# Best Hi end Tweeters



## BNK (Jun 23, 2007)

Focal Utopia be or Scan speak d3004/602000?
Are they even comparable?


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Scan Illuminators no doubt, all day long and twice on Sunday. I consider them the best on the planet.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Dyn Esotar 110 easy choice.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

My Utopia Be's do it for me.

The only answer you're gonna get is whatever the person replying runs is the best on the planet. It's too subjective....you're gonna have to figure out what's best for you, not what some guys on a forum say.


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

UNBROKEN said:


> The only answer you're gonna get is whatever the person replying runs is the best on the planet. It's too subjective....you're gonna have to figure out what's best for you, not what some guys on a forum say.



Very well put.


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

If you want a flat response with NO NEED FOR EQ, some output at 20kHz even off axis, you want a TBe.

If you are of the school that says a Focal is bright, and you can't hear above 16kHz anyway, any non metallic dome is just as good if not better than a D3004.

But a D3004 is good, compact and cost less than better tweeters, which sets up many install possibilities. 

Spend a little more money for a R3004/602000 and you have something to compare to a TBe.


----------



## vivmike (May 24, 2013)

I almost got the scanspeaks until I heard the HAT L1 R2's.


----------



## Jcharger13 (Jul 12, 2013)

I have the R3004/6020's. Cant say there the best in the world or anything like that but I can say I'm verry happy with them and don't see myself pulling them out.


----------



## GLN305 (Nov 2, 2007)

My favorite tweeter is the Morel Supremo Piccolo, does everything really well.


----------



## edzyy (Aug 18, 2011)

B&C De500


----------



## murphman (Jun 5, 2005)

how is this post considered "technical"?????


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

2DEEP2 said:


> If you want a flat response with NO NEED FOR EQ, some output at 20kHz even off axis, you want a TBe.
> 
> If you are of the school that says a Focal is bright, and you can't hear above 16kHz anyway, any non metallic dome is just as good if not better than a D3004.
> 
> ...


There are soft domes that are flat to 20k and beyond too. I like the Be tweeters a lot but they are a little bright. Having a soft dome that has great extension sounds so good. They're aggressive when needed and detailed but not bright or laid back for that matter. They just sound real.

I agree with others that a lot of it is personal preference or what they're currently running. My personal preference is a life like tweeter that doesn't have that "tweeter" sound lol.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

Buick...you and I need to compare one day. Do you have any plans to hit the GTG at SIS on the 7th?


----------



## ccapil (Jun 1, 2013)

My favorite high end tweeter I've ever heard is defenately the hybrid audio Legatia SE. they sound very natrual and not harsh.


----------



## probillygun (Oct 10, 2013)

GLN305 said:


> My favorite tweeter is the Morel Supremo Piccolo, does everything really well.


I like the Morel supremo; does everything the piccolo does but more effecient


----------



## Angrywhopper (Jan 20, 2010)

I really really really like the tweeters that come in the Alpine type X Pro component set..


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

UNBROKEN said:


> Buick...you and I need to compare one day. Do you have any plans to hit the GTG at SIS on the 7th?


I agree. I've been wanting to hear your setup for a while. SIS, as in Simplicity in Sound up North?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

UNBROKEN said:


> My Utopia Be's do it for me.
> 
> The only answer you're gonna get is whatever the person replying runs is the best on the planet. It's too subjective....you're gonna have to figure out what's best for you, not what some guys on a forum say.


Guess I'll be the odd man out here by mentioning a tweeter I DON'T run and have never run because of price. The Scan Illuminator is THE BEST tweeter I have ever heard with my own ears. In my opinion I think it edges out the discontinued 2904/6000.


----------



## Hoptologist (Sep 14, 2012)

I've heard the tweeter in the hertz mlk165, I believe its the ml28? And the arc black 1.0. Two very different sounds, but I like them both. I'd say black 1.0 wins tho. I'm 90% sure the next tweeter I get will say morel on it, but there's a small chance it might say dynaudio. or illusion.

I dont like overly lively or too dark, just smooth and neutral. More studio sound than concert sound.


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

You are all talking about the scan speak illuminator, only which one have you heard... they make so many different tweeters in that serie's... 12 different one's. 
Scan-Speak

The best normal dome tweeter for a normal price is for me the: 
http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d3004-660000.pdf
And then the first version off these tweeters which had a even higher efficiency!


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> I agree. I've been wanting to hear your setup for a while. SIS, as in Simplicity in Sound up North?


Yes, on Dec 7


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

murphman said:


> how is this post considered "technical"?????





Good question.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

A better question is: Which tweeter is your favorite and why? What other tweeters have you used?


----------



## BNK (Jun 23, 2007)

It's been very informative. Of course it's a personal choice, but not always can we hear all tweeters, not to mention in the right setup and environment. 
That is why your opinion really interests me.

I own the d3004/602000 and they're actively connected in the car. I can say my setup is far from idle. 
I also own the d3004/660000, don't have a good place to mount them in the car although I used them for some time in the middle of the door. Of course, they are better than the 602000 but the location does matter. 
At home I use the 9900 revelator which are the best I've heard. Probably because the total sound is much more balanced. 

Haven't got the chance to hear the utopia's, but their high price (and probably marketing) might indicate they give something the scans don't ?



MacLeod said:


> Scan Illuminators no doubt, all day long and twice on Sunday. I consider them the best on the planet.


which ones?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Best tweeter I've heard to date is the Scan-Speak 6600 AirCirc driver. Dynaudio esotar2 110 takes the 2nd spot (its price tag is ridiculous though). 'Large flange' Vifa XT25 on the 3rd place, if used above 3kHz, the performance is almost on par with the other two IMO.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## basher8621 (Feb 21, 2009)

I love my Gladen Aerospace.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

After all these years, I still can't get my head around the "Focals are bright" remarks. To me, this sounds like badly installed/tuned tweeters. The fact that you can hear them just means they work. If they sound "bright", turn them down.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

n_olympios said:


> After all these years, I still can't get my head around the "Focals are bright" remarks. To me, this sounds like badly installed/tuned tweeters. The fact that you can hear them just means they work. If they sound "bright", turn them down.


Being metal dome, they tend to sound bright or can "ring" at certain frequencies when turned up. This makes it very hard to eq or turn them down to fix that problem. I know a guy at finals that was in the pro/expert class that use Utopia Be's and even he said he had to put a real thin piece of foam over the tweeter to tame this. His car has a completely rebuilt dash with all soft treatments and ideal placement.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

As far as car audio format, I have never heard a tweeter I like more than my ESB 28mm silks

I always seem to go back to esb tweeters.


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

Best tweeter performance I've ever heard in a car were toe board mounted Hiquphon OWI. 

Wide stage (in width of the mirrors) with spot on images that you could touch. You really thought something was in the space. Images across the stage sounded the same.
Tonality was life like.

What about the tweeter I think helped achieve this:
1. Install lacked early reflections at the tweeter.
2. Frequency Response for on OWI is nearly flat (1 dB) from 2kHz to 20kHz.
3. Low distortion with smooth roll off of the top frequencies.

Being sold in matched pairs does not hurt, but good tuning can get two speakers to respond nearly identical in a car.

Same attributes that I think cause the Hiq's to perform well are the same attributes I find in a TBe. The Hiq's spent years developing the right coating that results in proper stiffness and damping. I think the quest for stiffness with proper damping is why other speaker OEMs are jumping on Be. Be is stiff but sets up better damping than a Ti. Some OEMs are also looking at Mg, which will be cheaper with similar damping but not as stiff as a Be.

I can easily make my TBe's disappear with good crossover points and -6 to -9 dB of attenuation. I've also won shows with them off, as is the case for some comp cars that have no output above 14kHz. 

I like to call a good tweeter icing on the cake. 

Too much ruins the cake, but no frosting just leaves something missing.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

I found mine after trying few dozens of very expensive tweets.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> Being metal dome, they tend to sound bright or can "ring" at certain frequencies when turned up. This makes it very hard to eq or turn them down to fix that problem. I know a guy at finals that was in the pro/expert class that use Utopia Be's and even he said he had to put a real thin piece of foam over the tweeter to tame this. His car has a completely rebuilt dash with all soft treatments and ideal placement.


X2 on the metallic tweeters.
I've had some Infinity Kappa's and MB Quart 218.03 CX components, and could never seem to "turn down" the tweets enough.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Some best of the best home audio speakers use metal tweeters, don`t dismiss tweeters by dome material , DIYMA dogma about harshness of metal domes exactly that- dogma you either believe in it or not. Keep trying until you got desired results.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

^^^^ Good advise; point taken.


----------



## basher8621 (Feb 21, 2009)

Main thing is, there is no real "best" everyone has their favorite. You may end up finding out you like a $400 tweeter better than a $1k tweeter.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

Def. money isn't always a measure of your idea of "sounding good".


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

basher8621 said:


> Main thing is, there is no real "best" everyone has their favorite. You may end up finding out you like a $400 tweeter better than a $1k tweeter.


True that. High price is not a guarantee of sound quality. I`ve heard some very expensive setups sounds mediocre at best, sadly many of these in cars. 
Car toys installs came to mind.


----------



## basher8621 (Feb 21, 2009)

That is not to discredit expensive tweeters either. The TBe is VERY nice. I own the Gladen Aerospace which is expensive and very nice. But lower cost ones like the MT-23 are also very nice.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

basher8621 said:


> That is not to discredit expensive tweeters either. The TBe is VERY nice. I own the Gladen Aerospace which is expensive and very nice. But lower cost ones like the MT-23 are also very nice.


true as well. but gladen or BE sounds great not surprising, they cost a lot,
some cheap tweeters sound on par with 10 times more expensive, like this one: The Madisound Speaker Store


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

My L1 RR2 don't disappoint.


----------



## basher8621 (Feb 21, 2009)

I used to own a set of them too.


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Pitmaster said:


> My L1 RR2 don't disappoint.


I like them too.


----------



## copperears (Sep 2, 2010)

My favorite is the Hiquphon OW I . Very realistic and you can listen to it for hours on end, without fatigue. Good off axis also. I use these in my home


I also like the Vifa XT25, on axis it is wonderful. Not as good played loud, might be my crossover choice.

SB Acoustics SB29RDCN another favorite and currently in my daily driver.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Victor_inox said:


> True that. High price is not a guarantee of sound quality. I`ve heard some very expensive setups sounds mediocre at best, sadly many of these in cars.
> Car toys installs came to mind.


Don't many of the Car Toy installs utilize Focal drivers? That has been what I have noticed at least.


----------



## bigfastmike (Jul 16, 2012)

So... why just the Hiquphon 1? What about the 2 and 3's? I'm very interested now. 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CrossFired (Jan 24, 2008)

Victor_inox said:


> Some best of the best home audio speakers use metal tweeters, don`t dismiss tweeters by dome material , DIYMA dogma about harshness of metal domes exactly that- dogma you either believe in it or not. Keep trying until you got desired results.


You said it, IN HOME! Not in car. My $3000. bookshelf home speakers are amongst the smoothest known, and they use a metal dome.

But I've never heard a metal dome sound smooth in a car, unless the volume was kept medium/low.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Victor_inox said:


> True that. High price is not a guarantee of sound quality. I`ve heard some very expensive setups sounds mediocre at best, sadly many of these in cars.
> Car toys installs came to mind.


