Understanding subwoofers

[dualazmak]

I am asking, has the speaker industry ever made 100% material specific speakers (100% only made with Titanium drivers vs Aluminum etc)....
....

I am not sure whether properly responding to your inquiry or not, but just let me share this information,,,

YAMAHA's present flagship speaker NS-5000 has common ZYLON diaphragms for its tweeter (JA-05K6), midrange (JA-08B5) and woofer (JA-3132):
https://jp.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/features.html#product-tabs
https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/index.html

We have dedicated thread on it entitled "Yamaha NS-5000".

At least I myself subjectively like, however, rather vintage YAMAHA NS-1000 (not NS-1000M) especially its "world heritage (I believe so!)" 8.8-cm vapor-deposited 100%-pure Beryllium dome midrange (JA-0801) better than NS-5000's ZYLON midrange, as shared here, here(my actual audition on NS-5000).

 

[LSPhil]

I am not sure whether properly responding to your inquiry or not, but just let me share this information,,,

YAMAHA's present flagship speaker NS-5000 has common ZYLON diaphragms for its tweeter (JA-05K6), midrange (JA-08B5) and woofer (JA-3132):
https://jp.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/features.html#product-tabs
https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/index.html

We have dedicated thread on it entitled "Yamaha NS-5000".

At least I myself subjectively like, however, rather vintage YAMAHA NS-1000 (not NS-1000M) especially its "world heritage (I believe so!)" 8.8-cm vapor-deposited 100%-pure Beryllium dome midrange (JA-0801) better than NS-5000's ZYLON midrange, as shared here, here(my actual audition on NS-5000).

Look at that — even the colleague who isn’t exactly my biggest fan just helped prove my point: diaphragm material does matter! Thanks for backing me up, buddy — didn’t see that coming!

 

[sigbergaudio]

The two midrange drivers I compared were the SB12MNRX25-4 (with a paper cone) and the SB12CAC25-4 (with a ceramic-aluminum cone). Both were acoustically matched for my system. The listening impressions were absolutely different: the CAC sounded fast, bright, and highly detailed, whereas the paper cone was more restrained and didn’t project forward like the CAC.
With subwoofers it’s harder to isolate differences because of large enclosures and room placement effects.

These two are quite different drivers, there's no way to know if the differences you heard was due to inherent qualities or sound signatures of the materials. Very likely not.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Look at that — even the colleague who isn’t exactly my biggest fan just helped prove my point: diaphragm material does matter! Thanks for backing me up, buddy — didn’t see that coming!

Any diagphragm and it's properties (due to choice of material, coating, thickness, stiffness) will of course matter.

But does the material itself have inherent sonic qualities?
Can we listen to a speaker, hear some quality in the treble and say "Oh, it's because it is an aluminium dome"?
And is one material inherently better than another?

I don't think this is the case.

 

[LSPhil]

These two are quite different drivers, there's no way to know if the differences you heard was due to inherent qualities or sound signatures of the materials. Very likely not.

I’ve had both drivers in my hands, just like you, and I can say with 100% certainty that when implemented acoustically in the same existing system, I experienced absolutely different performance and presentation.
In your opinion, what mechanical aspects would be different between them? How exactly would they differ, if not through the diaphragm material?

 

[LSPhil]

Any diagphragm and it's properties (due to choice of material, coating, thickness, stiffness) will of course matter.

But does the material itself have inherent sonic qualities?
Can we listen to a speaker, hear some quality in the treble and say "Oh, it's because it is an aluminium dome"?
And is one material inherently better than another?

I don't think this is the case.

I respect your view, and I really don’t have the energy to keep debating this with people who have already made up their minds. I’ve shared my experience, and for me, diaphragm material does make a difference that I can hear — whether or not it fits into someone’s theory. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I’ve had both drivers in my hands, just like you, and I can say with 100% certainty that when implemented acoustically in the same existing system, I experienced absolutely different performance and presentation.
In your opinion, what mechanical aspects would be different between them? How exactly would they differ, if not through the diaphragm material?

