Speaker Cone - Poly vs Paper

[cram]

Which would you rate better sound quality?

If it is Poly that sound better, do you rate the difference in price between poly cone drivers and paper cone drivers to be equitable in the difference in sound quality ?

 

[GordonW]

Poly cones (as in polyPROPYLENE) have FAR more internal damping than paper cones.

In most cases, IME, poly makes for OK subwoofers... but there's too much damping for any sort of midrange detail, in most cases.

In almost every case, when there was a choice of a poly cone or paper cone in a small midbass from a manufacturer, I pretty much always preferred the paper cone, in that it didn't seem to 'smother' the sound. You got all the leading edge information with the paper cone, while things were "rounded off" on leading edges on the poly cone.

This is the main reason I never really liked Dynaudio speakers one bit. I always wished they'd finally FIX their poly cone material composition. I've heard some plastic cone speakers that did pretty well (though those were usually not pure poly- some sort of mixture with graphite matrix, or other blends with other plastics), but the primitive poly material that Dynaudio used was always too slow, and required WAY too much power for good transient response...

Now, paper cones have their disadvantages... they can "ring" sometimes, and have more prominent breakup modes. However, paper cones do NOT usually absorb transients... and they can usually be "tamed" by coatings or additional elements (kevlar, graphite, cloth fibers, etc) added into the pulp mixture. It's easier to tame something that's not supposed to be there, than try to put back something that has been lost forever in the first place...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[cram]

Would you say this for new drivers as well? Reason for my asking is if I were to build my set of speakers cabinets the same drivers in with paper cone would be as good if not better than the polypropylene?

 

[Nat]

I think you are hoping for a single universal answer to a question the answer to which is very largely application dependent. I think Gordon is correct about the downside of excessive damping, but its also true that some very fine detailed speakers use poly cones -- Spendors, Rodgers, etc. And its always possible to produce a crappy speaker, regardless of material. Paper cones tend to be more resonant but also more dynamic, but the paper composition can have very large effects on the sound, and presumably the same is true of polypropylene cones.
Speaker design is an art, not a matter of specs, and so if you are interested, pay attention to designs you like, and try things out, without committing yourself totally.

 

[SoCal Sam]

Straight paper tends to be bright. Treated paper has better damping. Poly is very smooth and a bit sharper sounding. IMO, IMO!!

 

[marc mc]

Speaker design is an art, not a matter of specs, and so if you are interested, pay attention to designs you like, and try things out, without committing yourself totally.

How come you can say that and I can't?

As far as speaker cone materials I have several good examples of both. It could be me but I find that my best soundstage (huge depth) speakers use poly. But I do favor paper for low level detail and transient speed.

My favorite speaker designer used poly from the get go and so did the vast majority of speaker designs that came out of the NRC up here. With low efficency, heavy braced and high damped designs being the norm.

marc mc

 

[MoreBeer]

Pros and cons I guess....six of one and a half dozen of the other. It would seem to me that poly cones would be more responsive although I'm far from an expert.

If its any help, I have Watkins paper cone woofers in my Q2's and synthetic cones in the Q3's. (They call them vinyl cones). I think the low end is brighter, stronger with more attack on the synthetics and I prefer it. The older paper cone woofers seem a bit dull and muddy in comparison. Although this could also attribute slightly to age.

 

[theebadone]

Neither, I would take kevlar, like b&w uses. but Altec never used kevlar, so I'll vote for paper. :scratch2:

 

[gearhound]

While certainly not perfect, it's hard not to like, lightweight paper cone drivers.


Steve

 

[Nat]

Marcmc -- why can't you say it?

 

[hardrock94]

I,just rebuilt a set of speakers that had poly woofers,replaced them with paper.much better sound.

 

[Tom Brennan]

I've heard good and bad speakers using both plastic or paper cones. Generalizations are difficult, specific cases are useful.

 

[TerryO]

When Poly first came out it, like any newer application, perhaps wasn't fully understood and the results were often less than what had been desired. OTOH, paper has been around forever and the technology is not only mature, but well understood. Different formulations of paper can be used reliably and predictably to achieve the properties consistant with the design goals.
In many respects, and I expect that there are those who may disagree, paper may be nearly the perfect material for cone construction.
I prefer it myself in just about any application from cheap speeks to SOTA

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[dnewma04]

I've found that poly cones make speaker design easier to get good results. My favorite speakers i've heard use paper coned woofers with an altec profile but aren't Altecs.

 

[vegabass25]

They have been using paper for ever and it seems to work well. Some of the best sounding speakers use paper (pulp?) woofers.

 

[rifftrax]

I vote bamboo. There. Stiffer than poly and paper and lighter than poly and sometimes paper.

 

[marc mc]

Marcmc -- why can't you say it?

Your kidding right.

marc mc

 

[marc mc]

but Altec never used kevlar,

Are you sure. I think they used it for a while in the 80's.

marc mc

 

[Tom Brennan]

I vote bamboo. There. Stiffer than poly and paper and lighter than poly and sometimes paper.

I had some of those bamboo Tang Band fullrangers for a short time, they were OK.

 

[theebadone]

I dont know for sure, but i will know by tomorrow. :yes: