Look on the bright side -I'm sure diamond domes will soon be available at bargain prices for those who feel the need.
TBH, I like the beryllium dome Satori within its design context. Compared to the soft dome & ring-radiator models using the same motor (more or less), in the same speaker, & with the same baseline response, I prefer it. But: it's about 2.3x more expensive, and as you say, it's percentage point differences in performance.
I agree and i also hear significant difference between hard domes and soft domes. But comparing Al\Mg dome to a Be dome - everything else being equal - i'd be really surprised if anyone could tell the difference if both domes would be painted black
Imagine SB26ADC and say SB26BeDC tweeter. Everything else the same but the dome. What would the Be dome be able to do that Al or Mg wouldn't ? Good example are BlieSma T34A and T34B tweeters. I'd argue that aluminium dome (200 euros cheaper) measures better, especially off axis being more consistent to on axis response and waterfall. Distortion wise they measure like it is the same tweeter just different batch. Be has slightly lower Mms - 0.02gr to be exact so, that's hardly of any significance.
Last edited:
I agree and i also hear significant difference between hard domes and soft domes. But comparing Al\Mg dome to a Be dome - everything else being equal - i'd be really surprised if anyone could tell the difference if both domes would be painted black
So would I, quite honestly, assuming there's no IM issues from the ultrasonic breakup mode (which is as much a question of suspension & motor quality).
Agreed. The T34A is a tweeter I've had my evil eye on for a while, & would be my pick of the two also. Speaking more generally, beryllium does appear to make it easier to avoid the use of phase-guides / Helmholtz resonators over the front of metal dome tweeters, which I'm not overly fond of, so on that score, it's a positive, but as we've seen it's possible to avoid them or keep them modest with aluminium alloys / magnesium / ceramics also (TL's units for e.g. in the latter two cases, although I wish their published data went > 20KHz).
Beryllium assemblies normally have a lower mass than Al/Mg/Al-Mg/Corundum, so the tweeters wouldn't be expected to be a drop-in replacement. Efficiency difference and all.
This can be useful for 1" domes and would be nice if placed on the 26ADC motor. That would be all the advantage I can think of.
This can be useful for 1" domes and would be nice if placed on the 26ADC motor. That would be all the advantage I can think of.
I agree and i also hear significant difference between hard domes and soft domes. But comparing Al\Mg dome to a Be dome - everything else being equal - i'd be really surprised if anyone could tell the difference if both domes would be painted black
Imagine SB26ADC and say SB26BeDC tweeter. Everything else the same but the dome. What would the Be dome be able to do that Al or Mg wouldn't ? Good example are BlieSma T34A and T34B tweeters. I'd argue that aluminium dome (200 euros cheaper) measures better, especially off axis being more consistent to on axis response and waterfall. Distortion wise they measure like it is the same tweeter just different batch. Be has slightly lower Mms - 0.02gr to be exact so, that's hardly of any significance.
For the Bliesma , I asked the question of the differences between the two to Malikov
His answer are
- the Alu version has the better off axis reponse
- it's easier to design a crossover filter with the Be version
- the Be version has nearyl 2 db less distorsion (Ok, both are so low, that it should not be possible to ear any differences)
A sine and square wave of 10 kHz are indistinguishable to our species.
It is not a difficult test to determine at which frequency you begin to hear difference between square and sine wave. You will be surprised.
I am making this point because I think the extreme end of the frequency response of a tweeter is not all that important, perception wise, and this high frequency region is where beryllium is supposed to be superior. So I don't buy it.
It is not a difficult test to determine at which frequency you begin to hear difference between square and sine wave. You will be surprised.
I am making this point because I think the extreme end of the frequency response of a tweeter is not all that important, perception wise, and this high frequency region is where beryllium is supposed to be superior. So I don't buy it.
I'm sceptical too.
Only if all variables are the same except the dome material, we can prove it scientifically.
I've heard that there's only one way company that makes Be domes on this globe. And they specialize in Be so I guess they don't make the alu domes too.
That's what makes it difficult to prove: I can't imagine there isn't some weight or shape difference between the Bliesma alu/be domes. Weight difference we can confirm by looking at mms. Shape?
Only if all variables are the same except the dome material, we can prove it scientifically.
I've heard that there's only one way company that makes Be domes on this globe. And they specialize in Be so I guess they don't make the alu domes too.
