Team-BHP - Pressed paper cone vs non-pressed paper cone

Quote:

Originally Posted by navin (Post 635479)

all paper cones are pressed. in fact to make paper out of pulp, pulp has to be pressed.

no, i think there are non pressed cones too. DLS makes non-pressed cone speakers and woofers. the thing is i am getting a pair of DLS compos, i have a choicce between R6 compos which are made of non-pressed paper cone with carbon reinforcement and the other is pressed paper cone. therefore i want to know the difference in SQ and SPL between them and how durable would the non-pressed cone would be. i think many other brands make non-pressed cones for woofers and speakers.

Yes, all cones must be pressed to get the (truncated) conical shape at least.

I think from the listeners' p-o-v, non-pressed cones would present a larger surface area to push air - effectively making the sound that much louder (or conversely making the driver more sensitive). This is inexact science - I don't think it is possible to derive a mathematical relationship beyond the obvious. DLS cones in LBM's photos look like that.

Tonal behavior might also be influenced, but that may be due to the
fact that the non-pressed paper may be stiffer due to chemical treatment (not that pressed paper cannot have the same). Carbon fiber inlay would also be towards the same, of course one does not expect CF to be a part of the pressed paper cones since it would not take kindly to bonding in the conventional paper process.

From the manufacturer's p-o-v, pressed (conventional) paper cones would have higher productivity and lesser quality issues (mass production).

I suspect my answer is more engineering than tonal behavior at the ear:p. Navin-ji does a better job of explaining the nuances.

@sanchits: the non-pressed cones (the radiating area) would not be suspect in terms of durability. The surround would be suspect, especially if it is untreated / unsuitable foam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kkr2k2 (Post 636237)

ooops, i read the warning thread regarding the ICE section...didnt knew its aplicable for all discussions in ICE section.

What? Where? There are warnings about my postings? I know my knowledge is dated and the only thing I am consistent at are typos but warnings? I knew it would happen. It was only a matter of time. :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAlte (Post 637519)

DLS cones in LBM's photos look like that.
From the manufacturer's p-o-v, pressed (conventional) paper cones would have higher productivity and lesser quality issues (mass production).

I suspect my answer is more engineering than tonal behavior at the ear:p. Navin-ji does a better job of explaining the nuances.

@sanchits: the non-pressed cones (the radiating area) would not be suspect in terms of durability..

I suspect the finish of the DLS speaker is done by adding fibers of other materials to the doping plastic used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAlte (Post 637519)

well, i'm not an expert like navin and you. my two cents however for the hero:

paper cones are very basic. carbon fiber, kevlar, glass fiber etc are more expensive, and good, light, stiff cone material.

BOSE however uses paper cones in their drivers. people say they are very cheap to make and buyers of bose do not know this.

conclusion: let not paper/carbon fibre be the basis to decide your speakers. let your ears be. (now i am not saying that bose is good or bad in any way. personally, i only think they've cracked the 'naturalness' of sound well, whatever they've done for that.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by montyguru (Post 638130)

paper cones are very basic. carbon fiber, kevlar, glass fiber etc are more expensive, and good, light, stiff cone material.

BOSE however uses paper cones in their drivers. people say they are very cheap to make and buyers of bose do not know this.

conclusion: let not paper/carbon fibre be the basis to decide your speakers. let your ears be. (now i am not saying that bose is good or bad in any way. personally, i only think they've cracked the 'naturalness' of sound well, whatever they've done for that.)

Bose is a home product. A lot of home audio manufacturers use paper cones, some swear by them. In the home environment, paper is less prone to abuse from the environment, compared to car.

Paper cones are cheaper than exotic cones. But that is not the only grouse that people have with Bose. So Bose is a wrong example in this case.

I am really surprised that you feel Bose has cracked 'naturalness' or whatever that means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by montyguru (Post 638130)

paper cones are very basic. carbon fiber, kevlar, glass fiber etc are more expensive, and good, light, stiff cone material.

conclusion: let not paper/carbon fibre be the basis to decide your speakers. let your ears be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble (Post 638142)

Bose is a home product..Paper cones are cheaper than exotic cones...

doped paper in my view can be as good as the metals (Aluminum etc..), Carbon fiber, Kevlar, Glass fiber or other composites. Also in many cases doped paper cones have an easier roll off and hence can be amted to shallower crossover slopes. a couple of examples of good paper cone midwoofers, more expensive that many kevlar/carbon cones (from the same company).
PL 5½″ Midwoofer Peerless v-line Datasheet
Revelator 6½″ Midwoofer ScanSpeak Datasheet

That said using sophisticated surround materials backed with FEA there are tried and tested methods of damping the resonances of kevlar/carbon/metla cones. Just ask Ted Jordan, he's being doing this for 30+ years.
SoundStage! Frankfurt High-End '99 - Speakers ; the review quotes
"My connection is that I built a pair of speakers using the original Jordan-Watts modules way back in 1972, and I still remember the unadulterated pleasure I got from them -- and some years later again when I built another pair.
Aluminum cones have come quite a way since then, and all the ALR-Jordan speakers I have heard have all been excellent values for the money. They are definitely worth a listen"

B&T, Bose does OEM for the car.