Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    It should also be noted that there are different types/brands of ribbon tweeters, and like domes, they do not all sound the same.

    Saying a ribbon is "better" than a dome, is just too general of a statement. The tweeter in the SE's line of speakers, sound better than a lot of ribbons I have heard.
    -curtis

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Space Coast, FL
    Posts
    578

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff52 View Post
    Thanks Dave, I needed to hear that, and yes the 340 tweeter is excellent even below and above ear level. I've never heard a pure ribbon and I know I will be very happy when the time comes to order the NrT ST's.
    Cheers Jeff
    Jeff,

    I want to assure you that my last comment was in jest. There are many customers who are completely satisfied with the NrT Towers. In fact, the Towers were designed and released with the NrT tweeter. The ribbon option came later and it is just that, an option.

    By the way, there's a member here (Gov) who recently upgraded from 340s to the NrT Towers and is very happy. You can read his comments here.

    Quote Originally Posted by curtis View Post
    It should also be noted that there are different types/brands of ribbon tweeters, and like domes, they do not all sound the same.

    Saying a ribbon is "better" than a dome, is just too general of a statement. The tweeter in the SE's line of speakers, sound better than a lot of ribbons I have heard.
    I haven't listened to a lot of high-end stuff like you have, so my ribbon experience is rather limited. However, I can agree about domes presenting different sonic signatures. That should hold true with ribbons as well.

    Regarding the SE line, it still blows me away how much performance is packed into those models considering the price. If I was a loudspeaker designer, I think Ascend's products would cause me more than a few sleepless nights.
    -Jacob

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    120

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by curtis View Post
    Keep in mind, that at one point, the CMT-340SE was Ascend's top of the line speaker.
    I did not know that.....thanks

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    120

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    I agree, I think best bang for buck in the industry
    Agree....

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    120

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Ranger View Post
    Jeff,

    I want to assure you that my last comment was in jest. There are many customers who are completely satisfied with the NrT Towers. In fact, the Towers were designed and released with the NrT tweeter. The ribbon option came later and it is just that, an option.

    By the way, there's a member here (Gov) who recently upgraded from 340s to the NrT Towers and is very happy. You can read his comments here.



    I haven't listened to a lot of high-end stuff like you have, so my ribbon experience is rather limited. However, I can agree about domes presenting different sonic signatures. That should hold true with ribbons as well.

    Regarding the SE line, it still blows me away how much performance is packed into those models considering the price. If I was a loudspeaker designer, I think Ascend's products would cause me more than a few sleepless nights.
    Jacob, I took your comment as intended in jest my friend, no problem. Thanks for Gov's link.
    Jeff

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Ranger View Post
    I haven't listened to a lot of high-end stuff like you have, so my ribbon experience is rather limited. However, I can agree about domes presenting different sonic signatures. That should hold true with ribbons as well.
    Yeah...from reading the other forums, some just automatically think just because a speaker uses a "ribbon" tweeter, it makes it a good speaker. That is simply not the case.

    There are some speakers being talked about on AVS being touted with a ribbon tweeter, and because of that, they are "great". I guess you can call it a pet peeve of mine.
    -curtis

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Hi Guys,

    I have to share this with you… I have extensive experience with different diaphragm materials and have evaluated at least a half dozen Be dome tweeters. From pure Be to various composite materials such as BeCu2 (Copper Beryllium alloy) and AlBeMet (Aluminum Beryllium alloy). I have even evaluated the different forming mechanisms from vapor deposited to film.

    Back in Sept 2009 (prior to the development of our NrT) we started consulting with Brush Wellman in an effort to develop our own vapor deposited pure Be dome diaphragm (just the dome itself) to retrofit the Sierra-1 tweeter. At that same time, we also started working with a Japanese company (TSK) to develop our very own Be dome tweeter. I believe the Japanese were the first to ever use Be in a transducer (an old Yamaha speaker although it could have been Pioneer)

    After spending so much time evaluating, the only Be dome that offered a measurable advantage over a Titanium dome was vapor deposited pure Be. The advantage being that due to the very high stiffness to mass ratio, the resonance frequency of the dome was pushed into the 30 kHz range and out of human audibility. This meant that we now have a dome tweeter with the crispness and “shrill” of a metal dome but without the ringing issues which cause the ever common fatigue issues of metal domes.

    In my professional opinion, there is absolutely no comparison between the very best Be dome tweeter and the RAAL ribbon tweeter. None, Zero, Nada :0

    When trying to accurately reproduce such small wavelengths, the less moving mass the better. The moving mass should have as close to zero stored energy as possible and must be able to start and stop instantly. The problem with a dome tweeter is that in order to make the dome move, a voice coil (wire windings) must be attached to the diaphragm. This adds a significant amount of moving mass (which includes the wire windings, adhesives and the former) which creates stored energy, excess inertia and dramatically increases decay times. For every wavelength produced, the dome and the windings (adhesives and former as well) need to move with the diaphragm. BTW, this issue exists for planar dynamic ribbons and folded ribbons.

