There is a fine line between a tweeter that is transparent and accurate enough to get all the detail out vs one that projects shrillness and hardness. The secret's in the cheese ... uh, I mean the crossover and upstream components sometimes.
"Beryllium bite"
- Thread starter AudioExplorations
- Start date
Since I haven't had XLF in my listening room my comments should be taken in that context. I actually prefer the X2 highs to those of the XLF's BUT in aggregate the XLF is a better speaker. I think the XLF is more continuous from bottom to top and the mids a bit sweeter. In my opinion the MBL tweeter is more accurate than anything I can remember. The Focal BE tweeters fall somewhere in between.
I can listen to my shrill (LOL) X-2.2 metal tweeter all day. It's not the tweeter as much as it is the implementation in design and the source that determines fatigue, imo. No fatigue with this speaker to my ears as I can listen as long as I can stay awake. 
thanks...very interesting. I have listened a number of times in a system I know to both the X2 and the XLF...I am most impressed by how quiet the XLF seems...the execution of crossovers, cabinetry, I suppose. I think the treble was excellent, but I did not find it to be what made the greatest impression on me. I found that the coherence, and sense of even lower mechanical intrusions, grainlessness was what I remarked most.
However, I have not truly lived with either speaker, and thus appreciate your views on the treble. I have had a much newer generation Focal tweeter placed into my trusty old X1s last year when one of my tweeters gave way after all these years, and it did make a very nice improvement.
I can listen to my shrill (LOL) X-2.2 metal tweeter all day. It's not the tweeter as much as it is the implementation in design and the source that determines fatigue, imo. No fatigue with this speaker to my ears as I can listen as long as I can stay awake.
A lot has to do, as Martin Colloms noted in the X1 review in 1994, with upstream components in the system. Even more has to do with setup by the Distributor or Dealer...I was very fortunate that way. Sounds like you have been as well.
Again, I have had a new generation Focal tweeter placed into my trusty old X1s after one of them gave way...and it was a very nice improvement.
I think you have described the differences in the X2 and XLF's rather nicely. I would't mind having a pair of XLF's but for me the cost to make that jump just isn't in the cards. Besides I don't find myself sitting around thinking I am lacking anything in my current set-up.
I bet you aren't missing much if anything...
Just looking at your signature block...I myself just finalized upgrading my ICs...I used to have 10-yr old TA Ref...finally managed to finish finding 2nd hand TA RefMM (MM2) which were properly calibrated for my equipment. Still need to find such a speaker cable...this time aiming for Opus MM2...which I think might take a while. But I really, really like TA with Wilson.
Wow, I don't find mine fatiguing at all. They've been my standard for amazing detailed high frequency extension for years now - I never get tired of listening through them.
Lloyd, I agree, this seems to be a "feature" of better equipment and cables....the quietness. And from that the music emerges ...
PS, no bite at ALL in my Beryllium tweeters...although I could see how un-careful placement, wrong room treatments...equipment/cable mismatches could fool one into thinking they have a bite...they give what you feed em...
At a TAVES show in Toronto I came across a set of three tuning forks in one of the Focal rooms and surmised that they were to demonstrate the ringing properties of the different metals that are used in tweeters. The first two (non beryllium) had definite ringing or tone happening. When I rapped the beryllium tuning fork I instinctively rapped it again as I thought it was broken as I couldn't hear it ringing. My ears are still good to around 17khz.
Having gone through all kinds of soft dome / ceramic / metal tweeters / ribbon / planar, I have to admit I haven't heard a more transparent tweeter than the latest berillium dome from Scan Speak (that is used in Magico and Rockport speakers). In my system, it is as smooth as a butter, and I can listen to it all day long - in fact this tweeter has the lowest 'fatigue level' of any tweeter I've heard.
The key seems to be the source component quality. The inheritent transparency of berilium tweeters lets you hear all imperfections in your digital gear very easily - get a top quality digital source or analog setup, and it will sound amazing.
With lesser digital sources, with lots of digital glare and grain, more forgiving soft dome tweeter may be preffered. Not because its is better or more transparent (which is not), but because it tends to sweep things under the carpet.
The key seems to be the source component quality. The inheritent transparency of berilium tweeters lets you hear all imperfections in your digital gear very easily - get a top quality digital source or analog setup, and it will sound amazing.
