cone materials

redbook · « **on:** 26 Dec 2011, 11:18 pm »

This is more regarding transducers than actual enclosures but here goes....... Do any members have opinions on what makes the better cone material for dynamic drivers. E.I...paper vrs .polypropolyne vrs. aluminum.. and so on ....?... Thanks and have a great New Year's.......

penguinpaul · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 11:20 pm »

Well from experience I'd say kevlar...
But what kind of transducer? Bass, Mid, full range etc?

redbook · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 11:24 pm »

Sorry, I mean midrange .Thanks....

roscoeiii · « **Reply #3 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 11:29 pm »

A good question. I'd also be curious on folks' thoughts about pairing different cone materials with amps. Certain types of amps that pair better with certain materials or amp specs (damping factor, current etc) that are important to pay attention to with particular materials.

Newly acquired SP Minis are my first experience with an aluminum cone.

penguinpaul · « **Reply #4 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 11:31 pm »

Are you building some from scratch? Or buying chassis speakers?

I too would be interested to hear the experts' views on this. I've always been one for Kevlar speakers, but aluminium drivers seem to be becoming popular now.

Æ · « **Reply #5 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:00 am »

Yours is a generic question. There are all manner and variety of cone materials. There are good and bad examples of every kind. Let your ears be the judge, close your eyes and open your ears.

spinner · « **Reply #6 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:02 am »

Yes , I think that is good advice

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #7 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:04 am »

Quote from: redbook on 26 Dec 2011, 11:18 pm

This is more regarding transducers than actual enclosures but here goes....... Do any members have opinions on what makes the better cone material for dynamic drivers. E.I...paper vrs .polypropolyne vrs. aluminum.. and so on ....?... Thanks and have a great New Year's.......

I do not like polypropilene cones, it give a unpleasant plastic timbre to the music.
I prefer paper cone and rubber or cloth suspension, it sound organic and natural to the my ears.
But some prefer aluminium cone for hi-fi, it give a neutral sound when well made, and aluminium raise the heat cooling.

spinner · « **Reply #8 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:09 am »

I understand that even different types of magnets will influence the end result. Alnico or Ceramic for example have different effects regardless of cone material. Very interesting topic to explore .

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #9 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:15 am »

If you are made a driver, you could already do the best, like this fullrange with balsa wood cone and field coil motor:>
http://www.field-coil.com/field-coil/RF-C805/
Seem the price is 10K euros/pair...Gulp!

roscoeiii · « **Reply #10 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:18 am »

Quote from: Æ on 27 Dec 2011, 12:00 am

Yours is a generic question. There are all manner and variety of cone materials. There are good and bad examples of every kind. Let your ears be the judge, close your eyes and open your ears.

True enough, but I think that there are likely a number of generalizations that can be made about cone type with the understood caveat (like in many other areas) that much will depend on the actual implementation.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be in an area where they can audition a number of different speakers. And knowledge of how cone materials might fit in with a listeners listening preferences can also help narrow down a list of speakers to audition to a more manageable number.

Æ · « **Reply #11 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:40 am »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 27 Dec 2011, 12:18 am

Not everyone is lucky enough to be in an area where they can audition a number of different speakers. And knowledge of how cone materials might fit in with a listeners listening preferences can also help narrow down a list of speakers to audition to a more manageable number.

I've listened to paper, coated paper, felt, aluminum, magnesium, fiberglass, carbon fiber, kevlar, polypropylene, bextrene, and who knows what else. Knowledge of them hasn't been of any audible value to me. I never choose a driver based solely on its material.
Here is a great midrange, the AUDAX HM130Z0 (with HDA cone). What is HDA? Do I care?

JohnR · « **Reply #12 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:43 am »

Quote from: Æ on 27 Dec 2011, 12:40 am

Here is a great midrange, the AUDAX HM130Z0 (with HD-A cone). What is HD-A? Do I care?

It's called "aerogel." Sounds sort of soft and squishy doesn't it, I bet the mids are very luscious but not very defined. Probably not something for high-resolution systems.

Æ · « **Reply #13 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 12:53 am »

Quote from: JohnR on 27 Dec 2011, 12:43 am

It's called "aerogel." Sounds sort of soft and squishy doesn't it, I bet the mids are very luscious but not very defined. Probably not something for high-resolution systems.

FOCAL does midrange very well and yet they keep changing materials. Here is an excellent example.

roscoeiii · « **Reply #14 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:01 am »

Æ,

That is pretty interesting (and surprising) and surprising that you weren't able to discern differences based on cone materials. Interested to hear others' experiences with cone materials. Certainly the physics of sound reproduction would suggest that differences would be audible in some parameters of the sound. Though I certainly also do agree with you that implementation may be key.

Delta Wave · « **Reply #15 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:03 am »

Sorry to stray off topic but Aerogel is some really neat stuff... that's what the panels of that satellite (can't remember it's name) were made of that collected particles of a comets tail.

http://www.aerogel.org/

Delta Wave · « **Reply #16 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:07 am »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 27 Dec 2011, 01:01 am

Æ,

That is pretty interesting (and surprising) and surprising that you weren't able to discern differences based on cone materials. Interested to hear others' experiences with cone materials. Certainly the physics of sound reproduction would suggest that differences would be audible in some parameters of the sound. Though I certainly also do agree with you that implementation may be key.

My last speakers were made of some aluminum/ceramic that I didn't like so well. The Kevlar cones in my 20ish year old B&Ws sound MUCH more neutral to me. But I agree, it could very well be just the implementation.

Æ · « **Reply #17 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:13 am »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 27 Dec 2011, 01:01 am

Æ,

That is pretty interesting (and surprising) and surprising that you weren't able to discern differences based on cone materials. Interested to hear others' experiences with cone materials. Certainly the physics of sound reproduction would suggest that differences would be audible in some parameters of the sound. Though I certainly also do agree with you that implementation may be key.

I am able to discern differences, but a speaker should be a reproducer of sound, not a producer. I have no preconceived bias, I listen for the timbre, not judging based on "material."
I can remember when aluminum cones were dreadful, then Celestion came along with their version in aluminum and it subsequently changed a lot of perceptions.

Æ · « **Reply #18 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:17 am »

Quote from: JohnR on 27 Dec 2011, 12:43 am

It's called "aerogel." Sounds sort of soft and squishy doesn't it, I bet the mids are very luscious but not very defined. Probably not something for high-resolution systems.

I looked it up, HDA stands for "High Definition Aerogel"

roscoeiii · « **Reply #19 on:** 27 Dec 2011, 01:27 am »

Oh, sorry about that. I misunderstood you when you wrote "Knowledge of them hasn't been of any audible value to me. I never choose a driver based solely on its material."