Diaphragm materials can definitely make a difference in speaker performance. I have two 1 3/4" diaphragm compression drivers from Celestion that use the identical magnet, phase plug, and CCA voice coils, but one model uses a mylar diaphragm (CDX1-1745), and the other uses a kapton diaphragm (CDX1-1747). While they measure relatively similar in on axis response, the tonal qualities of the two are so different they don't sound like they are from the same brand, let alone series. I also have two 12" Tannoy raw paper cones (7600-0826 and 7600-0957) that are identical in size and profile, but the fibre composition between the two is different, with the 0826 cone being 9 grams lighter, and noticeably softer than the other cone (0957). Even if I add a 9 gram mass ring to the lighter 0826 cone, it measures and sounds tonally different than the stiffer 0957 cone.
Great video. As a speaker manufacturer, I will put it this way: all a speaker is, is material, geometry, and assembly process. That’s what it boils down to. OF COURSE the material matters, it’s what the driver IS. I think the misunderstanding stems from an idea that all drivers with material A sound one way, and all drivers with material B sound another way. This is not true at all. But, there are characteristics, or at least combinations of characteristics, that are unique to any material. If you made a paper driver, it is not possible to make an alu driver that sounds exactly the same. The cone material is part of the whole, and as soon as you change anything, you change the whole. What you hear is the sum of parts, geometry and assembly. No, you don’t necessarily hear the material in the way that you can say “this one is alu, this on is paper”, but they will not sound the same. Once you listen to enough speakers, I do believe it is feasible to make generalisations though. If 9 times out of 10 speakers you like have soft dome tweeters, it makes sense to start focusing on speakers with soft domes. It’s certainly more feasible than to listen to every speaker on the planet. /Otto, Dynaudio Academy
It's absurd that armchair know it alls would think they know more than engineers who spend their lives researching this stuff. If they can't hear the difference - it's probably a sign that their ears don't work.
Im a DIY guy and I have bought many types of drivers and the differences can be wide and varied even to the ears. I prefer teaming polypropylene woofers with ribbon tweeters for an extremely warm and "musical" experience...
Of course materials make a difference. The chosen material is ONE part of an engineering solution. Unfortunately, the marketers love to claim that the use of the latest "unobtanium" makes their speaker primo. Unfortunately, many speakers with exotic stiff materials have major issues, some created by the use of said materials.
You have no clue how much I love this video. I’ve been preaching this forever and the amount of “audiophiles” that have told me I was the idiot amazes me
Dayton makes a few drivers with the same design besides a difference in driver materials. If you look at their respective spec sheets, they have very different characteristics.
@theyard-ottawasindoorbikea5865 I think you misunderstood what he said. He said it doesn't matter what's in it, it's the results that counts. Who cares if the drivers are berrilium, diamond or paper. If it sounds bad, it's bad even if the tweeter is berrilium. If it sounds good, who cares if it's a paper tweeter. Go watch his video because it looks like you didn't even listen to it.
i added varnish spray for gold leaf to a celestion neocreamback and the new stiffness had the consequence that the guitar's whammy dive bomb became easier to hear the fundamental pitches. less ambiguous. also protects from moisture on the front and i did it as a reminder to face to the speaker so one ear will not receive more decibels than the other, preventing this way hearing damage.
@@firebladeclements the guitar players usually places their MONO speaker on the back and at one side, and they move the head distracted watching to any direction instead of staring at the speaker. i did that until one day i played too loud for 3 minutes (using the fender runaway pedal that creates feedback even over clean chords) i played at 90º to the speaker, and suffered PAIN IN THE RIGHT EAR FOR A YEAR. the solution the prevent damage is that both ears should get same decibels, so you could realize if it's excessively loud. the real gold gilding is the best colour ever, because it is hypnotizing, i used 2kspraymax varnish as glue then applied the gold leaf, then a bit of spray over it as a partial protector it's not a thick crystalization. the paper in most old drivers has to be reconed, so i wanted to make it durable. you know that subwoofer videos shows the movement back and forth of the drivers. when you lower the tension of electric guitar string you can get low notes. this is the case thanks to the vibrato bar. i observed whilst doinfd a slow gradual drop in pitch, (technique known as dive bomb) how the driver moved and sounded before and