http://www.polymeraudio.com/

only $24,990/pr.
I wonder what part of the price tag is for the 10 carat diamonds and what is left for the speaker. Could be you are buying a pair a speakers worth
4k within the total price.

Are these diamonds GIA or AGSL certified? :)

I would like to actually see measurement comparisons to the Magico Mini, instead of just conjecture.

Ive heard of shrill sounding spkrs but these could cut glass:)

Steve, dont u know we cant handle the truth.............errr wait "the imputed fact"...........wait what does that mean?

OK, its diamonds lets just do a group buy for 20k/pair

I'll tell you (everyone who ends up reading this thread), I would love to bring the Magico Mini and Model 6 into my listening room to see how they work in a well treated room. I heard the Minis at HE2007 and they sounded clangorous, cacophonous and overly bright. I would love to see if it was just the untreated room, since the speakers themselves "seem" to measure very flat according to one RTA measurement by an Absolute Sound reviewer.

I wouldn't mind trying these "diamond" speakers out in my room as well...

Exotic materials have a serious place in hi end audio. Im working on an active Sub-woofer made from recycled butt-plugs.

Exotic materials have a serious place in hi end audio. Im working on an active Sub-woofer made from recycled butt-plugs.

That gives all new meaning to the phrase, "that sub-woofer stinks..." :o

That gives all new meaning to the phrase, "that sub-woofer stinks..." :o

Normally you may be able say that a sub has a tuned port, not that your sub has tuned a few ports of its own:eek:

Normally you may be able say that a sub has a tuned port, not that your sub has tuned a few ports of its own:eek:

I hope they didn't make any engines purr... :p

I was expecting someone to explain the merits or lack thereof the diamond drivers but.. as has been becoming alarmingly customary here, this thread is definitely going down the toilet...

I was expecting someone to explain the merits or lack thereof the diamond drivers but.. as has been becoming alarmingly customary here, this thread is definitely going down the toilet...

Have you heard the speaker with drivers shaped like a toilet - so that the sound will accumulate around your ears and not go out your butt?

Yea, I was hoping some of our engineering folks could speak to the merits of diamond drivers, too.

do you have any preliminary data on their low-end performance?

Exotic materials have a serious place in hi end audio. Im working on an active Sub-woofer made from recycled butt-plugs.

I was expecting someone to explain the merits or lack thereof the diamond drivers but.. as has been becoming alarmingly customary here, this thread is definitely going down the toilet...

Including your response...

Perhaps you should take the initialtive and explain the merits or lack thereof.

Queue

I do not know much about these drivers.. There is not much I can add to the discussion...

Including your response...

Perhaps you should take the initialtive and explain the merits or lack thereof.

I was hoping that you'd get your "Q" rolling and Cumber us with your objective technical insights re diamond drivers.

I was hoping that you'd get your "Q" rolling and Cumber us with your objective technical insights re diamond drivers.

I found this quote from Andrew Jones of Pioneer:

AJ We have been making beryllium diaphragms for over thirty years now, using the technique of vapour deposition. We have built up an enormous body of knowledge with regard to manufacturing consistency and quality. We chose beryllium originally for its unparalleled stiffness to mass ratio, necessary to move cone resonances up as high as possible. The only comparable material is diamond, but its density is almost twice that of beryllium and so its use leads to a increase in moving mass and hence reduced sensitivity, a trade off we didn't want to make in these new products. We have in the past though manufactured diamond tweeters. Around 10 years ago these were actually on sale in Pioneer speakers in the Japanese market. So both beryllium and diamond are not new materials in speakers!!

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:7gc91FR3LoQJ:www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/andrew_jones.htm+diamond+tweeter+vs.+berylium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

I'll try to find more. I'm not a DIY speaker guy. :(

Though I will be eventually. ;)

I've read that a lighter material like titanium and/or beryllium allows a faster response time compared to diamond.

I've read that a lighter material like titanium and/or beryllium allows a faster response time compared to diamond.

