Tweeter recommendation close to MDT33

Trelja, I apologize for being wrong, then. TELL ME THIS: In 1997, why did Stereophile lie, when they quoted Eggleston, that he used the paper cone version?...............Also, your opinion and experience are yours, and mine is mine. And I have tried BOTH the Esotar T-330D and MDT-33, and the Esotar had a false aggressiveness that the MDT-33 did not. However, I love the Esotar M-560D midrange, which is superior to ALL other midrange drivers, including those in the Kharma line, IMO. Also, when you say "behind it", you actually mean "upstream of it", and I resubmit that what you are saying is merely opinion. My opinion is different from yours, and nothing you have said disputes it, for me. You cannot make a cheap motor/diaphragm THE EQUAL, OR THE BETTER, or a fully evolved and powerful design, no matter what the parts quality is....Perhaps UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ELMINATE THE SERIES CAPACITOR (capacitiors will always have the worst signature on a tweeter, every desinger knows that). And, "How many speakers do that"? There's the Sonus Faber Extrema, but it doesn't use an economical tweeter. In any case, you are stating things in a matter of fact manner, which actually are not matter of fact, and I'll thank you to stop that. Say "this is only my opinion", like I do, and we'll be fine.

Carl, the October 1997 Stereophile does say that the driver used in the Eggleston is polypropylene. In several places, actually. And in the first paragraph of page 193 Bill Eggleston is quoted directly, "It's a custom version of a 6" polypropylene midbass driver from Morel that incorporates a 3" voice-coil and a double-center magnet". I also had several conversations about speaker design with one of the workers over the phone when the review came out(which included this Morel driver - which I had previously used). I find it refreshing for a company to be so open as to what their speakers incorporate. Perhaps, that is why their speakers are so good. They keep an open mind. I agree with your opinions regarding the Morel and Dynaudio drivers you mention. I do state my opinions are just that; please see my first post in this thread. Never do I claim I have all the answers, or am smarter than anyone else.

I'm going to look that article up, and get back to you, if that's ok...because I think they were paper, at least then.

I would just like to respond to Carl and Trelja in reference to the Morel 164 driver, since I was the one who brought it up in the first place. When I purchased the Preludes, I had never heard of Morel. Since I live close to the Boston area, I was able to go directly to the only distributer in the country for Morel drivers. Mikael Shabani is the man behind Morel and he has been selling these drivers for over 20 years. Being a business man as well as a salesman, he showed me a picture of the Egglestons on his wall. He distinctly told me the Andras midrange and the one used in the Prelude were the same, except for the composition. The Andras used the polypropelene and the Preludes the treated paper. He told me the treated paper cones were more musical sounding than the poly and this is why he chose them for his speaker. This is coming straight from the source so I hope I have settled the 164 war for now! I myself would have assigned each one a different number. Much easier. Less confusion. We know that the midrange is used by quite a few designers, I wanted to ask Carl,Trelja or anyone else,if they know of a manufacturer who uses the mdt33 as their tweeter?

Thank you for chiming in Chipster. And you are correct. The vast majority of Morels you see of this model are paper. Perhaps that is why Carl takes this position. But, different designers have different preferences and reasons for doing what they do. Eggleston felt polypropylene superior. Reason given to me was that their test for a midrange driver was to play piano, very difficult to get right(try it sometime - and give it a REAL workout). The polypropylene was superior, due to the structural integrity of the material compared to paper. Less breakup. But a test using only one criteria cannot not tell everything. I have heard some speakers over the past two years that have featured paper cones because the designers found them to be more musical. Triangle would be the most recognizable. It could be that one who built an expensive speaker such as this feels that polypropylene was de riguer. May be even expected to use polymer cones to be taken seriously. I know I got into that mindset. That is dangerous, as to fall into the trap of dogma is limiting. I have built a bunch of speakers, and found polymer cones to be superior. But, in retrospect I have to rethink my position. It is sometimes rare to be able to be able to compare apples to apples. Historically, the driver manufacturers have had other advantages built into the polymer coned drivers, as they are usually part of a superior line. But, if all things were equal... I adamantly feel that speaker design(and every part of it) is by far the most fraught with disagreement. What is false today may become the truth of tomorrow. The one constant of the speaker hobby is change.