Advantages of beryllium?

kosst_amojan still waiting for you to point out a modern BE compression driver with better specs than TAD? But maybe all you had was a rude reply and ignorant comment.   And for the rest this maybe of interest http://www.audioxpress.com/article/Voice-Coil-Spotlight-The-Beryllium-Advantage

@willemj I hope it isn't dying.  The resurgence of vinyl combined with cheaper bandwidth and data storage allow for higher quality digital recordings where mp3 was the norm.  The baby boomers are going to impact every aspect of every market because of the population size.  What has changed is how people listen to music.  It no longer has to be sitting in front of speakers or tied to a large component unless you're listening to vinyl.  Music listening is mobile and I think there are more people listening to music because of that than ever before.

@defiantboomerang I wouldn't worry about beryllium's toxicity in speakers.  The speaker mfgs like Persona and Focal use a shield over them to ensure a kid doesn't go poke them open and inhale the dust.

I read a recent story about the diplomats that were stationed in Cuba and lost their hearing, apparently due to some very high frequency sounds. Apparently those frequencies were generated by metal dome tweeters. The highs break up above what most consider the upper limits of human hearing so they just produced sounds about that frequency and let that " break up " do the rest.
Crazy

kosst,

You don’t pay me so I have no obligation to meet any sort of criteria. Your claim that mega buck speakers are superior. Back that up first, then I’ll consider playing your game. Oh, no, I won’t.

Just look at the waterfall, distortion and compression data. Micromotor tweets suck. Do your own research.

JA often says things completely at odd with his own measurements. At the very least, JA and I are in agreement that all the Focal tweeters are very similar performers, regardless of price. You may call that good, I do not. As far as I am concerned, the Focal tweeters are mediocre, and the high end speakers are not actually better.

The past Magico tweeter (which I posted model data) and the current Be/Graphene tweeter OTOH however is a really stellar performer. Sounds and measures far better than anything out of Focal and B&W on and off axis. (personally I find them tuned too bright, but still stellar sounding!) So, there’s a great example, as are several examples I have shown you before. If you want me to do more research for you you’d have to meet my hourly rates, and I would have to care.

I have given you specific examples of driers and speaker makers and models of what I consider significantly better. That is all you get.

On the other hand, as far as hobby talking, I put Golden Ears, Focal and B&W on one camp, with Magico, Gryphon and YG on another. If you think the previous set is any good at all, switch to the latter. and compare.

Best,

E

Now boys........behave...it is just a hobby.......just go on tweeter and let loose....that has become trendy now..

I've backed up my statements as much as anyone on Audiogon. That's all you get little troll.

Actually kosst, some of us are operating even below erik’s "low standard", and enjoy reading his posts.

Kosst is not very knowledgeable but he will give opinion without fact and without experience if you ask him to prove his BS reply’s he has nothing but weak insults. Guys a joke ignore his trolls.

@shadorne --

Highly rigid and light but poor internal damping.

Personally I don’t like the splashy sound of drivers of this type design (metal and highly rigid). They have great bandwidth that makes for impressive measured performance but I find the sound is "splashy" due to the way rigid materials vibrate naturally (like a bell vibrates and rings after an initial hit but a damped material like a pillow does not).

Splashy is a good term - as in when you splash the water it makes a lot of sound after the initial splash. Acoustically this means the driver imparts its own sound to the timbre whereas an internally damped cone material is much more inert - contributing much less coloration after the sound stops.

I prefer damped designs even though they tend to have a narrower bandwidth and can suffer from breakup and therefore require more careful design and larger more expensive drive motors. Damped cones sound much more natural and faithful to the original tone/timbre of recorded instruments even if they are not as linear on a speaker frequency plot.
...

"Splashy" may indeed be a fitting term here. I’ve heard someone use the exact same term describing his impressions of the sound from a pair of JBL Project Everest DD66000, which uses beryllium diaphragms for both the midrange and tweeter. Some two weeks ago I had another listen to the JBL K2 S9900’s (last time before that I heard them was about 5 years ago), and this time around my personal reference for the last two years has been horn speakers using a composite diaphragm (apparently paper-based) for the midrange, and polyester ditto for the tweeter. I know there are many variables other than diaphragm materials here, but listening to the JBL’s this time around (which use coated magnesium diaphragms for the midrange) gave the impression of a slightly hollow, out-of-focus, and rather bleached/grey-ish midrange that further lacked presence and substance (we played a lot a different music, and the associating gear was top shelf Mark Levinson). I can honestly say that I much prefer not only the midrange but the overall sound of my own horn speakers, which are more refined, coherent and enveloping (bear in mind my speakers are augmented with a sub, but that doesn’t change the fundamental observation here) - and that at about a quarter of the price compared to the JBL’s (about a third incl. the sub). I was actually astounded to hear this, and it made me think about the importance of the diaphragm material - in addition to the material of the horn itself, and its geometry (and even further, of course, the x-over); looking at the JBL’s (both the K2’s and Everest’s) gives the impression of design aesthetics being a core parameter, so much indeed that it makes you wonder the nature of the midrange horn flares used (what’s even the horn geometry used here?), and how much they’re formed on the basis of a chosen (visual) design more than a consideration of the horn flare itself that would then dictate design aesthetics (i.e.: form follows function). I’m by no means an expert in horn geometry, not even close, but nevertheless that’s the sensation I’m getting here. I’m also wondering the benefit of the extended frequency span (upwards) using exotic metal as diaphragm material, as has been already suggested, when damping properties are negatively impacted - if at all truly a negative property in regards to sonic outcome. Sorry for the detour..

@phusis

I believe many people are able to hear what you describe with metal or rigid material versus damped materials. Equally there are others who dont seem to pick up on it or be sensitive to it. Maybe some of us listen more closely to timbre (the tonal content and the way it decays). The rigid drivers measure very well and have a wider usable bandwidth which gives the speaker better frequency range specs - so they have strong merits. My point is that this extra bandwidth comes at a price - the in band performance is not as clean on a waterfall. I still have not seen a better measurement on a tweeter than the Excel Millenium soft dome made with a doped sonolex fabric - Harbeth use this tweeter and Harbeth midrange is a damped design too that also just happens to be highly regarded for mid range quality - of course I believe this is no cooincidence and that transducer design and material is very important.

@shadorne --

I believe you are right in your views; some listeners are more inclined/sensitive towards tonally accurate reproduction, or certainly a tonal/timbral balance that differs from that of the less damped designs. I’d guess the Harbeth/more damped diaphragm design as-a-whole, many things being equal, to reflect a more authentic timbre, but it’s difficult to assess the myriad of effects with different implementations, and how this affects the sonic outcome and ones ability to single out individual parameters such as diaphragm materials and their sonic implications. Wouldn’t aluminium, though being relatively rigid, have different, more damped properties than beryllium or titanium? JBL, if I’m not incorrect, with their pro segment speakers converted to titanium (from aluminium) for one primary reason alone: durability. A (very) secondary reason perhaps being frequency extension. However, in all this it would still seem sonic considerations to have been close to non-existing, and while I won’t claim this to be the case in the more hifi-oriented realm of driver development it would seem the more careful "hands in the dirt" sonic assessment, at least towards live acoustic sources (incl. voices), is less an agenda than theoretical advancements in particular areas as well as (a limited range of) measurements, such as frequency extension.