after the modification with the real gold painting. the before it was noisy, undetermined pitch, imprecise, too low. and after the modification it was like as if everything sounded one octave higher, as if i could easily transcribe, tell which is the pitch sounding, more recognizable, clearer. unfortunately i didn't took room eq wizard measurements the before and after, you have to believe my words. i did it for aesthetics but the sound changed and i feel it changed for better. in a world where guitar players wants to find their unique sound at least i obtained mechanically a change of EQ, whilst the other only has the mass produced cele3stion speaker, as is. you could give it a try, nail polish or lacker some speaker and see how it becomes more treble. i collected speakers, some has plastic instead of cloth. some are metallic. i guess a good option would be the metal sprays. i've seen stainless steel sprays, copper, chrome, brass. they are similar to graffiti painting cans, but it's sold for industrial purposes of plating. on top of that my cabinet is not a box, but a frame. the speaker is holded by its magnet, it doesn't have front pannel. this way i got rid of the lows, so i can fit in the context of the mix of a band, without the sound guy having to apply eq which is always the case on electric guitar players, so with my frame like a oil painting i can play over recordings of song and not bothering the neighbors with noise that much because it lacks bass that otherwise it would go through the solids of the building (ciment of ceiling, walls and floors) causing vibration transmission, noise pollution. now i am building a audiophile grade pair of speaker EQUILATERAL TRIANGULAR PRISM WITH THE SQUARES AS WALLS boxes in delrin with 18 drivers for multipurpose, for playing the realistic virtual instruments of my midi piano, but also to mix and mastering in the sweet spot, but also to watch movies and dance around the attick. the triangles as demostrated by ehrlund has the property of better resolution because the waves dissapears sooner because the corners neutralizes. this was demostrated by observing how the waves moves at the surface of a glass of water when a drop is thrown, then the time was shorter if the glass was triangle shaped. this is similar to the resolution of screens, the refreshing rate (Hz) because if the membrane of mic or the speaker cabinet, or the shape of the room was a triangle, the notes are shorter so has less contamination floating around from the previous sound so is more free to reproduce the next sound. a less woobly speaker cloth is more precise.
How someone can’t know this is beyond me. The one thing that might make this pointless is that a good designer will know and account for these issues in their crossover.
This issue with trying to account for all these problems in the crossover is that if you do that, you'll have an incredibly complex crossover and that can lead to other issues. All the good designers will say that it's fundamental to get the behavior of each driver as close to ideal as possible, resulting in much less work that the crossover needs to do. BTW, I agree that how someone really into hi-fi doesn't know these things -- if they're in hi-fi reviewing, it's that much worse -- is beyond me, too.
Thanks for the video. Of course parts matter. It affects the performance and therefore the sound. It’s one of the reasons I purchased Arendal 1723 towers. Their build quality is outstanding and well worth the price IMO. I love the sound of the beryllium tweeters in my Revel M126Be bookshelves. Paradigm’s high end use beryllium in the tweeter and midrange. I also like the look of quality finished cabinets beyond the impact on sound. I shop for equipment that sounds good, is well well built with quality parts and looks good.
I just had a discussion with a former designer about that. While materials certainly affect the sound, skilled designers can actually use materials in such a way to trick listeners into thinking they're listening to the qualities of another. So, materials do make a difference, but I wouldn't fall into the trap of automatically assuming that something uses a certain material that it'll sound a certain way.
I'm really interested to see responses to this. As I said, I think it's a "dumb" topic because it should be so obvious to anyone who's into hi-fi. But...
Great video and these things are all verifiable in the myriad of testing channels/outlets out there. That claim that it was purely marketing by Andrew Robinson made me drop off the subscription… really like so much about the gear he tests but that claim is so erroneous it’s unforgivable.
@@TheOriginalKnottian Hi, thanks for the feedback. I'd heard from a speaker designer he had said tat and I couldn't believe it. I had trouble finding where, but I Google searched and als found instances where people had said similar ridiculous things. Hard to believe in some cases.
There's no "the best" for anything. Materials have strengths and weaknesses -- paper is no different. Also, you'll rarely see paper used for high frequencies.
