Plastic cones or paper cones?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Dear Sirs,


I read somewhere that the best material for a cone is still paper (i.e. compound based on cellulose).
Actually I understand that the vast majority of the cone pro drivers are made out of paper.
The reproduced sound of some instruments like piano is said to be more natural through paper cones.
Plastics of course are much easier to use (and cheap too).
But not soo good in the end.

What is your opinion?

Kind regards,

beppe
 
I suppose each has their own advantages. Somehow I often prefer to use natural materials where possible.

Apart from the pro drivers...even so called "state of the art" and highly regarded mainstream stuff uses paper cones. Like the Scanspeak revelator. In the end it's the complete speaker and the complete implentation that matters more that the individual parts I think...and when the result is good who cares how it's done :)

Sometimes though I like to use unnatural things like vacuums ;)
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
beppe,

I don't think you will get a concrete answer on this one. All cone materials have their advantages and disadvantages and there doesn't seem to be a "best"

I prefer the sound of paper, it sounds more "natural" to me. Having said that, I own and use cones made of aluminum, poly and quartz composite fiber. I also have domes made of silk, aluminum, bakelite and titanium. All of which I am happy with.

OT: Hows the Olympics affecting you in your work and play? Are you attending any events? I'm asking because Vancouver's next on the slate in 2010 and it'd be nice to hear from someone right there. Email me if the response is long.

Thanks.
 
Bas Horneman said:

1) I suppose each has their own advantages.
2) Somehow I often prefer to use natural materials where possible.
3) Apart from the pro drivers...even so called "state of the art" and highly regarded mainstream stuff uses paper cones.
Like the Scanspeak revelator.
4) In the end it's the complete speaker and the complete implentation that matters more that the individual parts I think...
5) and when the result is good who cares how it's done :)
6) Sometimes though I like to use unnatural things like vacuums ;)

Dear Sir,
thank you so much for your kind and valuable reply.
1) I completely agree on this.
2) I am not against synthetic ones on principle. Maybe carbon fiber is the best. But it is so uncommon.
Never heard a carbon fiber cone.
3) This must mean something IMHO.
4) Yes. In the end. But in the beginning there are the drivers.
IMO they fix the top performances available from a speakers.
5) Very good approach. I would like to behave the same.
6) you are speaking of tubes aren't you?

Thank you so much again.
Have a nice weekend.
Regards,

beppe
 
Beppe,

every material that is very homogeneous will tend to resonate at defined (and definable) frequencies. Materials that are more inhomogeneous (like paper) develop resonances to a lesser extend. So you want some inhomogeneity - but a controlled one! Controlled quality is easily achieved with materials like poly and aluminium, but becames kind of an art with paper etc.

So a cheaply made paper cone could well be much worse than a cheaply made aluminium cone. But a top notch paper cone will be hard to beat.
 
Bas Horneman said:
...
It must be easier to design a good loudspeaker with a good driver? (I have a question mark, because I am not a speaker designer)
Have a good weekend too!


Can we say that the quality of drivers fixes the top of the performance we can get ?
If a driver is bad in some way no crossover can overcome this fact.
Nevertheless a bad crossover can waste the quality of excellent drivers.

Kind regards,
beppe
 
Hi,

nearly all "paper" cones are better described as plastic composites. The
plastic acts as a binder and a sealer preventing the cone being hydroscopic.

The actual make up of most "paper" cones is relatively complex.

Pure pulp (wood, banana, bamboo hemp etc) cones would be a
utter nightmare due to the variability of the moisture content.

:)/sreten.
 
beppe61 said:
I read somewhere that the best material for a cone is still paper

That's a little too broad of a statement. The best cone material is only as good as the motor and suspension components it is attached to, which is then only as good as the system the driver is designed into.

A Seas Excel with a magnesium cone is every bit as much state of the art as a Scan Speak Revelator with a paper cone. When the design of a Seas Excel system takes into consideration the particular distortion profile of the metal cone, the results can be as good or better than the best system with a paper cone.

Many prefer softer cones because they are easier to implement into a system. Or more specifically, it's easier to avoid a poor sounding system with a paper cone when the distortion profile of a driver is not measured and taken into consideration of a design.

All IMHO,

John
 
Audiophilenoob said:
I would take a stiff pressed paper cone over any poly cone I know about...

for lots of reasons but mostly dampening
Dampening is a form of distortion in cones. The flipside being you avoid dealing with the breakup modes inherent in more rigid cones at the other end of the scale (metal). I haven't heard the level of micro details found in stiff diaphrams such as ESL's or the best metal cones in any paper cone midrange.
 
"Dampening is a form of distortion in cones"

How so?


"I haven't heard the level of micro details found in stiff diaphrams such as ESL's or the best metal cones in any paper cone midrange."

That's from insufficiebt stiffness, not damping.

If you stiffness is insufficient , then it's much better to have damped resonances than resonant peaks in the passband.
 
I think the answer, as in so much of audio, lives in the details. As mentioned above, pure paper is pretty rare, especially in good drivers. Most paper is some sort of composite, and may include carbon fiber, like the Scanspeak woofers, (which I like a lot).

On the other hand, when Dynaudio drivers were widely considered the best available for the amateur, the cones were filled polypropylene. The best driver I've ever tried, and which am using in the current (interminable) project is the ATI 4" mid, also filled polyprope. Extraordinary detail, dynamic, and clean. And expensive. But they also show a great deal of attention to frame, motor and suspension details.

I think it's a bit easier to make consistent cones from polyprope, which tend to be good at self damping, and therefore have a tendency (not universal) to have smooth rolloffs on the high end.

But in the end, you just have to listen to the driver you're interested in. There is no substitute.

I think this holds for much if not all of audio; good and bad sounding tube and solid state gear, good and bad sounding high and low feedback designs, and so on. Success depends a lot on the designer being familier with the strengths and pitfalls of his preferred approach, and maximizing the former and adroitly avoiding the latter.
 
noah katz said:
"Dampening is a form of distortion in cones"

How so?


"I haven't heard the level of micro details found in stiff diaphrams such as ESL's or the best metal cones in any paper cone midrange."

That's from insufficiebt stiffness, not damping.

If you stiffness is insufficient , then it's much better to have damped resonances than resonant peaks in the passband.


This gets back to the "ribbon" thread..no?

dampening as it relates to material loss vs. signal loss is a form of distortion (a subtractive one) - on the other hand it will likely control resonances that add distortion.

and the esl is a good comparison.. for a given surface area esl's are usually "stiffer", but it isn't stiffness that is adding to "detail", but rather a lack of dampening that isn't subtracting detail (due to the low mass), AND a low operating excursion level. Note that "stiffness" is analagous to pistonic operation which is more linear - however esl's often have a very non-pistonic operation (though not as bad as a distributed mode device like the NXT panels).

Unfortunetly esl's typically have very poor "total/overall" dampening so its likely that distortion will be high and could well add to the subjective sense of detail via higher order distortion (3rd). In particular you often have severe panel resonances and surface mode distortion - this usually gives the upper midrange and treble a "chalky" sound.
 
Re: Re: Plastic cones or paper cones?

Zaph said:

That's a little too broad of a statement.
The best cone material is only as good as the motor and suspension components it is attached to, which is then only as good as the system the driver is designed into.
...
All IMHO,
John

Dear Sir,

Thanks a lot for your comment.
I see your point perfectly.
There is no a general rule, but case and case.

Kind regards,
bg
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.