|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Would like an honest assessment of people who own or have owned Metal Drivers and what problems or what resons they had with using them?Looking for critical things people have found wrong with their presentation or sonic ability's?
Just wanting to know inorder to test the merits to the speakers I have at present.
Follow Ups:
Everything is a compromise, IMHO, non metal drivers are more forguiving, but with the proper, expensive, xover, the metal ones can shine too...
Antonio Melo Ribeiro
I have just recieved my NEAR M50's which I have been waiting along time for. They are different than any previous models of the speakers which incorperate newer drivers and a redesigned XO.I will try to post a review after I have everything incorperated and the breakin period is over.
I do not think that any of the problems exist that have been mentioned ,but Serious listening has to be conducted before drawing any solid conclusions and I will use your answers in determining the merits of the speakers.
NEAR is one company that made such great stuff, I hate the fact it is no longer there. They had some dazzling ideas.
Same goes for Fried, and Dunlavy.
R.I.P.
Bill Kietyka does not do home speakers any longer.'
My speakers, SEAS Froy III use 2 SEAS 5" magnesium cones per side. They are smooth, detailed, kick in the bass and a little forward sounding on some software, but this is more because the designer, a friend, balanced them this way for his preferences, not because the drivers are metal. My drivers are 5" and break up around 9 khz. I've heard similar speakers with 6 1/2" SEAS mag cones that breakup aaround 5 khz. They are al;so very good, smooth, but not as articulate and not quite as dynamic as the smaller cones.
All drivers break up on the top of their bandwidth. Metal drivers usually break up at higher frequencies than p[aer and plastic for a given diameter and design, but when metal let's go it's worse than other materials. So you need to use them outside of their breakuo frequency; crosover should be an octave, better 2 octaves, below breakup and with fast slopes - they are not good candidates for 6 db/octave crossovers. And it's not a bad idea to use a notch filter at the breakup point even if the crossover is way down at the point.
With a tweeter you don't have the use of a low pass crossover to tame the breakup, so you want a tweeter that breaks up supersonic, the higher the breakup point the better. A notch filter is still not a bad idea.
By the way use of a notch filter is a band aid, a good band aid, but like all patches, you do pay a performance price. It's just that on compromise, I believe the notch filter to be worth it.
The old Bozak speakers used metal cones for their midrange drivers, as well as the tweeters. They were coated with some kind of anti-resonance material. A company called New England Audio Resourece (NEAR, like your moniker!) bought the rights to Bozak's technology and built some highly-regarded speakers in the 1990s. I own a pair of ALR/Jordan monitors that use some kind of metal composite in their 6" mid/woofers, paired with soft-dome tweeters.Like most materials, metal has its advantages (stiffness, primarily) and its weaknesses (can sound harsh or "ringy" like a bell). As Low noted below, implementation is at least as important as materials used in a speaker. I really don't think most people could guess what materials were used in the drivers of a particular speaker just by listening to it!
Check my system(AA System Lookup) and you will see I have all NEARs.Hence a dual meaning for my moniker.
well: here goes:
Focal tc-90:
If implemented wrong, can have a sandpaper like effect. It has a resonance within it's own frequency band and can in fact sound very etched.VMPS bypassed this by using focal tweeter between a ribbon mid, and ribbon tweeter, cutting the focal off early. Never had them sound too bright, unless I really tweaked them to do so.
Vandersteen 5.0: uses a VIFA aluminum tweeter as does Von sweikert. It would be hard pressed to get them to sound over bright really.
Thiel uses metal tweet, and arguably "can" be bright. Maybe it's just telling the truth?
Energy Veritas: I found that with good gear, the metal does not sound too bright. hook up a kenwood reciever, a sony discman and you might feel pain though...
Signet: used to use seas aluminum tweet. Pretty sweet and slightly laid back.
B&W: uses metal. they can sound revealing, they can sound try. Some people percieve them under some circumstances to be tizzy and bright.
Magnat used a plasma tweeter. it's metal...ok..bad example.
Does heil count? it uses a ribbon which is a lot of metal, but is very detailed and airy
Canton: got laudits for it's all metal speakers. somebody liked them
Wilson: uses focal tioxid tweeters. Considered very detailed, sought after by cost-is-no-object types.
Klipsch: uses titanium diaphragms in the reference series. using tubes and good cable, with maybe a sub, they do not sound over bright.
Paradigm: uses metal tweet in lower models. They can sound sizzly.
I'd say the use of metal tweeters varys greatly. It all depends on the designer. Metal can be very fast, and truthful. It can also be percieved as tinny and hard. Implementation and front end make all the difference in the world. You can make metal sound tizzy, with an oil-can effect or cupping distortion, or a natural extension of the midrange.
My speakers ( Axiom M80's) are all metal drivers, and i dont think there is anything wrong with them. I do enjoy their detail immensly though. maybe some people dont like as much detail?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: