(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...


Not to these 'educated' ears. My reference is the Stax Lambda
headphone. The Yammies come closer to that sound than any dynamic
speaker I have yet to hear.

What makes your ears more 'educated' than anyone else's? Headphones
arec in no way a substitute for loudspeakers - the soundfields are
*entirely* different. BTW, if you think that Lambdas and NS1000Ms have
similar treble, then I suggest that you consult an audiometrist.....

The overall sound is closer than any other dynamic I've
heard....that's what I said. Obviously, Martin-Logan electrostatics
are more similar, and yes I have heard these.

No matter what is done to them, materials are the limiting factor in
speaker design. No matter what 'advances' are made in magnets, coils,
or cabinets by the companies to which you are referring, the driver
materials are inferior.

No, they are not. You are totally unqualified to make such comments.

Materials are the limiting factor in any design. That's why new
materials are always being developed: because existing ones have
limitations.

Quite so - and beryllium also has limitations, which is why modern
tweeters tend to use composite materials.

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

Even the JMlab beryllium
tweeter is totally different in design from the old Yamaha equivalent.
As noted, you are completely unqualified to comment on these matters.

The Yamaha use beryllium in the mid-range and tweeter, a material that
has exceptional, superior, sound-propogation properties.

It has *one* exceptional quality, but it also has very poor
self-damping, so that when breakup does occure, it is extremely
violent. Modern composite materials are greatly superior in this
respect. Further, this material is not required for the midrange dome,
and the problem with the treble is not the dome, but the surround. You
have been told this before.

Beryllium is very difficult to work with, and most companies do not
want to mess with it.

No, it's easy enough to work with, (Yamaha used a standard vapour
deposition process) but it's *extremely* toxic. That's why it's very
rare in any field, and virtually unknown in lawsuit-ridden America.

It IS very difficult to work with, and Yamaha had to invent the vapour
deposition process to form it. It cannot be worked like other metals,
and it is very toxic as I understand the term.

I already said that it's toxic, and vapour deposition had been around
for half a century before Yamaha made those tweeters.

Not vapor deposition of beryllium. According to Yamaha, they were the
first to do it with this metal. Here's what the literature says:

'We not only designed every component of the speaker system, we
perfected an entirely new driver material and formation process: the
vapor deposition beryllium domes.'

Please learn at
least the basics before making such comments. Note also that beryllium
can indeed be worked like other metals (I've done consultancy work in
such a factory in Wales), the only problem is that it's so dangerous.

I've read that it cannot be worked into the shape required for a
speaker diaphragm. It had to be vacuum-formed,

On 19 Dec 2003 05:38:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Materials are the limiting factor in any design. That's why new
materials are always being developed: because existing ones have
limitations.

Quite so - and beryllium also has limitations, which is why modern
tweeters tend to use composite materials.

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome. JMlab get around this by cunningly driving the dome from the
nodal point, but the very sharp breakup is an inherent weakness of
beryllium and other high-modulus but poorly-damped materials.

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

Even the JMlab beryllium
tweeter is totally different in design from the old Yamaha equivalent.
As noted, you are completely unqualified to comment on these matters.

The Yamaha use beryllium in the mid-range and tweeter, a material that
has exceptional, superior, sound-propogation properties.

It has *one* exceptional quality, but it also has very poor
self-damping, so that when breakup does occure, it is extremely
violent. Modern composite materials are greatly superior in this
respect. Further, this material is not required for the midrange dome,
and the problem with the treble is not the dome, but the surround. You
have been told this before.

Beryllium is very difficult to work with, and most companies do not
want to mess with it.

No, it's easy enough to work with, (Yamaha used a standard vapour
deposition process) but it's *extremely* toxic. That's why it's very
rare in any field, and virtually unknown in lawsuit-ridden America.

It IS very difficult to work with, and Yamaha had to invent the vapour
deposition process to form it. It cannot be worked like other metals,
and it is very toxic as I understand the term.

I already said that it's toxic, and vapour deposition had been around
for half a century before Yamaha made those tweeters.

