In a recent conversation of knowledgable folk on another forum, one person described the sound from compression drivers with titanium diaphragms as the classic ice pick to the forehead sound.
I never really found them to be harsh or outwardly forward but I suppose I enjoy horns in general but I beleive many do not.
...anyway, I suppose this is an amusing description by one who does not.
Exactly!Originally Posted by robertbartsch
...and we should always remember they out number us... which is a good thing, if everyone enjoyed the ice pick to the forehead sound we'd be paying far more for our speakers.
Widget
..these things are way too dangerous!
.....dispite what the Second Amendment says, I think we should outlaw ice picks!
He wouldn’t be watching Basic Instinct by any chance?
I find some music or film mixes to be very toppy bright with harsh edge. I just tone the level down on the front HF LCR.
In the case of Johnny Boz who got buggered up pretty badly by titanium HF Ice Pick!
Exactly!
...and we should always remember they out number us... which is a good thing, if everyone enjoyed the ice pick to the forehead sound we'd be paying far more for our speakers.
WidgetI hear there real cheap at Kmart!
Funny, upon auditioning speakers recently my wife and I listened to Maggies and they have a definate shrill resonance in the treble, more subtle than the spikes in a Klipsch Heresy but most certainly there. After a few minutes they were setting my teeth on edge and giving my wife an earache.
Yet unlike horns Maggies are "audiophile approved" and people are free to interpret the resonance as increased detail.
To be fair - I've owned some Maggies, Tom (2.6R and Tympani IV-D) and I didn't hear what you describe. That's not to say the model(s) you heard weren't that way.
robertbartsch -
I do find the 2426H/2370A combo needs some cut in the 2-4kHz area, but nothing that isn't manageable.
speakers SpeakersThere realy isn't much choice. This "tizzi, high Q Resonance is inherent in nearly all modern Electro - Static Speakers, Professional Studio Microphones, & Electro - Magnetic Panel Speakers which now use Mylar Film diaphragms exclisively.
Mylar is very durable & mechanicaly stable, but it sorely lacks the clean, lovely "Sheen" of the transducer diaphragms popular prior to the 1960's, AKA in the Quad Speakers, & other Electrostatic speakers, as well as the original classic Magna-planars.
The highly sought - after pre 1960's "Telefunken U-47 Studio Microphone"manufactured by George Neumann in Germany, used a Poly Vynal (3) micron, (1) inch diaphragm which was made by pouring the Poly Vynal in liquid state on a rotaring (1) inch dia' round optical glass disc__ spinning to flow off the excess plastic compound until the film was reduced to (3) micron thickness. A tiny short plastic cylinder was then cemented to the perifery of the diaphragm while it was still flat on the round glass disc to form a precison (can-like)assembly which could be slipped & clamped onto the mcrophone capsule body.
RCA,
Last edited by herki the cat; 07-04-2009 at 02:16 PM. Reason: additional text
I made the comment about titanium frams. I do NOT LIKE THEM. Neither does John Meyer, and a host of others. Note JBL engineers are also playing with Beryllium and are bringing out new aluminum frams. If titanium is the be all and end all, why are they doing that? There are measured artifacts induced by titanium..they ain't perfect.
I own JBL's. Mine have the old aluminum frams. I prefer that sound.
Well, we have to remember what the Ti diaphragms were supposed to do. When JBL researched and then introduced them, they were created in response to the problems with the Aluminum and dural diaphragms in use then - namely, limited lifespan, especially with the advent of higher power and SPL requirements, relatively older voice coil technology including adhesives and power handling, and the need to create a tougher and more durable diaphragm that could meet the prevailing sound requirments.
My understanding is when JBL got into the portable sound and higher SPL touring and Cinema markets, they started to see all kinds of failures that indicated the aluminum parts, while sounding great, had reached the limits of their design. Trying to find a compatible yet tougher material while holding down the cost efficiently led them to Ti.
They introduced the smooth Ti diaphagms and further development and research indicated the metal dome resonances were a problem. The diamond surrounds and then the ribbed pattern domes were an effort to tame and harness those resonances to extend the frequency response while maintaining the desirable characteristics of Ti. All of this was done over 2 decades while thousands of speakers were in operation daily in venues all over the world. JBL was responding to their needs as well as looking out for their product warranty issues.
I think JBL would acknowledge that the Ti diaphragm, like all products, has its plusses and minuses. With renewed effort from Harmon and push from the engineers, the newer Aluminum and now Be diaphrams are further signs that JBL continues its research and push for the best products out there. Yes, they do cost a fair amount but what newer and better technology doesn't have its development costs that must be recovered.
Some would say that the Ti phragm can also be tamed somewhat with judicious EQ at the top end. Others don't care for them - that's ok. If one understands what they are for, each can pick the pieces that they like.
I'm glad that JBL can provide so many different choices for so many markets. I've always wondered what a Vertec Array might sound like in my living room!!
My 0.02, your mileage may vary.
Regards,
Bart
When faced with another JBL find, Good mech986 says
, JBL Fan mech986 says
Spot on...best sounding system in the world is useless if it doesn't survive the gig...
But I still use aluminum at home...again just my preference...
I think forming titanium cheaply didn't come about till the 70's or it would have been used before...I suspect engineers were checking it out way earlier...
Some amazing things have never made it out of the back rooms...sadly many experiments were just destroyed or dismantled...companies didn't want competitors to see them...
BTW Old Guy (with that name you'll fit right in here!),
Welcome to Lansing Heritage! Hope you'll share what JBL's you have and how you're using them. As you can see, we're all passionate like you are about JBL's products and legacy. Hiope you enjoy the discussions.
Bart
When faced with another JBL find, Good mech986 says
Forgot to add that most of the Ti being used in the 70's was for aerospace and military applications. As forming technology and experience became more widespread and known, Ti became somewhat more of an option. Couple that with the winding down of the Vietnam War and downturn in the aerospace industry, Ti prices came down and Ti experienced suppliers and companies needed to diversify their business. Granted, the amount of Ti JBL uses in a year probably would supply a few Boeing 777 wing spars.
I even remember a Titanium based Can-Am sports car call the AutoCoast Ti-22 (periodic number) that raced in 1970-72. Of course, most all racers used titanium extensively till they could afford to go to carbon fiber.
Hmmm, carbon fiber compression domes. Have seen that in woofer cones but I suspect too brittle for domes and probably too heavy in the thicknessess needed.
When faced with another JBL find, Good mech986 says
I have nothing against Altec and I have enjoyed a VOTT system for 30+ years. In fact, for natural reproduction the Altec aluminum framed compression driver is still my favorite.
That said, I think one short comming that helped hasten Altec's demise included drivers that did not hold up well under extreme conditions like sound reinforcement applications. Dispite their tendency to be harsh at higher frequencies, Ti frams seem to fit the bill of being very ruggid and reasonably priced.
The addition of an UHF tweeter in many cases eliminates the harsh "tsss" sound from Ti frams. I'n not sure why they eliminated the production of the 2405s and 077 slots, but they are still around in abundance.
A reason I have heard several times was the high cost to fabricate them. When cheaper ways to satisfy the requirement are available, say bye-bye. Besides, almost fifty years is not a bad run for any transducer.
As much as I love them, it always did seem a lot of magnet for a tweeter. Old school, like me.
Clark
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Titanium sounds good to me, I used to use 2426s on Edgar saladbowls and Altec 1005s and recently used CS-3115s which use 2426s (and coexisted in the same house with two sets of Altecs with aluminum diaphragms).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
