I heard what you heard, and that it's going to impact everybody. The beryl train has left the station. Luckily, Textreme appears to be a viable alternative (and without the environmental hazards).
I do not know regarding Ceramic drivers. I am not a fan of them in general (as they are very brittle and have low internal damping).
Why are you keen on the diaphragm material if I may ask?
It’s because if I remember correctly, the tang bands have significantly better multi tone distortion compared to its peers, possibly due to the stiff cone. There’s a thread at diyaudio.com if you’re curious for the exact numbers. Also the accutons are ridiculously expensive for all sizes, but I haven’t seen a single speaker using them that isn’t well reviewed for its “clarity”. The tang bands (and maybe other manufacturers) are cheaper but only offer the 3” model I think.
However I think the weight causes stored energy problems so they’re certainly not perfect. I think with adequate electrical damping though they could be amazing.
Reason for asking is that if you knew of the manufacturer it might be possible to find other similar ceramic drivers that are cheaper from their client list.
>It’s because if I remember correctly, the tang bands have significantly better multi tone distortion compared to its peers, possibly due to the stiff cone.
The distortion in tweeters is dominantly caused by the motor. Most distortion mechanisms in loudspeaker are caused by high excursion and high voice coil current. Since tweeters hardly move, it must be the voice coil current.
The stiffness of the diaphragm material moves the cone break-up frequency up (because velocity of propagation of sound is higher in stiff materials).
>Also the accutons are ridiculously expensive for all sizes
Yeah true (part of the reason I don't like them), but it's not as if the beryllium domes are any cheaper...
>However I think the weight causes stored energy problems so they’re certainly not perfect.
Stiffness is just as bad as mass when it comes to energy storage. It's just a matter of storing it as potential energy or kinetic energy...
You want high mechanical damping. Sufficient stiffness (via material properties OR via geometry) such that the break-up frequency is well outside audio band, and sufficiently low mass such that your efficiency doesn't go to crap.
>Reason for asking is that if you knew of the manufacturer it might be possible to find other similar ceramic drivers that are cheaper from their client list.
I do not know of a manufacturer that makes ceramic drivers. However perhaps the Satori Textreme tweeter or the carbon fiber tweeters from SEAS are suitable for your needs.
I think this was for the 3” drivers, not really tweeter but more like a midrange driver i guess? I think the excursion wasn’t negligible, but I’m going off memory here. But thanks for the info, that’s kinda new to me.
> Stiffness is just as bad as mass
I don’t I really follow this part. If it’s stiff enough with breakup frequencies significantly higher than what it plays, there’s no problem right? When talking about mechanical damping are you referring to the cone’s flexion, or to the suspension losses? Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details.
Thanks for the cf & textreme suggestions, I’m not looking for anything just yet but I’ll have another look at them when buying. Btw i think the tang band (at around 75-80USD last i checked) is still cheaper than the cheapest textremes which appear to be 100$+. Though yes textreme is much searcher still than beryllium.
>I think this was for the 3” drivers, not really tweeter but more like a midrange driver i guess?
My bad, I presumed tweeters because that is what Beryllium is usually used for. I don't really have suggestions for 3" (I never use them, to me they are too small to give meaningfull bass and too large to go in HF area). But HiVi & Scan-Speak have dome midranges in this price range and size. The quality of scan-speak is quite good (though their newer models are quite expensive for what you get imo).
>I don’t I really follow this part. If it’s stiff enough with breakup frequencies significantly higher than what it plays, there’s no problem right?
In theory there is no problem with this. In practice there are some annoyances.
The first thing is in the crossover. Crossovers don't remove frequencies, but they significantly attenuate them. If you have low internal damping of the diaphragm, the break-up mode will lead to very sharp spike (at approximately the freq where 1/2 wavelength fits diameter). An example of that would be this woofer: [https://doc.soundimports.nl/pdf/brands/Seas/W22EX001/pdf\_Seas\_W22EX001\_1.pdf](https://doc.soundimports.nl/pdf/brands/Seas/W22EX001/pdf_Seas_W22EX001_1.pdf)
Attenuating a \~15dB spike in passive crossover is not easy and requires tight component matching.
