I don't know much about this, but some mfg'ers as well as others in the know, believe that pulp (not paper) produces a more refined sound than say those made of kevlar, aluminum, etc.. I don't believe you should consider this to be an issue. Provided the mfg'er is truly producing a quality-oriented speaker. -IMO |
Paper is the most natural sounding to my ears. But it lacks dynamics and high volume capability. To add to TWL's post, I think paper is good for absorbing unwanted resonances in the driver. Better than metal and polypropylene (that's a low end material Epos being an exception - there's always an exception) |
You know I don't photograph much audio gear. So when Motts approached me to photograph their new idea for headphones I was a bit sceptical when I first saw them. Boy was I wrong. They may not be comfortable but the audio experience is like nothing I've ever tried. Brings back memories of the good old days when I was a kid. Every time I use them though my wife complains I smell like tomato paste! So I was thinkin', why, for Pete's sake, don't the speaker manufacturers catch on and use these materials for their drivers?! I'm guessing that once they catch wind of these babbies Dixie Cups will be giving them a run for their money....paper is lighter and can move much faster after all. Motts SchaMater Reference Marco |
Not true at all. "Paper" tends to denote taking the cheap way out but is in fact a complicated mess of fibers, polymers, resins etc., engineered for light weight (has to react quickly), high rigidity (prevents deformation) and longevity. Paper's been a proven performer for decades - only recently have things like Kevlar and metal cones been introduced, and while they have advantages and disadvantages over paper, they alone do not make a speaker high end by virtue of their properties. |
Those who look inside high end speakers are often surprised by what they see. Not only are the cones sometimes paper, but the entire driver may be elcheapo. Wires too. I hasten to add that not every manufacturer is like this, but more than you would suspect. What does it mean? Mainly that driver "quality" is more about reliability, and power handling capability, than sound, and the design of the overall speaker system, especially the crossover, is of great importance. Good drivers can sound lousy, and vice versa. There is paper, and there is paper. Paper is a laminate of wood (mostly) fibers, and can be a very sophisticated product. One wooden product that amazed me when I learned of it is the bullet-shaped nose fairing on the submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It is made out of laminated wood, similar to a rowing shell. (I would have expected fiberglas). It is light weight and very strong: it supports the weight of the entire missile when it is hoisted into the launch tube. |
To add my 2 pennies, paper is used because of its lightweight(for fast transcient responses and dynamics)characteristics and ability to minimise sound coloration. Though its starting to finally show its age as there are new materials that will far exceed paper in terms of sound quality,output etc. Titanium alloy being one of them, but you dont see many speakers with titanium cones due to expense to mfg. them. But dont shy away from speakers that use a pulp cone. There are too many great sounding speakers that use them. |
,,,There are paper base drivers in the multi thousand price tag speakers as well,,,, Scan Speak and Morel make awesome paper treated drivers, and so do many other manufacturers I am sure...paper is easy to model and is more predictable, and all more well rounded. I love paper treated drivers sound (the ones well made and designed of course,,especially for mid and midbass.. I actually have some JBL L-96's which have arguably the best midrange driver ever made, and its paper... |
The reason why many of us like and use pulp type cones is that they provide excellent self damping charateristics. That being the case, less of a filter can be used to accommodate the transition into the next driver. There is no doubt that some of the more rigid materials do certain things better but they also ring harder and require more filter to remove the resonance. IMHO, in my high resolution designs designs, I have found that component coloration (sounds and resonances of capacitors, inductors, resistors and wires) are much more objectionable than the problems that reduced rigidity generate. Then again, my drivers are more heavily damped and use carbonfiber to add rigidity the cone. Low mass, excellent self damping potential and rigidity, the necessary mix IMO for a superb transducer. Bobby@merlin |
Hey Marco. Those headphones are sweet! I think they would look great with a head gear orthodontic apparatus. I dont know if you are joking around or not, but they look truly rediculous. They look like they might sound kinda "Tinny" HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Anyways, i guess if they sound good.... i think i will stick to speakers. :) |