With lesser digital sources, with lots of digital glare and grain, more forgiving soft dome tweeter may be preffered. Not because its is better or more transparent (which is not), but because it tends to sweep things under the carpet.
Hi JFrech...having heard both the Altair 2 and Arrakis 2 (both the Rockport Be Tweeter), I totally agree with your description...no bite at all. I have also heard Wilson's new silk dome tweeter in the XLF and the Alexia...and I equally enjoyed the treble. BUT...as you say, set up is everything. Because there are lots of variables in terms of resistor changes, tweeter module movement changes...you can really boost or lower the treble dispersion in the Wilsons...and when I heard the Alexia one particular time, they clearly had just plunked them down...and the dispersion of the tweeter was set up unnaturally high. and it was too much treble.
execution is everything...and so is setup. Both the Wilson silk dome and the Rockport Be tweeter are excellent imho and setup well...I could easily live happily with either.
+ 2. I have heard too many different tweeters to mention including soft domes, aluminium, titanium, ribbon & beryllium (Magico Q & S Series, Focal). Both Focal Utopia's & Magico achieve smooth, unfatiguing sound in the right setup. I would say the Utopia berylium tweeter is more neutral in tonal balance and sounds very natural, whilst the Magico MB30 tweeter is very smooth and natural, but a bit warmer than the Utopia. These are two companies at the top of their game who are able to get the best out of that driver material. Overall I prefer the Magico MB30 driver which doesn't draw attention to itself and draws me into the music (atleast in my setup).
IMHO we can not separate the performance of the tweeter from the crossover and overall speaker balance. Generalizations made around the the material of the dome only shows what is our current toy, or is just a consequence of an exceptional ecstasy with some tweeter in a past audition.
And yes, the MBL 101 tweeter is one that can create this feeling!
And yes, the MBL 101 tweeter is one that can create this feeling!
There is always the temptation to shoot the messenger. My KRKs (aluminium/beryllium alloy tweeter) are so anonymous that they simply sound like every change that I make to my system. That's good. They tell me unequivocally whether the change is a step forward, a step back, marking-time or a sideways step.
I'm always impressed with components which prove themselves to be massively capable yet simultaneously an open window to everything. Stupendous when it is a bullseye. Good but obviously no bullseye when it is somewhat off target and bloody obvious when it missed the dart board completely. A fantastic excellent faithful speaker should be more like this than not. More excellence equals deeper insight united with less uncertainty.
I'm always impressed with components which prove themselves to be massively capable yet simultaneously an open window to everything. Stupendous when it is a bullseye. Good but obviously no bullseye when it is somewhat off target and bloody obvious when it missed the dart board completely. A fantastic excellent faithful speaker should be more like this than not. More excellence equals deeper insight united with less uncertainty.
FWIWFM I agree with the idea that material is among the least contributors to the sound. Diamond is a thin layer, metal type probably has less impact than metal thickness and overall tweeter design, etc. I would guess the type of tweeter (dome, inverted dome, ribbon/planer/ESL, horn, plasma etc.) dominates the actual driver's characteristics, but overall speaker system design (cabinet, crossover, alignment, "voicing" etc.) dominates the overall speaker's sound (and of course if the speaker is the gorilla, the room is the elephant in the room). I tend to pay some attention to tweeter type, most to the overal design, and barely a whit about the tweeter material.
IMO - Don
IMO - Don
Similar threads
Members online
- cdka
- shawnf
- WLP3
- J007B
- Walnut Horns
- 3776Meters
- Gregadd
- Daverich4
- lwr
- scericson
- jhulton
- Opabin
- RobertL
- John Wyant
- Bruno Rivademar
- Another Johnson
- Young Skywalker
- John T
- Imperial
- No Regrets
- FT251
- MRIguy
- soarsz
- arthurs
- MPW
- louiej
- ozzzy
- Jimkrell42
- redscouser
- soliver
- Three quid
- poonbean
- tony22
- vinyl_mike
- rjc1845
- RichardA
- Maxb
- TheAudioAssociation
- wbfhet
- AudioLibertarian
- Mcsnare
- gleeds
- R Johnson
- SOS
- Foxbat
- LarryK
- GroovySauce
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |