Different cone materials, better sound?

[Tirefryr 1,742]

Okay, I've found myself lately to be more keen on the particular sound of paper cone drivers. I am wondering if anyone else feels this way or differently. Is it perhaps just the better driver or application, or does cone material in woofers/midbass/midrange have a noticable affect on the sound? It's clearly evident in a lot of tweeters between metal/soft domes or otherwise, but how do people feel on the woofer side? I'd appreciate any knowledgeable on the subject who could give some insights on which materials may have better sonic characteristics.

[mrray13 30]

at lower volumes, i don't think i could tell the difference. at the upper limits, however, some subs (eclipse alum) have a metallic "ding" type sound to them....hard to explain, but it's a noticeable sound.

don't really have a preference...maybe poly cones cuz i've always had good luck with them. a nice compromise between paper/paper mixs and metal..

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :peace:

[Chevy350TPI 12]

Talk to Laine about it ... I questioned the choice of certain cone materials and he explained it quite well.

If I took the uberwoofer and changed the current cone out for a poly or paper or titanium cone with the same Mms and all, I don't think I'd notice the difference. If the rest of the driver is designed properly, cone material shouldn't be a huge factor ... I'm not 100% sure, so don't listen to me. I think it's a bigger factor with midranges than subs. As long as it's stiff enough I guess.

Could take to Mike (SoundSplinter) about it too ... since I'm sure he had his reasoning behind choosing the cone he did.

EDIT ~ Just found this.

We use paper, treated paper, paper/Kevlar blends, paper/carbon fiber blends, poly, carbon fiber/aluminum laminates, and a few other types as well.  Each cone has it's advantages and disadvantages, but from an OEM standpoint, the main reason for different subwoofer cones is cosmetics and marketing. 

Poly is great because of the natural resistance to water, it's good damping, and decent stiffness.

Treated paper and paper blends are also good - good resistance to water (from the front), great damping, very stiff.

Other types can work really well too, as long as the designer keeps all other aspects of the driver in consideration (including manufacturability, such as ability to attach surrounds and formers to the cone/diaphragm).

Dan Wiggins

Adire Audio

- Steve

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

from what I understand, paper is the best for keeping true to natural sound,

other cone materials can lend to better cooling, faster more accurate reproduction of sound,

some are better for structural integrity at great loads, but which is the best for what??? not sure here, Mike from SS or Randy from PB cold help

[SoundSplinter 1]

In terms of our subwoofers, we went with aluminum cones for a couple reasons. First of all, they are stiff and strong, allowing for proper movement as well as a relative amount of wear and tear. Secondly, we use an adaptor on the bottom of our aluminum cone to connect it directly to the voicecoil. In so doing, the cone can double as a giant heatsink for the motor of the woofer whereas a paper cone would not. Finally, the cosmetics fit the bill for our tastes B)

As has been stated, and I agree, cone material in a subwoofer doesn't make a huge difference when you have a well designed driver. It should be stiff and lightweight, and stand up to the heat, cold, and moisture that car speakers face daily. Any material that can satisfy those requirements should do well as a woofer cone.