I'm pretty interested in carbon nanotube composites with metals. I think these would be easier to manufacture in a couple of years with advances in electrodeposition (most likely the cheapest method) and other forms of deposition.

Anyone ever get a chance to listen to these Polymer Audio (http://www.polymeraudio.com/index.html) speakers, or know someone who has?

They do have a 30 day trial if you pay for the shipping. I saw the frequency response on their website and I'm intrigued.

http://www.polymeraudio.com/images/specs1.jpg

http://www.polymeraudio.com/images/specs2.jpg

Some of the engineers (or even some of the armchair engineers) must have an opinion on this kind of design?

Just keep in mind that that FR graph looks *incredibly* smoothed and is on a much larger scale (the graph is widened and shortened, like stretching 4:3 to 16:9), so the FR variations appear to be smaller and the response much flatter than they would if measured and graphed in a normal magazine. As well as the fact that it is generated by the manufacturer! It appears to be about +3dB/-5dB on that graph (excluding the 10dB tweeter peak). That's not so amazing.

adjusting the graph on a scope is the best way there is to improve performance.

adjusting the graph on a scope is the best way there is to improve performance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a scope?"

Thanks.

any type of instrumentation.

any type of instrumentation.

Ah, you mean fixing the graphs for a desired result?

Sorry, dat is indeed what i meant

Actually, not fixing the results for a better result (although that can be done) i am referring to fixing for the APPEARANCE of a better result.

Point of agreement? ^ :eek:

And there's more. You could find that the flattest response is obtained 5 degrees to the side or 10 degrees down and not mention that's how you measured it. Or, you find that it measures slightly flatter with a Shure mic than a Behringer mic or that the mic is angled slightly in one direction or another. But, regardless, that graph has been electronically smoothed much more than is normal for one thing and rather than showing, say, 70dB-110dB, they're showing all the way down to 0dB and all the way up to 130dB. That makes the +3/-5dB thing look far less drastic than it is. Then, you widen it to make it look that much flatter. So, the graph *looks* marvelous, but is pretty average, even worse than average.

That being said, the advantage of ultra rigid, well damped cones is in the theoretical freedom from resonance, not FR accuracy. I'm not keen on that ultra square, wide baffle cabinet straight out of the 80s though.

Well, if midranges of diamonds float your boat, then you might as well take these (http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/gold_pills_are_um_i_dont_even.php).

Marten Design has created two speakers, I think, with diamond midranges. I don't know who they source them from. They're also using ceramic woofers and diamond tweeters. Kind of an extreme box.

So, the graph *looks* marvelous, but is pretty average, even worse than average.

I wouldn't say "worse" than average, since the average is much more terrible than that from what I've seen on Soundstage (NRC) and Stereophile.

That being said, the advantage of ultra rigid, well damped cones is in the theoretical freedom from resonance, not FR accuracy. I'm not keen on that ultra square, wide baffle cabinet straight out of the 80s though.

Looks don't concern me all that much, but I am curious how they sound. I would be interested in anyone's impressions who has heard them. The mini seemed to go the route of new technology, but they sounded awfully bright to me (as previously mentioned). No one has heard these anywhere yet?

Just keep in mind that that FR graph looks *incredibly* smoothed and is on a much larger scale (the graph is widened and shortened, like stretching 4:3 to 16:9), so the FR variations appear to be smaller and the response much flatter than they would if measured and graphed in a normal magazine.

+1. Also, there's a whitepaper on the website that answers the question of why diamond:

http://www.polymeraudio.com/DiamondStudy.pdf

The irony is that the reasons for using diamond are completely irrelevant to a midrange.

I also have a hard time seeing speaker innovation from a company that still uses passive crossovers and drivers in a box.

--Andre

The irony is that the reasons for using diamond are completely irrelevant to a midrange.

Why is it irrelevant to a midrange?

Why is it irrelevant to a midrange?

Because midrange drivers don't need to output 100 kHz signals. Neither do tweeters, but that's another argument.