Not vapor deposition of beryllium. According to Yamaha, they were the
first to do it with this metal. Here's what the literature says:

'We not only designed every component of the speaker system, we
perfected an entirely new driver material and formation process: the
vapor deposition beryllium domes.'

They used a standard technique to produce the domes, and the point is
not that no one had prevously been *able* to do it, but that no one
had any use for such a material.

Please learn at
least the basics before making such comments. Note also that beryllium
can indeed be worked like other metals (I've done consultancy work in
such a factory in Wales), the only problem is that it's so dangerous.

I've read that it cannot be worked into the shape required for a
speaker diaphragm. It had to be vacuum-formed,

You read wrong. That factory to which I referred produced ultrasonic
transducers, and machined beryllium into numerous shapes which are
ideal for ultrasonic 'speakers'. It's true that no one would *machine*
a conventional speaker diaphragm from beryllium, but then no one
machines copper, aluminium or titanium domes either! BTW, you have
your facts wrong yet again, as the Yamaha dome is *not* vacuum formed.
That is an entirely different process, and has nothing to do with
vapour deposition, which merely occurs *in* a partial vacuum. I
seriously doubt if it's possible to vacuum-form a beryllium dome - the
material is quite brittle, and lacks the ductility essential for such
a process, which is commonly used for the ubiquitous aluminium domes.
Please stop this nonsense, and just enjoy your Yamahas without these
attempts to shore up your *personal* preference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton a ecrit:

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.


Will a CD (classical or pop) sound as shrieky and horrible in the lower treble
on the B&W Nautili as the same CD sounded on the B&W Matrix, everything else
staying the same?

One more point. It is a mistake to presume that everything new is
better than everything old.

No one is so presuming, but it is generally true, and especially so in
loudspeakers, where design and construction techniques have vastly
advanced in the 30 years since the Yammy was designed. A 2003 re-
incarnation of the NS1000M, for instance, would no doubt improve the
serious treble distortion with a carefully designed surround, and
would have a *vastly* superior woofer which didn't break up in the
lower mid.


I think the point is not just technical - OK, big steps forward has
been done, especially by CAD simulations technioques and meterials -
since today the build quality may sometimes be not satisfactory
compared to the old '70 and '80s. Companies nowadays are more careful
to reduce costs by doing savings on cabinet materials and
manufacturing - I am looking forward for well engineered chinese
products mounting state of the art drivers from US and EU

Another point is that today most of the loudspeaker systems are reflex
loaded: probably the are more paractical to drive. I am looking
forward for low efficiency - enclosed system like my old BW801F: I
realized after visiting the Milan Top Audio that I should really spend
alot of bucks for getting something really better. Still, it could be
my ears are accustomed to the sound

I am also looking forward for audiophile magazine to publish
comparative reviews of vintage hi-fi against latest (e.g. BW 801F vs.
BW801 nautilus)

I enjoyed a lot the Stereophile review of the Quad ESL988/9 where a
lot of good comments had been made about the evoultionary differencies
with the old 57 and 63

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:23:36 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

Will a CD (classical or pop) sound as shrieky and horrible in the lower treble
on the B&W Nautili as the same CD sounded on the B&W Matrix, everything else
staying the same?

If the CD is "shrieky and horrible in the lower treble," it wll sound
that way on both.

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 23:28:59 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

We are talking about the Yammies. I know little about crossovers. The
statement was volunteered by the salesman/technician.

The salesman/technician apparently knows as little. One can
appreciate the quality of the components by vision but one cannot
assess the quality of the design or its suitability to the task.

Kal

Apparently he thought that the components were high-quality and massive?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Quite so - and beryllium also has limitations, which is why modern
tweeters tend to use composite materials.

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome. JMlab get around this by cunningly driving the dome from the
nodal point, but the very sharp breakup is an inherent weakness of
beryllium and other high-modulus but poorly-damped materials.

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

'Fierce treble'? I have no idea what you are talking about. Most
speakers in the shops I hear suffer from that, but the NS1000's most
decidely do not. The treble is smooth as can be.

Revel
Alon
Essence
Thiel

Vandersteen's don't, but they have no treble anyway...

