That's the problem with buying stuffs from far east. They can say anything they want.
Hi, it would be great to share your subjective (objective?)opinion about all AMTs you've listened so far. Not really a comparison between them but rather trying to describe their performance compared to classic ribbon drivers (and of course dome midranges for those who're interested). Maybe in a new topic ?
I'm going to build a big 3-way soon with Aurum Cantus AST25120 AMTs so if you have ANY kind of experience with Aurum AMTs pls share that in a new thread with us
What I found interesting so far is that AMTs might have a better power handling maybe.. ? (Closer to specs or they can do even slightly more without damage - unlike true ribbons). I'd cross them at 2k with 4th order 48dB/oct filter.
Yes you are right about the Usher DMD not being vapour deposit.
Regardless of how they are made they sound extremely good.I would take them over the Scanspeak Be as used in the Magicos,The Raal ribbons,the ESS AMTs,the Scanspeak ring radiators,the Beyma AMTs,The B&W diamonds,the Raven point source ribbons,the Seas Millenium,the SB ring domes,the Celestion HF2000 [which is right up with many of those] etc.
If you have a really good system the quality of timbre ,harmonics and delicacy they produce is really something special.
I'm sure they're really nice tweeters but I've decided to go with the Ushers for now. Would love to have the opportunity to hear those though
I really don't mind the price and/or material of a tweeter, as long as it's decently built and blows my mind with its sound. I've read quite a few good comments about these DMD tweeters from Usher so I'm sure they sound good at least.
Hi, it would be great to share your subjective (objective?)
I'm going to build a big 3-way soon with Aurum Cantus AST25120 AMTs so if you have ANY kind of experience with Aurum AMTs pls share that in a new thread with us
What I found interesting so far is that AMTs might have a better power handling maybe.. ? (Closer to specs or they can do even slightly more without damage - unlike true ribbons). I'd cross them at 2k with 4th order 48dB/oct filter.
The only issue is that I don't have experience with classic ribbon drivers, the kind that use aluminum foil as the diaphragm/conductor.
The only ribbons I've used/heard are planar ribbons that are made out of [usually] mylar with etched aluminum traces as conductors, such as the one in the picture I posted. I have a pair of AC AST30130's coming in soon, so I'll naturally be collecting data with my Dayton Omnimic.
Wow great, I'm curious what kind of results you'll have (how close to factory measurements) and also what your subjective optinion is.
Yeah it looks average. Now the SB Acoustics Satori Beryllium (TW29BN) tweeter actually has really good dispersion, that's probably why Revel chose it for their new PerformaBe line, given Floyd Toole's obsession with dispersion.
My results have to be taken with a grain of salt due to me not having an identical measurement setup as the manufacturer.
In a way, I prefer my own measurements because they will end up reflecting the reality of the actual listening environment.
They don't sound bad, I agree they do sound decent--for a narrow listening location. They are quite directional above 3K--it's a 1.25" tweeter without a waveguide after all.
Same here, including room reflections, etc. all that. Anyway, good luck and hopefully you'll get blown away, fingers crossed.
Interesting discussions. Has anyone heard the Satori berylliums vs the Scanspeak berylliums? How do they compare?
Dispersion is great and all but I'm really after the sound the most, even if that means more directivity. In my small room, a more directional tweeter would probably even be better to avoid more reflections, though I already do have effective acoustic treatments for the first reflection points at least.
Dispersion is great and all but I'm really after the sound the most, even if that means more directivity. In my small room, a more directional tweeter would probably even be better to avoid more reflections, though I already do have effective acoustic treatments for the first reflection points at least.
I guess it depends on how loud you plan on playing too. Generally a wide dispersion design means you can achieve a more even power response, which means intelligibility is higher. This means you can play a source at a lower volume level for the same level of intelligibility, so if you have volume restrictions due to whatever (neighbors, small children, etc), I find a wide dispersion design very advantageous for a small room setup at middle and low volume levels. For example if I'm comparing a no waveguide soft dome like an Esotar vs Revel/JBL tweeter a with giant waveguide+acoustic lens, I might find equal intelligibility of a TV broadcaster's voice at 75db with the former vs 70 db with the latter.
If you are going to play on the louder side, this intelligibility difference will narrow. Also the downside of wide dispersion designs is on the flip side it tends to sound worse as the volume increases, it'll exacerbate room issues, and if you are sensitive to high frequencies, the highs will start getting a little too crisp sounding due to increasing room loading of reflected/off-axis highs. Really depends on use case I guess, there's pros/cons either way.
If you are going to play on the louder side, this intelligibility difference will narrow. Also the downside of wide dispersion designs is on the flip side it tends to sound worse as the volume increases, it'll exacerbate room issues, and if you are sensitive to high frequencies, the highs will start getting a little too crisp sounding due to increasing room loading of reflected/off-axis highs. Really depends on use case I guess, there's pros/cons either way.
Last edited:
