Should Polk design a Beryllium tweeter??

Polkitup2

I listened to the Paradigm Signature S6 with the Be tweeter this weekend. Bright thin sounding speaker. Not for me for 2 channel, maybe HT.

Face

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Docs/Truth_beryllium_diaphragms.doc

Kex

Midnite Mick wrote: »

I think it had a trace of Beryllium. You can do some research online as one person really came after them regarding this. Anyway, in the end who cares, all that matters is if you dig the sound or not.

This sort of thing would not lead me to want to buy their speaker. It's like a marketing ploy:

Director: How about a Beryllium tweeter? Those seem to generate a lot of enthusiasm.
Technician: Yeah, they'd be a good choice, but they are very expensive, and our existing tweeters are very good already.
Director: How about we incorporate a teeny amount of Beryllium, so we can say they are a Beryllium tweeter, but just keep the tweeter the way it is, since you say it's "very good already"? We get to keep our cake and eat it too.
Techician: Well, if it's legal, it can certainly be done.

I don't really trust any company that incorporates such tiny amounts of a "buzz word" substance in their products that it has no positive effect on the outcome. It's a bit like the way Emotiva (and others) play the big numbers game to fool those that will allow themselves to be fooled into thinking they're getting something they're not.

This is not unusual with cosmetics, but it's something I prefer to avoid, and I don't think it is even remotely in the consumers' best interests.

dorokusai

Face wrote: »

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Docs/Truth_beryllium_diaphragms.doc

Thanks Face, that's what I wanted to read.

Midnite Mick

Kex wrote: »

This sort of thing would not lead me to want to buy their speaker. It's like a marketing ploy:

Director: How about a Beryllium tweeter? Those seem to generate a lot of enthusiasm.
Technician: Yeah, they'd be a good choice, but they are very expensive, and our existing tweeters are very good already.
Director: How about we incorporate a teeny amount of Beryllium, so we can say they are a Beryllium tweeter, but just keep the tweeter the way it is, since you say it's "very good already"? We get to keep our cake and eat it too.
Techician: Well, if it's legal, it can certainly be done.

I don't really trust any company that incorporates such tiny amounts of a "buzz word" substance in their products that it has no positive effect on the outcome. It's a bit like the way Emotiva (and others) play the big numbers game to fool those that will allow themselves to be fooled into thinking they're getting something they're not.

This is not unusual with cosmetics, but it's something I prefer to avoid, and I don't think it is even remotely in the consumers' best interests.

I would hardly put Usher in the same camp with Emotiva. However, it definitely was a mis-step on their part. In the end if one likes or dislikes what they hear what is the difference? After all that is what I think sells or doesn't sell speakers.

I have followed this debate a little online and for whatever its worth Usher claimed ignorance on this....I know this will bring responses however please note I did say whatever it is worth.

Regards,
Mike

Midnite Mick

dorokusai wrote: »

Have you told Usher?

Okay, not sure about Usher themselves, but Musikmatters (North America importer) doesn't call it a Beryllium tweeter.

Edit: Looked at the site again and they are still calling it a Beryllium tweeter in the be718 but call it a ceramic metal dome in the new Mini Dancers even though it is the same tweeter...kind of weird.

Regards,
Mike

Kex

Midnite Mick wrote: »

I would hardly put Usher in the same camp with Emotiva. ...

He he!

... However, it definitely was a mis-step on their part. ...

Which means they deserved the comparison!

Midnite Mick

This topic has made me re dig up some of the stuff that I read before regarding the Usher Beryllium debate. I stated something that wasn't accurate as this topic is from a little while ago. I did not find anywhere where Usher claimed ignorance on this. Anyway, here is a thread with some links if anybody wants to dig into it further.

http://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=1510.0

Regards,
Mike

heiney9

cnh wrote: »

I remember hearing the Usher and they really are no match for Focal's version. I found the Usher a bit too shrill on the top end at loud volumes whereas the Focals don't strain an inch as you turn up the volume...

cnh

Same room, same gear, same music?

DeusExa

http://www.slashgear.com/bowers-wilkins-updates-high-end-800-series-speakers-%E2%80%93-diamond-tweeters-2571242/

haha.

cnh

heiney9 wrote: »

Same room, same gear, same music?

Point well taken....no. Same gear possibly because I heard the Focals run by a number of different AVRs and amps, etc. Same music...'similar' enough.

Same room....definitely not! But I've heard Focal's Beryllium tweeters on three different occasions...different rooms, different equipment...each time they were my favorite tweeter in the room.

But it is subjective. Because I'd also say that Focal's Alum/mag inverted domes are also damned good tweets! Just this side of the Be tweeter...so it's not just the Focal tweeter material but also its supporting 'staff'.

cnh

ben62670

I have heard the Focal's in an untreated room and I would hardly call them too bright.

Face

Diamond tweeters and mid ranges for the DYI'er.

http://www.accuton.de/drivers/list.php?PHPSESSID=5ba3ee39bcd905dff64cf539c1a32472&m1=2&m2=1&m3=0&matID=1&appID=%&PHPSESSID=5ba3ee39bcd905dff64cf539c1a32472

cnh

Here's a new wrinkle since we're citing diamonds...GRAPHENE...a fairly new material that is an essentially one carbon atom thick sheet...hence two-dimensional is structurally stronger than diamonds. Will this material be used in a super tweeter in the future...it also has electrical conductivity so that may be a problem or not? See Wiki for more info on this. A revolutionary material fabricated for the first time in the 21st century.

cnh