That's what makes it difficult to prove: I can't imagine there isn't some weight or shape difference between the Bliesma alu/be domes. Weight difference we can confirm by looking at mms. Shape?
The vast majority of beryllium membranes are sourced from Materion as beryllium foil. Some vendors have their own tooling to work the material, but it still is notoriously difficult to shape.
The Bliesma domes have clear geometric differences. T34A and T25A domes bulge outwards, whereas the profile of the Be versions is more subtle.
The Bliesma domes have clear geometric differences. T34A and T25A domes bulge outwards, whereas the profile of the Be versions is more subtle.
Be is the best metal material for tweeter application. It's a unique combinaison of lightness and hardness.
Concerning the sound, they sound nice ( I least on my B741) but I doubt that they sound special It's just high fidelity, very low distorsion tweeter.
am probably be a little late to the party...
in the past, laser scans were published for loudspeaker chassis. There you could see nicely when and how the parts break open.
In the past, the disadvantage of 1 inch tweeters was that they broke open earlier than 0.75 inch parts.
This is also the advantage of Berillium over aluminum / titanium / soft dome. It breaks up later / outside the audible range. Therefore ise also sound cleaner (in my experience).
in the past, laser scans were published for loudspeaker chassis. There you could see nicely when and how the parts break open.
In the past, the disadvantage of 1 inch tweeters was that they broke open earlier than 0.75 inch parts.
This is also the advantage of Berillium over aluminum / titanium / soft dome. It breaks up later / outside the audible range. Therefore ise also sound cleaner (in my experience).
Most aluminum domes break up above 20 kHz anyway. With Be, though, you can make the dome bigger and therefore have better low-end performance while keeping the breakup above 20 kHz, but OTOH you get more beaming in the top octave with a larger dome. Decisions, decisions...
True...
... not only can you make the dome larger with Be, you can also make it flatter, i.e. less of a hemisphere. There is a phase cancellation effect when the height of the dome = lambda/2... with a Be dome, the height can be less than an aluminum dome of the same diameter.
I have noticed that most 25mm Be domes have better dispersion at 10 kHz than do 25 mm aluminum domes, even without phase shields. I suspect this is due to the flatter diaphragm.
... not only can you make the dome larger with Be, you can also make it flatter, i.e. less of a hemisphere. There is a phase cancellation effect when the height of the dome = lambda/2... with a Be dome, the height can be less than an aluminum dome of the same diameter.
I have noticed that most 25mm Be domes have better dispersion at 10 kHz than do 25 mm aluminum domes, even without phase shields. I suspect this is due to the flatter diaphragm.
Most are a spherical section, but I recall some textile domes (probably silk domes) having a parobolic or eliptical shape... they were a little more "cone" shaped than spherical.
What I mean by hemisphere is "half of a sphere"... so in other words a 25mm dome would have a diaphragm radius of 12.5mm. Looking at some of the modern silk domes, this looks like the case... they look like half of a sphere.
A lot of metal domes have a diaphragm radius which is larger. The Be drivers look to me to have a radius which is pretty large. Has anyone else noticed this?
What I mean by hemisphere is "half of a sphere"... so in other words a 25mm dome would have a diaphragm radius of 12.5mm. Looking at some of the modern silk domes, this looks like the case... they look like half of a sphere.
A lot of metal domes have a diaphragm radius which is larger. The Be drivers look to me to have a radius which is pretty large. Has anyone else noticed this?
The first speakers I remember hearing fitted with beryllium tweeters (and midrange) were the famous Yamaha Ns1000.
No metallic sound as many blamed it for the sole reason of being able to visually see the transducers. As the attached review says, when the transducers were not visible, the "defect" disappeared. With so many years gone by, I can't lean in favor of Beryllium or soft cloth dome, but I love my Audax TW034 with TG waveguides.
I leave some interesting readings.
Yamaha NS-1000 Loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
Yamaha-NS1000
BliSMa
No metallic sound as many blamed it for the sole reason of being able to visually see the transducers. As the attached review says, when the transducers were not visible, the "defect" disappeared.
With so many years gone by, I can't lean in favor of Beryllium or soft cloth dome, but I love my Audax TW034 with TG waveguides.I leave some interesting readings.
Yamaha NS-1000 Loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
Yamaha-NS1000
BliSMa