@SoundStage!Network Hey Doug, great topic! HOWEVER, I think you needed to take this discussion just a bit further. ;) That is, WHAT implications does this have when applied to Multi-Driver loudspeaker systems, such as a typical 3-way loudspeaker that uses a separate woofer/midbass, midrange, and tweeter driver, with a crossover filter dividing network applied to each driver that only allows each one to play well within its most linear passband, which therefore should avoid or mitigate any of their unique inherent nonlinearities? Let's say that each respective individual driver (transducer) provides extremely smooth and linear frequency/amplitude response within its intended passband, and any potential anomalies such as resonant peaks, stored energy "ringing", and/or cone & diaphragm break-up modes are only present well outside each drivers' intended usable passband. IS IT IMPORTANT for ALL of the Pistonic Diaphragms of these Individual Drivers in this 3-way loudspeaker to be made of the Same Material in order to be perfectly "Timbre-Matched" and/or to achieve the most accurate/natural/life-like sound??? i.e. ALL of the drivers have diaphragms that are either made of compressed wood pulp/fiber & binder, polypropylene, carbon-fiber, woven glass-fiber, aluminum/magnesium/titanium/beryllium, ceramic, silk/fabric/Aramid fiber, "textreme", or a unique multi-layered composite "sandwich" construction, etc? IOW, IF NONE of the individual drivers in this 3-way loudspeaker exhibit any significant nonlinearities that you spoke of, does a "mismatched" combination of different diaphragm materials really matter, and will you actually discern this mismatch of materials as being detrimental to the natural and life-like reproduction or "accuracy" of the speaker??? For many years as a hobbyist/enthusiast I've designed and built my own DIY loudspeaker systems for home, home studio, and car audio using both passive crossover filter networks as well as "active" systems using multi-channel DSP and amplification. As just one example, in my car audio system that uses a high-end multi-channel DSP for individual driver level adjustments, fully configurable crossovers, time alignment (digital delay), phase matching, and PEQ, I use the Purifi PTT6.5 aluminum cone drivers for the midbass, a ~4" Dynaudio Esotar2 430 poly cone driver for the midrange, and the beryllium dome BlieSMa T25B tweeters. I'm a long time amateur drummer/percussionist and saxophonist with a home recording studio. And when I play my own recordings of my instruments that I am obviously intimately familiar with, this combination of what most would call "mismatched" drivers exhibits the most life-like and "accurate" sound I've ever experienced. The same can be said for my DIY active studio monitors, which use doped paper cone Ciare HW251N 10" woofers, and a BMS 5CN162HE 5" polyester cone midrange with a concentric 1.5" titanium diaphragm compression driver... Wildly different diaphragm materials, but incredibly dynamic, life-like, and "accurate" sound...at least to my ears. So I'm very interested in your take on this, or a professional loudspeaker designers' input.
Thanks for the very long and detailed response. In fact, shortly after this video launched, I thought about doing one that speaks to at least part of what you're discussing: Does having the same diaphragm material throughout the drivers matter? Stayed tuned on my thoughts about what I've learned about that...
I will chime in here with our experience: First off, I don’t believe that just because you use the drivers outside of their breakup frequencies, they sound the same. There are other differences in the sound of the materials than simply how it resonates. It’s just often being put forward because that’s the most obvious one. So I don’t subscribe to the idea that if you use the driver below it’s break-up, the material doesn’t matter. It still matters. But… that’s table stakes. Not using a metal cone midrange at it’s resonance peak is not optimising, that’s simply proper use. Even properly used, materials still matter. When matching drivers, what matters again is the actual performance, not the materials. Materials required to reach a certain sound character at 10 kHz is not necessarily the same materials required to match that character at 100 Hz. Getting this to match is part of the art of making a loudspeaker. Related to this: The filters required to use a specific driver has it’s own effect on the overall sound. Using higher order crossovers to lower a driver’s resonance peak comes with it’s own set of compromises. Again, you won’t reach the same end result, because you basically end up with a completely different speaker. I think the most important realisation when you design loudspeakers is to accept that there are no inherent truths. It’s all a balancing act, and more than anything the end result depends on your ability to balance all the various compromises that make up a loudspeaker. If you search for perfection, you will fail. Your job is to make each compromise have as little audible effect as possible, because a “no compromise” speaker does not exist. /Otto, Dynaudio Academy
do not think that would be helpful for consumers, the list is going to be too long for simple one type materials, then we have alloys, mixed materials and doping. we also have cone shapes an surrounds other moving mass that effects sound. engineers probably have an idea about how it could be explained but we normals can not understand that.
Excellent video from Vandersteen Audio regarding their pistonic drivers - made from carbon fibre and balsa wood! ua-cam.com/video/T2pvz6RDBCE/v-deo.htmlsi=PLU4HAokno9Gp0th
Hi. I'm having trouble agreeing with that. Imagine using rubber for cone or dome material. It's not stiff at all, it's very heavy, and, all other things being equal, would have low sensitivity.
Regarding speaker sensitivity, there are many factors that determine speaker sensitivity, magnet and voice coil Configuration, Cone mass, Suspension mass and stiffness and more…😊
If some, among those who "should have known better" claim that the material isn't so important, it's probably, because they know, that it is possible to make a pretty good membrane, of many different materials. Some membranes will demand more powerful magnets, lighter coils, will need more of special treatment.. will be more expensive, but it IS possible. So - material matters, but there are workarounds for the most ☝😀 I've seen very "exotic" drivers, with cones made out of ( as they claim ) extremely stiff and pricy stuff, BUT implementation of technique that would have made them properly, stiff - was, for some reason, neglected 🤷♂️ Speaking of materials - The new DALI headphones - have paper cone ! - THAT is NOT a good thing ( unless the company, deliberately, did it - to make the customers buy new 🎧 after a couple of years...) 😱
There's no best material. Paper can have variability with humidity. Metal can dissipate heat better, etc. They all have pro and cons but good speaker designs minimize the impact of their differences such as appropriate crossovers and tweeter/woofer combinations. It not the material that matters but how you use it and in the end they all can get the job done. The electromechanical design of the motor probably has a bigger impact than the driver material in the performance and that's beyond consumers understanding so marketing over exaggerates the material importance to persuade buyers.