My comments on the Be which retails for about the same as my tweeters... Yes, they're bright (to me). The last one I listened to had the owner trying to tame them the whole time. This was one of our SQ competitors (good install, good tuning skills). Despite the brightness I really like them, probably in the top 3 I've personally heard. They have a unique character that I would take over almost anything. Worth the price? Depends on the owner. And when I call them bright I don't mean Infinity bright. I mean they lean a little on the bright side but they're not harsh by any means. I can see how others with different taste would really like them. 

I would never have spent this kind of money on tweeters if they didn't represent perfection to me. Otherwise my limit would be considerably lower. 

We all know money doesn't guarantee a great product but put tweeters like the Focal Be and Dyn 110 in a good install tuned well and there's not much that will touch them at any price. Maybe cartoys needs to learn to tune or maybe SQ isn't the point. I know a lot of people that like it with the subs maxed out and the tweeters screaming at you. I know a lot don't even upgrade the midrange/midbass. Just tweeters and subs. Most of the local shops will tune it so the tweeters are 10db above the mids and the subs are 30db higher. I hate it when I see SQ equipment in these installs like all of the idiots that put a SQ sub like the W7 in an SPL enclosure tuned high and then say you can get a sub that sounds as good and gets as loud for half the price. No ****.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

Infinity EMIT-R


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> Don't many of the Car Toy installs utilize Focal drivers? That has been what I have noticed at least.


 yepp


----------



## Victor_inox (Apr 27, 2012)

CrossFired said:


> You said it, IN HOME! Not in car. My $3000. bookshelf home speakers are amongst the smoothest known, and they use a metal dome.
> 
> But I've never heard a metal dome sound smooth in a car, unless the volume was kept medium/low.


Every tweeter dead on axis sound bright to me car or home or concert.
Your speakers use internal amps or crossovers to make them behave.
****ty install/tunning can ruin any good tweeter soft or metal.


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

I got a few favourites
Rainbow Reference
MicroPrecision Z
Audison Violino
Infinity Emit
HAT L1rr2


----------



## xxx_busa (May 4, 2009)

BEST is a term used to justify, they spent to much money. 

Makes them feel better about spending.

All the top MFG's share the same technologies. they just have different characteristics.
IE; warm, cold, neutral, open, closed, make up your own description, it just isn't best.


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

I always love planar/ribbon type tweeter: RAAL, Mundorf AMT, fountek neocd3 or even cheap HiVi rt13we.


----------



## copperears (Sep 2, 2010)

> So... why just the Hiquphon 1? What about the 2 and 3's? I'm very interested now.


For me the response on the Hiquphon 1 looked better on the lower end, and would be easier to blend with a mid. I have not tried any of the other models.


----------



## scoobyman (Jun 25, 2011)

Morel Piccolo for 2 way system

German maestro st40 for 3 way system


----------



## piyush7243 (Sep 9, 2009)

Hiqphon owII so damn detailed n smooth

Sent from my Find 5


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

I'm about to supplement the Image Dynamics XS28 with some metal tweets in the A pillar. The soft domes sound nice, but they miss the snare/cymbal/steel string guitar percussive hit that I like to hear (which is what they actually sound like in real life). 

Gonna try to run both types in an active config, to see if I can get all the benefits of both

Incidentally, I've tried the super expensive tweets, and the $8 ones from ebay, and while there is definitely a difference, I think you can tune your way to balanced sound.

I'm merging a PPI T2 with a Focal 165 Pod to see what I can get on axis without popping my eardrums


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

So you're going to run 4 tweeters up front? 

There are some soft domes that have that sharpness and the percussive hit while not being harsh but they're not going to be cheap.


----------



## Jroo (May 24, 2006)

I have always been an Infinity emit guy. As with all speakers, this is very install dependent, but that Emit Ribbon always sounded great to me.


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

BuickGN said:


> So you're going to run 4 tweeters up front?
> 
> There are some soft domes that have that sharpness and the percussive hit while not being harsh but they're not going to be cheap.


Yeah, more as an experiment, and because I'm a dope :laugh:

I have a whole bunch of tweets I want to try out, just to see what I can get out of a combination.

CDT ES-02, PPI T5, PPI T2, and several others. I have some Rockfords as well, and have the Image Dynamics mounted at the moment.

The IDs are really smooth and airy, but something is definitely missing in terms of fidelity. They are in the door panels up high. I want to try adding a metal tweet on axis to see what I can restore/add to the IDs.

OR, I may build an additional pod for the CDTs and try them on axis. I'll probably do them all, because something is clearly wrong with me.


----------



## tegman (May 16, 2013)

I liked my HAT L1v2 until I blew them by accident. Now I have the L1 pros. I like them also.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BNK said:


> It's been very informative. Of course it's a personal choice, but not always can we hear all tweeters, not to mention in the right setup and environment.
> That is why your opinion really interests me.
> 
> I own the d3004/602000 and they're actively connected in the car. I can say my setup is far from idle.
> ...


FYI, I've seen reviews that show the Focal Utopia Tbe to have better dispersion (off-axis), lower distortion (@ 90dB and @ 96dB test), greater damping, extension (up to 40kHz), ability to have more output, than either the D2904 and the D3004. 

What the Scan has that the Tbe doesn't is the linearity, the ability to be crossed lower, the price :surprised: and the smoothness due to the silk dome. 

So NO, it's not all marketing like you implied... 

Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> FYI, I've seen reviews that show the Focal Utopia Tbe to have better dispersion (off-axis), lower distortion (@ 90dB and @ 96dB test), greater damping, extension (up to 40kHz), ability to have more output, than either the D2904 and the D3004.
> 
> What the Scan has that the Tbe doesn't is the linearity, the ability to be crossed lower, the price :surprised: and the smoothness due to the silk dome.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in seeing those reviews, any ideas where you saw them?


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

BNK said:


> which ones?


The 1" small format soft dome models. Work very well off axis and sound absolutely superb crossed all the way down to 2.5K


----------



## Lars Ulriched (Oct 31, 2009)

Got vifa xt25 b4, then scans aircircurlator, upgraded to scans revelator, nothing beat the revelator


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> Being metal dome, they tend to sound bright or can "ring" at certain frequencies when turned up. This makes it very hard to eq or turn them down to fix that problem. I know a guy at finals that was in the pro/expert class that use Utopia Be's and even he said he had to put a real thin piece of foam over the tweeter to tame this. His car has a completely rebuilt dash with all soft treatments and ideal placement.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is EXACTLY why people _think_ they don't like metal domes. I've only had metal domes in my Golf, the first set was *gasp* the Quart QTD25s, and NO ONE ever had a bad thing to say about them or the Illusion Berylliums that are in there now. Poorly made metal domes suck but so do poorly made silks. In fact, I'd say I've hear more bad soft domes than metal.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is EXACTLY why people _think_ they don't like metal domes. I've only had metal domes in my Golf, the first set was *gasp* the Quart QTD25s, and NO ONE ever had a bad thing to say about them or the Illusion Berylliums that are in there now. Poorly made metal domes suck but so do poorly made silks. In fact, I'd say I've hear more bad soft domes than metal.


I think I agree with this. One of the best sounding tweeters I ever used were the LPG 26NA's. They just couldn't get down low enough for me to use tho. I'm tempted to try the Seas aluminum neos and see how they work. But I do think that a quality, well made aluminum can work very well. Maybe the problem is there are too many cheaply made metal domes out there that people hear and that's where the misconception comes in.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is EXACTLY why people _think_ they don't like metal domes. I've only had metal domes in my Golf, the first set was *gasp* the Quart QTD25s, and NO ONE ever had a bad thing to say about them or the Illusion Berylliums that are in there now. Poorly made metal domes suck but so do poorly made silks. In fact, I'd say I've hear more bad soft domes than metal.


THANK YOU! At last one that sees through the specs and into what really matters.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Maybe some are just more sensitive to the "crispness" of metal domes than others. I know when I had quarts back in the mid '90's and I competed, I did VERY well with them. I had them mounted on the firewall firing straight out, with a fair amount of fabric to "tame" them some. I didn't have an eq, so basically I eq'd them using placement and treatments. I remember a very well known judge asking me after listening to my car what tweeters I had. I told her MBQuart and she said, wow, those don't have that typical quart harshness to them, and I scored VERY well. My high frequency hearing is VERY sensitive personally, and the only metal dome I have heard that sounded really good to me was the Focal TLR. However, I will admit, reflections or specific tuning be other people could be influencing my opinion about metal domes. Oh, and I have heard my share of soft domes that sound like **** also!

FWIW, when I had MBQuart speakers, that was back in the day when you had to RTA and it was part of your score. I believe I still have the scoresheets of getting a 19/20 and some 20/20 (at 1/3 octave, you had to be within 3dB of the next frequency) and that was with NO eq and using passive crossovers. I realize more and more how amazing that was, and at the time I thought "this is easy"....lol!


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

One of the best systems I ever heard was David Hogan's Silverado at Elite Summer Nationals back in 07 I think it was. All MB Quart. I've never understood the hate for MBQ. 

I think a high quality metal dome in the hands of a high quality tuner can sound superb. That may be the problem because how many quality metal dome tweeters are there? 3? 4? LPG and Seas are the only 2 I can think of off the top of my head. 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is EXACTLY why people _think_ they don't like metal domes. I've only had metal domes in my Golf, the first set was *gasp* the Quart QTD25s, and NO ONE ever had a bad thing to say about them or the Illusion Berylliums that are in there now. Poorly made metal domes suck but so do poorly made silks. In fact, I'd say I've hear more bad soft domes than metal.


The only metal domes I like are the old school boston pro tweeters.. running them in my gf's car and am still amazed by their performance... 

But that's the only metal dome I like that I've heard.. All the GM and hard focal domes are not my kind of taste... ( out of the box with the passives xo's delivered with them.. ) 

That's how it supposed to be imo... a lambo should go fast from the factory.. not just after some tuning...


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> One of the best systems I ever heard was David Hogan's Silverado at Elite Summer Nationals back in 07 I think it was. All MB Quart. I've never understood the hate for MBQ.
> 
> I think a high quality metal dome in the hands of a high quality tuner can sound superb. That may be the problem because how many quality metal dome tweeters are there? 3? 4? LPG and Seas are the only 2 I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


There's a new school chinese MB quart ( that used to be the quality german product ) and the old school German MB quart.... Now also know as German Meastro ( GM )

There is a big quality difference in the 2 products with the same name and box... Chinese is hated and German is loved I guess....


----------



## Mitsu1grn (Sep 22, 2008)

Greetings!

Responding to the " harshness/brightness" comments being made on the Tbe tweeter from several people. Most of the time when you are hearing that from any Focal tweeter you are probably too far on-axis to the tweeter. It is not a home tweeter design that has been rebadged a car tweeter. Each speaker Focal designs for the car line is designed to be listened too off axis. 95% of all the car speakers installed in a car are in factory locations or very close to it. That is why the design engineers build the speakers that way. 

If you audition a Focal speaker system on a board it's going to probably sound a bit bright. Listening on axis will go that. In a car, with a system that has been designed and installed properly, you will not hear any harshness or being bright, especially if a crossblock is being utilized and tuned correctly. 

If you have the opportunity to listen to any of the home speakers or pro sound speakers that utilize Tbe technology, please do. I think you will be surprised by how REALISTIC music sounds through these speaker systems. Harshness and brightness are not how these systems are being described. 