I have a pair of S.A.P. J-2001 speakers that have two 12" paper cone woofers. While some may view paper cones as "old" technology, that does not mean it is inferior in any way. This speaker also has a horn midrange, but the compression driver has a titanium diaphragm ("new technolog"?). Both the woofers and the midrange utilize old fashion Alnico magnets. I believe the designer utilized what works best, not what is fashionable and current. At about $22k, I don't think the "cheapness" of paper was a consideration. A friend of mine spends a small fortune collecting as many Western Electric or Altec paper coned drivers (515 or 555 or something like that) as he can get his hands on. The cones are so old they crumble if touched. The sound, however, is very lively and articulate when these drivers are used in his full-range, multi-driver designs. |
Paper is a low mass low loss material. Paper cones have better transient reponse ang higher mechanical Q compared to plastic/polymer alternatives. They have higher efficiency. But they may have resonances which must be taken care of at crossover side. The envoiremental robustness is achieved by surface treatments. But since it is a compressed material it will loose it's structural rigidity in time. High tech marketting jargon can also be applied to parper cones by giving exotic names to pulp mixtures etc. |
Reinforced paper cones seems to be one of optimal choices, dont know to which extend slicing the paper etc. is just hype... ? low-end would be poly-propylene materials... it has a smoother and deeper (comparable to paper), but clearity and precision is very bad - PP simply flexes too much when playing bass, making distortion the rule rather than the exception. Surprisingly many manufactures markets their pp cone woofer as quality - showing of their smooth response curves and low-end fs values... and only very very few gives you any idea of rated distortion and power compression, which is much more important in a bass unit. from what I've heard aluminium is not optimal when it comes to timbre, i.e. it makes the sound less natural, and Kevlar tend to have a less uniform response curve than paper, but have a deeper fs value, ideal for non-vented enclosures, but who uses that for bass? Anyways the point being that its a trade off (between many things, where paper still seems to posses the best of each. I myself have two 15" paper cones - one $50 that sounds like crap compared to my $500 JBL 2226 G 15", but that would be expected - paper cones comes in many varities too... A. |
Used to have a pair of paper cone full range speakers. Spectrums, I think they were Dutch, taken over by Fisher at some point. Great speakers. They had been my grandfather's with an old NAD integrated. Both came out of a screening room at CBS 60 Minutes when they revamp'd. Wasn't sure about the ensemble when they got shipped to me... paper, 25 years old, etc. My intro to hi-fi after my grandfather passed away. Lasted me five years even so, 30 years total, and paper cones are supposed to be easy to destroy. After an hour with them I had been converted. |
Tang-Band has a full range 4" driver made from bamboo coming out in May. Qms = 1.499 Qes = 0.484 Qts = 0.366 BL = 4.80 Mms = 3.49 g Compared to their W4-655sa 4" paper driver: Qms = 4.35 Qes = 0.35 Qts = 0.33 Electrical Q being more important to damp than mechanical Q. But TB's typical paper Qms is no lower than 2.80. So the bamboo damps very well indeed. |
Cdc: What makes you think that Qes is any more important than Qms, especially on a "full range" driver or woofer??? I see this line of thinking expressed all the time, yet i can't understand the logic behind it. If this were a driver specifically designed for use over a limited bandwidth where resonance would not come into play at all, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. With a woofer and / or a tweeter, where the resonance does come into play within the audible bandpass of the driver, this is a completely different story. My guess is that most people don't understand what a higher Qms brings with it, hence the lack of concern in this area. This is exactly why most low frequency drivers, especially "American made" ones, are as poor of a performer as they are. When you start studying power transfer characteristics, transient response, ringing, etc... it becomes apparent just how important a low Qms really is. Combining a high Qms woofer with a vent, which also reduces control and damping, is a sure-fire way to lose all forms of bass definition and transient response. Sean > |
Hi Sean, I dunno, that was what I was told. I justified it when looking at total Q. The electrical Q seemed to have a greater impact on Qts than the mechanical Q did. Anyhow, does this bamboo material driver look like a good choice? It retails for about $35 each. I can't put up response curves but above 14k there is an 8db plateau from 15-18k - that doesn't look very musical or accurate to me. |