I agree that there's no material that's best across the board for every situation, but I think designers have determined that there are certain ones that are better and they do tend to group around them.
@@dougschneider8243 I have seen just about everything used. Aluminum, titanium, magnesium, paper, Polypropylene, nylon, fiberglass, carbon fiber, Kevlar just off the top of my head. Mostly now are a composite of several materials. Cost point, availability, manufacturability are the reason for choosing. A more expensive speaker may use a more expensive material because of the perceived marketing but does not make it better. Mostly about differentiate your product from everyone else and marketing. With such a saturated market gimmicks are in abundance
@@dwaynepiper3261 What you're saying is true -- and, certainly, companies can use materials as gimmicks. And the most expensive materials aren't necessarily better just because they're more expensive. However, many of the materials used do have benefit -- and like you say, composites often get used now -- which was really the point of this video.
I try to find info about the motor system, but is usually not explained well on many speakers. Aside from basic info like improved excursion or used bigger magnet or voice coil.
Doug, I can fix/remove the slap back echo of your room (or tell you which plugin to use to do it - it's not difficult) and also give you a more "close mic'd" radio DJ vocal sound. Shoot me an email if you're interested.
Hi Mark. Good to hear from you. We debate sometimes on whether we should take the room out more. Have the plug-ins. As an audiophile, I don't mind hearing the microphone not really touched. But I may put it closer and experiment. Thanks.
Driver materials matter in regard to stiffness to mass ratio and resonant or break-up modes. But you do not hear differences due to metal cones vs paper cones. The physical characteristics are DIFFERENT for every driver that has a different diameter size, surround, motor, spider, shape and so on. So you do not HEAR different types of materials , you hear the specific characteristics of the total driver design, which is the frequency response, phase, group delay and THD parameters.
Hi, I can't agree 100% with you. I agree with the part about the total performance of the driver, but if you're using a cone or dome with a nasty breakup mode - that's why I used tweeters for an example -- that resonance that's a result of the cone or dome is going to be heard in some fashion. Maybe it's a massive peak or maybe there are resonances spread across a wide range of frequencies -- the point is, those behaviors will contribute to what you hear.
@ Well, I have been in this industry for 25 years and I am certain about how loudspeakers work. The break-up modes you refer to come out as THD or harmonics that are not present in the original signal. So according to your response, we agree. But people do not hear materials, you hear the physical characteristics of that material combined with the total system in combination with it. You are hearing modulations of air not a cone made of paper vs fiberglass vs aluminum.
@@johnjackson7295 I would agree with what you're saying. Where we differ, I think, is the wording. What you're saying is that we're hearing the result of materials and other design choices. Agree?
@@dwaynepiper3261Yes, but… those compensations also has an effect on performance. It’s not possible to design a paper and an alu cone driver to perform identical. ANY change in a driver, whether it’s a change in material, geometry, or assembly process, has an effect on sound. Even the glue will affect the sound, audibly and measurably. The important bit is to understand that it’s not like all paper drivers sound one way and all alu drivers sound another way. In that sense, you don’t hear the material, you hear the result of the material. But not all results are possible with all materials, and for that reason, the material matters. And I do believe it is possible to exclude certain materials if you know which result you are after. However, just because you chose the right materials, you are not guaranteed the right result. /Otto, Dynaudio Academy
Diaphragm materials can definitely make a difference in speaker performance. I have two 1 3/4" diaphragm compression drivers from Celestion that use the identical magnet, phase plug, and CCA voice coils, but one model uses a mylar diaphragm (CDX1-1745), and the other uses a kapton diaphragm (CDX1-1747). While they measure relatively similar in on axis response, the tonal qualities of the two are so different they don't sound like they are from the same brand, let alone series. I also have two 12" Tannoy raw paper cones (7600-0826 and 7600-0957) that are identical in size and profile, but the fibre composition between the two is different, with the 0826 cone being 9 grams lighter, and noticeably softer than the other cone (0957). Even if I add a 9 gram mass ring to the lighter 0826 cone, it measures and sounds tonally different than the stiffer 0957 cone.
I can believe it!
Done just for fun.
Great video. As a speaker manufacturer, I will put it this way: all a speaker is, is material, geometry, and assembly process. That’s what it boils down to. OF COURSE the material matters, it’s what the driver IS.
