Yes, just cone flexibility by itself provided compliance enough.
Of course, in a tweeter compliance needs are modest.
Sometimes I cut 4" tweeter paper cones of which I stock hundreds, into 2" to 3" ones and straght glue them to tweeter frame.
Yes, self resonance probably rises from 1500Hz to 2500Hz or so ... no big deal if tweeter is crossed over at 12/18 dB/oct at 5kHz anyway.
Yes, some Audiophiles still use old cherished cabinets with paper cone Tweeters
... and they bring them to me since "nobody else" recones them ... at least in Argentina and surrounding Countries.
Of course, in a tweeter compliance needs are modest.
Sometimes I cut 4" tweeter paper cones of which I stock hundreds, into 2" to 3" ones and straght glue them to tweeter frame.
Yes, self resonance probably rises from 1500Hz to 2500Hz or so ... no big deal if tweeter is crossed over at 12/18 dB/oct at 5kHz anyway.
Yes, some Audiophiles still use old cherished cabinets with paper cone Tweeters
... and they bring them to me since "nobody else" recones them ... at least in Argentina and surrounding Countries.
If it's serious it's based on a totally mistaken notion of how moving coil drive units operate and the assumption that the surround is the single or dominant factor in driver 'speed' (which is actually a function of bandwidth) rather than just one of a number of mechanical components that defines the driver's response / usable operating BW (and therefore its 'speed').
I also think OP may be referring to speaker damping, where cone surround may be an important factor, although not the only one.
Applying edge coating goes a long way , specially on paper edge but also on cloth edge, to lower Q and tame the resonant peak.
Of course it does not apply to foam or rubber surrounds.
FWIW I am just now applying "doping" to a batch of Guitar speakers I´m finishing, go figure.
Its effect is quite noticeable, even just by thumping the cone, and it definitely makes for "better", more defined, less boomy bass.
So by the same token, different surround materials and characteristics do affect damping/Q and so directly make for a "faster"/sluggish speaker response.
Not too sure the OP is referring exactly to that though.
Applying edge coating goes a long way , specially on paper edge but also on cloth edge, to lower Q and tame the resonant peak.
Of course it does not apply to foam or rubber surrounds.
FWIW I am just now applying "doping" to a batch of Guitar speakers I´m finishing, go figure.
Its effect is quite noticeable, even just by thumping the cone, and it definitely makes for "better", more defined, less boomy bass.
So by the same token, different surround materials and characteristics do affect damping/Q and so directly make for a "faster"/sluggish speaker response.
Not too sure the OP is referring exactly to that though.
Last edited:
Hi,
I find the various approaches to drivers without suspension pretty interesting, and the Axiom 80 was way ahead of others by that time. Note how the Axiom 80 used the same system as a spider as well.
It´s modern remake (the Fertinacoustics M8) uses carbon poles instead of the bakelite leafs, but has a normal cloth spider.
The Fostex WLE bass units used a double spider and no front suspension at all, also interesting.
The Leedh driver works, if I remember right, with a ferrofluid front bearing, so probably also no suspension.
One thing I wonder about is the claim that spider and suspension have to "break" the driver and have to return it to "neutral" position, but ideally this should be done by the motor? Or have I something wrong here? Some longitudinal centering in the middle of the airgap must of course be givven, surely axial as well...
I have always been impressed by drivers with a very high compliance and low mechanical resistances, in suspension, spider and elsewhere.
All the best
Mattes
I find the various approaches to drivers without suspension pretty interesting, and the Axiom 80 was way ahead of others by that time. Note how the Axiom 80 used the same system as a spider as well.
It´s modern remake (the Fertinacoustics M8) uses carbon poles instead of the bakelite leafs, but has a normal cloth spider.
The Fostex WLE bass units used a double spider and no front suspension at all, also interesting.
The Leedh driver works, if I remember right, with a ferrofluid front bearing, so probably also no suspension.
One thing I wonder about is the claim that spider and suspension have to "break" the driver and have to return it to "neutral" position, but ideally this should be done by the motor? Or have I something wrong here? Some longitudinal centering in the middle of the airgap must of course be givven, surely axial as well...
I have always been impressed by drivers with a very high compliance and low mechanical resistances, in suspension, spider and elsewhere.
All the best
Mattes
The motor... any conventional one at least... can only push one direction or the other. It can't "center" the voice coil actively. That can only happen once coil power is removed and suspension takes over (except on the way by during a power cycle of course).
"Fast" surround is just a silly concept. Sure different materials and designs alter the speakers total mechanical compliance, but that is part of the overall balance and design of the speakers. It either has the bandwidth you need for the given application or it doesn't.
"Fast" surround is just a silly concept. Sure different materials and designs alter the speakers total mechanical compliance, but that is part of the overall balance and design of the speakers. It either has the bandwidth you need for the given application or it doesn't.
Exactly!
Just one small part of the picture.
Interesting to note the new MA drivers that go the opposite way of the old drivers sans Surround, and drop the Spider instead.
Must be a very delicate balancing act.
Sounds dangerous!
I thought you had a relatively good marriage?
What's the secret?
May the Sonic Force be with you.
YouTube
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.