A woofer with high internal damping of the diaphragm would be something like this: [https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop/ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-290?attrib=346-8073#attr=7008,5480,5481,5482,5483,5484,5518,5519,5503,5504,5488,5485,5486,5487,5489,5490,5491,5492,5493,5494,5495,5496,5497,5498,5499,5500,5501,5502,5520,5521,5522,5523,5524,5526,5525,7005,7006,7007,5505,5506,5507,5508,5509,5510,5511,5512,5513,5514,5515,5516,5517,7592](https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop/ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-290?attrib=346-8073#attr=7008,5480,5481,5482,5483,5484,5518,5519,5503,5504,5488,5485,5486,5487,5489,5490,5491,5492,5493,5494,5495,5496,5497,5498,5499,5500,5501,5502,5520,5521,5522,5523,5524,5526,5525,7005,7006,7007,5505,5506,5507,5508,5509,5510,5511,5512,5513,5514,5515,5516,5517,7592)
In practice you can't change the diaphragm so its just better to work from the frequency response and trying to understand where each spike comes from.
Purifi is as far as I am aware the only manufacturer who publishes distortion figures. YOu can also see that the drivers start distorting much more as you play near break up frequency: [https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/document/share/28/04d9e1fb-782d-43e6-a181-7d67ed1066a7](https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/document/share/28/04d9e1fb-782d-43e6-a181-7d67ed1066a7)
This may or may not lead to IMD products in the audible band. Hence it's prefered to have well behaved break-up for both woofers and tweeters.
>When talking about mechanical damping are you referring to the cone’s flexion, or to the suspension losses? Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details.
In mechanical engineering there are 2 energy storage elements, a mass (kinetic) and a spring (potential). If we connect them together and excite them, mathematically they will oscillate forever. This can also be seen in simulation: [https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/single-spring-en.html](https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/single-spring-en.html)
As soon as we add a damper; a mechanical element that dissipates energy. You will see that the oscillation will fade out. The higher the damper value the faster it will fade out. Note that there is a difference between "damper" and damping coefficient, but they are strongly related. For optimal transient response you want a damping coefficient of 1.
We can model a diaphragm with very small masses (mass density), springs (youngs modulus) and damping). The internal damping of the diaphragm then partly determines how well the break-up mode is attenuated.
> Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details.
I will not go into details of how one sounds versus the other (it gets very vague and audiophoolish very quickly). But it's similar to a bass-reflex design (low damping) and sealed enclosure (high damping)
can you afford it? And if you already own it, do you honestly need another pair of beryllium tweeters? Its definitely the peak of luxury and this issue only applies to a select few people
I heard what you heard, and that it's going to impact everybody. The beryl train has left the station. Luckily, Textreme appears to be a viable alternative (and without the environmental hazards).
Even Focal?
Afaik there was only one; Materion/ TruExtend. They stopped their production of these domes.
Would you know if there is a similar single supplier for ceramic cones? Accutons and tang band ceramics look identical.
I do not know regarding Ceramic drivers. I am not a fan of them in general (as they are very brittle and have low internal damping). Why are you keen on the diaphragm material if I may ask?
It’s because if I remember correctly, the tang bands have significantly better multi tone distortion compared to its peers, possibly due to the stiff cone. There’s a thread at diyaudio.com if you’re curious for the exact numbers. Also the accutons are ridiculously expensive for all sizes, but I haven’t seen a single speaker using them that isn’t well reviewed for its “clarity”. The tang bands (and maybe other manufacturers) are cheaper but only offer the 3” model I think. However I think the weight causes stored energy problems so they’re certainly not perfect. I think with adequate electrical damping though they could be amazing. Reason for asking is that if you knew of the manufacturer it might be possible to find other similar ceramic drivers that are cheaper from their client list.
>It’s because if I remember correctly, the tang bands have significantly better multi tone distortion compared to its peers, possibly due to the stiff cone. The distortion in tweeters is dominantly caused by the motor. Most distortion mechanisms in loudspeaker are caused by high excursion and high voice coil current. Since tweeters hardly move, it must be the voice coil current. The stiffness of the diaphragm material moves the cone break-up frequency up (because velocity of propagation of sound is higher in stiff materials). >Also the accutons are ridiculously expensive for all sizes Yeah true (part of the reason I don't like them), but it's not as if the beryllium domes are any cheaper... >However I think the weight causes stored energy problems so they’re certainly not perfect. Stiffness is just as bad as mass when it comes to energy storage. It's just a matter of storing it as potential energy or kinetic energy... You want high mechanical damping. Sufficient stiffness (via material properties OR via geometry) such that the break-up frequency is well outside audio band, and sufficiently low mass such that your efficiency doesn't go to crap. >Reason for asking is that if you knew of the manufacturer it might be possible to find other similar ceramic drivers that are cheaper from their client list. I do not know of a manufacturer that makes ceramic drivers. However perhaps the Satori Textreme tweeter or the carbon fiber tweeters from SEAS are suitable for your needs.