I think the misunderstanding stems from an idea that all drivers with material A sound one way, and all drivers with material B sound another way. This is not true at all. But, there are characteristics, or at least combinations of characteristics, that are unique to any material. If you made a paper driver, it is not possible to make an alu driver that sounds exactly the same. The cone material is part of the whole, and as soon as you change anything, you change the whole.
What you hear is the sum of parts, geometry and assembly. No, you don’t necessarily hear the material in the way that you can say “this one is alu, this on is paper”, but they will not sound the same.
Once you listen to enough speakers, I do believe it is feasible to make generalisations though. If 9 times out of 10 speakers you like have soft dome tweeters, it makes sense to start focusing on speakers with soft domes. It’s certainly more feasible than to listen to every speaker on the planet.
/Otto, Dynaudio Academy
Great words, Otto!
It's absurd that armchair know it alls would think they know more than engineers who spend their lives researching this stuff. If they can't hear the difference - it's probably a sign that their ears don't work.
Poor ears, but got a mic and some software. Expert😆
Im a DIY guy and I have bought many types of drivers and the differences can be wide and varied even to the ears. I prefer teaming polypropylene woofers with ribbon tweeters for an extremely warm and "musical" experience...
Of course materials make a difference. The chosen material is ONE part of an engineering solution. Unfortunately, the marketers love to claim that the use of the latest "unobtanium" makes their speaker primo. Unfortunately, many speakers with exotic stiff materials have major issues, some created by the use of said materials.
I agree. The key, though, is that these material do make a difference, exotic or not. To say otherwise is foolish, IMO.
Man.. Way back when I was young. We had a spkr set named the Martin Lab MkII - Paper drivers and phenolic tweeters. Phenomenal!!!
listen to the engineers not the marketing people.
You have no clue how much I love this video. I’ve been preaching this forever and the amount of “audiophiles” that have told me I was the idiot amazes me
When I read "You have no clue..." I thought, Oh, he's going to rip me a new one. But glad we agree.
Dayton makes a few drivers with the same design besides a difference in driver materials. If you look at their respective spec sheets, they have very different characteristics.
Very interesting!
Someone send this to Andrew Robinson lol
who cares about andrew?
What Andrew said is that he doesn't care what it's made of. It's the end result that counts. I'm sure Doug agrees with that.
@@mathieuattanasio7610 no, he literally said driver materials don't matter. Those were his words.
@theyard-ottawasindoorbikea5865 I think you misunderstood what he said. He said it doesn't matter what's in it, it's the results that counts. Who cares if the drivers are berrilium, diamond or paper. If it sounds bad, it's bad even if the tweeter is berrilium. If it sounds good, who cares if it's a paper tweeter. Go watch his video because it looks like you didn't even listen to it.
@@mathieuattanasio7610Correct.
i added varnish spray for gold leaf to a celestion neocreamback and the new stiffness had the consequence that the guitar's whammy dive bomb became easier to hear the fundamental pitches. less ambiguous. also protects from moisture on the front and i did it as a reminder to face to the speaker so one ear will not receive more decibels than the other, preventing this way hearing damage.
I think varnish got added to my brain reading this
@@firebladeclements the guitar players usually places their MONO speaker on the back and at one side, and they move the head distracted watching to any direction instead of staring at the speaker. i did that until one day i played too loud for 3 minutes (using the fender runaway pedal that creates feedback even over clean chords) i played at 90º to the speaker, and suffered PAIN IN THE RIGHT EAR FOR A YEAR. the solution the prevent damage is that both ears should get same decibels, so you could realize if it's excessively loud. the real gold gilding is the best colour ever, because it is hypnotizing, i used 2kspraymax varnish as glue then applied the gold leaf, then a bit of spray over it as a partial protector it's not a thick crystalization.
the paper in most old drivers has to be reconed, so i wanted to make it durable. you know that subwoofer videos shows the movement back and forth of the drivers. when you lower the tension of electric guitar string you can get low notes. this is the case thanks to the vibrato bar. i observed whilst doinfd a slow gradual drop in pitch, (technique known as dive bomb) how the driver moved and sounded before and after the modification with the real gold painting. the before it was noisy, undetermined pitch, imprecise, too low. and after the modification it was like as if everything sounded one octave higher, as if i could easily transcribe, tell which is the pitch sounding, more recognizable, clearer.
unfortunately i didn't took room eq wizard measurements the before and after, you have to believe my words. i did it for aesthetics but the sound changed and i feel it changed for better. in a world where guitar players wants to find their unique sound at least i obtained mechanically a change of EQ, whilst the other only has the mass produced cele3stion speaker, as is.
you could give it a try, nail polish or lacker some speaker and see how it becomes more treble. i collected speakers, some has plastic instead of cloth. some are metallic. i guess a good option would be the metal sprays. i've seen stainless steel sprays, copper, chrome, brass. they are similar to graffiti painting cans, but it's sold for industrial purposes of plating.