--Andre

http://www.polymeraudio.com/

This is from the same BS hype artist that created the DK Design stuff. For a couple months all the online audio zines were reporting it to be the most revolutionary thing since velcro, and then naturally it wore off as these things all do.

When will these people understand that the market does not need anymore fly by night audio companies.

The new Dynaudio Sapphire. Nows theres a speaker. ;-)

Because midrange drivers don't need to output 100 kHz signals. Neither do tweeters, but that's another argument.

--Andre

A diamond driver doesn't have qualities useful in other, lower frequencies?

The new Dynaudio Sapphire. Nows theres a speaker. ;-)

What makes the Sapphire better than the Confidence C1? What makes it better than the Evidence Master?

Focussing on only one aspect of speaker design and looking to maximize or minimize that through materials research can tend to overlook whether that aspect was a signficant problem to begin with. Consider the various JAES articles that came out in the 80's from authors who worked for companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer regarding the latest wrinkles resulting in speakers that measured well in some aspect but were sonically deficient. If the brands listed are using a diamond tweeter and sound good, they likely sound good for other reasons. The diamonds are there to befuddle the consumer and loosen the purse strings.

Focussing on only one aspect of speaker design and looking to maximize or minimize that through materials research can tend to overlook whether that aspect was a signficant problem to begin with. Consider the various JAES articles that came out in the 80's from authors who worked for companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer regarding the latest wrinkles resulting in speakers that measured well in some aspect but were sonically deficient. If the brands listed are using a diamond tweeter and sound good, they likely sound good for other reasons. The diamonds are there to befuddle the consumer and loosen the purse strings.

That's nice Chu. However, putting all of your obvious prejudices against "diamonds" aside, it does not answer my question. :o

Focusing on only one aspect of speaker design and looking to maximize or minimize that through materials research can tend to overlook whether that aspect was a significant problem to begin with. Consider the various JAES articles that came out in the 80's from authors who worked for companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer regarding the latest wrinkles resulting in speakers that measured well in some aspect but were sonically deficient. If the brands listed are using a diamond tweeter and sound good, they likely sound good for other reasons. The diamonds are there to befuddle the consumer and loosen the purse strings.

Without a doubt, the use of diamonds is a weak attempt to associate themselves with luxury goods (Tiffany rock and one terrible looking Rolex) says it all. While a total non issues, the parallel is lost immediately as I am sure these speakers use low grade diamond dust vs. the high grade nature of a TIF diamond and well, then there is that Rolex.

Its just as bad a Krell using a famous Mets catcher as their spokesperson.

Since you're so good at discerning my obvious prejudices against "diamond" maybe you'll be able to figure out the answer to your question being that you're such a discerning fellow. Try a post over at rec.audio.tech.

Well, diamond *could* reduce inband resonance quite a bit, which would show up on an *unsmoothed* graph, so it's interesting that they smooth theirs to the point of uselessness. Look at an unsmoothed graph and you see as much as +/-10dB narrow band spikes and dips in the response that aren't completely lost on the ear.

That being said, I do think they're putting all their eggs in one marketing basket.

That being said, I do think they're putting all their eggs in one marketing basket.

That "driver/cost = better speaker" on the front page made my brain hurt. If that's paid for marketing, they need their money back. :-)

Hey, I didn't say it was a well made basket! ;)

FWIW, B&W's unsmoothed measurements of the diamond vs aluminum did show decreased in band hash and I do think the diamond version of their tweeter sounds better than their aluminum one (not that this is saying a whole lot, to be kind).

Since you're so good at discerning my obvious prejudices against "diamond" maybe you'll be able to figure out the answer to your question being that you're such a discerning fellow. Try a post over at rec.audio.tech.

Just admitting that you don't know works fine for me...

If I knew the answers, I wouldn't be asking the questions I'm asking. A little more thoughtfulness and a little less arrogance might benefit future participation IMO. :(

FWIW, B&W's unsmoothed measurements of the diamond vs aluminum did show decreased in band hash and I do think the diamond version of their tweeter sounds better than their aluminum one (not that this is saying a whole lot, to be kind).