Nick Wingate
National Training Coordinator
Focal America


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Too much hype and marketing here. Show me some response curves.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Mitsu1grn said:


> If you have the opportunity to listen to any of the home speakers or pro sound speakers that utilize Tbe technology, please do. I think you will be surprised by how REALISTIC music sounds through these speaker systems. Harshness and brightness are not how these systems are being described.
> 
> Nick Wingate
> National Training Coordinator
> Focal America


Agreed. Like I said, I think too many people are basing their opinions on metal dome tweeters off cheaper models. Metal domes may not work as well as soft dome in plug and play setups but with a little work, I think metal domes can be awesome. That being said, if you need a low crossover point then I think you're better off with the soft domes. 



Woosey said:


> There's a new school chinese MB quart ( that used to be the quality german product ) and the old school German MB quart.... Now also know as German Meastro ( GM )
> 
> There is a big quality difference in the 2 products with the same name and box... Chinese is hated and German is loved I guess....


Good point. The new MBQ ain't the stuff I came up listening to and loving. 



Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


----------



## bigfastmike (Jul 16, 2012)

Great input Nick. I feel that off axis response is an often overlooked aspect especially when it comes to tweeter selection and install. 
Maybe "best" tweeter for off axis and best for direct would be a better subject. I do love this topic. I have a couple months before I decide on my front stage so the input here is great. 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

MacLeod said:


> One of the best systems I ever heard was David Hogan's Silverado at Elite Summer Nationals back in 07 I think it was. All MB Quart. I've never understood the hate for MBQ.
> 
> I think a high quality metal dome in the hands of a high quality tuner can sound superb. That may be the problem because how many quality metal dome tweeters are there? 3? 4? LPG and Seas are the only 2 I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


German MAESTRO still makes PHENOMENAL metal inverted domes and the illusion tweeters are outstanding as well. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm far, far from an expert but I invite anyone to listen to my TBe tweeters and tell me they sound harsh. I'm not saying they're the best but if anyone thinks they suck I'd love to hear why.


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

quality_sound said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is EXACTLY why people _think_ they don't like metal domes. I've only had metal domes in my Golf, the first set was *gasp* the Quart QTD25s, and NO ONE ever had a bad thing to say about them or the Illusion Berylliums that are in there now. Poorly made metal domes suck but so do poorly made silks. In fact, I'd say I've hear more bad soft domes than metal.


I actually agree with you too.

I like the sound of both actually, but for different things. Most metal tweets do more justice to the percussive hit that sounds natural to me (drum heads, cymbals, steel string acoustic guitar, etc), where most of the soft domes I've played with end up more "mid-tweet" ish to my ears. 

To be fair, I'm just now getting into active setups. And also to be fair, many of the passive crossovers I've used have been a bear to set up, especially as they end up in the door, and adjusting them is a major and time consuming hassle.

Interestingly though, while many higher end (pronounced more expensive) do sound pretty good, and my ears get used to their characteristics after some time, many of the less expensive ones sound pretty amazing too in certain setups. This of course tends not to be the case with most of the mids/mid-bass drivers.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

UNBROKEN said:


> I'm far, far from an expert but I invite anyone to listen to my TBe tweeters and tell me they sound harsh. I'm not saying they're the best but if anyone thinks they suck I'd love to hear why.


I really liked the 2 sets I heard. While I would classify them on the bright side, they're far from harsh and had a certain sound about them that I really liked. Most of the people saying the TBe and other high end tweeters suck have likely never heard them and have definitely not owned a set.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Mitsu1grn said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Responding to the " harshness/brightness" comments being made on the Tbe tweeter from several people. Most of the time when you are hearing that from any Focal tweeter you are probably too far on-axis to the tweeter. It is not a home tweeter design that has been rebadged a car tweeter. Each speaker Focal designs for the car line is designed to be listened too off axis. 95% of all the car speakers installed in a car are in factory locations or very close to it. That is why the design engineers build the speakers that way.
> 
> ...


Here is the response curve Focal shows for the tweeter. It what way is it designed to be better off-axis? From the curve, it is flat on-axis and rolls off when 30 degrees off axis. 



And, if you look at the Esotar2 110 Frequency Response, you will see it is very similar to the TBe on axis and 30 Degrees off axis, although off-axis is 5dB lower at 20Hz, yet I've never heard anyone claim that they are bright. They do have an almost 300hz lower Fs (1294 for the TBe and 1000 for the Eaotar2 110).


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

^^^Ding Ding Ding. 

Unless some pattern control device is used, dispersion is determined by diameter. The designer can design a frequency response for some axis, but the rules still govern. Both tweeters above look really nice on axis. Off axis response doesn't have anything super nasty going on. For speakers in cars, we hear something that's much more like the power response than the on axis response. so it's helpful if the tweeter has a flat response on the listening axis and an attenuated response at all angles off axis.


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

I think there is something to be said for (against?) too much off axis response in the car environment. All those hard reflective surfaces intersecting and reflecting and such. 
My old Focals mounted off axis on sail panel were simply too much. I joked that these drivers would sound their best mounted in the trunk. 

Possibly some of the "best" tweeters are relatively directional- e.g. Vifa, Scan Speak? 

I preferred the Scans to the Focals hands down. 

My current personal favorite is Morel MT 220 on-axis, except for the camo olive green color.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> ^^^Ding Ding Ding.
> 
> Unless some pattern control device is used, dispersion is determined by diameter. The designer can design a frequency response for some axis, but the rules still govern. Both tweeters above look really nice on axis. Off axis response doesn't have anything super nasty going on. For speakers in cars, we hear something that's much more like the power response than the on axis response. so it's helpful if the tweeter has a flat response on the listening axis and an attenuated response at all angles off axis.


Why the need for an attenuated response at all angles off-axis? 

Asking coz I know of 2 tweeters designed to have some ringing out of the hearing range (around 20kHz for one and around 25kHz on the other) in order to help the off-axis response track the on-axis one... 

Kelvin


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

avanti1960 said:


> I think there is something to be said for (against?) too much off axis response in the car environment. All those hard reflective surfaces intersecting and reflecting and such.
> My old Focals mounted off axis on sail panel were simply too much. I joked that these drivers would sound their best mounted in the trunk.
> 
> Possibly some of the "best" tweeters are relatively directional- e.g. Vifa, Scan Speak?
> ...


Which Focal tweeters?
Are we talking Access line or TBe?


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> ^^^Ding Ding Ding.
> 
> Unless some pattern control device is used, dispersion is determined by diameter. The designer can design a frequency response for some axis, but the rules still govern. Both tweeters above look really nice on axis. Off axis response doesn't have anything super nasty going on. For speakers in cars, we hear something that's much more like the power response than the on axis response. so it's helpful if the tweeter has a flat response on the listening axis and an attenuated response at all angles off axis.


Would their inverted dome design have different characteristics off axis? And when you look at the tweeters, the case they're in, looks like the cone is recessed into it a little so this looks like it could attenuate the off axis response some wouldn't it? I don't know, just curious. 

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_091165...ir=FFSpeaker_Size|6+3/4&nvpair=YCDesign|2-way

(on my phone so can't post direct pics) 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Yes... the sound power response is very important. An attenuated but controlled off axis response without nasty nulls/peaks is desirable. I'd say it's among the most important design features there is. The Vifa XT25 (which I use) mounted in a small wave guide has an extremely well behaved offaxis response. They dissappear in the stage and sound really transparent (these are $15 drivers). I consider them among the best drivers there is for a front 3-way system.










Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> Would their inverted dome design have different characteristics off axis? And when you look at the tweeters, the case they're in, looks like the cone is recessed into it a little so this looks like it could attenuate the off axis response some wouldn't it? I don't know, just curious.
> 
> Focal K2 Power 165KRX2 6-3/4" component speaker system at Crutchfield.com
> 
> ...


Here are good reads about the inverted dome: 
Focal Profile -Tweeter overview 
Jacques Mahul of JMlab: Inverted domes & otherwise... | Stereophile.com 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Here are good reads about the inverted dome:
> Focal Profile -Tweeter overview
> Jacques Mahul of JMlab: Inverted domes & otherwise... | Stereophile.com
> 
> Kelvin


Good reads or good marketing? 

I would think that if inverted domes were ideal, more companies would have gone to them.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Why the need for an attenuated response at all angles off-axis?
> 
> Asking coz I know of 2 tweeters designed to have some ringing out of the hearing range (around 20kHz for one and around 25kHz on the other) in order to help the off-axis response track the on-axis one...
> 
> Kelvin


That ringing at frequencies above 20k is a function of dome distortion, just as the peak in a cone-type speaker at high frequencies is the result of cone distortion--the center of the cone moves differently and creates a smaller radiator--that's why the peak is not attenuated at the same rate as the rest of the response as you move further and further off axis. 

The inverted dome, so long as the coil is attached toward the center operates differently than a dome with the coil attached to the outside edge, just as the Focal papers indicate. This means that there is less opportunity for the center of the dome to move differently than the outside edge. This kind of attachment requires a very stiff diaphragm..you won't see soft domes done this way.

The ring radiator eliminates this center portion of the dome, so the tweeter operates more like a lower frequency transducer with NO DUSTCAP. 

So...the scoop is that tweeters are very small and have to be very light so that they can move back and forth quickly (that is high frequency). What determines whether the dispersion and the frequency response is flat on axis and smooth and uniform in the rolloff off axis is the interaction of the center of the dome and the outside of the dome. This interaction can be managed in many ways. 

The tweeter with the big peak above 20k is one way to manage this. You make the diaphragm as stiff as possible to push the peak to an inaudible frequency. This is common practice in midrange drivers--you try to push the peak to a frequency much higher than the point at which the crossover low pass filter attenuates the response. 

The inverted dome is another way to do this. Placing the coil in between the center and the outside edge helps to stiffen the diaphragm and move the peak to a much higher frequency.

Placing a small disc (a diffuser) in front of the center of the dome is another way to manage this. The diameter and the distance from the dome reflects the peak back at the dome out of phase to cancel it and to smooth the top end of the response. 

Many tweeters employ a combination of these tools to minimize the peak and shape the response. Because the parts are so small and the frequencies so high with wavelengths that are so short, this is often a matter of trial and error. Small variances in material composition, thickness, and weight can make huge variances in frequency response. Tweeter development is in many ways the opposite of woofer development. For woofers, we don't really care what happens at very high frequencies, so the cone doesn't matter so much.

Ideally, midrange drivers aren't used at resonance where distortion is high, but some attention has to be paid to the region above piston range where beaming occurs and where that high frequency peak will combine with the response of the tweeter.

Tweeters should NEVER be used at resonance, so the low frequency response isn't so important. That's why you see some tweeters with a hump in the response at resonance. That hump is caused by the stiffness of the surround or by a motor that is small, just like in a woofer. Ideally, the response is flat at resonance but the hump is often no big deal if the tweeter will be crossed over higher than the hump.

Tweeter response at and ABOVE the piston range is important because that's where we use tweeters. 

When tweeter designers talk about "off axis response" they are talking about what happens in the center of the dome. Just like any other speaker, the ideal is that the diaphragm should NOT deform. If that's the case, then all of this is moot and the dispersion the "radiation from a perfect sphere" pattern. Since that isn't the case (just like trying to push the Fs for a woofer outside the passband isn't possible), all of these efforts are efforts in making a tweeter that doesn't screw up too badly at very high frequencies. 

