I found a few model numbers that use sandwich cones.
Elac seem to have a 'name' loudspeaker expert who is fairly respected in the industry, so I may make the effort to look and listen to their product.
+1 for your reasonableness.
The more I think about a constrained layer damped cone, the more it appeals to me.
I will check a few OEM suppliers to see what's possible.
Best wishes
David
Or just anodized but marketed to sound 'technical'
Either way I suspect the layer has minimal contribution, too thin and not structurally coherent.
I haven't seen any data on this, and presumably if the results were impressive they would be publicized, but I could be mistaken.
In any case it seems unlikely to dampen the cone, ceramic is low loss and there will be no viscoelastic constrained layer.
I see the CLD as a major, maybe the main, benefit
Best wishes
David
Measurable? or checked with statistically validated unbiased auditions?
Best wishes
David
Where did you read that? It's just a formed concave aluminium cone glued to a paper/kapton former. Performs just like any other concave aluminium cone.
because "DDR" is waffle for when people don't know how to relate what they hear to linear and non-linear distortion measurements.
Last edited:
I wanted to try graphene on an MA cone a good few yrs back and mentioned this idea in the MA section, long before Magico used it. You cd buy it then but it was seriously expensive.
Now you can buy carbon nanotube ready mixed in resin at a good price. For doping paper or fabricating woven cones, it would make a very stiff, strong cone.
Now you can buy carbon nanotube ready mixed in resin at a good price. For doping paper or fabricating woven cones, it would make a very stiff, strong cone.
Last edited:
I don't understand the reply, I didn't mention "DDR" (?).
You said there was 'definitely a difference', I asked what was the difference.
It measured different or sounded different?
If sounded then was the audition unbiased? Statistically reliable?
Dave (Planet10) drilled thru the cone inside the voice coil diameter, this would in the area where the paper former is bonded to the Al cone.
So, perfectly believable that the cross section he saw was laminated Al.
Let's make the discussion as positive as possible
I am still curious to pull one apart, study the former/cone bond, look at the rest of the cone.
Best wishes
David
Last edited:
The MOAP driver was capable of reproducing more small details than a stock driver and a bit better than an EnABLed driver.
dave
From what I can can gather it's a subjective opinion about a combination objective parameters - linear and non-linear performance (and not necessarily objectively GOOD performance). Like wine tasting.
Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread on a tangent about 'DDR' because the OP's query was objective and technical in nature and no one has been able to prove that so called 'DDR' can be objectively measured.
Personally I think metal cones are fantastic as they are. What better way to deal with the cone breakup energy than having it all pile up on out-of-band frequencies that you don't care about. I haven't seen a single speaker driver which has pulled off a 'stiff yet damped' cone construction effectively. Glass fibre and carbon fibre cones should be a prime example, yet in every case their breakup looks more like a regular paper cone than a metal cone without the breakup peak.
Last edited:
Yes, every driver is a compromise leading to better objective performance in some areas and worse in others. Good multi-way speaker design (we are in the multi-way sub-forum btw) is the epitome of interpreting objective measurement data and deciding how best to crossover different drivers together to hide areas of their performance which would lead to subjectively bad sound. The speaker driver designers analyse the same types of data in order to perform R&D; e.g. decide between different construction materials, geometries etc to best meet the objective design goals.
I'm an engineer btw... The concept of relying solely on subjective measurements would get you laughed out of a job at almost any engineering company. I'm aware that many 'audio' and 'engineering' companies prey on customers who don't understand objective design and that doesn't sit right with me. In many cases it doesn't matter if the product is both objectively and subjectively a poor performer if you market it properly. If the customer has forked out $xxxx for a speaker made out of unobtainium it WILL sound good to them.
As an engineer my approach to speaker design has always been to work out why things sound good and why things sound bad. Speakers need not be overly complicated to understand - it's just an object moving back and forth. The back and forth motion is not perfect - it has linear and non-linear distortion. No other types of distortion exist. If it's not linear and non-linear it's in your head. Always subjective performance can be attributed to linear and non-linear distortion measurements. Knowing how to measure things can be an art in itself however all the info needed is out there in the public domain. The people who refuse to learn how to perform and interpret measurements are just lazy imo.
I'm an engineer btw... The concept of relying solely on subjective measurements would get you laughed out of a job at almost any engineering company. I'm aware that many 'audio' and 'engineering' companies prey on customers who don't understand objective design and that doesn't sit right with me. In many cases it doesn't matter if the product is both objectively and subjectively a poor performer if you market it properly. If the customer has forked out $xxxx for a speaker made out of unobtainium it WILL sound good to them.
As an engineer my approach to speaker design has always been to work out why things sound good and why things sound bad. Speakers need not be overly complicated to understand - it's just an object moving back and forth. The back and forth motion is not perfect - it has linear and non-linear distortion. No other types of distortion exist. If it's not linear and non-linear it's in your head. Always subjective performance can be attributed to linear and non-linear distortion measurements. Knowing how to measure things can be an art in itself however all the info needed is out there in the public domain. The people who refuse to learn how to perform and interpret measurements are just lazy imo.
Last edited:
Was the test unbiased, i.e. blind and properly conducted?
Thank you.
Any comments on why major manufacturers don't seem to share your opinion?
For instance none of JBL's studio monitors or top line domestic systems are metal coned.
Or any of the top tour or cinema systems.
Presumably they would do so if they considered it beneficial, it's certainly not the cost.
And they have excellent objective measurement and blind audition facilities.
Best wishes
David
Last edited:
Difficult to market. The average customer thinks that if you make speaker drivers with metal cones they will sound like someone banging trash cans lids together or jingling bells.
I imagine there is also a lot of pressure for companies like JBL to maintain the same recipe for any 'classic' lines of speakers. Even if they do not perform anything like the predecessors people will have confidence in buying the 'new improved version' of a speakers series with a good track record.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.