Cdc: I've got to head out to the ear doctor and then off to work. I'll try to explain why Qms is important later tonight. What i'll have to say is controversial amongst most speaker designers / engineers, but the facts present themselves once one does research on the subject. Even so, many that are rooted in their beliefs refuse to see the light, just like those that told you that it didn't really matter. Sean > |
I spent quite a long time typing out a very thorough yet somewhat easy to follow response to the above about Qms, loudspeaker design, resonances, the amplifier / speaker power transfer interface, etc... While attempting to perform another function on my computer, i somehow managed to shut down multiple windows at one time. One of those windows was the Agon post i was working on. Needless to say, i'm quite frustrated and not up to trying to re-do it right now, so it will have to wait. I apollogize for the delay and will try to get to this soon. As a side note, good news from my ear doctor today. He told me that they can stay on the sides of my head, no need for removal as of yet : ) Sean > |
El: I don't know if that was meant to be humorous as a comment about modern day technology and how things get "lost in the system" or to say that i'm bullshitting and didn't do any of the work i.e. an excuse. Believe me, i invested a great amount of time in what i lost and it doesn't make me happy. Sean > |
Sean...Lighten up! Dogs eat homework every day! I, and I am sure many others, have been in the situation of losing work for one reason or another, and the worst part is realizing that other people will be skeptical of our explanation. One time I lost a 20 sheet PowerPoint presentation while putting finishing touches on it after hours the night before the business trip. No choice but to suck it in and stay up all night doing it over again. As usual for a second time around it actually came out better, but I never told a soul that I had screwed up. When I write long Audiogon posts I do it first in WORD, and then copy it into the thread. Why? I learned the hard way. BTW this also gives you a spell checker for words like "analogue" :-) We look forward to your next dissertation. |
Here's an interesting video that shows how the shape of cones can be distorted. I can only imagine what might happen to the sound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE |
I've recently made ~~NUMEROUS~~ posts (more than the board can take). Concerning issues with anything paper/paper composite (Exceptions to every rule as you know). I've heard countless paper cones in the 1970's/1980's. Thats just about the best that was offered back then.. But in 2002 when I began my speaker search,,I came across a Seas Magnesium cone,, NOt knowing what the k=hoot magnesium was/sounded like,,I went ahead and trust the old famous Norwegain lab on cone material choice. IMHO, and for my musical sound preferences,, this material seems to work best for how i want to hear upper bass/lower mids. Can the Magnesium do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6B6WjAzuc8&t=5s No The W18 magnesium can not match the Scanspeak paper composite in this extremely accurate drum solo. STUNNING!!! AS with any cone material there are tradeoffs. I give up deep accurate rock soild drums, but gain in other fq's. I just do not ever wish to hear a paper/paper composite style mid cone. Brings up old memories of a era I wish to forget.. That said, I do like upper bass in the davidLouis 4 inch wide band **treated *paper composite cone. I have the DL 6.5 arriving in days. I am expecting same nice tight upper bass, maybe hitting 60hz...and hopefully avoiding that **paperish* resonances. Which explains why I would never come around to anything Wilson, nor Vandersteen. Dont get me wrong, the Denmark lab, Scanspeak makes incredible midbass speakers. Equal to the Magnesium But do expect the paper type resonances in upperbass/lower midrange. Troels has no issues using Scan's or Seas new Nextel treated paper in his best designs... Just not my cup of tea. |
There is paper, and there is paper. Paper is a laminate of wood (mostly) fibers, and can be a very sophisticated product.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sure Scanspeaks paper composites are not regular old paper, The material is complex and have excellent, if not the very best lowest end drum/percussion reproduction. For jazz i think the Scanspeak line are the best midwoofers. I listen to classical and so the Magnesium material has less (near zero) upper bass/low mids coloration. A friend describes the Magnesium as being **neutral*. |
A friend of mine spends a small fortune collecting as many Western Electric or Altec paper coned drivers (515 or 555 or something like that) as he can get his hands on. The cones are so old they crumble if touched. The sound, however, is very lively and articulate when these drivers are used in his full-range, multi-driver designs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These 1929 Colortura made in Chicago, Telefunken made in Berlin and your friends, WE, 's, EV's, and not to forget Jensen's, all have nice high fidelity midrange. These drivers set the bench mark for high fidelity. I have tested some new wide bands, found the Voxativ a bit weak if not worse,,and have stayed with a line out of china, DavidLouis. Female voice very accurate, bass, YES, highs, yes. 4 inch. Some stress in midrange/= distortion,,but livable up to mid vol. |
