2. speakers
  3. 124200-79517

What makes an expensive speaker expensive

When one plunks down $10,000 $50,000 and more for a speaker you’re paying for awesome sound, perhaps an elegant or outlandish style, some prestige ... but what makes the price what it is?

Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?

And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?

Too much time on my hands today I guess.
128x128jimspov
timlub
2,040 posts
 

Quote:   "Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup."

If the Break up is controlled or Eliminated,  is it really in Break Up? 

In an average woofer 4 to 15 inches,  any material will have an issue.  If we design around the issues,  we can have a great sounding speaker.

Metal cones typically have a huge peak,  we use a crossover to get around that,  so why is paper different? 

In any driver, we identify any issues and design around them. 

As far as Micro Information (detail) being portrayed by other materials??? that could be true, but in the 35 years I've been doing this, I find most people find emotion of music can be conveyed in many ways and quite often, it is from a system which does not portray "micro information"....

Sorry,  not trying to start any arguments,  I prefer a detailed speaker myself,  but I've heard some fabulous all paper cone speakers. 

Same with all poly cones,  Kevlar, poly etc. etc. etc.

Tim

ctsooner
2,480 posts
 
Smoothed and damped does not eliminate the breakup distortion, it just minimizes the harshness of it.  At the same time, it damps information someone may have spent 10's of thousand's on the front end of the system to get. Metal cone drivers use the crossover to notch the breakup peak out, but it does not eliminate the breakup. Many believe it is still audible, just less so. This is a very well defined breakup and the driver is pistonic below this breakup frequency forcing the designer to use steep slope crossovers which have their own ringing to add to the soup. Hi-End audio is all about resolution and is why some people spend huge amounts of money on the front end of a system regardless of the vinyl/digital argument.  I realize that many of you are married to paper cones and enjoy the 'smoothness' of them.  The fact remains that they still have more distortion than a true pistonic driver.  That's supported by measurements and to many of us, we hear much more detail in these types of speakers than in paper coned drivers regardless of what you have done to them in order to try and minimize the break up.  The fact remains that you aren't able to, you can just try and work around it.  

This is why the newer materials that are offered to designers are making this hobby a blast.  So many great designs can now flourish with carbon fiber, better made capacitors and resistors.  Just so many great advances in audio right now and more to come.  Even the diamond coating crowd is trying to make a more pistonic cone.  Tidal speakers use diamond coated  tweeters and the black ceramic in their 200k plus speakers and to me, they are nearly in the Vandersteen 7 mk 2 camp at almost 4X the cost.  
timlub
2,040 posts
 

Hi ctsooner, Well, Ok,  in many perspectives, you are making the point of the entire thread... materials like ceramic and diamond coated drivers, Kevlar or magnesium, etc are very expensive, but that isn't where you where going with paper, you have been simply insinuating that paper breaks up and isn't worthy of a high end speaker.  I'll end my portion of it here, you are welcome to the last word. 

Notch filters can be used on any type of cone material. You can't take a measurement that tells you that one speaker is more detailed than another.  In general, a stiffer cone offers a more detailed sound than a pliable cone so yes,  if you don't properly treat paper,  it will not be as detailed as a stiff high dollar material,  but I have coated paper cones with the likes of wood glues and epoxy and ended up with a very stiff, very detailed sounding paper cone.  Yes,  the break up was dealt with,  so within my crossover frequency,  there was NO cone break up.

I have zero arguments that many of todays materials make GREAT sounding speakers,  my real argument is just the idea of discounting paper drivers as so far down the ladder when in fact,  you can come up with some very musical and enjoyable speakers at a fraction of the cost of the exotic material drivers. Again,  that is a big portion of the point of this thread.

I have 3 pair of speakers in the works.... one heavy treated poly cones... similar to a Dyn 6 inch and Scan Speak Dome... Another,  I have a pair of ESS Heil Air Motion tweeters from the late 70's, making a high sensitivity 12 inch 3 way out of using a treated pro paper mid and poly 12 inch and lastly an 8 inch 3 way using a 5 1/2 aluminum mid and ribbon tweeter.... So, no, I'm not stuck on paper at all. I just thought that your general state against paper was way too general.... Again,  I do agree with much that you said,  I felt that there was clarification needed to keep it accurate.

Tim

charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Good discussion here and insightful comments from Tim. I don’t get the sense that anyone is "married" to paper cones at all. Rather they simply identify the natural tonality and sound quality that they can provide. Carbon Fiber, ceramic, aluminum, poly plastics etc. Each has its strengths and thus proponents as well as inevitable short comings. None of these materials are without some intrinsic  flaw, yet each can be used successfully with high level implementation.

Tradeoffs abound and choices must be made. Some would choose natural tone over ultra micro detail and some will choose the converse.
Charles,
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,219 posts
 
Paper cones are often treated, or even composites, and from this a variety of diaphragms emerges that may all be called "paper cones," but that does not follow the typical shortcomings of paper cones equally. Even if they did, what is truly gained in a discussion of sound by making reference to their mechanical properties as a basis to support our sonic impressions? All we have in listening to reproduced music through our stereo’s is what we hear, and to me that’s the reference first and foremost that should put into question theory; not the other way round. That is to say: the aspect of pistonic behavior of a cone not made of paper and its claimed advantages into "micro details" (and ultimately its superiority in musical reproduction as a whole) compared to the break-up behavior of a paper cone (or its varieties) can be moot for several reasons, in that our ears may tell us differently. It appears to be more of a marketing ploy to single out one aspect as all-important than to be humble (and less outspoken) on the challenge of implementation.

More to discover