I agree on the better sound of the diamond version. That is part of why I am intrigued. I found the B&W diamond tweeter to sound very clean IME with it over the two years I owned a pair (unfortunately, the midrange just didn't measure up IMO). I'm curious whether diamond deposited cones do have the potential to act closer to a "perfect piston" than most other options out there, or whether the technology isn't at that point yet. I know with carbon nanotube materials slowly starting to catch on there will be great advances in all technologies in the not so distant future (especially CPU technologies where the largest limitation on die shrinking right now is quantum tunneling effects).

I know you are a big advocate of Revel and their technologies, but do you feel anyone is really pushing the boundaries with alternative materials and speaker construction yet?

A diamond driver doesn't have qualities useful in other, lower frequencies?

It may, but it's still ironic that the only technical information they give relates to 100 kHz performance, and not midrange performance.

However, looking at the rest of the speaker, it's really nothing special, and they still have much bigger problems to solve than whatever a diamond cone may do for them.

--Andre

I know you are a big advocate of Revel and their technologies, but do you feel anyone is really pushing the boundaries with alternative materials and speaker construction yet?

Not successfully. As you know, the B&W treble is better than previous versions, but IMO, wasn't better than other really good tweeters I've heard, primarily because of execution, and that negates the extra $4K-$5K you pay for the speaker. That tweeter pod is more problematic than a good, low diffraction baffle and 1st order designs have their own issues. So, it comes down to execution. Many of these technologies, including more advanced aerogel designs (a titanium or magnesium aerogel would blow the doors off of diamond!) are just too expensive. I think if Revel retuned the tonal balance of their speakers marginally for a bit warmer sound, I think you'd like them.

Also, as you know, I think DSP and steep crossovers can do more to avoid the problems in existing driver technologies than expensive parts can do to avoid the problems in existing analog crossovers and design.

http://www.polymeraudio.com/images/specs1.jpg

Holy mama!
I've never seen a graph with a 200dB range before!!! :eek:
I'd say that's smoothing...
I've created dozens of datasheets in my professional life and that response is pretty amateurish.
I would zoom it in (50-100dB or 0-110dB at worst) and cut the response down to 100Hz - 20kHz.
It has a reasonably flat (although unnatural looking) response from 500Hz-20kHz (if smoooooooooooooooooothing has not been abused) and I'd advertise just that part of the response...
After all, not many manufacturers can boast such a driver that can be that linear over 5.5 octaves.
Not impressed at all by the presentation of data.
I haven't heard a diamond midrange so I cannot comment on the sound per se. I'm just talking numbers here...

Wow, I didn't notice the -70dB thing. My brain saw it, yet assumed it was just 0dB. How can you have negative SPL? WTF?

0dB is a gain of 1.
-20dB is gain of 0.1

Its a log scale John...

Right. Any measurements scale in decibels is necessarily tied to some sort of absolute reference. 0dB SPL is usually tied to 20 micropascals, if Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure) is to be believed. Anything below 0dB is considered below the nominal auditory threshold. -70dB SPL is 10^-3.5 times smaller, or 6.32 nanopascals. Conversely, +90dB SPL is 10^4.5 times larger, or 0.632 pascals.

(Just be glad we answered this question before Morbius showed up John! :))

Yes, but I'm not sure if that counts when we're actually talking an absolute SPL. Am I wrong is that 0dB of SPL at 1M is actually zero measurable sound? I mean, they can tack it on there if they want, in relative terms. For instance, you can have a -500 degree differential in temperature, but you can't have 500 degrees below 0.

Edit - okay, got it Michael, so 0dB is infinitesimally small and -70 is just tossing a bunch more zeros for the heck of it. I think I got it. I guess 0dB has to be *something* for the scale to work.