It's easy to make a claim that performance anomalies are "designed in". There's no way to know the intent of the designer except to take what he says at face value. It is possible to know whether whatever they said they were trying to do worked, though. That is to look at the on-axis and off-axis curves to see how far they deviate from the "radiaton from a perfect sphere" ideal.

For planar tweeters, the dispersion rule is the same. Wider dispersion along the narrow dimension and narrow dispersion along the wide dimension. 

No matter what the marketing claims are, dispersion is determined by the dimensions of the radiator. Remember that the radiator isn't the same size at every frequency. Deliberately making a cone or a dome that deforms in a predictable way to shape the response is also a viable design. The old paper cones with the concentric rings are an exercise in doing this.

So, be careful when you hear marketing claims that one design is inherently better than another without proof of performance. that proof isn't some lofty prose about materials or "openness" or some other totally subjective "measure". The proof is in the frequency response and distortion curves. Very few speaker manufacturers who sell to consumers include distortion curves because consumers who know just enough to be dangerous would freak if they saw them. Thank amplifier manufacturers for that. Very few also provide off-axis curves for drivers because the job of managing that is VERY difficult and very few consumers really understand the tradeoffs. 

Once you put these things in a car, with all of the reflecting surfaces, it's very difficult to determine the source of the offending peaks and dips. It could be the tweeter or the car. If you're evaluating the performance of the tweeter in a car, it isn't really useful to posit that the off-axis response of one is better than another because the car does so much shaping of the response and cars and mounting locations play a huge part. You have to look at the anechoic measurements to determine which is the better tweeter.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Now we're talking  

Thanks Andy for the great reply, 
Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> Good reads or good marketing?
> 
> I would think that if inverted domes were ideal, more companies would have gone to them.


Reading up on Andy's reply, I know why Focal Tbe costs so much money - R&D and such that went into perfecting the design. What I still don't know is why Dynaudio's tweeter is so expensive :surprised: 

Seriously, we don't have to play that game - I know you're smarter than that. Can't we just discuss about the technical side of tweeter design? 

And to reply to your question, not all speaker designers believe that there's 1 way to achieve sonic nirvana... There's so many types of transducer and so many way to produce high frequencies either by controlling dispersion (horns, ribbons, etc...) or by designing something to lessen the directivity (inverted or else). Exactly what MAHUL explained when talking about Dynaudio in his interview. 
Lucky for us customers, there's a drink for everyone's taste. 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

^^^ Here is the distortion curve for the Esotar2 110.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Reading up on Andy's reply, I know why Focal Tbe costs so much money - R&D and such that went into perfecting the design. What I still don't know is why Dynaudio's tweeter is so expensive :surprised:
> 
> Seriously, we don't have to play that game - I know you're smarter than that. Can't we just discuss about the technical side of tweeter design?
> 
> ...


I guess my point was, reading from the people that made the product on why their design is better is "marketing" in my book. I want to read someone impartial to talk about the good/bad of a particular design. I mean, is there a manufacturer that will say, "we know option "b" would sound better for these reasons, but we chose option "a" instead". Andy did a really good job of explaining above. 

Oh, and you don't think a fair amount of R&D went into the design of the Esotar2 110? What about the way they are built and tested? I doubt it is cheap to hold ISO/TS 16949 and QS 9001 quality control certifications.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> ^^^ Here is the distortion curve for the Esotar2 110.


Will post the distortion curve for the Tbe when I get home tonight. 

Would like to know @ what output SPL the above distortion plot have been measured? 
The test I have of the Tbe is @ 90dB, 96dB and 100dB @ 1 meter

Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> You have to look at the anechoic measurements to determine which is the better tweeter.


...or gate out the reflections to create a "psuedo anechoic" measurement ( for us who don't have access to anechoic rooms  ). Resolution should be enough for tweeter measurements if we place the driver on a baffle and the mic at least 1m/3ft away from any adjacent boundaries and gate it with a ~5,5ms window. Of course, some baffle step effects will show up in the range where the driver is omnidirectional.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> Will post the distortion curve for the Tbe when I get home tonight.
> 
> Would like to know @ what output SPL the above distortion plot have been measured?
> The test I have of the Tbe is @ 90dB, 96dB and 100dB @ 1 meter
> ...


Think that's a 90dB/1m measurement IIRC. I had some comparison between Dyn110 and the Scan 7000. They had similar non-linear performance but the Scan was better below 1,5kHz - let me see if I can find it.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Will post the distortion curve for the Tbe when I get home tonight.
> 
> Would like to know @ what output SPL the above distortion plot have been measured?
> The test I have of the Tbe is @ 90dB, 96dB and 100dB @ 1 meter
> ...


The sheet says 2.83v/1m


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Didn't find it.... but comparing the Dyn distortion spec and Zaphs measurement on the Scan 7100 I just put the relative distortion level in a ****ty online graph. I know we really can't compare different measurement methods done by different people in any reliable way. Take it with a grain of salt.



The Scan performs better, but really. Both are really good...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, but can we hear the distortion differences? I don't think there is any data out there to support the notion that we can hear non linear HD.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I just read the interview. Interesting on page 5 where he says how important a stiff cone is on the midbass/woofers because the VC is attached at the edge. I think Dynaudio gets around this by attaching the VC toward the center of the cone to reduce modes. 

It's interesting he tries to discredit Dyns high power handling by bringing up Dynaudio's inefficient speakers and claiming their speakers can do the same with 10w as Dyn does with 500w. The Focal Be and Dyn Esotar tweeters are nearly identical in efficiency, both around 93-94db at 2.83v. 

The utopia 6.5 has the same efficiency as the Esotar 650. They also share the same 20g mms. So again...

People want to see all this great new technology but what good is it when the finished product is no better than "old" technology. There is no advantage in moving mass or efficiency with Focal's "cutting edge technology" which is what they claim to be the main advantages. 

Look at the W7, it does hold some patents but it's just an old school overhung coil that has been optimized and refined to the point that it's one of the best subs out there in many ways using what some call outdated technology. 

I've run the Esotar as low as 1,600hz and they sounded great. No harshness or any other undesirable characteristics. That was as part of a 2-way and trying to get under the beaming frequency of my 9s. It can cover such a wide range if needed with the best high frequency reproduction I've ever heard in a soft dome and without a hint of harshness. I'm not worried about the technology behind it. 

In the end, both sound phenomenal but I doubt anyone is going to argue that Dyn is not more natural sounding and less colored than focal and that's what Dyn is all about. I don't need affirmation from anyone and I'm not trying to get people to go out and buy an Esotar but that Focal guy needed to be corrected.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

All I read is what I said in post #4...."mine is the best" and everyone else is wrong.
There's too much emotion involved when we spend large amounts of money....


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> I just read the interview. Interesting on page 5 where he says how important a stiff cone is on the midbass/woofers because the VC is attached at the edge. I think Dynaudio gets around this by attaching the VC toward the center of the cone to reduce modes.
> 
> It's interesting he tries to discredit Dyns high power handling by bringing up Dynaudio's inefficient speakers and claiming their speakers can do the same with 10w as Dyn does with 500w. The Focal Be and Dyn Esotar tweeters are nearly identical in efficiency, both around 93-94db at 2.83v.
> 
> ...


Most speaker "technology" is old technology and all of those "Tweaks" are what differentiates one product from another. Many of them are significant and the result of some serious expertise. 

Efficiency is overrated. Power is cheap.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Oh, there is one thing in that interview or the article--whichever--that I have to take issue with. 

Somewhere there was a suggestion that separate amplification is a bandaid for bad speaker design. That's crap. Crap Crap Crap. 

Why dick around making minute changes in DCR to adjust the relative level between transducers, or worse yet, adding a bunch of series resistance if there's no need? Those DCR changes aren't independent of other parameters. It's a huge juggling act. Better precision is available if you can eliminate the importance of one variable and account for it in a component where that precision doesn't come with trade-offs. 

Give me a break. That kind of fundamentalist logic is f-ing up the whole world in all kinds of ways. "I dig ditches with a shovel because I refuse to compromise the quality of the hole and the grassy area nearby using a backhoe."

Fine...dig your hole. I'll use a backhoe and plant new grass that's much more beautiful. Be sure not to trample yours on the way in and out of the hole with your shovel during the two months it'll take you to do what I can do in an afternoon with a better tool.


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Oh, there is one thing in that interview or the article--whichever--that I have to take issue with.
> 
> Somewhere there was a suggestion that separate amplification is a bandaid for bad speaker design. That's crap. Crap Crap Crap.


Yeah that stood out to me too. Not necessarily for the same reason but it struck me more like "you don't need any flexibility in fine tuning because we know what will sound best to you, and trust us". Maybe it's the DIY'er in me but I prefer to have a little tuning flexibility aside from just the volume knob and don't think it's too much to ask to be able to bi-amp these speakers I just spent an arm and a leg on. 

That said, I do confess to being a fan of the Focal "sound". I used to think I wanted warm and smooth but the more I tune and the better I get at it and listening over the years, I find myself constantly wanting a sound with more "bite" and seem to always tune a brighter sound. 


Sent from my Galaxy Note 2.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Most speaker "technology" is old technology and all of those "Tweaks" are what differentiates one product from another. Many of them are significant and the result of some serious expertise.
> 
> Efficiency is overrated. Power is cheap.


I agree although I do like efficiency when possible 

My thought was it's the sum of all parts, not just one part by itself. It reminds me of when I was new on here and I was talked into buying a Tempest X subwoofer because it uses XBL^2 technology. I was all excited to try it because I assumed it must be better than my 12W6 with its old overhung design. Man was I wrong. The XBL^2 by itself did not make it a better sub. 

My response was targeted at those who want to see some kind of exotic technology and assuming that technology makes a product better. Specifically the "I know why Focal Tbe costs so much money - R&D and such that went into perfecting the design. What I still don't know is why Dynaudio's tweeter is so expensive" comment which assumes Dyn did not spend a lot of time on R&D because it's a more traditional design. Focal made two false claims as to why it's product was better and specifically mentioned Dynaudio in its comparison. They named higher efficiency and a lower moving mass, none of which they do better than an equivalent Dyn product. It's actually surprising how even they are in efficiency and Mms. 

The sandwich cones are neat but how is this technology so great when it does not sound better than a simple poly cone with the coil attached toward the middle of the cone. I like most of the Focal line, I installed Focals in the fiancées car, my point isn't even directed solely at Focal products, it more toward the comments surrounding them. 

Have you got any distortion plots on the 15GTi subs by chance? I've been meaning to search for a couple days now, going to search now.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Will post the distortion curve for the Tbe when I get home tonight.
> 
> Would like to know @ what output SPL the above distortion plot have been measured?
> The test I have of the Tbe is @ 90dB, 96dB and 100dB @ 1 meter
> ...











Plot on the left is @ 100dB 1 meter 
Plot in the middle is @ 90dB and 96dB 1 meter - K1 is 2nd harmonic and K2 is the 3rd
Plot on the right is from 85dB to 100dB - says that it reaches 1% @ 2kHz at an output of 102.5dB 

For those that are not familiar with those: 
20dB down from the base is 10% distortion 
40dB down is 1% 
60dB down is 0.1% 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, but can we hear the distortion differences? I don't think there is any data out there to support the notion that we can hear non linear HD.


