2. speakers
  3. 193024-171531

soft dome versus hard dome tweeters

As my internet window shopping continues, I was reading on some speakers that listed for the tweeter textile dome and also silk dome.

So then I used the 'search discussion' function on this site on the subject of soft versus hard dome tweeters and it seemed as if most of the members who offered opinions used that "harsh" and "fatiguing" and "ringing" to describe how they felt about hard dome speakers. In the admittedly short time that I spent reading, I was not picking up a lot of love for hard dome tweeters.

But there are reputable speaker manufacturers that seem to have gone the extra mile to make their hard dome tweeters as hard as possible using, for example, beryllium or artificial(?) diamond dust.

I wouldn't expect a consensus on much of anything audio, but did I just by luck to find responses by mostly people who prefer soft dome tweeters?  Because if they really sound that bad (harsh/fatiguing/ringing) in comparison, why would reputable manufacturers choose this route?  And I do realize that appreciation of a sonic effect is subjective, so did I just happen on responses by members who had mostly the same subjective perception?

immatthewj

Showing 1 response by incorrigable

incorrigable
65 posts
 

Excursion is distortion. With that knowledge one wants a rigid driver that oscillates very little. Hence the proliferation of dome midranges, like on TAD and Yamaha speakers. That said they aren't particularly efficient or cheap. Beryllium's difficulties drove Yamaha to develop aramid drivers coated in Monel. There other "exotic" tweeter materials because of the aggravation of beryllium. Many have made peace with it. 

Study your options. Do not be ashamed of your budget. Price is a criterion of degree of difficulty. If you speak another language look the model up on foreign sites you understand or can translate. Biases are hidden in adjectives. Also think about your listening space for sizing. 

 

More to discover