Does anybody dislike metal cones?

[andyjevans]

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

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by andyjevans

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

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

[ultrakaz]

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.

[badman]

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.

[rjbond3rd]

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).

[thaumaturge]

I prefer the soft squeezable ones.... oh, probably a different subject
Doc

[andyjevans]

"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

[chris661]

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

[andyjevans]

Hello Chris,

You seem to be echoing my thoughts here - just about as I would put it. I haven't heard Fostex units. Which of the Fostex I mentioned should I go for and why? You know about Fostex!

andy

[chris661]

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