on top of that my cabinet is not a box, but a frame. the speaker is holded by its magnet, it doesn't have front pannel. this way i got rid of the lows, so i can fit in the context of the mix of a band, without the sound guy having to apply eq which is always the case on electric guitar players, so with my frame like a oil painting i can play over recordings of song and not bothering the neighbors with noise that much because it lacks bass that otherwise it would go through the solids of the building (ciment of ceiling, walls and floors) causing vibration transmission, noise pollution.
now i am building a audiophile grade pair of speaker EQUILATERAL TRIANGULAR PRISM WITH THE SQUARES AS WALLS boxes in delrin with 18 drivers for multipurpose, for playing the realistic virtual instruments of my midi piano, but also to mix and mastering in the sweet spot, but also to watch movies and dance around the attick. the triangles as demostrated by ehrlund has the property of better resolution because the waves dissapears sooner because the corners neutralizes. this was demostrated by observing how the waves moves at the surface of a glass of water when a drop is thrown, then the time was shorter if the glass was triangle shaped. this is similar to the resolution of screens, the refreshing rate (Hz) because if the membrane of mic or the speaker cabinet, or the shape of the room was a triangle, the notes are shorter so has less contamination floating around from the previous sound so is more free to reproduce the next sound.
a less woobly speaker cloth is more precise.
How someone can’t know this is beyond me.
The one thing that might make this pointless is that a good designer will know and account for these issues in their crossover.
This issue with trying to account for all these problems in the crossover is that if you do that, you'll have an incredibly complex crossover and that can lead to other issues. All the good designers will say that it's fundamental to get the behavior of each driver as close to ideal as possible, resulting in much less work that the crossover needs to do. BTW, I agree that how someone really into hi-fi doesn't know these things -- if they're in hi-fi reviewing, it's that much worse -- is beyond me, too.
Thanks for the video. Of course parts matter. It affects the performance and therefore the sound. It’s one of the reasons I purchased Arendal 1723 towers. Their build quality is outstanding and well worth the price IMO. I love the sound of the beryllium tweeters in my Revel M126Be bookshelves. Paradigm’s high end use beryllium in the tweeter and midrange. I also like the look of quality finished cabinets beyond the impact on sound. I shop for equipment that sounds good, is well well built with quality parts and looks good.
Each material seems to add their own distinct "flavor" to the sound.
I just had a discussion with a former designer about that. While materials certainly affect the sound, skilled designers can actually use materials in such a way to trick listeners into thinking they're listening to the qualities of another. So, materials do make a difference, but I wouldn't fall into the trap of automatically assuming that something uses a certain material that it'll sound a certain way.
Thanks for a very good explanation of how different speaker cone materials influence the sound profile of speakers.
Glad it was helpful!
And likely there will be more on this topic.
I'm really interested to see responses to this. As I said, I think it's a "dumb" topic because it should be so obvious to anyone who's into hi-fi. But...
Great video and these things are all verifiable in the myriad of testing channels/outlets out there. That claim that it was purely marketing by Andrew Robinson made me drop off the subscription… really like so much about the gear he tests but that claim is so erroneous it’s unforgivable.
@@TheOriginalKnottian Hi, thanks for the feedback. I'd heard from a speaker designer he had said tat and I couldn't believe it. I had trouble finding where, but I Google searched and als found instances where people had said similar ridiculous things. Hard to believe in some cases.
I've always been told paper has the best texture and tonality.
There's no "the best" for anything. Materials have strengths and weaknesses -- paper is no different. Also, you'll rarely see paper used for high frequencies.
@SoundStage!Network
Hey Doug, great topic! HOWEVER, I think you needed to take this discussion just a bit further. ;)
That is, WHAT implications does this have when applied to Multi-Driver loudspeaker systems, such as a typical 3-way loudspeaker that uses a separate woofer/midbass, midrange, and tweeter driver, with a crossover filter dividing network applied to each driver that only allows each one to play well within its most linear passband, which therefore should avoid or mitigate any of their unique inherent nonlinearities?
Let's say that each respective individual driver (transducer) provides extremely smooth and linear frequency/amplitude response within its intended passband, and any potential anomalies such as resonant peaks, stored energy "ringing", and/or cone & diaphragm break-up modes are only present well outside each drivers' intended usable passband.
IS IT IMPORTANT for ALL of the Pistonic Diaphragms of these Individual Drivers in this 3-way loudspeaker to be made of the Same Material in order to be perfectly "Timbre-Matched" and/or to achieve the most accurate/natural/life-like sound???
i.e. ALL of the drivers have diaphragms that are either made of compressed wood pulp/fiber & binder, polypropylene, carbon-fiber, woven glass-fiber, aluminum/magnesium/titanium/beryllium, ceramic, silk/fabric/Aramid fiber, "textreme", or a unique multi-layered composite "sandwich" construction, etc?
