Distortion, resonance, frequency dependent sensitivity...
all could certainly result in the perception of what would seem "quieter"
(which is rather ill-defined). I don't believe anyone is doubting this effect.
Arm waving and name calling (effectively) seems counter productive.
-grumpy (yes, I'm "technical")
I think Ian's "technical" comments were referring to my sometimes showing lack of respect for All Technical Services Company aka: Altec.Originally Posted by grumpy
Widget
Muhahahah.
I did not invent the term but is has appeared independently and been used on a number of other horn/ audio forums by those discussing the merits of beryillium based drivers.
I guess you can call them out as idiots if you like.
It matters not because so few people here or elswhere have exposure to such devices .
Ian,
I can only agree with Merlin on this " in comparison everything else sounds broken" or words to that effect.
I can't back it up with graph, but I know of people that can and have done.
Rich
No myth that beryllium is a superior material for mid and HF drivers, but there is a bit of myth and lore surrounding it.
As for the Be/AL composites, I think they are AL drivers using a Be coating to give them a bit of the "Emperor's New Clothes" effect. I was recently talking with Andrew Jones, the designer of the TAD home speakers, and he told me that they were introducing a new line of less expensive speakers in the TAD/Pioneer EX line that used a ceramic composite tweeter. In his words, "if beryllium is two times better than aluminum, then this ceramic composite was one and a half times better." And previously when they developed the midrange driver for the EX series, to reduce the cost of the 6" beryllium driver used in the TAD they went to a 5" magnesium cone. In both of these cases I am sure if a Be/AL composite was superior that is what they would use.
Widget
Very good info and explaination on the BMS graphs, thx Widgetif beryllium is two times better than aluminum, then this ceramic composite was one and a half times better." And previously when they developed the midrange driver for the EX series, to reduce the cost of the 6" beryllium driver used in the TAD they went to a 5" magnesium cone. In both of these cases I am sure if a Be/AL composite was superior that is what they would use.
Keith
Hey Ian, nice pictures!
Keith
Ian,
I don't think all Be drivers are created equal
For instance, to my ears the 435be was something of a disappointment. Sorry to have to say that but on the other hand, I was really impressed by the 476be in the Everest 2.
The TAD 2002 has also really surprised me. It has such glorious tone - sounding reminiscent of the Vitavox S2 without the ringing and vintage folklore crap.
When I used the term "made the others sound broken" it was in response to what I thought of brand A in comparison with brand B. I suspect you can fill in the blanks.
Merlin,Ian,
I don't think all Be drivers are created equal
For instance, to my ears the 435be was something of a disappointment. Sorry to have to say that but on the other hand, I was really impressed by the 476be in the Everest 2.
The TAD 2002 has also really surprised me. It has such glorious tone - sounding reminiscent of the Vitavox S2 without the ringing and vintage folklore crap.
When I used the term "made the others sound broken" it was in response to what I thought of brand A in comparison with brand B. I suspect you can fill in the blanks.
sorry mate ,I hope I didn't quote you out of context
There is no need to.
As you seem to elude to in your confusing post, there is no one right answer.
Widget
I know you meant allude, but maybe elude was better.........
. . . or etude . . .
Oops!
Where's the emoticon with egg on it?
Widget
Let's not be pissing Ian off until AFTER he tells us about the 2435HPL on 1.5" horn, now....
Haven't you tried that combo out yet?
Was it quieter than an L100's LE25?
Widget
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
