I've always been a fan of the detail you get with the new generation of light metal cones in full rangers. But lately I've come do doubt whether they give the most euphonic and natural timbre to acoustic instruments, as I've previously had with coated paper and such.
Does anybody else find this? Have you turned to other cone materials for natural sound, and if so which?
Andy
Does anybody else find this? Have you turned to other cone materials for natural sound, and if so which?
Andy
Well, the two speaker systems I can recall disliking the most over the past 10yrs were made out of all metal (DIY line array with treated MCM aluminum mid-bass & some Scandahoovian I think metal dome tweeter) , and paper/metal composite (FE138ESR).
OTOH, I've yet to hear an Alpair / CHR that I couldn't live with (including the Alp7 /6 which are daily drivers in my video system)
That said, there is something ineffably more organic to me about the textures and nuances of a good paper driver - excellent case in point being the EL70 which have occupied the upstairs music system for the best part of a year now.
Conclusion? all things being equal, it's horses for courses, I guess
Generally speaking, with regard to "fullrange" drivers, I tend to stay away from metal cones larger than 3". All cones break up at a certain frequency, but where and how much is the issue. A typical 4" will break up between 7-10kHz, the worst, for me, frequency where sibilance ruins the music. Paper cone breakup sounds less intrusive, while metal cone breakup has a penetrating metallic ringing/spitting/grainy sound. However, in its band pass, metal cones can sound very good, neutral and smooth, but then you will need another driver.
Last edited:
It's all about how they're used. Most "designers" don't know a notch filter from an l-pad, and the breakup is extremely audible accordingly. When used correctly, it's just a matter of which suits the overall design best. I've heard amazing sounds with no harsh breakup from several metal speakers, the Joseph Audio Pearl is particularly good.
There is a certain fairly subtle "zing" to all metal-coned drivers I've heard, but nothing's perfect and that "zing" is definitely not a deal-breaker, just a coloration that's only sometimes noticeable.
At Lone Star Audio Fest, I got to hear Bob Brines' Alpair 7 and Tang Band 1772 designs, side-by-side. Chamber music strings sounded much better with the paper cone to my ears, because the paper put a certain "gutsy" coloration which sounded real. The Alpair 7 sounded "smoother" in a way that didn't work (for me) on that music, but rocked out on other material.
I find I want both paper and metal, for different material / purposes. I have never heard the perfect speaker (never, and I've heard dozens of -really- expensive systems -- they all had strengths and weaknesses, and good sound has nothing to do with price, apparently).
At Lone Star Audio Fest, I got to hear Bob Brines' Alpair 7 and Tang Band 1772 designs, side-by-side. Chamber music strings sounded much better with the paper cone to my ears, because the paper put a certain "gutsy" coloration which sounded real. The Alpair 7 sounded "smoother" in a way that didn't work (for me) on that music, but rocked out on other material.
I find I want both paper and metal, for different material / purposes. I have never heard the perfect speaker (never, and I've heard dozens of -really- expensive systems -- they all had strengths and weaknesses, and good sound has nothing to do with price, apparently).
"Chamber music strings sounded much better with the paper cone to my ears, because the paper put a certain "gutsy" coloration which sounded real."
This is exactly what I mean - that metal cones can lose the "body" of the sound. I have some old HC13B25 5" units (KEF B110 clone) which are less detailed and have a falling treble, but even so the sound is somehow more pleasant - pianos and voices have more body and tone.
There's also the phenomenon that the cone material suits the original acoustic instrument - so percussion is very good on metal speakers |(cymbals are perfect). But pianos and vocals don't seem to benefit from a metal sound.
When I took the B110 clones out and put in Jordan JX92 units, the detail and treble was strikingly better, but I somehow got less pleasure from listening - a warmth had gone. Something slightly sterile.
But metal cones can do both treble and bass. I'm really open to paper and was wondering about Fostex, but I wouldn't want a whizzer cone for the treble, and they seem to have less bass than their metal counterparts in terms of SD.
Where to go here for a non-metal solution? I was thinking of a 5" or 6.5" unit but not excluding an 8". I have tube amps. One idea is the Tangband W5-1611. Everybody seems to agree that the Alpairs sound better, but I'm just wondering.
In Fostex, the F200A, FE168 Sigma, FE208 Sigma, FF165WK FF225WK. I don't want to build a horn, so thinking MLTL or maybe transmission line. BIB is possible, though I'd prefer smaller.
andy
This is exactly what I mean - that metal cones can lose the "body" of the sound. I have some old HC13B25 5" units (KEF B110 clone) which are less detailed and have a falling treble, but even so the sound is somehow more pleasant - pianos and voices have more body and tone.
There's also the phenomenon that the cone material suits the original acoustic instrument - so percussion is very good on metal speakers |(cymbals are perfect). But pianos and vocals don't seem to benefit from a metal sound.
When I took the B110 clones out and put in Jordan JX92 units, the detail and treble was strikingly better, but I somehow got less pleasure from listening - a warmth had gone. Something slightly sterile.
But metal cones can do both treble and bass. I'm really open to paper and was wondering about Fostex, but I wouldn't want a whizzer cone for the treble, and they seem to have less bass than their metal counterparts in terms of SD.
Where to go here for a non-metal solution? I was thinking of a 5" or 6.5" unit but not excluding an 8". I have tube amps. One idea is the Tangband W5-1611. Everybody seems to agree that the Alpairs sound better, but I'm just wondering.
In Fostex, the F200A, FE168 Sigma, FE208 Sigma, FF165WK FF225WK. I don't want to build a horn, so thinking MLTL or maybe transmission line. BIB is possible, though I'd prefer smaller.
andy
Last edited:
I'm personally not so keen on the metal coned (Alpair 7&10, CHR-70) drivers I've heard.
Compared to my Fostexes, they sound a little too "polite" and uninvolving. I mean, if you listen to them, they're decent speakers that don't seem to put a foot wrong. But at the same time, I'd rather have my Fostexes that draw you into the music, and have more of a personality.
Chris
Compared to my Fostexes, they sound a little too "polite" and uninvolving. I mean, if you listen to them, they're decent speakers that don't seem to put a foot wrong. But at the same time, I'd rather have my Fostexes that draw you into the music, and have more of a personality.
Chris
I know about my Fostexes, but I'd start by looking at the T/S parameters - anything with really low Qts (<0.3) will require a large horn to get any bass output, so I'd discount those.
I have no experience with any of the Fostexes you mention, but if you happened to be in the area, you could listen to mine.
Chris
I have no experience with any of the Fostexes you mention, but if you happened to be in the area, you could listen to mine.
Chris
I'm guessing you meant .45.
Any of those would work reasonably well in a standard vented alignment, would certainly be an easier construction than a large BLH. Next, I'd look at how each one models in winISD or similar. Make sure you know how loud you want it to go, and what bass extension you can live with.
My system is in my sig.
Chris
Any of those would work reasonably well in a standard vented alignment, would certainly be an easier construction than a large BLH. Next, I'd look at how each one models in winISD or similar. Make sure you know how loud you want it to go, and what bass extension you can live with.
My system is in my sig.
Chris
Last edited:
For me, it depends on the genre / instruments / recording. Dire Straits sounds so much better on the three metal-coned drivers I've tried. Those Strat overtones and the harmonics on the bass guitar are all there, as correct, clear and pure as I've ever heard. Ditto for later Steely Dan and Donald Fagan, and other electric and studio-produced music.
But for acoustic stuff, Norah Jones, the bow attacking the string on a cello, etc., paper can be, as you say, more euphonic, more exciting, more engaging. I would say it's best to own some of each
Funny you should say Steely Dan - I listen to them frequently because I just love the lyrics and the arrangements. I was just listening to Two Against Nature on the JX92s. I'm finding the Jordan JX92s I have at the moment quite tiring on the ears - plenty of detail but lacks body and warmth. I must find a better solution. I have some Alpair 10s - need to cut out a bigger baffle hole to try them. Maybe similar - will have to see. I may try the tangband W5-1611. But I'd like to get this right - not just go through a load of different units. I have MLTL cabinets about 21 litres right now but that could change.
Andy
Andy
Hi Andy, I had the JX92S in BiB's and they weren't tiring for me, in my room, at my listening position.
Are you using any BSC on your cabinets? How far back are you sitting? I'm sure you know they are designed for rather extreme toe-in (I think 30 or 45 degrees, can't recall but it's a lot!)
Are you using any BSC on your cabinets? How far back are you sitting? I'm sure you know they are designed for rather extreme toe-in (I think 30 or 45 degrees, can't recall but it's a lot!)
the w5-1611 sounds good in a large baffel (38-40cm in about 20l) with out a filter.
will probably sound very different to your metal cones...
No BSC. Sitting about 6ft back. Speakers pointing straight ahead. I turned them in 40 degrees. Yes - that's better, but I'm still not getting body and warmth. My amp is all DHT - directly heated triodes (26>46>300B) and it's very clean and delicate, particularly in the treble. It may need something warmer in terms of speakers.
andy
andy
And these are 21-liter MLTL's? In my experience the JX92S has "lots of bass" but does need BSC unless it's in (a) BLH's or BiB's, (b) bipoles, (c) in-wall / against the wall, or perhaps (d) extremely wide baffles, but pretty much all other cabs would need some correction to avoid sounding fatiguing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.