Yes, but I'm not sure if that counts when we're actually talking an absolute SPL. Am I wrong is that 0dB of SPL at 1M is actually zero measurable sound? I mean, they can tack it on there if they want, in relative terms. For instance, you can have a -500 degree differential in temperature, but you can't have 500 degrees below 0.

Edit - okay, got it Michael, so 0dB is infinitesimally small and -70 is just tossing a bunch more zeros for the heck of it. I think I got it. I guess 0dB has to be *something* for the scale to work.

Yeah, since its sound "pressure" level. 0dB corresponds to a pressure value that some people (maybe smart people) agreed that an average human could not perceive. You can have smaller pressure values of course, but in terms of audibility, they are meaningless as you already said.

(Just be glad we answered this question before Morbius showed up John! :))


Haha!
You owe me a new keyboard!
It's now coated in a lovely coffee brown... :D

I think if Revel retuned the tonal balance of their speakers marginally for a bit warmer sound, I think you'd like them.

I plan on demoing the Ultima2 series the first chance I get. I didn't dislike the old series, but I didn't prefer their sound to the W/P 7 or 8, nor the 800Ds. I compared the Salons at a few different places to the B&W 800D and the top of the line Magnepans. As far as looks go though, they look like big silver hotdogs to me... The Ultima2s look better IMO.

I don't think we share the same definition of "warm" if I remember correctly. I consider warmness to be added power in the bass frequencies. If that is what you mean, I don't actually like an excessive amount. It actually annoys me to have too much, as is the case right now due to a pesky room resonance issue in my listening/HT space (two of the large spaces in my room share a multiple :(). Likely, the only reasonable cure will be analog PEQ. I'm currently using a very cheap digital PEQ and I like the results enough to pursue it at some point if I decide no other options are as appealing.

(Just be glad we answered this question before Morbius showed up John! :))

No kidding! I'm wrong enough when I'm right ;)

As far as looks go though, they look like big silver hotdogs to me...

Now, see, you just ruined them for me.......

I don't think we share the same definition of "warm" if I remember correctly. I consider warmness to be added power in the bass frequencies.

Well I meant maybe "polite".

What makes the Sapphire better than the Confidence C1? What makes it better than the Evidence Master?

The Sapphire sounds like the C1, but with more drive and impact. As amazing as the C1s are for a bookshelf, the Sapphires can pressurize a room much better because of the larger drivers.

The Sapphire's drivers are derived from the Evidence line, but are in no way supposed to compete with the Temptation or Master.

Now, see, you just ruined them for me.......

Well I meant maybe "polite".

I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know what that means, though I've heard it used before. :o Laid back in the mid-range and treble?

The Sapphire sounds like the C1, but with more drive and impact. As amazing as the C1s are for a bookshelf, the Sapphires can pressurize a room much better because of the larger drivers.

The Sapphire's drivers are derived from the Evidence line, but are in no way supposed to compete with the Temptation or Master.

How do they compare to the C4? I loved the C1s when I heard them...

I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know what that means, though I've heard it used before. :o Laid back in the mid-range and treble?

Yeah, just a little less forward. Wasn't that your primary complaint? Of course, the older Revels are *very* old. Great then, obviously falling behind now. The new ones just are impressive. My only issue is I don't think I could sell too many at $22K or I'd be all over selling them. $8K center. That sort of thing. Kind of scares people off.

Yeah, just a little less forward. Wasn't that your primary complaint?

One of them. They also didn't seem to have as dimensional of a soundstage to me, despite being being so laid back. The other issue, IME, was a little graininess in the mid-range (though looking back, I don't know if the slight muffling I was getting on the 802Ds in the midrange ended up being worse or better than the graininess on the Salons, I did like the diamond tweeter sound better on the 802Ds overall though...). The trade off I get now, is that I have neither of those resolution issues, but the W/P8s are unforgiving of marginal recordings or worse recordings, whereas more forgiving speakers make almost everything listen-able... At least that has been my experience.