Different books and studies have different views about audible distortion. 
Some states 1% while others state 3% - of course depending on the frequency range (high or low)

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm not here to argue, you know me  lol 



BuickGN said:


> I just read the interview. Interesting on page 5 where he says how important a stiff cone is on the midbass/woofers because the VC is attached at the edge. I think Dynaudio gets around this by attaching the VC toward the center of the cone to reduce modes.
> I'm no speaker expert but don't know how it is physically possible to attach a 3" voice coil closer to the center of the cone assembly than a 1" voice coil - maybe someone can chime in
> 
> It's interesting he tries to discredit Dyns high power handling by bringing up Dynaudio's inefficient speakers and claiming their speakers can do the same with 10w as Dyn does with 500w. The Focal Be and Dyn Esotar tweeters are nearly identical in efficiency, both around 93-94db at 2.83v.
> ...


What makes one driver sound more natural than another one? Distortion? Phase? Something else? When you can answer that question, you then can say that Dynaudio drivers sound more natural than Focal drivers - coz I've heard the Esotar2 drivers and the Focal Utopia Be drivers (ok, in different installs) but I don't agree with you about your comment. 
I actually find the Focal drivers more natural sounding - for me natural is not always smooth, natural is not always laid back, natural is not always delicate nor polite, etc... 
Natural for me should have the "jump factor" with some form of attack and pace to the sound, it should sound alive without sounding agressive, when you hear a snare drum it should be able to make you blink. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

UNBROKEN said:


> All I read is what I said in post #4...."mine is the best" and everyone else is wrong.
> There's too much emotion involved when we spend large amounts of money....


Agree with you on that one - that's the nature of human in general... 

... but before anyone jumps into conclusion about my view, I did own Focal drivers - many of them - but right now, I don't use any. Do have some TLR thought that I'm not using... yet 
I'm using horns in all of my systems and love the sound. 

I'm planning to buy some Utopia Be one day coz they really sound great - just have different priorities now regarding car audio. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Oh, there is one thing in that interview or the article--whichever--that I have to take issue with.
> 
> Somewhere there was a suggestion that separate amplification is a bandaid for bad speaker design. That's crap. Crap Crap Crap.
> 
> ...


I would agree 100% and even 200% with you when talking about the necessity of a processor to tune the sound in a car but the review is about home audio speakers and not many use a stand-alone DSP other than what comes with their integrated receiver. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> Good reads or good marketing?
> 
> I would think that if inverted domes were ideal, more companies would have gone to them.


Ohh, forgot to reply to this post. You talked about Focal's marketing but marketing has always been part of business - everyone does it and some are better than others. 
Either their drivers are great or their marketing is good (suspect it's both ), they are still alive and rocking. 

Browsed through a Dynaudio brochure and they are not too bad themselves: 
"In relation to the total cone surface area, the 75 mm (3 inch) voice-coil is exceptionally large in diameter, allowing a most precise conversion of the amplifier’s signal to music. The result is un-compromised, direct music enjoyment." 

Dynaudio is not bad either @ that game  

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to fight. 
I'm actually enjoying this thread, especially Andy Wehmeyer's posts. It's been a while since I've been into a technical thread - miss most of the older members that left the forum. 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to fight.
> I'm actually enjoying this thread, especially Andy Wehmeyer's posts. It's been a while since I've been into a technical thread - miss most of the older members that left the forum.
> 
> Kelvin


This I can agree 100% with. 

And regarding the marketing, that's why I didn't post anything from a Dynaudio brochure or website, except the frequency and distortion technical info. Marketing is marketing. And if both companies weren't good at it, they'd probably both be out of business.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Compared to amplifiers, speakers are high distortion devices. If there's a ton of mid-band distortion, that's a dis-qualifier. When you look at distortion curves of speakers, it's helpful to know a few things. The following list is not exhaustive.

The first is that distortion will always be high at resonance. That's what resonance is. It's the real reason that driving speakers at their Fs is not optimum. We have to do it with subwoofers. Fortunately, we don't hear distortion at very low frequencies very well. With tweeters, we have to drive them outside their piston range, unless they are really small (planar tweeters are not included here--different deal) because we have to use them at the top end of the range.

So, provided you're choosing crossover points correctly, the distortion at resonance is no big deal. 

Second, it isn't the LEVEL of the distortion that tells you about the speaker, it's the type and the shape, especially when that curve is used along with the frequency response curve. High frequency distortion when coupled with big irregularities in the frequency response curve tell you that the cone isn't pistonic and looking at off axis curves can give you a clue about cone or dome breakup modes. 

Odd order distortion in the motor and suspension are caused by SYMMETRICAL things and even order distortion is caused by ASYMMETRICAL things. For example, coil out of the gap (moves the same distance above and below the top plate) causes odd order distortion (primarily 3rd) and that distortion is ugly sounding. Sounds mechanical--blurp blurp blurp. 

Distortion caused by the suspension providing a different force in the forward and rearward motion is ASYMMETRICAL and contributes EVEN order (primarily 2nd order distortion). 

These are both linear conditions. Non-linear distortion occurs in loudspeakers too. THe coil, moving back and forth over the polepiece changes the inductance at different drive levels and different frequencies. That creates linear (even order) and non-linear distortion (intermodulation distortion).

Doppler distortion (another kind of intermodulation) is caused when the woofer cone which has to move a long way to create bass also has to play high frequencies. The high frequencies are emitted by cone that's moving further away and closer as it makes bass. Removing the high frequencies from the woofer and using a tweeter is helpful, but if the tweeter is placed in front of the woofer cone the cone is the baffle for the lower frequencies emitted from the tweeter because they are emitted in all directions. Essentially, the baffle is close to the tweeter and far from the tweeter alternately. That creates constructive and destructive interference and produces a kind of warbling sound. What's the fix for that? Move the tweeter or limit the woofer's excursion. Or, you can use the speaker off axis, where the angle of the reflection from the cone is different. 

The list goes on and on and on. Before the Klippel analyzer, engineers had to look at all of these curves together to get a picture of what's going on. The nonlinear distortion isn't so easy. That's what Klippel improves--the measurement and analysis of nonlinear distortion. 

So, it isn't so easy and claims that one simple change to a conventional design render one speaker or design philosophy correct and all others incorrect is silly. It's also silly to think that the final retail price of the speaker depends only on the materials that are used to make it. We all know that companies have to recoup their development cost, but the NUMBER of a particular product that are sold determines how much of that cost has to be included in the price of the product. If a company has several lines of products, then those costs can be assumed as variable and applied across all lines.

The cost of the materials has a big effect on the price, too. That's obvious. What may not be so obvious is that fallout--components that are produced but that cannot be used because they don't meet spec is also a huge driver of the cost of products that DO meet spec. If you're cooking tweeter diaphragms in a pizza oven and there's one guy who you call an artisan because he's the only one on Earth who knows just when to pull them out, that's a process that may add cost. If he's really good, maybe he gets it right 70% of the time. 30% fallout is a big expense. If the company is making stuff in a garage with these kinds of processes, it's likely that the product will be inconsistent or expensive, if their qualification process requires close tolerances in parts to provide high performance. That kind of a process also liits throughput--limits the number of products that can be produced and raises the price for two reasons--the one above (fewer products across which to divide the costs) and through scarcity (supply and demand).

A factory exists to standardize processes, create efficiency in producing the same thing over and over and over and to minimize waste. It's romantic to think of the production of products as hand built, but speakers aren't shoes or suits. The mark of a good suit or a fine pair of shoes is how it fits YOU, and there's only one YOU. Creating a work of art is NOT a matter of producing the same thing over and over and over, it's the creation of a single unique work that's appreciated by itself. The suit is expensive because the process is inefficient and the expertise required to make it may be scarce. The work of art is expensive because it's scarce and so is the artist. 

"Quality" has two distinctly different meanings. To a listener, the quality of a speaker is the measure of the speaker's ability to meet performance expectations. To an engineer, Quality is an indication of the percentage of reproductions that precisely meet those expectations.

The development of a speaker might be considered a work of art, but producing 10,000 of those works of art is not a job for an artist. It's a job for a factory. So, when you're thinking about the quality of the speaker you just bought, it's helpful to consider the expertise that goes into the design. It's also important to consider the kind of attention that's paid to the process by which that design is reproduced. 

If you asked Vincent Van Gogh to reproduce Starry Night a thousand times, he'd probably laugh at you and say, "That's not what I do." If you want a reproduction, take the original to someone who does that.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

And there's another post to be bookmarked. Thanks for explaining all of that, I definitely learned something. I would be surprised if 1/10th of the purchase price went into making my tweeters. But if the company spent $100k on the development it's a fair price. I remember seeing a figure a long time ago on the development of the tweeters and if you believe them, it was a huge figure. I'm actually surprised sometimes how some speakers like the w15gti are so cheap considering the technology and distortion levels plus all of the great subjective reviews. I'm guessing since JBL is such a large company along with a lot of the design borrowed from pro audio?

I thought this was interesting. It's the older Esotar model but I'm sure it applies to the newer 110. Dyn rates the tweeters for 150w continuous and 1,000w for 10ms. I've heard many times that Dyn doesn't test the tweeters at that level and it has to be just marketing. Here's the testing of the tweeters up to 1,000w for 10ms. It says there was no compression during that time. My point? There really is none, I thought it was neat to see the test data and that kind of power sent to a tweeter without damage even if it was for a very short time. I would have imagined an open coil instantly. http://www.gattiweb.com/images/dynaudio/esotarT330d_data.pdf


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> I'm not here to argue, you know me  lol
> 
> ...- for me natural is not always smooth, natural is not always laid back, natural is not always delicate nor polite, etc...
> 
> ...


Here Here, Ditto what he said  Glad someone pointed out that the Focal article referenced 15 year old technology, not today's stuff.

True Story:
Had a guy listen to my TBe with an airy, large space with high reflective ambiance in the recording and he said, "what's that sound like something's in the air, the car seems so airy and even slightly bigger than it is?" 

Then I played a dark, sound booth with no reflections in the recording and he said, "what did you do, it sounds soo much better?!!" I had to explain I did nothing but change from one track to the next. He said, "I know it's your tweeters!" Focal's are bright you know! :-D

You don't even waste your time explaining, without changing a thing a dark track was dark, and a bright track was bright AS IT SHOULD BE.

A good audio system should be able to reproduce the recording as it was recorded. Able to play from 20Hz to 20kHz. 

A good audio system should not be hindered by a tweeter that makes everything sound dark. Likewise, everything should not be bright either.

But stand next to a drummer playing a snare, you may blink....
When your car's sound system makes you blink, now that's great!


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

X2; Well said .
Laid back isn't always neutral.


----------



## Hoptologist (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm the kind of person that would be willing to sacrifice neutrality and bite for smoothness. I guess I'm just an all around smooth kind of guy  I feel like I'm this way because so many recordings are crap quality these days, so I feel the need to smooth them out myself. If everyone recorded with the highest quality equipment and production values, then I'd feel fine going for neutrality.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, my "laid back" Dyanudio MD130's could make my eyes blink on a snare that was recorded to do so and didn't on a snare that wasn't recorded to do so. I like the fact that they were accurate to the recording. 

Also, part of it for me is listening fatigue. I've never experienced that with the Dyn tweeters and have with many of the metal domes I have heard. 

