Hard Audio - Ceramic Speakers

@shadorne I think you are right about the sandwiched ceramic drivers, the new Revel Performa3Be speakers are quite low in sensitivity, officially rated at 86db. I bought one a pair of M126Be however I noticed they need noticeably more more power than other similarly low sensitivity speakers.

What do you think is better, pure ceramic or beryllium for a midrange? From what I understand, beryllium is a metal that bends, but is also isn’t internally well damped, wouldn’t it have a similarly splashy sound to a pure ceramic driver? What is the materials science reason behind both hard (ceramic) drivers and beryllium (a metal that bends) both having internal damping issues?

And what would you consider your ideal midrange driver material?

@shadorne 

Do you think a pure diamond driver would be able to avoid the pitfalls of a ceramic driver? I understand Accuton makes 5.5" diamond domes for the La Assoluta Tidal speakers. 

The great expensive of making a driver like that must be worth it, no?

@tutetibiimperes114 

From what I read on DIY sites the B&W diamond tweeter isn't considered anywhere near the same class as the Accuton or Seas diamond tweeter.

@shadorne

Regarding your views on hard drivers & ringing, what do you think of the Floyd Toole school of thought on this? On AVS he routinely cites his research (which is from the 80s), claiming no one can hear ringing and FR represents the full picture.

If you take Toole’s beliefs to their logical conclusion, the company he is with (Revel) is wasting their time as their entry level Concerta line has just as good FR measurements as Performa or Ultima, and things like using Ceramic drivers like on the Performa3 have no performance gain to using a driver that rings like aluminum or titanium, and by offering these things at a higher price they are merely selling to the market.

I asked Floyd why a company like Sennheiser would create something like Helmholtz Radiator to suppress time domain ringing when they could have simply changed the FR response of the driver, and he gave the impression that it’s done merely for marketing and FR response is all that matters.

IMO Toole’s beliefs on this seem weird considering we’ve known for decades people can pass double blind tests when comparing amps that used and didn’t use excessive negative feedback (and caused a spike in IMD distortion) even with ruler flat FR.

@shadorne

What he has said is, if two speakers have the same response but one speaker has a rise of x db at a particular frequency caused by ringing, and the other is completely free from such artifacts, all you have to do is remove that 3db of output via EQ, and the two speakers will sound exactly the same, and that no one can hear the independent effects of time domain ringing outside FR in a double blind test.

If harmonics and ringing are inaudible from the fundamental frequency then a sufficiently advanced room correction software should be able to make any speakers sound exactly the same on-axis.

@shadorne Aren’t planar and electrostatic drivers also technically "ringing" due to the fact that the driver’s have to absorb all of the transient energy without a voice coil? Planar/electrostatic drivers all tend to have much worse impulse response than a good dynamic driver as it keeps moving for a while after the initial transient. Would you say the ringing/excessive decay in those types of driver’s are just much more benign than the internal ringing of a hard ceramic/metal driver?