cone material

None that i'm aware of, it's factored into the design. I have seen comments that some people can "hear" a difference but as far as I know there is no solid proof of it.

P.S. aluminum or kevlar sounds cooler though.

Some materials, like aluminum or resin-reinforced Kevlar, flex less at high output and low extension than some commonly used papers; reduced flexion results in higher quality sound. On the other hand, paper is of course very lightweight, so some manufacturers use paper cones with the intention of providing a faster, more accurate response to transients and higher-frequency signals. For example, Rythmik offer a choice of paper or aluminum for at least one of their high-end sub models.

This... yes.


This... no.

Cone material has no impact on SQ with a subwoofer, whatsoever. If the cone flexes and produces distortion, it isn't a good sub driver to begin with.

So what you're saying is a cone made from lead would sound no different than an aluminum cone provided the lead doesn't flex? Somehow that just sounds ridiculous don't you think? All else being equal cone mass does have some effect upon accuracy and thus the "sound signature" reproduced. Basically a light mass with a high degree of stiffness is what's preferred, unfortunately these two properties are often found to be at odds and so designers seek the best compromises in cone material for the application.

Well duh.

If it is improperly designed from the get-go, it will not be good.

Stiffness and strength are important, always. The overall 'lightness' or lack of weight is part of the design. A pro style 15/18" midbass woofer will have a lighter moving mass than a 15/18" subwoofer driver. This doesn't affect the "speed" or quickness of the driver at all, it affects the sensitivity within a certain bandwidth. The heavier sub driver will be more sensitive down low with a lower rated resonant frequency. Whether it is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, kevlar or paper makes no difference.

You have a lot of posts and you usually seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I just started paying attention to this stuff and learn something new almost every day. That said, I'm only paraphrasing Brian Ding (user Rythmik), whose experience certainly exceeds mine.

I took a quick peek over at their website. Saw their 'GR' branded drivers with this description. Sorry to tell you but it is all marketing mumbo-jumbo.

Exactly. Don't judge a sub by the material its made of, instead learn about the difference in sub motors (the whole mechanical system of a speaker).

Its simple really... aluminum will flex less and the lighter mass paper will simply stop faster (less overshoot). The aluminum will have tha advanatges down low where cone distortion would affect accuracy whereas the paper will have an advantage in accuracy due to ringing in the higher frequencies... bottom line, they will not perform/measure/sound exactly the same under all conditions, all else being equal.

No, sorry but that's mostly incorrect. The effects you bring up are not exclusive to the material, itself. One has to pay attention to the electro-mechanical properties of said driver.
The effect you are thinking is related to the Qts of the driver or Qtc of the total system. A higher rating, especially Qtc ratings of 1 or higher will have excessive ringing from stored energy. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the material of the cone.


Read this: http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=knowhow&type=1

Well, the paper is from a renewable source, biodegradable, and recyclable, while aluminum is mostly just recyclable.
If your drunk friend comes over and shoots your kevlar lined subwoofer, you won't have a whole in it.

Ok, so I'm being cynical 'cause it mostly depends on what a manufacturer "knows best" with designing subs. Now, if your subwoofer catches on fire, you WANT it to be Aluminum, not paper

No. There will be zero difference in SQ, not minute, no difference. Especially with a subwoofer. Golden-eared 'audiophiles' that claim that one sub sounds better than another based on cone material alone is living in fantasy land.

Longevity? Same for both. Don't pick your sub based on the cone material. Pick your sub based on performance/price/size and all that important stuff.

I would say enclosure design is way more significant than the cone, at least if you buy the woofer without it already being in one.

Perhaps you didn't read my posting carefully enough... "they will not perform/measure/sound exactly the same under all conditions, all else being equal." If what you are proposing is that no relationship exists between the cone's moving mass and Qts then we have no need for further discussion as we have a fundamental disagreement. If on the other hand you do agree that a reduced cone mass (all else remaining the same) results in a decrease in Qts then I don't understand why you think it won't have any effect on ringing. Remember we are not talking about changing system parameters to accomodate this change in cone material... because that changes the whole discussion to where there is no foundation to discuss anything then.