It is also interesting to me that you may have described the Dyn tweeters (or at least soft domes) as "dark". You do realize that most of the music you listen to has been mastered in a studio that used Dynaudio drivers, right?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Neutral most definitely is not laid back, it's true to the recording. I've never once claimed my Esotars are laid back, far from it. They have amazing bite but without harshness. I've heard the Be tweeters and as I said I really like them but the Esotar has every bit as much bite but it's not so bright. You can listen at stupid levels without fatigue yet a snare can scare you. It's like taking the best part of all tweeters and combining them into one tweeter with none of the negatives. That's my opinion of course but it they did not sound absolutely perfect to me I would never have paid this much for tweeters. I doubt I would pay 1/4th this much unless it was perfect for my ears. I can definitely see how people love the Be tweeters. I'm sure there are some that have run both and like the Focals better but I want to point out the Esotar is far from laid back.


----------



## kizz (Jun 22, 2009)

nanohead said:


> I'm about to supplement the Image Dynamics XS28 with some metal tweets in the A pillar. The soft domes sound nice, but they miss the snare/cymbal/steel string guitar percussive hit that I like to hear (which is what they actually sound like in real life).
> 
> Gonna try to run both types in an active config, to see if I can get all the benefits of both
> 
> ...



I don't find that to be completely true with my xs28's. Try turning them up. Strings actually sound quite nice and realistic with them. In my experience. Snare drums have good snap too


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

Niebur3 said:


> ... interesting to me that you may have described the Dyn tweeters (or at least soft domes) as "dark". You do realize that most of the music you listen to has been mastered in a studio that used Dynaudio drivers, right?


I'm not speaking of Dyn's, unless Dyn's can't play up to 20kHz and fall off at 15kHz on or off axis.

Dark is a common term used to describe the lack or absence of information between images. This can be easily heard when comparing large room to sound booth recordings.

I've been in several studios for Jazz, R&B and HipHop from Detroit the Florida and never saw Dyn's used as monitors.

I prefer Mackie HR824. I like the JBL LSR. The predominate monitor I see is Genelec. I could be wrong, but none of these use Dyn. Maybe MapleShade use Dyn? I have not been there yet.


----------



## stevenje98 (Feb 8, 2008)

Victor_inox said:


> Some best of the best home audio speakers use metal tweeters, don`t dismiss tweeters by dome material , DIYMA dogma about harshness of metal domes exactly that- dogma you either believe in it or not. Keep trying until you got desired results.


I tried, really I tried my best to tame the 19mm MB Quarts made in Germany tweets. I really thought I had them playing smooth with an EQ. Until my wife played Pat Benatar. I ripped-em the out the very next day. Planet audio has taken there place. Now the planet audio has fallen apart time to get new tweets again. Polk, Hz,.Candace.? 

Anyone try Cadence Acoustics Tweeters ? 

I've tried Dyns not bad. but seems to be missing something. I got the dyns out of a salvage yard for 4 bucks for the pair. later installed in wifes car. 

I might try the Quarts again someday maybe under the dash. 

Focals might be my next tweeters.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

What 3/4" and larger tweeters don't fall off at 15khz off axis? The Esotar is nearly flat past 20khz on axis so no worries there.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

2DEEP2 said:


> I've been in several studios for Jazz, R&B and HipHop from Detroit the Florida and never saw Dyn's used as monitors.


I'm not sure what you mean by this? There are many very prominent studios that use Dynaudio and that info is easy to find on the net. But I am also referring to the mastering studio that all tape at the recording studio is sent to develop a final product. These are studios that deal with all kinds of music. There are 4 mastering studios here and I've been in all of them. They all use Dynaudio monitors or speaker cabinets containing mainly Dyn (and Scan) drivers. Focal also has a division for this, although it seems as Dynaudio has the edge.

This is getting a little off topic though.

I will say, when looking at the similar Frequency Curve of both the TBe and the Esotar2, it is very interesting to me how different they sound. I will also note that, although I'm not sure of the exact model and not 100% sure of any of this, I am under the impression that Mark Eldridge uses JL Audio and metal dome tweeters with great success. I have personally listened to his system. If I am wrong with his components, please someone correct me.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Different books and studies have different views about audible distortion.
> Some states 1% while others state 3% - of course depending on the frequency range (high or low)
> 
> Kelvin


There's also another distinction--steady state distortion (like zero-crossing) is MUCH more audible than distortion on transients. Distortion on transients of even 10% is no big deal.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I had no idea, I've never read about steady state vs transient distortion. Once again I'm learning from these posts. What is "zero-crossing"?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> I'm not here to argue, you know me  lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I should have looked at the date. At one point I meant to. I understand there are reasons for the Dyns having the same efficiency as the Focal drivers, I just found it weird they would mention the importance of efficiency while saying Dyns are inefficient when in reality they're very evenly matched in that department and neither has great efficiency. Like you said, maybe Focals tended to me more efficient than Dyns at the time. 

As for the coil attachment used by Dyn, you know exactly what I mean unless you're blind. What part or the cone do you think a 3"VC attaches to on a 4"' cone or a 4" coil on a 6" cone? I'm sure you will have a different word for it but I think most including yourself know what I meant. 

The problem is you don't know and no one knows exactly what qualities makes one sound more natural than another even when they have similar FR. I really wish you could look at TS parameters and know without having to audition. When I went from the Esotec to the Esotar midbass the Esotar was more detailed and had lots more bass and snap to it even though T/S parameters are similar and even the cones are very similar. What spec shows me how one has better detail? Thankfully we don't need measurements or TS parameters to tell us what sounds natural. That opens up a subjective discussion where everyone has an opinion but the vast majority of people consider Dyns more natural and Focals bright. I agree that focal probably gets an underserved reputation from some people just regurgitating information that have never heard them just like people who have never run Dyns call them power hungry. I just can't remember a single time when a female singer has hurt my ears with their "S" in real life but I can remember plenty times they did so on a car system. You can say everyone has a different opinion if what natural is because we all have different ears and brains but if the same set of ears and brains are used in the real world and for our playback systems I don't know how there can be a huge variance. Maybe this is too off topic. 

I also agree, not here to argue, just to learn.


----------



## SilkySlim (Oct 24, 2012)

Word up! On the female voices. 
Went to a concert not long ago and the opening act was a female rock/pop singer. He voice was real aggressive and almost painful at times we were close to the stage. She came back out on stage with the main act and they played a couple songs together she never sound harsh. Even during the encore with both bands playing. The difference was they used the main acts equipment and she sounded much better. I bought her disc at the show and use it very frequently to expose this area. 

Great explanation Buick GN. I have studied sound and worked in the industry for years. Here is the main thing I've found as the science has grown. There are many newer and great measurements that are available these can give you a great base line of performance. They can give you some general ideas of how things will perform in a certain situation. The problem is there is no magic measurement that will give you the whole picture even if you do all due diligence and combine every design parameter available. You are still dealing with something very complex and subjective everything is interdependent. The space and environment it's going in. Each individual circuit. The drivers etc. The human ear is still by far the best instrument we have. Many men are compensating for lack of performance of certain body parts looking for a specification to back them up and save the day. 
Ok I'm talking about there ears hearing in men drops of faster on the high-end from birth and gets much worse with age typically from genetics but also men typically experienced more ear abuse than woman in the workplace. So older men many times like a much brighter tweeter "has more detail" because there hearing is dropping off drastically around 10-12k now you put a female in the chair and blood is dripping out of their ears. 
Now that being said. The industry has come along way and we have a much better grasp on it than we ever have but we are so far away from a perfect science!
Great discussion. Just because a Dyn and Morel driver can handle what ever you can throw it's way does not make it inefficient. It just make inadequate drivers jealous.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## CrossFired (Jan 24, 2008)

2DEEP2 said:


> I've been in several studios for Jazz, R&B and HipHop from Detroit the Florida and never saw Dyn's used as monitors.


Thats because most studio use a ugly sounding monitors, like a Yamaha NS10.

Dyna make some of the finest speaker around.

Studio speakers sound like ****(imo). And I've mixed in some of the best studios.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SilkySlim said:


> Word up! On the female voices.
> Went to a concert not long ago and the opening act was a female rock/pop singer. He voice was real aggressive and almost painful at times we were close to the stage. She came back out on stage with the main act and they played a couple songs together she never sound harsh. Even during the encore with both bands playing. The difference was they used the main acts equipment and she sounded much better. I bought her disc at the show and use it very frequently to expose this area.
> 
> Great explanation Buick GN. I have studied sound and worked in the industry for years. Here is the main thing I've found as the science has grown. There are many newer and great measurements that are available these can give you a great base line of performance. They can give you some general ideas of how things will perform in a certain situation. The problem is there is no magic measurement that will give you the whole picture even if you do all due diligence and combine every design parameter available. You are still dealing with something very complex and subjective everything is interdependent. The space and environment it's going in. Each individual circuit. The drivers etc. The human ear is still by far the best instrument we have. Many men are compensating for lack of performance of certain body parts looking for a specification to back them up and save the day.
> ...


I don't agree. Whatever filter your ears include is included no matter whether you're listening to the real event or a reproduction of that event. If I listen to you play the piano through my old dude ears which don't hear much above 15k and I hear a perfect reproduction of that event I still don't hear above 15k. One could argue that for my ears, reproduction above 15k isn't necessary or useful. I'm certainly not going to boost above 15k to attempt to reproduce that event as though i had heard the even as a 5 year old...who can remember that far back?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> I should have looked at the date. At one point I meant to. I understand there are reasons for the Dyns having the same efficiency as the Focal drivers, I just found it weird they would mention the importance of efficiency while saying Dyns are inefficient when in reality they're very evenly matched in that department and neither has great efficiency. Like you said, maybe Focals tended to me more efficient than Dyns at the time.
> 
> As for the coil attachment used by Dyn, you know exactly what I mean unless you're blind. What part or the cone do you think a 3"VC attaches to on a 4"' cone or a 4" coil on a 6" cone? I'm sure you will have a different word for it but I think most including yourself know what I meant.
> 
> ...


Actually I don't know what you mean. Here are pics I got on the web showing the coil and former attachment: 

















Doesn't seem like the VC is attached to the center of the cone, it seems like it's quite the opposite... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I don't agree. Whatever filter your ears include is included no matter whether you're listening to the real event or a reproduction of that event. If I listen to you play the piano through my old dude ears which don't hear much above 15k and I hear a perfect reproduction of that event I still don't hear above 15k. One could argue that for my ears, reproduction above 15k isn't necessary or useful. I'm certainly not going to boost above 15k to attempt to reproduce that event as though i had heard the even as a 5 year old...who can remember that far back?


I remember a post I read a long time ago explaining exactly what you mean. 

Let's say 2 of the best tuners attend to the same violin show - show that is also recorded and ripped on a CD... 

Now both are given 2 identical cars with the same install and the same speakers - let's say some Focal Utopia Be   

When tuning, even though they don't hear things the same, they have the same reference, so in theory, both cars should sound exactly the same when playing the CD from the show. 

Kelvin 

PS: I know hearing memory is short but it's just to show a point


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Actually I don't know what you mean. Here are pics I got on the web showing the coil and former attachment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The VC is attached closer toward the outside of the cone. Are you blind? Are you stupid? You know what I mean, you're just being an *******. So much for being here for the discussion. Measure the distance from the surround to the former on a Dyn then compare it to most other drivers. Is that simple enough?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> The VC is attached closer toward the outside of the cone. Are you blind? Are you stupid? You know what I mean, you're just being an *******. So much for being here for the discussion. Measure the distance from the surround to the former on a Dyn then compare it to most other drivers. Is that simple enough?


