Originally Posted by RN2013
Thanks again Jim...for the quick reply...I think based on your comments, I would personally lean toward less detail in favor of smoothness.
And of course, your response has me wanting to ask two more questions:
1. For the Song 3 Beat...why use the Be tweeter and not the RAAL ribbon?
A number of years ago, I saw a demonstration of a prototype Be tweeter cone. It was quite impressive. The break-up mode was well above audibility which meant it would be very clean. It also damped the signal much quicker than other metal domes being promoted at the time. This meant is was far less prone to "ringing" like other metal cones can. So it seamed like a great potential advance in tweeter technology.
We waited quite a few years for actual tweeters to come on the market as Be is very difficult to manufacture safely.
When the first Be tweeters finally came on the market, we were very excited to get our hands on them for testing purposes. The first sample we got our hands on measured extremely well and we were anxious to use it in the next model speaker we developed. Unfortunately, that company lost the only employee who knew how to build these tweeters and discontinued them.
The Satori tweeter we eventually used was from a company (SB Acoustics) with some very good engineers and a reputation for producing great drivers at reasonable prices. So we jumped on the Satori Be tweeter as soon as it became available and never looked back.
It turns out that the speaker we happened to be working on at the time was the Song3 BeAT. That is why this model ended up with the Be tweeter rather than the RAAL we would have used in other circumstances.
Imagine the accuracy and sound of the RAAL with the off-axis response of a dome tweeter. That, in essence is what you have. Both are GREAT tweeters and we wouldn't hesitate using either one of them in a new design.
There are some applications that would benefit slightly from the Be tweeter and some that would benefit slightly from the RAAL tweeter. But I look at them as being more similar than different in terms of performance.
2. Can you comment on how an AMT might sound as I'm sure you've tested them to see if/how they might work.
[FONT=Arial]I heard one of the GoldnEars several years ago and their AMT seemed pretty smooth but mostly what I remember is the sense of ambiance....I've also heard the Martin Logan AMT....not smooth, bright...but somewhat spacious.
We worked with original Heil ATM on quite a few projects over the years. The ATM concept is proven and has the potential of working very well. We have tested a few reasonably-price ATM tweeters. Some of them tested quite poorly, while others performed fairly well. I am sure an expensive Mundorf ATMs would work quite well. But, in the end, we did not find any reasonably-priced ATM's to be compelling enough to use in any design we were working on developing. That could always change as we love to test new and promising drivers. But for now, we see no compelling reason to develop models utilizing ATM drivers.
There is a tendency in the industry to tout "new" and "break-through" driver products all the time. It provides companies employing them an opportunity to tout the latest and greatest. Then, the following year, when all the marketing buzz wears off, they turn out to be no better than what existed before and sometimes not even that good. So we tend to take a conservative approach in regard to the "hottest" new driver technology. In the end, if the speaker sounds great, who cares what technology is employed.
I hope this made sense.