We can start with the obvious, the manufacturer measurements show drivers that measure quite differently, way more so than can be attributed just to driver material. This will of course be very audible.

Not to mention more than twice the xmax in the CAC that you liked the best, and that is also the driver that have the most powerful motor. So it will behave in a more linear fashion at higher volumes and thus probably sound the way you described. Beyond that there are differences in cone weight, QMS/QES and just about all the thiele small parameters really.

 

[LSPhil]

Any diagphragm and it's properties (due to choice of material, coating, thickness, stiffness) will of course matter.

But does the material itself have inherent sonic qualities?
Can we listen to a speaker, hear some quality in the treble and say "Oh, it's because it is an aluminium dome"?
And is one material inherently better than another?

I don't think this is the case.

Modell	Membranmaterial	Fs (Hz)	Qts	Vas (l)	Mms (g)	BL (Tm)	SPL (dB)	Bemerkungen
SEAS P11RC-H0833	Papier (gehärtet)	46	0.38	6.5	6.5	5.2	86.5	Klassischer Papier-Sound
SEAS ER11R-H0839	Aluminium (Elliptical)	62	0.31	3.2	4.5	6.1	87.5	Steifere Membran, höhere Fs
SEAS M11NRX-H0832	Magnesium	55	0.33	4.8	5.2	5.8	87.0	Sehr steif, schneller Transient
SEAS W11N-MA001	Metall-Papier-Hybrid	50	0.36	5.2	6.0	5.5	86.0	Kompromiss aus Dämpfung & Steifheit
SEAS U11N-M001	Kunststoff (Polypropylen)	48	0.40	7.0	7.2	4.9	85.5	Weicherer Sound, höhere Qts

 

[sigbergaudio]

I respect your view, and I really don’t have the energy to keep debating this with people who have already made up their minds. I’ve shared my experience, and for me, diaphragm material does make a difference that I can hear — whether or not it fits into someone’s theory. Let’s leave it at that.

I'm not debating whether you heard the differences, I'm asking if it is really true that the material was the reason for the differences.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Modell	Membranmaterial	Fs (Hz)	Qts	Vas (l)	Mms (g)	BL (Tm)	SPL (dB)	Bemerkungen
SEAS P11RC-H0833	Papier (gehärtet)	46	0.38	6.5	6.5	5.2	86.5	Klassischer Papier-Sound
SEAS ER11R-H0839	Aluminium (Elliptical)	62	0.31	3.2	4.5	6.1	87.5	Steifere Membran, höhere Fs
SEAS M11NRX-H0832	Magnesium	55	0.33	4.8	5.2	5.8	87.0	Sehr steif, schneller Transient
SEAS W11N-MA001	Metall-Papier-Hybrid	50	0.36	5.2	6.0	5.5	86.0	Kompromiss aus Dämpfung & Steifheit
SEAS U11N-M001	Kunststoff (Polypropylen)	48	0.40	7.0	7.2	4.9	85.5	Weicherer Sound, höhere Qts

This table only shows that Seas creates drivers with different materials. What exactly is your claim?

 

[LSPhil]

View attachment 458713
View attachment 458715


We can start with the obvious, the manufacturer measurements show drivers that measure quite differently, way more so than can be attributed just to driver material. This will of course be very audible.

Not to mention more than twice the xmax in the CAC that you liked the best, and that is also the driver that have the most powerful motor. So it will behave in a more linear fashion at higher volumes and thus probably sound the way you described. Beyond that there are differences in cone weight, QMS/QES and just about all the thiele small parameters really.

My measurements are identical to the manufacturer’s measurements, and they clearly demonstrate that the diaphragm structure and its behavior play a significant role in acoustics. I used these drivers in the range of 500 Hz to 3 kHz — exactly the range where they can operate optimally. Electrically, they were filtered to match an acoustic Butterworth 7th-order filter.
Please tell me: what exactly do you not understand in what I’ve written?

 

[LSPhil]

This table only shows that Seas creates drivers with different materials. What exactly is your claim?

According to the TSP parameters, these drivers are very similar. So the question is: what do these engineers want to achieve by producing so many different drivers with different cone materials? Just to confuse people? Maybe grab a Snickers, take a bite, and focus on drawing a proper conclusion.

 

[sigbergaudio]

@LSPhil This started out with a claim that subwoofer drivers can be more or less musical due to the cone material.

Now we are discussing two different drivers, where we can see with the naked eye that the frequency response is different. No one will debate whether they sound the same, clearly they do not.


With regards to Seas and their drivers with different materials; Different materials (and how these materials are treated) will give the cone different properties, that yes, will affect the sound. But it is the difference in properties that affect how they sound, not some inherent quality in the material itself. There's not some distinct sound that can be idenitifed from all aluminum drivers or all paper drivers. But it is not clear to me if that is what you are claiming or not.

If all you are claiming that the different cone materials (properties) will affect the sound, then I think no one disagrees with you on that. But the difference is probably of a more objective character than "musical".

 

[SIY]

This started out with a claim that subwoofer drivers can be more or less musical due to the cone material.

Which, of course, he has refused to address. "But it works for midranges, so it has to be the same for woofers" is the essence of the evidence-free argument.

Now we are discussing two different drivers, where we can see with the naked eye that the frequency response is different.

And has steadfastly refused to understand the confounders.

 

[LSPhil]

Maybe no one disagrees, but for me it’s enough that the diaphragm manufacturer in Krefeld (Dr. Kurt Müller) supports my view. Honestly, it’s a pity to waste more of my time on this — I’d rather enjoy a good German beer.

But just between us: if you are a niche manufacturer of expensive loudspeakers, it’s not really in your interest to reveal your knowledge on this forum, is it? I’m genuinely curious — which cheaper bass drivers without copper rings are you using? I think my statement about being cautious with unknown niche manufacturers has kind of proven itself in your case.

 

[LSPhil]

Which, of course, he has refused to address. "But it works for midranges, so it has to be the same for woofers" is the essence of the evidence-free argument.

And has steadfastly refused to understand the confounders.

Because they have different cone materials, of course the amplitude responses must be different — that’s exactly the proof!

 

[SIY]

Because they have different cone materials, of course the amplitude responses must be different — that’s exactly the proof!

I'm just going to label your stock responses as 1 and 2. 1: citing midranges, 2: not understanding confounders. I think this may be both 1 and 2 in a single sentence.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Maybe no one disagrees, but for me it’s enough that the diaphragm manufacturer in Krefeld (Dr. Kurt Müller) supports my view. Honestly, it’s a pity to waste more of my time on this — I’d rather enjoy a good German beer.

Do you have a reference or quote from Dr Kurt Müller?

You are free to decide how you spend your time of course, but this is how we all learn, by discussing and being open to new information. A beer can be had at the same time!

But just between us: if you are a niche manufacturer of expensive loudspeakers, it’s not really in your interest to reveal your knowledge on this forum, is it?

I feel like that is what I am doing most of the time on this forum, so yes, that is indeed in my interest.

I’m genuinely curious — which cheaper bass drivers without copper rings are you using?

I am not using any cheap bass drivers.

I think my statement about being cautious with unknown niche manufacturers has kind of proven itself in your case.

I don't understand what you are implying here, can you please elaborate?

 

[LSPhil]

I'm just going to label your stock responses as 1 and 2. 1: citing midranges, 2: not understanding confounders. I think this may be both 1 and 2 in a single sentence.

Jesus Mary, maybe you should start drinking German beer — it might help. It contains many elements that are valuable for the brain.

 

[LSPhil]