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:23:36 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a ecrit:

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

Will a CD (classical or pop) sound as shrieky and horrible in the lower treble
on the B&W Nautili as the same CD sounded on the B&W Matrix, everything else
staying the same?

Probably, if it's a bad CD. The N804 and upward however, do have a
particularly smooth upper midrange/lower treble due to the 'free edge'
midrange driver, so there may be a *slight* amelioration. Certainly,
well-recorded CDs sound just fine on the current models.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome.

By the way, only dogs can hear at the range you speak of.............

From: (Stewart Pinkerton)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:23:36 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a ecrit:

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

Will a CD (classical or pop) sound as shrieky and horrible in the lower
treble
on the B&W Nautili as the same CD sounded on the B&W Matrix, everything else
staying the same?

Probably, if it's a bad CD. The N804 and upward however, do have a
particularly smooth upper midrange/lower treble due to the 'free edge'
midrange driver, so there may be a *slight* amelioration. Certainly,
well-recorded CDs sound just fine on the current models.
--

If only all my CDs were "well-recorded."

On 19 Dec 2003 22:34:21 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 23:28:59 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

We are talking about the Yammies. I know little about crossovers. The
statement was volunteered by the salesman/technician.

The salesman/technician apparently knows as little. One can
appreciate the quality of the components by vision but one cannot
assess the quality of the design or its suitability to the task.

Kal

Apparently he thought that the components were high-quality and massive?

No one has questioned Yamaha's efforts to make a good speaker and they
certainly used the best components they could supply. The resulting
performance is at issue.

Kal

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:07:07 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Quite so - and beryllium also has limitations, which is why modern
tweeters tend to use composite materials.

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome. JMlab get around this by cunningly driving the dome from the
nodal point, but the very sharp breakup is an inherent weakness of
beryllium and other high-modulus but poorly-damped materials.

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

'Fierce treble'? I have no idea what you are talking about.

We can certainly agree on that...............

Most
speakers in the shops I hear suffer from that, but the NS1000's most
decidely do not. The treble is smooth as can be.

Then you must have the only NS1000Ms on the planet which don't have
this problem.............. Enjoy.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:16:11 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome.

By the way, only dogs can hear at the range you speak of.............

Quite so, which is why beryllium is pointless...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:07:07 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Quite so - and beryllium also has limitations, which is why modern
tweeters tend to use composite materials.

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome. JMlab get around this by cunningly driving the dome from the
nodal point, but the very sharp breakup is an inherent weakness of
beryllium and other high-modulus but poorly-damped materials.

BTW, part of the fierce treble of the Yamaha is due to exactly this
breakup of the midrange dome. The best modern designs, such as the B&W
N800 series, use composite midrange diaphragms which move smoothly
from pistonic to bending mode at the upper end of their ranges,
without any specific breakup resonance.

'Fierce treble'? I have no idea what you are talking about.

We can certainly agree on that...............

I do hear piercing shrieking treble on many OTHER speakers, but not on these...

I do know the meaning of the term, but I do not experience it on the Yammies...


Most
speakers in the shops I hear suffer from that, but the NS1000's most
decidely do not. The treble is smooth as can be.

Then you must have the only NS1000Ms on the planet which don't have
this problem.............. Enjoy.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:16:11 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

No, because they offer more 'bang for the buck'. They're not as good,
but often 'good enough'..

No Mike, beryllium is *not* superior except in one specific area - and
it's exactly that property which leads to its greatest weakness. In
particular, it's *entirely* unsuited to modern 'hi-res' formats such
as SACD and DVD-A, whose extended treble will trigger that vicious
'oil can' resonance which is an inevitable quality of a beryllium
dome.

By the way, only dogs can hear at the range you speak of.............

Quite so, which is why beryllium is pointless...............



A super-tweeter could be used beyond where the beryllium tweeter gives out...

(Farrell8882) wrote in message news:ImHEb.152675$_M.725577@attbi_s54...

Will a CD (classical or pop) sound as shrieky and horrible in the lower treble
on the B&W Nautili as the same CD sounded on the B&W Matrix, everything else
staying the same?

Which version of the Matrix 801 do you have, Series 2 or Series 3?
The Series 3 has different tweeters and crossovers.

Regards,
Tip