larryi2,563 posts08-03-2021 3:53pmYou can find many examples of current drivers that are very expensive that utilize paper cones--AER, Feastrix, Fostex, and G.I.P. come to mind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As in Voxativ Employs super thin papyrus paper, My tech badgers me all the time**You did not hear the Voxativ set up in a proper horn cabinet...***. well true. Still , that 12x12x12 cabinet gave me all I want to know. Tapping on the papyrus (PAPER!) cone,,, its was like no bass whatsoever,,I was thinking,,how in the world is this driver going to go down to low bass??? You can tap on a cone and get some inkling of an idea how it will respond to bass fq's. We will see how the DavidLouis treated paper cone responds in the 60hz zone. Drums specifically. The Seas magnesium is the best midwoofer ever made for bass guitar. But you will need a Mundorf SESGO or Supreme Silver to get the results. In drums/percussion kettles, Scanspeak wins the prize. |
I may be naive or uninformed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note all the Wilson reviews. Not even once do they mention Sacspeaks paper composite style sound. No thanks. magnesium is superior to paper in upper bass./low midrange. Seas has magnesium. Wilson offers Scanspeak paper comp sound. No thank you. Lets get real here folks. No more snakeoil |
@gs5556 -- Not true at all. "Paper" tends to denote taking the cheap way out but is in fact a complicated mess of fibers, polymers, resins etc., engineered for light weight (has to react quickly), high rigidity (prevents deformation) and longevity. Paper's been a proven performer for decades - only recently have things like Kevlar and metal cones been introduced, and while they have advantages and disadvantages over paper, they alone do not make a speaker high end by virtue of their properties. Very well put. |
If Magnesium was not offered, I'd have no choice but to go with paper. Thankfully Seas figured out how to get Magnesium to work, http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=49&Itemid=246 |
Seas answer to Scanspeaks newest paper composite woofers which are indeed phenomenal.. But this NX001, a driver which Troel Gravesen had some imput in the design, (Titanium voice coil etc), This NXE001 is something equal to Scanspeaks top midwoofers. WOW factor off the charts. Tempting for sure,, but I think I'm going to swap the bottom W18E001 for a Magnesium W22 EX001. Seas vs Scanpsek, 6 of 1 /half dozen the oher But I am a Seas devotee for life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCZ8qDDStk |
If you have a white paper (report), all materials sound good. Of course, that can be misconstrued as racist, so we have to say that whatever color cone paper you have is good, just to be equitable. And, to be inclusive we have to say that whatever material you use, it has to be accepted - no endorsed! Performance doesn’t matter; inclusivity is most important. The cone has to feel good about itself. ;) |
I prefer high efficiency 15" woofers with paper cones (most if not all of this segment of drivers use paper cones anyway), preferably crossed not much higher than in the 500Hz vicinity - horn-loaded if possible or in duals (per channel) as direct radiators. In this frequency spectrum and sensitivity range the specific configuration would seem to dictate the material used. Above that frequency compression drivers fitted to large horns are my choice, and mostly a variety of metal diaphragms are used in such drivers - apart from BMS/JBL ring radiator variants where polyester is used. Aluminum, titanium, magnesium, beryllium, plastic or paper compounds (the latter of which would be HF-limited) - I couldn't say which material in particular floats my boat. Some prefer aluminum here for its claimed tonal prowess (think Vitavox S2 as a prime example), others beryllium for its upper extension and overall relatively smooth response (Truextent diaphragms come to mind), the PA/cinema industry for years has preferred titanium for its durability, some domestic users favor non-metal materials for what they believe is less harsh/more natural sounding to their ears, etc. Inclusivity be damned; it's about preference, implementation and the specific use. |
Thiel, Vandersteen, Wilson, These names mean absoluetly nothing to me, What I want to know is where did they buy their midwoofers,,and what kind of cone material are they using. Thats it. Names signify nothing. UNless of course its Troel Gravesen name of the spaker,, Then yeah, I know I'm getting best bang cone material. Not sure why Troels never designed a dual W22 Magnesium + Cresendo tweeter. For me, thats the ultimate speaker. Ultimate. WEll 2nd only to Dual Graphene W22's, But you are gonna need cash for that one, Still alottttt less price vs Wilson's over rated Scanspeaks. |