Then we're not talking about the same thing... Why having the former closer to the surround make it closer to the center? I have no speaker design experience so maybe you can enlight me. 

Please read your own post #101


BuickGN said:


> I just read the interview. Interesting on page 5 where he says how important a stiff cone is on the midbass/woofers because the VC is attached at the edge. I think Dynaudio gets around this by attaching the VC toward the *center* of the cone to reduce modes.


You're the one not helping this thread. In your previous post, I was blind. Now I'm blind, stupid and an *******. 

Thanks for your contribution. 

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Then we're not talking about the same thing... Why having the former closer to the surround make it closer to the center? I have no speaker design experience so maybe you can enlight me.
> 
> Please read your own post #101
> 
> ...


Are you still talking about the center thing? I was done once I figured out you're just being an *******. You can continue talking to yourself if you like. Sure, it may not be nice but what I said is the truth.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Here's some interesting reads about distortion audibility. The results they presented suggested that stuff like diffraction issues actually increased with volume but the audibility threshold of non-linear distortion went up as the volume increased.

Perception

Quoting myself from another thread:



Hanatsu said:


> This is one subject that always been of interest to me. Can measurements be correlated with how good a speaker subjectively sounds? The answer to this is kind of complicated. There are people with lots more knowledge than me who have done extensive research into psychoacoustics and still have varying results and thoughts on what actually is important. First, a little background for those who are interested:
> 
> The purpose of a speaker is to convert the electrical signal from the amplifier to acoustic energy. The amount of electrical energy converted into acoustic energy is pretty low and the process ain't flawless, there are no "perfect" speaker out there - all speakers creates distortion. Distortion is everything that deviates from the original signal, with loudspeakers this distortion is grouped into linear and non-linear distortion. Linear distortion can be deviation from a flat frequency response (or - "amplitude transfer function") or inconsistencies in the group delay (not zero or at the stable level). Non-linear distortion however is more commonly known as "Harmonic Distortion" and "Intermodulation Distortion", both are non-linearities and can be described as distortion that adds frequencies NOT present in the input signal. Non-linear distortion generally gets worse with increased input (increased SPL).
> 
> ...


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

BuickGN said:


> The problem is you don't know and no one knows exactly what qualities makes one sound more natural than another even when they have similar FR.


FR isn't everything. In a reflective environment the power response is even more important than the FR on-axis. The offaxis response needs to be smooth without nulls and peaks for the speaker to blend better with the room. Also the CSD describes the linear behavior over time. A frequency response can look the same however the time domain reveals if some frequencies "linger" more than others, I believe this can affect how "transient" a speaker sounds subjectively. 

There is no magic parameter that can't be measured that's exclusive to some speakers just because they are high end. I have heard Dyn110 twice and they are great drivers, I'd call them "neutral" and "balanced". A great choice for any 2-way front as they sound good crossed low. Lots of the performance of the "high-end" drivers from Scan, Dyn etc lies in the ability to cross them low. IMO, if you run a 3-way front - the performance is wasted. A much much cheaper driver can sound exactly as good if used 4kHz+ (for instance).


----------



## Woosey (Feb 2, 2011)

Towards center Kelvin.. not in the center.. 

Come on guys..


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Have been following this thread for a few days. I like how Andy explains complex things in simple and easy to understand terms. It's easy to see how the 'best' anything eventually transcends into 'most expensive'. Hence the Focal vs Dyn thing, which is quite pointless really. Some issues to keep in mind:

How a speaker measures and how it sounds out of the box vs how you can get it to sound are two different things. You can get two drivers that measure differently to sound similar. Very similar, but not identical. This, when you're tuning both sets towards 'a particular' sound. I think someone won one of the sq world championships running stock speakers. I am not saying that cheaper stuff is better than expensive stuff. Please don't take it there. 

Like mentioned in the thread, beyond the obvious few we don't know which numbers affect which part of the sound. Hence Comparing speakers on how they measure only tells part of the story. As someone who tunes, I would certainly hesitate while claiming A is better than B based only on numbers or the fact that I ran them. 

Speakers are not designed and manufactured to sound 'neutral' or 'warm' or 'clinical' or whatever. They are tuned to sound that way. How they sound put of the box is somehow a by product of what they measure. We just don't know how the two connect. Beyond a point neither do the companies making the speakers. A company that tried to link each number with a subjective cue, would soon go out of business. In the unlikely event that funding for this project was infinite, your 'ideal' component would cost a couple of million bucks. 

Then there was this discussion on the dyn and focal tweeters where the FR is flat from 10-20khz, by comparison my lowly scans start tailing off on axis, ~10khz. The fact is, if I have 10-20khz flat in my car NOTHING is going to sound right. The sound will be bright and brittle period. If my tweeter measures flat from 10-20 all it means is that I have to make much deeper cuts in this range via the eq. 

Think of 10-20khz as the brightness control and the 800-4khz range as contrast. You need to get both ranges optimized relative to each other in your overall response. Setting the mid range for more 'bite' will need some smoothing by pinching down in the 10-20khz range. Or you can be a bit more polite in the mid range and open out the 10-20 range for more brightness. Two different sounds. However in both cases you would have a downward slope from 10-20, the steepness of the slope would vary. If you set the mid range to have bite and then open up the 10-20 range for more brightness, its going to sound horrible.

Tweeters that run flat from 10- 20 might work in home audio cause you're sitting 12-14' from the speaker and this range is getting attenuated over that distance. In a car keep in mind the reflections and the fact that the tweets are barely 3-5 feet from you, there's little natural attenuation.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Hanatsu said:


> Lots of the performance of the "high-end" drivers from Scan, Dyn etc lies in the ability to cross them low. IMO, if you run a 3-way front - the performance is wasted. A much much cheaper driver can sound exactly as good if used 4kHz+ (for instance).


^^^ Agree 100%.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Individual drivers inside a car can't be evaluated properly. With applied processing even less. There are too many factors to consider, you're hearing the "room" just as much as the direct response of the speaker since the early reflections occurs in such small time frame.


----------



## Hoptologist (Sep 14, 2012)

sqnut said:


> Speakers are not designed and manufactured to sound 'neutral' or 'warm' or 'clinical' or whatever. They are tuned to sound that way. How they sound put of the box is somehow a by product of what they measure. We just don't know how the two connect. Beyond a point neither do the companies making the speakers. A company that tried to link each number with a subjective cue, would soon go out of business.


I know what you mean, but I'd say Morel is the exception. They used to advertise their "warm" sound, but they don't on their newer models on their website.

If you look at their older lineup, this was how they described their speakers:
Supremo- "The Supremo Piccolo tweeter uses Morel’s 28mm (1 1/8”) Acuflex soft dome for wider dispersion and warmer sound characteristics."
Elate LE- "The new MT-24LE tweeters will deliver the same known "sweet & Warm" sound characteristics with the unprecedented transience and dynamic range."
Elate- "Morel's signature "sweet and warm" sound comes to the fore with the new MT-23 and its powerful double neodymium magnet and Acuflex coated soft dome tweeter."


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Hanatsu said:


> FR isn't everything. In a reflective environment the power response is even more important than the FR on-axis. The offaxis response needs to be smooth without nulls and peaks for the speaker to blend better with the room. Also the CSD describes the linear behavior over time. A frequency response can look the same however the time domain reveals if some frequencies "linger" more than others, I believe this can affect how "transient" a speaker sounds subjectively.
> 
> There is no magic parameter that can't be measured that's exclusive to some speakers just because they are high end. I have heard Dyn110 twice and they are great drivers, I'd call them "neutral" and "balanced". A great choice for any 2-way front as they sound good crossed low. Lots of the performance of the "high-end" drivers from Scan, Dyn etc lies in the ability to cross them low. IMO, if you run a 3-way front - the performance is wasted. A much much cheaper driver can sound exactly as good if used 4kHz+ (for instance).


I mostly agree. I know I come across as anti measurement sometimes but I would really love to have a way of knowing how a speaker will sound from measurements. I like that you back up your statements with measurements. In my opinion klippel and FR and most other measurements are a great way of eliminating drivers from your selection but once you've eliminated as many as possible based on objective data it's time to take a listen for the final selection. 

If you asked me a year ago I would agree with your statement about being able to be crossed low one of the primary advantages of a high end driver. In fact , I've got at least 3 annoying threads out there asking if I should upgrade to the current Esotar tweeter since I was running a 3-way and was crossing it past 4 kHz. I suspected there would be very little difference but by chance the guy selling these tweeters happened to be passing through town with a set of new Esotars with a cut down faceplate. He offered to let me try them on the spot so I did. It's not often you get a chance to demo tweeters like this in your own car on your own equipment so I jumped on the opportunity. At that point I had no intentions of buying them. 

I would have to go back and look but I believe the tweeters were running from 4 or 5k and up and the difference was tremendous. The top end sparkle and even bite and detail were vastly improved. I knew in the first minute I was going to buy these and I was really hoping there would be no difference because I didn't want to have $1k+ tweeter sitting on the dash. I would say that the tweeters made the single largest difference in the system when upgrading the system and I typically had 6 months between upgrades because I like to see exactly what kinds of differences the new equipment makes. I would love to have gotten before and after measurements but I owned an RTA for a few weeks before it was stolen. 

Now I'm sure you can chalk it up to tuning and I'm definitely an amateur in that department with a lot to learn still but even EQing the other tweeters to the point they were bright and borderline harsh they never had the detail or attack the new ones do. I think there are some things you can't eq in.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm out. 

I have other priorities and being called an ******* is not one of them. 

Thanks, 
Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

BuickGN said:


> I think there are some things you can't eq in.


Yes. You can't compensate for bad non-linear behavior or ringing in the time domain with a DSP. Neither can we compensate for a bad power response with processing just as little we can EQ the reflections that occur.

I have tested LOTS of drivers in my years of an audio enthusiast. I use Scan 6600 AirCirc drivers in my home audio setup (which many consider to be among the best drivers out there). These drivers sound very good in my application and they also measure very well in almost all aspects. These drivers are crossed with 4th order L-R slopes pretty low (around 2kHz IIRC). 

OK. Why don't I have these in the car then? There are one big issue and one lesser issue. The big issue is that the drivers are huge and it's hard to put them in rounded pods (to reduce diffraction) and still have space for a midrange beside them in dash-height. The small issue is that they are pricey, I rather spend my money on a good midrange driver that can do 200-4000Hz and use a much cheaper driver with basically equal performance ~4kHz+ as the Scans. The smaller driver can be placed very close to the midrange driver and still use a rounded low diffraction design (which I consider to be really important). The performance of the small XT25 drivers rivals the performance of the Scans I have in my towers at home in their INTENDED range and I have the measurements to back that up. 

Each car install is different and I believe it's the system DESIGN that's the important thing to be looking at. In other words, it's more about how you use the drivers that determines their performance in a system. If I were looking to build a 2-way system I would get a "high-end" tweeter that allows for low crossing (I know not all high-end drivers are made to be played low but it's common though) but if I were to get a 3-way I would rather get a "high-end" midrange and get a smaller tweeter with good performance crossed higher. 

According to Zaph (ZaphAudio) the Scan-Speak 7000 is the "high-end" version of the XT25. Look at the measurements, both CSD and HD plot - the main differences lies below 2kHz. The price difference is $350/driver. Even if the efficiency is a tad lower the XT25 actually have flatter FR. 

