will sound so much better.
 

YSDR

Member
2013-11-24 8:13 pm
Same here. I've found high order crossovers to lack depth and dynamics. I wish someone could offer a good explanation as to why.
If we talking about analogue and digital IIR filters then the difference between low order and high order filters is the timing, power response, and power handling.
With FIR filters, the timing can be as good as possible between the drivers, independently to the filter steepness.

I found low order filters as harsh at typical mid to high frequencies, but i like at low to mid frequencies. But may i heard the wrong drivers for the task, i don't know.

Timing is better (not with FIR) and the power response is usually smoother with a lower order filter, only the power handling is worse compared to higher orders.
 
Last edited:
I've only heard one system, using 4th order filters, but lack of depth is not an attribute I would associate with that experience.

Does anyone really believe they can hear the "smearing" caused by one cycle of delay at 1-2kHz? Seriously? 0.5-1ms delay?

High order? 4th is only a higher order, in the passive domain- those using DSP, FIR or IIR can utilise far higher orders with ease- does 4th order in DSP conventional filters sound less deep?

I guess if you believe, then you will hear!
 
Last edited:
Well.... you can use higher order filters.... but It's my experience that you have to be very careful when doing so, cause a sligth error in alligning the drivers, can ruin the total sound from the speaker. I belive that the lower order filters help to hide this more easily. So it can be done, as long as it's done properly.
 
I believe that we may not all hear sound in the same way. Just as we do not all perceive our sense of smell and taste in the same way. Some of us can eat bitter vegetables because we do not perceive the bitterness as sharply as others. Some of us can literally gag on certain bitter flavors such as cabbage, arugula, or coffee. We all have different food preferences, and I think it stems from how nerves in our tongues and noses communicate with our brains, and how our brains assemble the information in those nerve impulses into a perception of what we are eating.

Why should hearing be different? Perhaps some people can hear the effect of high order filters and it bothers them. Perhaps other people can't hear it, or if they do hear it, it does not detract from the listening experience.

The two speakers which created the most memorable listening experiences for me were the Magnepan 3.5 with Mark Levinson electronics and the B&W 801 Matrix with Audio Research electronics... those two speakers could not be more different.

This is why I like the idea of the Hypex DSP controlled amps. It will allow me to easily experiment and discover that which sounds best to me.
 

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
..lack of depth is not an attribute I would associate with that experience.

(..as a point of comparison)

-bear in mind that my comment was not about a 4th order high-pass lacking depth.

Instead that I've not heard one that really portrayed depth well. (..and I referenced a "typical" design: usually something around 1.7-2.5 khz.)


When I test for something like this I pull loudspeakers well out into the room: like 2/3rds of the way on the "long-walls" of a rectangular room - and sit about 7 feet from the loudspeakers (with about 7 feet between the loudspeakers).
 
Last edited:
Well.... you can use higher order filters.... but It's my experience that you have to be very careful when doing so, cause a sligth error in alligning the drivers, can ruin the total sound from the speaker. I belive that the lower order filters help to hide this more easily. So it can be done, as long as it's done properly.

Rubbish!
Use whatever you need to use in order to get a reasonable response. That's done properly;)
 
Scott,

My experience is very limited in that I have only 2 sets of DIY speakers, so a just a personal observation that I have been wrong often, and that opinion,being what it is, is often soapbox sweeping statements.

I took the same system from a 2nd order passive XO to 4th order active XO with a similar crossover point, and the improvements were huge. I guess if I had replicated the original passive XO in active forms then I would have a true Apples for Apples comparison, but to me the improvements in rejection of out of band nasties was far more apparent.

The only issue now is getting an empty house for long enough to put some music on loud and then realising my amp is nearly maxed out, where before I'd have turned out down after 10 minutes when I ran the 2nd order passive crossovers
 

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
Scott,

My experience is very limited in that I have only 2 sets of DIY speakers, so a just a personal observation..

That's cool, I was just interjecting there because sometime's it looks like I'm saying "A doesn't do B", when what I'm really saying is "I've not found A to be as good as B".

BTW, I also hear this aspect with your typical double-ring tweeters, and not everyone does. :eek:



Tweeter additions:


Hard domes with higher excursion at almost 1/3rd the price of the lower cost TL's:

https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1676--peerless-da25tx00-08-spec-sheet.pdf

https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1678--peerless-da32tx00-08-spec-sheet.pdf