    A pure ribbon tweeter works differently… there is no voice coil, no windings, no former. An electrical current runs through the diaphragm itself (the ribbon) which is suspended between very powerful magnets. There is no excess moving mass, the only moving part is the radiating area itself…

    For example, the moving mass of the RAAL ribbon we are using is a mere 0.039 grams with a radiating area of 13.6 sq cm. This weighs about the same as a single voice coil winding, and most quality tweeters have a dozen or more windings. For comparison purposes, the Scan Speak pure Be dome (66400) has a moving mass of 0.35 grams (which is great for a dome tweeter) with a radiating area of 7 square cm (1 inch dome). Our RAAL has twice the radiating area with ten times less moving mass!

    There really is no comparison; the RAAL has better high frequency extension, significantly better transient response, much less stored energy and a better horizontal polar response. BTW, the SS 66400 retail for $510 each.

    No dome (regardless of diaphragm material), planar dynamic ribbon or folded ribbon will compare favorably against our RAAL pure ribbon. The only possible way to get less moving mass is the legendary plasma tweeter. In what is now fast approaching 30 years of transducer evaluations, no tweeter I have ever measured has come close to the RAAL ribbons… It really comes down to the simple physics of the different designs.

    Hope you all find this useful!
    Dave,

    I read the Ascend Board even though I own a competing brand of speaker (Selah Audio Verita, which has the RAAL 70-20XR ribbon). This is the first time I've seen the RAAL ribbon compared to the Scanspeak Beryllium dome. It was a very enlightening comparison and confirms my thinking that the RAAL ribbon is simply the best tweeter I've heard. You hear very extended, natural highs without the aggressiveness, resonances or artifacts that most Domes typically have. Thank you for providing the analysis-

    pawsman
    Last edited by pawsman; 08-11-2012 at 07:40 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    134

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    I agree with you 100%. I recently had a chance to hear the Paradigm S1 V.3 (with the Beryllium tweeter) and S2 V.1(with the Alum tweeter). Let me tell you, the Be tweeter was so much sweeter than the aluminum it was like night and day. No harshness, no annoying sibilance, and not get nasty when you turned them up. The Be tweeter was head and shoulders above the alum dome in my opinion, but it still does not match the speed, precision, and incisiveness of the RAAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by pawsman View Post
    Dave,

    I read the Ascend Board even though I own a competing brand of speaker (Selah Audio Verita, which has the RAAL 70-20XR ribbon). This is the first time I've seen the RAAL ribbon compared to the Scanspeak Beryllium dome. It was a very enlightening comparison and confirms my thinking that the RAAL ribbon is simply the best tweeter I've heard. You hear very extended, natural highs without the aggressiveness, resonances or artifacts that most Domes typically have. Thank you for providing the analysis-

    pawsman

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    501

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by parimento1 View Post
    I agree with you 100%. I recently had a chance to hear the Paradigm S1 V.3 (with the Beryllium tweeter) and S2 V.1(with the Alum tweeter). Let me tell you, the Be tweeter was so much sweeter than the aluminum it was like night and day. No harshness, no annoying sibilance, and not get nasty when you turned them up. The Be tweeter was head and shoulders above the alum dome in my opinion, but it still does not match the speed, precision, and incisiveness of the RAAL.
    Probably so, but you can't compare two tweeters and make general conclusions on which tweeter type is superior. What is true for those two tweeters might not be true for others. So while this one Be tweeter was better than this other Alu tweeter, you can't really generalize and say that Be is better than Alu... It might well be that Be is better than Alu for a speaker designer who knows what he's doing for example, but that doesn't make Be tweeters 'better' than Alu or any other... It just comes down to individual tweeters

    But yeah some technologies/designs have inherent weaknesses and strengths so there is a general point, or advantage/disadvantage of going a certain way, but essentially it works on a per tweeter basis.
    Last edited by GirgleMirt; 08-14-2012 at 01:54 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by parimento1 View Post
    I agree with you 100%. I recently had a chance to hear the Paradigm S1 V.3 (with the Beryllium tweeter) and S2 V.1(with the Alum tweeter). Let me tell you, the Be tweeter was so much sweeter than the aluminum it was like night and day. No harshness, no annoying sibilance, and not get nasty when you turned them up. The Be tweeter was head and shoulders above the alum dome in my opinion, but it still does not match the speed, precision, and incisiveness of the RAAL.
    Sibilance always starts with the recording. The tweeter may end up accentuating it, but you have to know the source to know if it is being portrayed accurately or not.
    -curtis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •