Importance of type of drivers?.

[Cortes]

A question to the many knowledgeable people on the obscure topic of speaker construction.

I've seen there is a wide variety in driver materials, for instance most of the pro brands (Genelec, Neumann, Amphion) use metallic drivers (aluminium mainly, and some like Focal beryllium). Other professional brands such as Adam use those AMT. Highly regarded audiophile brands, like Sonus Faber and others, use soft drivers make of silk polyester film, wood?, etc. I have the impression that metallic ones are that, more metallic sound, and soft ones are more warm, forgiving, but is this true?.

Is there any consensus on the relevance of the type of driver in the quality of the speakers?. Listening fatigue is associated to some type of drivers?.

Some brands have been very successful with cheap drivers (old Proacs responses, or the new Buchards). Other brands, like Dynaudio, highlight a lot in their websites that they use their own great drirvers.

Really, I don't know what information to extract from the type of driver.

 

[Eirikur]

While we're at it: how about ceramic (coated) drivers like Accuton provides, or the much cheaper SB Acoustics? Both brands sport woofers, squawkers and tweeters - no idea which type would benefit most

 

[Twitch54]

my ears are my judge, the better designed and built speakers vary(as you stated) across the board. So long as the design and goal meet and my ears are happy I don't honestly worry much about it.

 

[Another Bob]

Speaker drivers, like just about everything else, involve compromises. The designer must prioritize multiple, and often conflicting, parameters, including frequency response, distortion, dispersion, power handling, cost, and consumer expectations. Whether those compromises are successful (to you) depend largely on how well your priorities align with the designer's. But even great drivers won’t result in a great, or even good, speaker if the crossover and cabinet design are not of high quality.

Trying to pick a good speaker based (for example) on the cone material of its drivers is a pointless exercise. Instead, pay attention to sources of thorough measurements (not just on-axis frequency response), and of course, listen to them with your own ears.

 

[steve59]

Good topic, I’ve been upgrading my speakers for 5 years now and I’m back to mostly poly with a Be tweeter because after a few months the all metal drivers with all the detail that comes with them quit sounding musical. I have Vienna acoustics and meridians now after using the salon 1 and 2 for a year each, impressive until they aren’t. Dynaudio is also on my short list.

 

[RayDunzl]

Mylar film here, coated with vapor deposited metal oxide.

 

[MRC01]

Decades ago, a friend and I built a pair of conventional dynamic speakers. One thing we learned was that sound quality depends on the cabinet more than the drivers. A well built, solid cabinet of the correct volume to match the drivers will sound very good, even if the drivers are mediocre. A crappy cabinet will sound bad even with the best drivers. Of course, setting the crossovers properly is also very important. If you get that wrong it will sound bad no matter how good the drivers are.
The point is: it is the engineering of the speaker as a system of interacting parts that makes it sound good or bad. The drivers are part of that, but only one part, and not the most important part.

 

[RayDunzl]

Mylar film here, coated with vapor deposited metal oxide.

... and no cabinet

 

[MRC01]

Mylar film here, coated with vapor deposited metal oxide. ... and no cabinet

My favorite speakers don't have cabinets either which is why I specified "conventional dynamic" speakers.

 

[pozz]

I think it would be interesting to discuss what the differences are with a systems/interdependence perspective in mind. The Revel drivers have a very distinct shape, for example.

Every time I've looked into the topic there were too many pieces involved to get any real perspective apart from what the FR and impedance measurements show. Do we have any members that design drivers specifically?

 

[Severian]

This seems like an area that is poorly understood and ripe for experimentation. It appears widely accepted that there are audible differences between different driver designs and materials - even if people surely disagree about the influence of other variables on those perceived differences - but how can they be characterized objectively? My guess is that it is all theoretically captured by FR, but when faced with plots of two well-designed, well-measuring speakers with similar driver configurations but differing materials, the differences would be nearly impossible to spot by eye even if you could hear subtle differences.

A related discussion is the concept of applying EQ to headphones. Sure you can get the FR in the ballpark of a preferred curve, but two headphones are never going to sound precisely the same.

 

[SIY]

Mylar film here, coated with vapor deposited metal oxide.

ITO?

 

[RayDunzl]

ITO?

ITO?

Let's see:

No it's not the sixth most common Japanese surname, so. maybe something else...

Ah-ha!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium_tin_oxide

Post #8 here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-and-exotics/324067-recoating-martin-logan-panels.html



My left 22 year old 48x15 inch sputtered Indium Tin Oxide on 12 micron Mylar 180 to 20kHz panel:

You can see the "strips" of ITO between the panel spars.

 

[Killingbeans]

I don't know much about drivers/transducers, but I'd love to learn more, an so I'm gonna give my two cents:

I have the impression that metallic ones are that, more metallic sound, and soft ones are more warm, forgiving, but is this true?

I think it falls in the same category as saying that digital sounds "edgy" while analogue sounds "round". It makes sense from an emotional point of view, but has no real descriptive value. Hard cones give less distortion, but introduce problematic resonance modes that must to be compensated for. Soft cone drivers are just easier to work with, and seen in that light, the 'forgiving' part is true. It's all about compromises to reach a desired specification. Not "cold" vs. "warm"

This seems like an area that is poorly understood and ripe for experimentation. It appears widely accepted that there are audible differences between different driver designs and materials - even if people surely disagree about the influence of other variables on those perceived differences - but how can they be characterized objectively?

Directivity, spectral decay, impedance responce and distortion analysis (to name a few?). The differences become obvious when we move beyond a simple on axis FR?

 

[pozz]

I think it falls in the same category as saying that digital sounds "edgy" while analogue sounds "round". It makes sense from an emotional point of view, but has no real descriptive value. Hard cones give less distortion, but introduce problematic resonance modes that must to be compensated for. Soft cone drivers are just easier to work with, and seen in that light, the 'forgiving' part is true. It's all about compromises to reach a desired specification. Not "cold" vs. "warm"

Comes down to the fact that it's hard to say very much about drivers intuitively. At least from where I'm sitting.

 

[IndividualWay7]

Ignoring cons & pro's, From my experince Planar, electrostatic and in IEM's Balanced armtures seem to win on detail & clarity over dynamic drivers. I've never heard a dynamic headphone that can match my ER4SR in those areas. Also i find it funny that you can get planar woofers for planar loudspeakers for a 2.1 set up for more bass than a 2.0 set up can do.

 

[q3cpma]

I think it falls in the same category as saying that digital sounds "edgy" while analogue sounds "round". It makes sense from an emotional point of view, but has no real descriptive value. Hard cones give less distortion, but introduce problematic resonance modes that must to be compensated for. Soft cone drivers are just easier to work with, and seen in that light, the 'forgiving' part is true. It's all about compromises to reach a desired specification. Not "cold" vs. "warm"
Directivity, spectral decay, impedance responce and distortion analysis (to name a few?). The differences become obvious when we move beyond a simple on axis FR?

Basically this. One might add that cone breakup behaviour really shows the difference between those, and that material itself is less important than the doping formula; as seen with state of the art designs like Purifi still using simple paper with success.

I personally think that the metal tweeter+fabric dome midrange+paper/cardboard/other natural fibre woofer is one of the best combinations, as far as minimizing drawbacks goes.

Does anyone know what Genelec's Ones' midrange is made off? Looks like rubber/plastic in the photos.

 

[Cortes]

Basically this. One might add that cone breakup behaviour really shows the difference between those, and that material itself is less important than the doping formula; as seen with state of the art designs like Purifi still using simple paper with success.

I personally think that the metal tweeter+fabric dome midrange+paper/cardboard/other natural fibre woofer is one of the best combinations, as far as minimizing drawbacks goes.

Does anyone know what Genelec's Ones' midrange is made off? Looks like rubber/plastic in the photos.

I have some 8331s, but I've not idea of the material. I don't dare touch it!. If you are interested I can tak a very close picture tomorrow and upload here.

 

[NTomokawa]

Tangential question: "Common wisdom" has it that alu-dome tweeters sound "brighter" and "harsher" than silk-dome ones.

How true is this?

 

[steve59]

Not being educated in the art of speaker manufacturing I had hoped the move to metals from paper then plastics was more than marketing, but I found components became more important to getting the newer, costlier, titanium and beryllium drivers to sing.