beryllium vs diamond

To Gregm: I was just curious what is the general opinion of the people here at audiogon forum regarding those high-tech (and ultra expensive) tweeters. I know several very good (dynamic) speakers don't use Be or diamond tweeters. Sonus Faber Stradivarius Homage for example.

I prefer the Diamond tweeters if for no other reason that even if you managed to cut yourself on a broken diamond tweeter it would not try to kill you like a Beryllium tweeter will.

That stuff is toxic.

In theory, the "diamond" ceramic tweet "should" have better extension & resolution than the be. Sound propagation is extremely fast & distortion characteristics are, allegedly, benign. The accuton diamond has a very low res frequency @ ~900Hz, which is great. As to whether these qualities make a significant difference to the music/audio phile in the 20-100kHz range, is another question altogether -- it's basically a matter of implementation in a speaker system

Compatibility-wise, I would prefer the ceramic tweet to mate with a traditional wide-range low-mid/bass driver (say a Supravox 400exc), for an exquisite two-way speaker -- on paper. But, at $~6k/pair for the tweets and ~2k for the other drivers, it's a very expensive experiment!

Also, be is toxic as rp1 notes (although a Grande Utopia seems hardly a domestic hazard!).

For some interesting reading on a unique product using beryllium as the source material for a midrange/tweeter concentric driver (think highly evolved Tannoy), check out the TAD Model 1.

http://tadhomeaudio.com/making-model-1.html

Ultra high-end, cutting edge stuff. The flagship Model 1 lists for $45K and has been met with RAVE reviews at all of the audio shows.

I'm not affiliated with them in any way. Just became aware of their products through meeting their Director of Product Development through an AudiogoN transaction.

Certainly the most unique cabinet and driver design I've seen in a LONG time. 50 layers of laminated 1" high quality birch. Pretty neat stuff.