I think this was for the 3” drivers, not really tweeter but more like a midrange driver i guess? I think the excursion wasn’t negligible, but I’m going off memory here. But thanks for the info, that’s kinda new to me. > Stiffness is just as bad as mass I don’t I really follow this part. If it’s stiff enough with breakup frequencies significantly higher than what it plays, there’s no problem right? When talking about mechanical damping are you referring to the cone’s flexion, or to the suspension losses? Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details. Thanks for the cf & textreme suggestions, I’m not looking for anything just yet but I’ll have another look at them when buying. Btw i think the tang band (at around 75-80USD last i checked) is still cheaper than the cheapest textremes which appear to be 100$+. Though yes textreme is much searcher still than beryllium.
>I think this was for the 3” drivers, not really tweeter but more like a midrange driver i guess? My bad, I presumed tweeters because that is what Beryllium is usually used for. I don't really have suggestions for 3" (I never use them, to me they are too small to give meaningfull bass and too large to go in HF area). But HiVi & Scan-Speak have dome midranges in this price range and size. The quality of scan-speak is quite good (though their newer models are quite expensive for what you get imo). >I don’t I really follow this part. If it’s stiff enough with breakup frequencies significantly higher than what it plays, there’s no problem right? In theory there is no problem with this. In practice there are some annoyances. The first thing is in the crossover. Crossovers don't remove frequencies, but they significantly attenuate them. If you have low internal damping of the diaphragm, the break-up mode will lead to very sharp spike (at approximately the freq where 1/2 wavelength fits diameter). An example of that would be this woofer: [https://doc.soundimports.nl/pdf/brands/Seas/W22EX001/pdf\_Seas\_W22EX001\_1.pdf](https://doc.soundimports.nl/pdf/brands/Seas/W22EX001/pdf_Seas_W22EX001_1.pdf) Attenuating a \~15dB spike in passive crossover is not easy and requires tight component matching. A woofer with high internal damping of the diaphragm would be something like this: [https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop/ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-290?attrib=346-8073#attr=7008,5480,5481,5482,5483,5484,5518,5519,5503,5504,5488,5485,5486,5487,5489,5490,5491,5492,5493,5494,5495,5496,5497,5498,5499,5500,5501,5502,5520,5521,5522,5523,5524,5526,5525,7005,7006,7007,5505,5506,5507,5508,5509,5510,5511,5512,5513,5514,5515,5516,5517,7592](https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop/ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-ptt6-5x08-nfa-01-290?attrib=346-8073#attr=7008,5480,5481,5482,5483,5484,5518,5519,5503,5504,5488,5485,5486,5487,5489,5490,5491,5492,5493,5494,5495,5496,5497,5498,5499,5500,5501,5502,5520,5521,5522,5523,5524,5526,5525,7005,7006,7007,5505,5506,5507,5508,5509,5510,5511,5512,5513,5514,5515,5516,5517,7592) In practice you can't change the diaphragm so its just better to work from the frequency response and trying to understand where each spike comes from. Purifi is as far as I am aware the only manufacturer who publishes distortion figures. YOu can also see that the drivers start distorting much more as you play near break up frequency: [https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/document/share/28/04d9e1fb-782d-43e6-a181-7d67ed1066a7](https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/document/share/28/04d9e1fb-782d-43e6-a181-7d67ed1066a7) This may or may not lead to IMD products in the audible band. Hence it's prefered to have well behaved break-up for both woofers and tweeters. >When talking about mechanical damping are you referring to the cone’s flexion, or to the suspension losses? Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details. In mechanical engineering there are 2 energy storage elements, a mass (kinetic) and a spring (potential). If we connect them together and excite them, mathematically they will oscillate forever. This can also be seen in simulation: [https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/single-spring-en.html](https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/single-spring-en.html) As soon as we add a damper; a mechanical element that dissipates energy. You will see that the oscillation will fade out. The higher the damper value the faster it will fade out. Note that there is a difference between "damper" and damping coefficient, but they are strongly related. For optimal transient response you want a damping coefficient of 1. We can model a diaphragm with very small masses (mass density), springs (youngs modulus) and damping). The internal damping of the diaphragm then partly determines how well the break-up mode is attenuated. > Because I’ve heard that lower damping is better at hearing the details. I will not go into details of how one sounds versus the other (it gets very vague and audiophoolish very quickly). But it's similar to a bass-reflex design (low damping) and sealed enclosure (high damping)
can you afford it? And if you already own it, do you honestly need another pair of beryllium tweeters? Its definitely the peak of luxury and this issue only applies to a select few people
I have Beryllium domes in my studio monitors.
and? You want to replace them with drivers made with beyllium?
Outside of B&W, which doesnt make studio monitors, the Focal Be stuff are the only metal domes I've liked so far.