SB Acoustics Textreme

That it is but it does occur as titanium oxide.
Titanium oxide is dirt cheap and practically everything we own that is white is so because titanium oxide is used as white pigment.

Turning titanium oxide back into titanium requires vast amounts of energy and because of that metallic titanium will never be cheap. May be not expensive enough to justify $500 but it is not going to be as cheap as its abundancy might suggest.

https://www.amazon.com/0-5mm-100mm-Titanium-Plate-Titan/dp/B07G8XPFQX
 
Very good sound results do not require very expensive drivers, they do not guarantee good results. Just look at KII three and everything will be clear. Seas is a big disappointment and a robbery. replace the former with a little titanium and coat the membrane with god ask what they call Graphine and it costs $ 500, please, by the way Titanium is the ninth most abundant element in the earth's crust, so it's not uncommon.
I'm not even going to start talking about Scan Speak, € 90 for 10f are they normal? I won't fund their greed and neither should we.

I can relate to that.

I get the impression that price rise by majority of brands we use is systematic. It also relates to crossover components. I could write bunch of examples but we are offtopic so i'll just say - thank god for Dayton Audio and Peerless. They are the last bastion of adequately priced components for a diy-er.
 
Don't forget inflation, supplier cost etc. The market is dynamic. If a producer does not have sufficient headroom or a good forecast/projection, then sudden price jumps are to be expected. For a single capacitor we are talking cents to a dollar, if it suddenly cost twice or three times, then that is an indiction of something else. Could be a change in management or whatever.. these things happen.
 
Last edited:
Right now it shows similar cone break up as metal domes usually have, although not as severe. Not saying its bad or good :) Will be interesting to evaluate non the less
First peak appears to happen post-20kHz which should make it (and the corresponding distortion sub-harmonics) inaudible. Although, as you mentioned, most metal domes are that way too...

Weirdly, the 4 ohm version has much better off-axis response at the top end.
 
First peak appears to happen post-20kHz which should make it (and the corresponding distortion sub-harmonics) inaudible. Although, as you mentioned, most metal domes are that way too...

Weirdly, the 4 ohm version has much better off-axis response at the top end.
It should be Al/Al-Mg domes. If we look at SBA's Be domes, they don't show that type of breakup. Irregularities above 20kHz can be from multiple sources, so issues above 20-25kHz can't be exclusively traced to the dome material. Take TW29DN which is a soft dome tweeter, it has som elevated energy above 10kHz and evidence of cone breakup at 15kHz which can be seen off-axis (SBA's own measurement), but its not evident in the harmonic measurements (see link) while SB26STC can't be said to show this. Hificompass measurements show different content off-axis compared to SBA's while on axis is fairly similar.

Satori TW29DN | HiFiCompass
SB Acoustics SB29SDAC-C000-4 | HiFiCompass

The question I have regarding TeXtreme as a tweeter material is: What does it solve or contribute to ? With the existence of already nice tweeters from SBA, right now its difficult to see what this TX tweeter will offer. TeXtreme as midrange and woofer material is much more interesting.
 
If you are referring to the nulls of TW29DN, a rigid dome on an infinite baffle can produce an interference pattern by itself. That TW29DN is not moving rigidly is implied by the diaphragm material, which in turn might produce that rise in axial response.

The advantage of TX model in the preliminary data is the wider radiation pattern (edit: off-axis coverage) compared to the other TW29 models. But I don't understand how this would be a benefit unique to this material either.
 
Last edited:
The point of the textreme material is potentially offering the stiffness of a true rigid cone, like metal/ceramic, whilst also offering high internal damping.

This would allow it to have pistonic operation over the usual pass band that stiff cones come with but to also completely do away with the distortion amplification issues that stiff cones typically come with. The proof with be in the measurements.
 
The point of the textreme material is potentially offering the stiffness of a true rigid cone, like metal/ceramic, whilst also offering high internal damping.
I am totally with you there regarding mids and woofers, but like I said, I don't see (currently) the advantage for a tweeter. Perhaps when the updated Fr response is published and proper evaluation can be done it will make more sense :)
 
The point of the textreme material is potentially offering the stiffness of a true rigid cone, like metal/ceramic, whilst also offering high internal damping.

This would allow it to have pistonic operation over the usual pass band that stiff cones come with but to also completely do away with the distortion amplification issues that stiff cones typically come with. The proof with be in the measurements.
Carbon fiber composites do not have high internal damping. Mixed fiber composites have significant more damping but also lower stiffness. The difference with Textron is that it is more like an unidirectional fiber crossed 90º and the stiffness/damping behavior is quite different from a standard weave. So the breakup pattern of these membranes is reflecting that.
 
Carbon fiber composites do not have high internal damping. Mixed fiber composites have significant more damping but also lower stiffness. The difference with Textron is that it is more like an unidirectional fiber crossed 90º and the stiffness/damping behavior is quite different from a standard weave. So the breakup pattern of these membranes is reflecting that.
But wouldn't the weave with its crossed pattern qualify as having damping property's? Its one thing to talk about the material and how its used. Take a sandwich material, there, the individual materials used have their own unique property and because one combine multiple property's, the total sum (strength, stiffness etc.) is greater than when the materials are used as is or singular. So what I am saying is that while the material itself might not have enough desired properties, how it is used might. And I think there is foam support in place (unverified) that also will give the cone a higher structural integrity, but correct me if I am wrong :)