I've really been interested in hearing some of the newer technology attempts at speakers, such as the Magicos (the Ultima2s as well), in a well treated environment to see how I feel about them. So far I haven't had a chance. I'm not unhappy with my current speakers, just curious. I guess I'm just wondering if I would find the experience just that much better by using something like the Mini or Ultima2s (with flatter in room responses) in a well treated room over my current speakers, or if those alternate materials and flatter responses would end up not sounding as natural to me (as has been the case in the past thus far). I certainly didn't like how the Minis sounded in a hotel room, but with so many people raving about them, I feel I need to make an effort to get down to NYC for a demo in a better room to see if I am missing out on something... Unfortunately, without buying any, I don't know of any way to try them out in my room, where I could really make the best comparison.

Hi Quecumber

there is an interesting thread on DIY at the moment about the magico minis and their sound. The OP auditioned them and was very impressed with them.

Of course it's a bit DIY but it does take an interesting 'twist' when the OP got out and auditioned a few more speakers.

Anyway, if you're bored

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113458&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Hi Quecumber

there is an interesting thread on DIY at the moment about the magico minis and their sound. The OP auditioned them and was very impressed with them.

Of course it's a bit DIY but it does take an interesting 'twist' when the OP got out and auditioned a few more speakers.

Anyway, if you're bored

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113458&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Thanks!

I can visualize Coldmachine stealthing around collecting used butt plugs. IT IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT.

Who will certify the diamonds? Is this a trick question or what?

It just has to be the ISF, they certify everything else.

I am seriously thinking about these Polymers.

I have talked with a few owners, as well as Jim Olson, who reviewed them for soundstage and bought them at retail. They all though they beat every speaker they compared them with (and it seems Jim has heard most of the top contenders- though not sure if he has heard the SP Technology Speakers and EVolution Acoustics - which both seem to have captured alot of attention lately as beating many other designs.)

I will have the chance to hear them when I'm in Fla. in about 6 weeks, but I may decide to try the 30 day in home trial before that since my room and gear will obviously be very different than at the showroom. (I'm using OTL's)

Polymer seems to be using very steep slopes, I think as much as 48db. The Diamond mid covers from 500hz to I think around 4.5khz.

I agree the cabinet looks rather wide and diffraction inducing.

I guess my ultimate decision is do I feel like spending $1000 in 2 way shipping if they are not my cup of tea, or simply dont work well in my system.

I am currently using the Cerious Technologies Too/bass which use ceramic cabinets wrapped in kelvar. They are pretty phenominal sounding, but some of these opinions I'm hearing about this diamond driver have made me curious enough to consider way overspending what I comfortably should. Either way I will post back when I've heard them.

Anyone in the south fla. area that can stop in and hear them?

I am seriously thinking about these Polymers.

I have talked with a few owners, as well as Jim Olson, who reviewed them for soundstage and bought them at retail. They all though they beat every speaker they compared them with (and it seems Jim has heard most of the top contenders- though not sure if he has heard the SP Technology Speakers and EVolution Acoustics - which both seem to have captured alot of attention lately as beating many other designs.)

I will have the chance to hear them when I'm in Fla. in about 6 weeks, but I may decide to try the 30 day in home trial before that since my room and gear will obviously be very different than at the showroom. (I'm using OTL's)

Polymer seems to be using very steep slopes, I think as much as 48db. The Diamond mid covers from 500hz to I think around 4.5khz.

I agree the cabinet looks rather wide and diffraction inducing.

I guess my ultimate decision is do I feel like spending $1000 in 2 way shipping if they are not my cup of tea, or simply dont work well in my system.

I am currently using the Cerious Technologies Too/bass which use ceramic cabinets wrapped in kelvar. They are pretty phenominal sounding, but some of these opinions I'm hearing about this diamond driver have made me curious enough to consider way overspending what I comfortably should. Either way I will post back when I've heard them.

Anyone in the south fla. area that can stop in and hear them?