+1

So a damp basement theater would have no effect on the longevity of paper (even treated paper) over aluminum? This just keeps getting weirder with each additional posting. I think I'll go walk my dogs... at least that's something that makes sense to me.

The question was "The hsu uses a paper driver, the rythmik uses aluminum. Does cone material make any difference in performance, longevity, etc on a sub ? I know different companies have used different materials, and I'm wondering if it should be a consideration. Thanks!

The answer is no. The question wasn't the use of lead, wet basements or end of days. I hope you went for a long walk...

P.S. if it's that damp in your HT room i'd be concerned about the electronics.

The guy's asking about performance. Different cones will be different, and change the woofer T/S parameters, but to the end user--unless the subwoofer design is garbage, then there isn't.

What you need to focus on more is reviews that take into consideration frequency sweeps of both subs.

If you got a wet basement, than aluminum, because like I said, you won't want paper when your subwoofer catches on fire

Naw, if the cone is wet then it won't burn :P

The motor, surround, spider, and the inductance related to the mass (depending how high to crossover), and thermal properties matter more than cone material.

However, after pushing on tons of drivers, paper always seems to have some give. This probably matters more at higher frequencies. Too bad I can't find some high definition videos recorded around 1000 fps.

I know what you're trying to do but it has nothing to do with the question at hand. You're just being silly now.

Damp basement. Lulz!

The denial of this posting above is what I was responding to... maybe you missed me posting the quotes in each of my posting of what and who I was specifically referring to. I can't find fault with the statement above as its written and I don't think Rythmik's description of its comparison of its offerings within the same cab and amp is mumbo-jumbo sales talk either.

Face it, with enough money and know-how some people I guess could turn a Hummer into a vehicle with reasonable slalom times regardless of its total mass but that still won't make it handle like a true sports car. I do think some designers choose paper because of its lighter mass (though choice could also be made for other reasons as well, like cost) if that were not the case then I'd suspect you'd see a lot of exotic materials being used for woofers and mid-range drivers as well. "if it were designed correctly" works only if its actually possible to do within reasonably constraints and then you're right the whole discussion of which will sound better makes any discussion moot but that's NOT the case with Rythmic as discussion of the difference between drivers includes the assumption that all else remains equal and so the snide remark about it being "sales mumbo-jumbo" is uncalled for.

Apparently you've never had to re-cone a paper driver that was kept in the basement for more than a decade and worse... I have. I search for and buy vintage speakers for my theaters. Some people do have basement theaters (one of ours is) and keep their equipment for more than 5 years. A serious consideration? probably not, still you should probably have prefaced your statement with something like "if you're not planning on keeping it more than 10 years..." You're jumping on other people's postings by taking things out of context, however you don't seem to like it when some else does it to you.

'nough said, I believe I made my point. I'm outta here.

Look, if you're keeping perishable valuables in a damp basement... you need to re-think how you're doing things. I'm sorry.

First hand experience: I've got a paper coned 15" sub (with foam surround) that I've had for 10 years now. Looks exactly the same as the day I bought. Run the crap out of it too. Gets daily use. Now... I don't keep it in a damp storage area though.

And whose posts am I jumping on out of context? lolwut.

I'm just trying to help the OP and any others with the same question. All you're doing is confusing people with misinformation.

Actually, JVC came up with the best cone material ever. The cones were made of very thin strips of wood soaked in saki. The sound quality was excellent.

JVC makes speakers with this material, but their subwoofer cone uses pulp along with Kapok fibre, and Aramid fibre.


http://www.jvc.eu/woodcone/specifica...x.html#speaker

If you think he is confusing people, I think you are as well.

The two of you are looking at the issue with two different contexts...each valid.

Fair enough. What have I said that is confusing?