IOW, IF NONE of the individual drivers in this 3-way loudspeaker exhibit any significant nonlinearities that you spoke of, does a "mismatched" combination of different diaphragm materials really matter, and will you actually discern this mismatch of materials as being detrimental to the natural and life-like reproduction or "accuracy" of the speaker???
For many years as a hobbyist/enthusiast I've designed and built my own DIY loudspeaker systems for home, home studio, and car audio using both passive crossover filter networks as well as "active" systems using multi-channel DSP and amplification.
As just one example, in my car audio system that uses a high-end multi-channel DSP for individual driver level adjustments, fully configurable crossovers, time alignment (digital delay), phase matching, and PEQ, I use the Purifi PTT6.5 aluminum cone drivers for the midbass, a ~4" Dynaudio Esotar2 430 poly cone driver for the midrange, and the beryllium dome BlieSMa T25B tweeters.
I'm a long time amateur drummer/percussionist and saxophonist with a home recording studio. And when I play my own recordings of my instruments that I am obviously intimately familiar with, this combination of what most would call "mismatched" drivers exhibits the most life-like and "accurate" sound I've ever experienced.
The same can be said for my DIY active studio monitors, which use doped paper cone Ciare HW251N 10" woofers, and a BMS 5CN162HE 5" polyester cone midrange with a concentric 1.5" titanium diaphragm compression driver...
Wildly different diaphragm materials, but incredibly dynamic, life-like, and "accurate" sound...at least to my ears.
So I'm very interested in your take on this, or a professional loudspeaker designers' input.
Thanks for the very long and detailed response. In fact, shortly after this video launched, I thought about doing one that speaks to at least part of what you're discussing: Does having the same diaphragm material throughout the drivers matter? Stayed tuned on my thoughts about what I've learned about that...
@dougschneider8243
Will do. Thanks
I will chime in here with our experience: First off, I don’t believe that just because you use the drivers outside of their breakup frequencies, they sound the same. There are other differences in the sound of the materials than simply how it resonates. It’s just often being put forward because that’s the most obvious one. So I don’t subscribe to the idea that if you use the driver below it’s break-up, the material doesn’t matter. It still matters. But… that’s table stakes. Not using a metal cone midrange at it’s resonance peak is not optimising, that’s simply proper use. Even properly used, materials still matter.
When matching drivers, what matters again is the actual performance, not the materials. Materials required to reach a certain sound character at 10 kHz is not necessarily the same materials required to match that character at 100 Hz. Getting this to match is part of the art of making a loudspeaker.
Related to this: The filters required to use a specific driver has it’s own effect on the overall sound. Using higher order crossovers to lower a driver’s resonance peak comes with it’s own set of compromises. Again, you won’t reach the same end result, because you basically end up with a completely different speaker.
I think the most important realisation when you design loudspeakers is to accept that there are no inherent truths. It’s all a balancing act, and more than anything the end result depends on your ability to balance all the various compromises that make up a loudspeaker. If you search for perfection, you will fail. Your job is to make each compromise have as little audible effect as possible, because a “no compromise” speaker does not exist.
/Otto, Dynaudio Academy
Would be handy to have a table with how the different speaker materials sound
do not think that would be helpful for consumers, the list is going to be too long for simple one type materials, then we have alloys, mixed materials and doping. we also have cone shapes an surrounds other moving mass that effects sound.
engineers probably have an idea about how it could be explained but we normals can not understand that.
I play my Boston Acoustics cs260" at 60 dB they hardly move.😊😊😊😊😊
😊😊😊
Thanks for clearing up the clear!
Glad we could help!
People knowing more than old engeneers,🖐
Doug, sure appreciate your no-nonsense chats! Obviously the world is a fickle place to be. How do you spell head? Bone.......
Glad you enjoyed it!
We're glad to hear that!
Nice one Doug.
Thanks for the feedback!
Awesome video! Put into words what we've thought about and 'know.' TY
We’re glad to hear that!
Excellent video from Vandersteen Audio regarding their pistonic drivers - made from carbon fibre and balsa wood!
ua-cam.com/video/T2pvz6RDBCE/v-deo.htmlsi=PLU4HAokno9Gp0th
Yes, developed many years ago. Interesting design.
Great video!
Glad you liked it.
Stiffness of driver give low sensitivity, papper give higher sensitivity. It is better to have several different speaker for different music
Hi. I'm having trouble agreeing with that. Imagine using rubber for cone or dome material. It's not stiff at all, it's very heavy, and, all other things being equal, would have low sensitivity.
