Focal Electra BE series

Kosst,
Actually the beryllium tweeter is not the “oldest and brightest” they make for the current line of Electra 1028 and 1038’s. The 1028 and 1038 be 2 were given the larger, 1 1/16th” (27mm) ‘IAL’ second generation tweeter about 4 years ago.  The previous 1028 and 1038’s has the older, smaller tweeter.  Although implemented differently ‘IHL’ vs. ‘IAL’ it indeed is the same size tweeter as on the Sopra and yes, Utopia series (27mm).

From Focal’s press release 2009.  
(Okay it was more than 4 years ago).  
“Live from” Utopia 3
”Electra 1000 BE 2 adopts the same pure Beryllium 1 1/4 (27 mm)) dome (instead of 1” (25mm)) as Utopia 3, for a real improvement of efficiency and response around the cut-off frequency, which permits an easier cross-reference with the midrange speaker.  Of course the tweeter keeps the IAL type load initiated by Electra and also used for Utopia 3.”

@kosst,
I dont see where you said anything about hearing the 1000 series? Only that you knew a guy that had 1038s and he liked them and that you read some stuff? You did however say you have not heard Kantas multiple times but somehow you wholly know what speakers are superior to others. 

Mofojo, I'm at a loss why does my posts keep getting taken down by a mediator when I said nothing offensive my last 2 posts but someone else keeps making aggressive and offensive posts ?? I wish someone would just go away and stay off my post if all they want is to start trouble. 

@mofojo 
Quite right on the Kanta front. I haven't heard them. But having listened to F cones and W cones in the same room I can understand how the Kanta would be better. So far as I can tell the 1000 series bests the 900 series primarily because the cabs are much more robust and the better tweeter crosses over 1200 Hz lower. Not sure the 1000 wins out in warmth though. Nearly identical W cones in the 836W don't out-perform 936's. The comparison between those two is largely up to taste. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that the F cone shouldn't just be dismissed as inferior and that there are factors beyond the cone material at work here. 

Here's the Focal white paper:
https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/focal-flax_sandwich-whitepape...
The F cone is clearly superior in some ways, inferior in others, and equal in one characteristic. Initm, you stated Focal said the W cone was just better. There's the white paper. I'm not seeing clearly better there. I'm seeing competitive to say the least, but more accurately, just different. It's very reasonable to conclude an F cone with a better motor and better surround will sound and perform better than a W cone with a lesser motor and lesser surround, which is pretty much what we're talking about here. I honestly didn't intend to make this such a bitter discussion, but presuming the W cone to just be better while ignoring all other considerations is just plain wrong. I'm pretty sure Focal demonstrated flax could be the equal of the W cone in the 836W and 936.