Zaph|Audio


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

kizz said:


> I don't find that to be completely true with my xs28's. Try turning them up. Strings actually sound quite nice and realistic with them. In my experience. Snare drums have good snap too


I'm struggling with the XS28s actually. I've been finding them inconsistent, as well as a bit washed out or muddy on certain passages. I also find them to not have the "Bite" that I like, where the snare, or steel guitar string has that percussive hit. 

I may be able to modify their axis and bring them out more, but they do sound soft to me. 

I'm going to try adding a cheap metal tweet at lower volume in an active config to see if I can supplement the breadth that the XS28s do in fact have.

Although the problem may be the xover that ID supplies, where I may have not set it up as well as I could have. I ran out of patience with the xover, too many jumpers. I'm going all active anyway, using a Mosconi 6to8 as the heart of the creature


----------



## kizz (Jun 22, 2009)

pm'ing you


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

In the interest of ending a fight here, the dyne cutaways clearly show a conventional tweeter design. The woofer uses a 2" voice coil, undoubtedly for power handling, but it uses a slightly different motor design. The magnet is housed INSIDE the coil rather than OUTSIDE the coil. There appears to be a bucking magnet on top to control the stray magnetic field above the gap, but other than that, there's nothing strange.

The coil isn't attached any differently than any other standard coil in terms of whether it's centered or not centered. It's a 2" coil on a 6" driver. How else is it going to be attached? 

Undoubtedly, to achieve the performance they achieve, lots of attention has been paid to all of the small things that matter. Strengthening the former to coil joint and including just the right amount of mass and stiffness there to either eliminate or modify the high frequency peak, for example. The big coil also presents its own difficulty with lots of inductance, but it appears that's been minimized with single layer coil. 

Nice driver, but it's not mysterious.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

FWIW, these drivers have been around a long time. When I was a retailer in the 80s and 90s, Alpine sold these as separates. The tweeter was a "6022". The woofer may have been a 6032. Google Image Result for http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/takeabao/Alpine%25206000%2520series/6022015.jpg


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> In the interest of ending a fight here, the dyne cutaways clearly show a conventional tweeter design. The woofer uses a 2" voice coil, undoubtedly for power handling, but it uses a slightly different motor design. The magnet is housed INSIDE the coil rather than OUTSIDE the coil. There appears to be a bucking magnet on top to control the stray magnetic field above the gap, but other than that, there's nothing strange.
> 
> The coil isn't attached any differently than any other standard coil in terms of whether it's centered or not centered. It's a 2" coil on a 6" driver. How else is it going to be attached?
> 
> ...


It's not mysterious at all but you seem to miss what I was saying as well. The coil is not attached any differently but due to the 3" or 4" coil depending on the model, it is closer to the surround than the typical 1"-1.5" coils on a midrange/midbass. Call it the center or the outside depending on how you look at it but the coil attaches the only place it can attach which is more toward the surround or outside or center depending on how you look at it. Dyn specifically mentions this helps in reducing modes. Other than the tweeters and 430 3.5" midrange all of their automotive drivers including the 5.25" mids use a 3" or larger coil. My 9" midbasses use a 4" coil. 

It's interesting what you say about the aluminum former serving as a sort of shorting ring. Dyns have been crucified for not having a copper shorting ring for inductance control but it looks like maybe they do have some sort of inductance control afterall. Can you elaborate on this design?

The tweeter is just a conventional setup. I don't know why the other guy posted pictures of tweeters, none of their tweeters have oversized coils. 

I'm really interesting in the aluminum former helping control inductance over stroke.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

OK, upon closer inspection, my suggestion about the aluminum former was incorrect for this driver. The former is NOT a closed circuit. It has a slit in it. In that case, it's probably used for heat dissipation or higher power handling. 

IN any case, a copper cap or a shorting ring below the gap are the right ways to reduce inductance.


----------



## BNK (Jun 23, 2007)

I used the D3004/602000 for several years, and now tested the Scan Speaks D2004/602000 which are a little disappointing vs the D3004/602000, not to mention the home 9900. Both are a little harsh vs the 9900. But tune-up might give better result (?)
I don't have much experience with DynAudio except I remember I once heard Dyn's home speakers which sounded very well.


----------



## BMW Alpina (Dec 5, 2012)

I was having dilemma between Focal Kit Tbe because it came with a nice mounting pod for dash mounting or I can even put this in the stock factory location...
or 
Dynaudio Esotar2 110, but I need to buy the aluminum pod on eBay and screw it to the A-Pillar but it will not look stock at all...

but... in the end, I always want to have a Dynaudio, and I never have a Dynaudio (never have Focal too)... still, I think (from reading this entire thread plus few more other thread) it will be easier to tune Dynaudio for DIY like me... so Dynaudio Esotar 2 110 it is...

Plus, if I am not mistaken, the Dynaudio Esotar 2 110 can be cross over at lower frequency... right...
so it should be better for a 2 way active configuration... is this correct?


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

I have had 3 sets of the Focal Kit 7's - I'll tell you straight up - if you are noticing the tweeter in your setup you have not installed them correctly - my car and now home (busy running in a kit7) the tweeter totally disappears in the system - I mean you have to put your ear to verify if they even playing - yet on the RTA they playing perfectly to 20khz...

I would describe them to be as smooth as Egyptian cotton - the high thread count types - they should actually sound pretty good out the box and smoothen out after about 40-50 hours...

But - install them incorrectly and they sound like crap....

I have never had to EQ the tweeter ever in my car and it has the detail and naturalness of a proper home HIFI...

They are amazing - I have never heard a kit 6 so I don't know how they perform in a 2 way scenario...

I am tempted to try the illuminator Beryllium scans and illuminator 18WU in a 2 way setup - with the lower FS on the tweeter the Scan 2 way should sound better than the Kit 6... 

Also the Scans are cheaper than a Kit 7 even though I can get one for a very decent price 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Victor_inox said:


> Every tweeter dead on axis sound bright to me car or home or concert.
> 
> Your speakers use internal amps or crossovers to make them behave.
> 
> ****ty install/tunning can ruin any good tweeter soft or metal.




Not really hey - my car sounded best with the mid and tweeter firing straight at my nose - I have the Kit 7 

I found my set to be the epitome of smooth.. even off heavy metal tracks at high volume 

I found the Alpine F1 2 and 3 way impossible to live with - way too bright and only sounds decent on certain tracks - mostly instrumental tracks

If you wanted your ears to bleed put some metallic sounding tracks...

In short I hated the Alpine F1's... spent countless hours trying to sort them out gave up and banged in a kit 7 out the box smashed the F1's 

Night and day difference...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mendopill (Dec 22, 2016)

RAAL to my ears. Just sound lifelike and real, with unrestrained dynamics. I've heard nothing even close.


----------



## gumbeelee (Jan 3, 2011)

SINFONI GRANDIOSO...AMAZING!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## juventus (Feb 6, 2016)

If someone's looking for "best buy" SQ tweeter it's hard to beat DLS Scandinavia 30.


----------



## BMW Alpina (Dec 5, 2012)

juventus said:


> If someone's looking for "best buy" SQ tweeter it's hard to beat DLS Scandinavia 30.


Hello,
by "best buy" you mean value for money?


----------



## juventus (Feb 6, 2016)

BMW Alpina said:


> Hello,
> by "best buy" you mean value for money?



Correct.
I actually had the first version (Scandinavia 1). If you like to listen to music at high volumes for longer periods of time without fatigue....Scandinavia is the SQ tweeter for you.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

You can buy tweeters for $50 that are better than those DLS... XT25's, etc.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

Mendopill said:


> RAAL to my ears. Just sound lifelike and real, with unrestrained dynamics. I've heard nothing even close.


True, but Ribbon vs Dome...


----------



## Mendopill (Dec 22, 2016)

mmiller said:


> True, but Ribbon vs Dome...


True enough. So then the best dome tweeters I've heard are the Transducer Labs N28BE-A, by quite a bit. With the Hiquphon OWI-fs & OWII being highly regarded by myself. Peerless HDS. And I also like the Air Circ some as well.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

Mendopill said:


> True enough. So then the best dome tweeters I've heard are the Transducer Labs N28BE-A, by quite a bit. With the Hiquphon OWI-fs & OWII being highly regarded by myself. Peerless HDS. And I also like the Air Circ some as well.


Yes, the peerless HDS now rebranded under the Scan discovery line are very nice for the money. Nice dispersion, they work great for home theatre design.

Haven't heard the transducer labs, or Hiquphon's which are now discontinued, correct?


----------



## Mendopill (Dec 22, 2016)

mmiller said:


> Yes, the peerless HDS now rebranded under the Scan discovery line are very nice for the money. Nice dispersion, they work great for home theatre design.
> 
> Haven't heard the transducer labs, or Hiquphon's which are now discontinued, correct?


The Transducer Labs I listed, sounds almost like a good ribbon. It is amazing. I could be wrong, but I think Hiq are still available.


----------



## Mendopill (Dec 22, 2016)

These will be going in my install soon.









[/URL][/IMG]

[/IMG]

[URL=http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Mendopill/media/IMG_0461_zpssshoezc2.jpg.html]


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Has anyone heard PHD Studio 1 tweeter - the one with the 5" flange and 100mm rear chamber? 

I think it's a dumb driver to install in a car purely due to its size and spec wise doesn't outperform a cheaper Scanspeak driver

Any comments?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## juventus (Feb 6, 2016)

mmiller said:


> You can buy tweeters for $50 that are better than those DLS... XT25's, etc.


If that is true, then we're all idiots buying $500, $1000,...tweeters.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

juventus said:


> If that is true, then we're all idiots buying $500, $1000,...tweeters.


I said DLS,. I hope you didn't pay $500 for those, let alone $1000. You can get a set of RAAL's for that, $500 you can get into Scan AirCirc's, and they're in another Galaxy Compaired to Anything DLS.

Unfortunately, the performance to cost ratio on many Car Audio speakers is very poor, that's a known fact.. very few company's live up to the Hype, and many Car branded speakers are outperformed by DIY counterparts costing a half or even a quarter of the price. 

Use the search button, look at reviews, Klippel testing, etc... Welcome to the wonderful world of DIY Audio!


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

juventus said:


> If that is true, then we're all idiots buying $500, $1000,...tweeters.


He ain't wrong. That $25 Vifa XT25 is the best tweeter on the market dollar for dollar and will hang with the best, most expensive in the world, at least all the high end, high dollar ones I've heard. The $40 LPG 26NA is the best tweeter on the market period IMO above 4K. Seas has a couple superb small neo tweeters in the $40 range that will hang with the best in the world.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

juventus said:


> If that is true, then we're all idiots buying $500, $1000,...tweeters.


Or you'll just don't know how to tune.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Nice RAAL's there. I was interested in checking those out but they aren't available anymore. I've been demoing some different tweeters lately. I've owned and used the LCY110's before, also just demo'd the Scanspeak d2904/7100 revelator, BG Neo3 planar, several other tweeters including small format Scanspeak's, Brax Matrix, etc and one tweeter that really stood out was the Fountek Neo X2.0 ribbon. Absolutely beautiful sounding tweeter. I was not expecting it to sound as good as it does. Like your RAAL (even moreso perhaps), they have a large mounting depth which makes them a difficult driver to integrate in the car. I also will be checking out the new Satori tweeter and some Mundorf AMT's shortly.

BTW- That's a hell of a view you've got there! 


Cheers,
Steve






Mendopill said:


> These will be going in my install soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