If you check them out let us know how they sound. I thought the diamond tweeter on the B&Ws was the clearest and most authentic sounding treble I've heard on a production speaker to date... So I too feel tempted and will likely demo them when I am in Florida in April. If the midrange is as clear and precise as the B&W treble on the diamond series, I will be tempted to own a pair. I don't really care too much about anomalies in the FR below 500 Hz, as I can easily flatten them out with PEQ... If the cone material itself doesn't have great sound qualities, you can't do anything about that except replace the speaker itself AFAIK.

I really can't imagine the mid-range being much cleaner than the mid-range on my W/P8s, but having the same materials in the treble and mid-range might sound more integrated.

Where's the Soundstage review and measurements? That could tell a lot about them (at least, if they have any obvious flaws).

Also, this DK Design Group just seems fishy to me, always have. They're not shy about saying they've built the best speakers *ever* every few months. After awhile, you think it's mostly just hyperbole. And I wouldn't trust reviewers, they're as gullible as anybody. Someone did that little study and showed that reviewers were just above uneducated listeners, but below everyone else in their perception of sound.

Here is the review from positive feedback

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue34/polymer_logic.htm

According to his listing on Positive Feedback, Jim also owns WP7's.

As far as I know, the only other speaker DK Design group had was the X-dream from about 3 years ago or so that was made from a solid billet of aluminum. Jim also heard that and thought it was the best he had heard at that point. DK Design was sold to another company, and they couldn't produce the speaker due to problems trying to mass produce the solid aluminum cabinet, even after raising the price to $80,000.

I querried Daniel Kheshin about that speaker and he indicated that the Polymer logic is far superior to the X-dream due to the diamond midrange, even though the cabinet is not as sophisticated. The Polymer does use aluminum as the base and has 2 huge chunks of aluminum running up the side, hence them weighing 285 lbs per side, for not a huge speaker. He also confirmed that much of the team involved in the design of the X-dream were involved in the Polymer Logic.

But wasn't he involved with a few other speakers?

Well, in any case, I think the cabinet is *way* too big. I don't see the point at all. The speaker should be more *like* a WP7 in cabinetry. The bigger you make a speaker, the less precise the imaging will be and the heavier you will have to achieve the same rigidity. A doubling of the cabinet volume could mean a quadrupling of weight and for what reason? The speaker needs a sub regardless, so making the cabinet a tad smaller could have done remarkable things for the imaging while only giving up 5-10 Hz in the bass.

I do think the diamond midrange could be a step forward, but I'd be very careful about calling it a big leap forward as it comes down to implementation and well implemented ceramics or metal could be as good as diamond in many applications. I think diamond tweeters have advantages, but I wouldn't call them a dramatic leap forward either, as you can accomplish the same goals in other ways. As it is, a 2.5" midrange will have *very* little resonance!!!! So just being a 2.5" mid, be it metal, diamond, paper, poly, will make a huge difference in dispersion, resolution, freedom from resonance, so its not a given that the sound quality being heard has all that much to do with the diamond cone.

Alimentall - these are all very good points- my current speakers have a beveled fascia. I think their ceramic cabinets compression wrapped in Kevlar are the best that audio currently has to offer.

http://www.cerioustechnologies.com/Speakers/too-2-two.html

I wish more people got to hear these Cerious - they are so good I really have to be careful what I trade up to. And I dont have any room to store an extra set of speakers- so it's not like I can buy something new and live with them for 6 months before selling my old pair.

May I also say that I appreciate being able to air viewpoints and thoughts, even critical ones, without anyone getting upset or personal, this is great. Merry Christmas!

http://www.thiel-partner.de/e_index_iexplorer1280.html
Here Diamond drives.Big $$$

Merry Christmas John.

Same to you.

I have a little update. I was able to email the guy on Audiogon who heard the Evolution MM3, loved them but thought Polymer was in a totally different league based on the audition.

He just got his Polymer's yesterday, actually a broken in pair - he didn't want to wait. He thinks it will take the industry years to catch up.

This is the third owner I've spoken with.

...Must contain myself ....Put checkbook away... Put checkbook away!