Funnily enough paper gives a good stiffness to weight ratio
Regarding speaker sensitivity, there are many factors that determine speaker sensitivity, magnet and voice coil Configuration, Cone mass, Suspension mass and stiffness and more…😊
Very good video...
I am glad you like it!
Thanks 👍
Yes
Nailed it Doug.
Mark
If some, among those who "should have known better" claim that the material isn't so important, it's probably, because they know, that it is possible to make a pretty good membrane, of many different materials. Some membranes will demand more powerful magnets, lighter coils, will need more of special treatment.. will be more expensive, but it IS possible. So - material matters, but there are workarounds for the most ☝😀 I've seen very "exotic" drivers, with cones made out of ( as they claim ) extremely stiff and pricy stuff, BUT implementation of technique that would have made them properly, stiff - was, for some reason, neglected 🤷♂️
Speaking of materials - The new DALI headphones - have paper cone ! - THAT is NOT a good thing ( unless the company, deliberately, did it - to make the customers buy new 🎧 after a couple of years...) 😱
There's no best material. Paper can have variability with humidity. Metal can dissipate heat better, etc. They all have pro and cons but good speaker designs minimize the impact of their differences such as appropriate crossovers and tweeter/woofer combinations. It not the material that matters but how you use it and in the end they all can get the job done. The electromechanical design of the motor probably has a bigger impact than the driver material in the performance and that's beyond consumers understanding so marketing over exaggerates the material importance to persuade buyers.
I agree that there's no material that's best across the board for every situation, but I think designers have determined that there are certain ones that are better and they do tend to group around them.
@@dougschneider8243 I have seen just about everything used. Aluminum, titanium, magnesium, paper, Polypropylene, nylon, fiberglass, carbon fiber, Kevlar just off the top of my head. Mostly now are a composite of several materials. Cost point, availability, manufacturability are the reason for choosing. A more expensive speaker may use a more expensive material because of the perceived marketing but does not make it better. Mostly about differentiate your product from everyone else and marketing. With such a saturated market gimmicks are in abundance
@@dwaynepiper3261 What you're saying is true -- and, certainly, companies can use materials as gimmicks. And the most expensive materials aren't necessarily better just because they're more expensive. However, many of the materials used do have benefit -- and like you say, composites often get used now -- which was really the point of this video.
I try to find info about the motor system, but is usually not explained well on many speakers. Aside from basic info like improved excursion or used bigger magnet or voice coil.
Doug, I can fix/remove the slap back echo of your room (or tell you which plugin to use to do it - it's not difficult) and also give you a more "close mic'd" radio DJ vocal sound. Shoot me an email if you're interested.
Hi Mark. Good to hear from you. We debate sometimes on whether we should take the room out more. Have the plug-ins. As an audiophile, I don't mind hearing the microphone not really touched. But I may put it closer and experiment. Thanks.
Driver materials matter in regard to stiffness to mass ratio and resonant or break-up modes. But you do not hear differences due to metal cones vs paper cones. The physical characteristics are DIFFERENT for every driver that has a different diameter size, surround, motor, spider, shape and so on. So you do not HEAR different types of materials , you hear the specific characteristics of the total driver design, which is the frequency response, phase, group delay and THD parameters.
Hi, I can't agree 100% with you. I agree with the part about the total performance of the driver, but if you're using a cone or dome with a nasty breakup mode - that's why I used tweeters for an example -- that resonance that's a result of the cone or dome is going to be heard in some fashion. Maybe it's a massive peak or maybe there are resonances spread across a wide range of frequencies -- the point is, those behaviors will contribute to what you hear.
@ Well, I have been in this industry for 25 years and I am certain about how loudspeakers work. The break-up modes you refer to come out as THD or harmonics that are not present in the original signal. So according to your response, we agree. But people do not hear materials, you hear the physical characteristics of that material combined with the total system in combination with it. You are hearing modulations of air not a cone made of paper vs fiberglass vs aluminum.
@@johnjackson7295 I agree and the design will be adjusted to compensate for the weaknesses of the specific material choice.
@@johnjackson7295 I would agree with what you're saying. Where we differ, I think, is the wording. What you're saying is that we're hearing the result of materials and other design choices. Agree?
@@dwaynepiper3261Yes, but… those compensations also has an effect on performance. It’s not possible to design a paper and an alu cone driver to perform identical. ANY change in a driver, whether it’s a change in material, geometry, or assembly process, has an effect on sound. Even the glue will affect the sound, audibly and measurably.
The important bit is to understand that it’s not like all paper drivers sound one way and all alu drivers sound another way. In that sense, you don’t hear the material, you hear the result of the material. But not all results are possible with all materials, and for that reason, the material matters. And I do believe it is possible to exclude certain materials if you know which result you are after. However, just because you chose the right materials, you are not guaranteed the right result.
/Otto, Dynaudio Academy