I agree, John. There's a whole lot of misinformation, partial truths and mud slinging going on. The behavior and comments (or lack thereof in some respects) by Mr. Mowry on that thread are certainly revealing. I'm actually even more inclined to believe Stan's (the US Distributor's) version of events now based on Mr. Mowry's conduct over there.
1) I'm an Usher dealer and the first I heard of this was when Mr. Mowry's article was originally posted here a couple weeks ago. I certainly had no idea the percentage of beryllium was as low as it was. But then I always knew they weren't pure beryllium as they were advertised from Day 1 at CES 2004, I believe, as being Beryllium Oxide, not pure beryllium. How it got shortened or why it got shortened to just call it beryllium, I have no idea. But I very distinctly remember having conversations with the Usher folks and them wanting to be clear that the driver was very different from other beryllium based drivers, specifically the ones from Focal. From first listen of the new CP-8871-II and CP-8571-II with the new tweeter, I knew why. They didn't ring like the Focals, nor were they extremely forward, bright, harsh, brittle, etc.... I wish I still had all the promo material from that first show. I threw it out when I moved in February along with tons of other "trash" that wasn't coming to the new place.
2) I agree with one and only one aspect of Mr. Mowry's stance on this. If the drivers really don't contain 100% beryllium (or don't contain a high enough percentage that a defacto standard in the industry would call them beryllium), they shouldn't be called pure beryllium drivers. It should be called some sort of alloy, which is what it was called originally when the drivers were first introduced. Based upon my searching, I can find no standard for the percentage of beryllium that has to be in the driver in order to just call it beryllium. Any discussion of how the drivers should be valued on the DIY market is moot as these drivers are not avaiable for sale anywhere except in finished speakers... and any discussion of how the retail price of the speaker is seemingly affected by this driver versus a "pure" beryllium driver is also moot as there is a lot more going into the cost of the finished speaker than just the beryllium driver. Those curved cabinets are EXPENSIVE to manufacture. They're not just rectangular MDF boxes with crappy joints and cheap veneer applied.
3) If there's one thing I've learned from dealing with Usher for 6 years, it's that they don't come out with something until they are absolutely sure it is rock solid and will last forever. So if you can get past some of the mud slinging back at Mr. Mowry and the less than politically correct response from the US Distributor for Usher, there is some key info in the response that Stan posted on the Usher USA website:
i) Usher dropped their original supplier when they learned of the issue of lower beryllium content than they spec'ed
ii) Usher immediately went out and bought a large supply of Brush Wellman material that is supposed to be "pure" beryllium. They had it independantly tested by a third party to determine the percentage of beryllium content in this supposedly "pure" driver................it's higher than their last supplier, but it's not 100%, let's just say that............
iii) Usher is trying to make up new drivers with the Brush Wellman material so that the drivers will be direct drop in replacements for the old drivers without the need for crossover changes. So far, they've had great difficulty working with the Brush Wellman stuff because no matter how they build the driver, it's got ringing issues and simply doesn't sound as good as the current drivers from their dropped supplier... But they are committed to finding a solution and producing "pure" beryllium drivers.
iv) once they have perfected the drivers so that they sound just as good as the current drivers, they will offer free replacements to every single person who has an usher Be speaker with the supposedly inferior "non-"beryllium drivers. As with everything I've ever dealt with when it comes to Usher, they will make sure the situation is right with their customers. The only reason they haven't done it yet is that they've yet to be able to make the "pure" beryllium diaphrams into completed tweeters (and midranges in the case of Be-10 and Be-20) that sound as good and are free from issues. They're working on it as fast as they can go and will do the right thing in the end no matter the cost.
4) While there is certainly merit in looking at things from an ultimate performance perspective, there is a bit of trust lost between Usher and their customers because they thought they were buying a beryllium driver and it turns out, no matter how good it sounds, those customers bought something different. It's up to each person to believe what they want to believe. But I personally have no doubt in my mind that the US distributor had no idea that the drivers didn't contain the proper amount of beryllium. I also firmly believe that Usher was duped on this one as well. I feel very confident in saying that there is no way Usher would put their reputation on the line to save a couple bucks on drivers. In quantities large enough to make several thousand drivers at a time, the difference in price between the former supplier and material from Brush Wellman is negligle, so much so that I highly doubt it would result in any change in final MSRP of any of the speakers. Usher has been in business for over 30 years. Anyone who's ever seen their speakers in person and listened to their producst is familiar with the quality of the fit and finish of their speakers and knows that they make a quality product. I've had direct dealings with the Usher folks and know how important their reputation and how their products are perceived are to them. I really and truly believe they went with their supplier based on logistics and believed they were getting drivers with the beryllium content they spec'ed. Shame on them for not doing third party independant tests to confirm. But based on performance, the supplier reputation, laziness on their part??, they didn't. I know that I've never sent out any of the drivers I've used to make DIY speakers over the years to independant labs to insure that it really was aerogel in that Audax midrange and it really was pure kevlar in that bass driver. But because Usher didn't do it, it certainly has created an issue that they need to address and fix to placate any concerns customers may have. Which I feel they are going to do.
5) It's my understanding that Joe D. was under a yearly contract that had to be renewed. He did final voicing and crossover design for a number of products that were released in the US market. He didn't do that on every single model, specifically a number of the older Compass series models which are now discontinued. But he did it on the new Dancer models including CP-8571, 8871, 8872, Be-10, Be-20 and the initial mock-up and crossover design for what would become the Be-718. Final crossover for that speaker was done by Danny Ritchie.... and honestly.... it shows as it sounds nothing like the other Dancer models and sounds like other GR speakers. Whether you think that is a good thing or not is a matter of taste and preference....
6) I think the coolest thing in all of this is that I actually found a titanium tweeter that I actually like! Here I thought it was beryllium that I liked so much and in fact it was titanium.... I swore I'd never like a titanium or aluminum dome tweeter as every one I ever heard was too much for me to take for long periods of time. In the context of my system with JPS Labs cabling and Butler Monad Class A monoblocks, I loved every second I spent with the Be-20s and would own another pair in a second if they would work with my existing room setups... which unfortunately, they don't. Carl always said the CP-8571-II speakers were the best speakers I ever had on display. So regardless of what the drivers were made up of, or what the speakers cost, some people apparently like them.... myself included....
7) notice throughout the message thread that Mr. Mowry has yet to respond to direct questions about the content makeup of the Brush Wellman material..... nor did he fully respond to questions about his association with said company and whether they had any role in him publishing the whole truth for folks to read...... there's lots of fingers to be pointed in lots of directions on this one and it's regrettable that it has devolved into mud slinging on both sides... I'm just not ready to throw Usher under a bus as my 6 years dealing their products and interacting with the company has given me a different perspective... I'm biased, I know. But his conduct and posting sure isn't endearing me to his point of view.....
