I remember a couple of distinct threads on some other forums about this, which if I recall correctly, came down to cones generally being lower in distortion, and yet, to some folks, compression drivers sounding better.
What are you guys thoughts on this?
MBB
Well, I'll stick with my 2441/2311's or maybe with 2397's. I haven't had a better combination, IMHO.
Hmm that's a tuff one. One thing I can say is I have heard and liked both. I run all cone through the midrange at home. Never tried the large format compression drivers. Have heard them and 2441's on salad bowls were terrific. The Hartsfield replicas sounded just fine too. Without a side by side it's hard to say.
Rob
Naw, the opposite, in my case. It's all subjective, of course, even the terminology to describe it, but I've always preferred cone mids as being "warmer" and smoother.
It may be just a prejudice, and lack of expertise to EQ them properly in a system, but ever since working with the highly prized 375's and some 85's in old Olympus, they are just pure beamy "HONK" to me. Fine in theaters for the requisite SPL, they don't seem compatible with my living spaces.
Exception: 4425/30/35. The clever two-stage mid/high crossover and Biradial horns seem to mitigate the shortcomings nicely, though they remain somewhat "dry" in comparison to 4410/12, for example, at moderate levels.
An early project, I did modify an Olympus pair with ported 2235, 2426/2370A, and 2404's, but I still have to further attenuate the highly efficient mids for better balance.
4430's need more UHF "sizzle" to compare with these, but I don't want to mess with reconfiguring them. A little HF boost does the trick....
Cones tend to have a warmer sound, but lack the gigantic dynamics of compression drivers!
Compression drivers on the right horns in the right systems, set up the right way can be fantastic without HONK, but, it can get tricky and achieving the sound can be elusive! But I feel its worth the work, because the right driver/horn has a crisp sound with very large dynamic scale!
2395/2441 for my big room system. It does require some EQ, to balnce!
That is pretty much the way the other threads went, too, but additionally, they pointed to the much higher measured distortion of the comp. driver at the same SPL and freq. as the cone............I've inquired elsewhere to see if I can recreate the data.Originally posted by scott fitlin
Cones tend to have a warmer sound, but lack the gigantic dynamics of compression drivers!
I just switched from compression to cones and one of the first thing I noticed was a smoother midrange. Now I also noticed the dynamics were missing and with some recordings it appeared as if the music was being filtered if that makes any sense. I like the cones over the compression drivers though as I find I don't fatigue listening to them.
It really comes down to preference. Some like it one way, others like it the other way! Horns, with the right driver, right amp, and proper setup can be really amazing and non fatiguing. Cones have smooth sound, but I always miss the dynamic snap!Originally posted by lpd
I just switched from compression to cones and one of the first thing I noticed was a smoother midrange. Now I also noticed the dynamics were missing and with some recordings it appeared as if the music was being filtered if that makes any sense. I like the cones over the compression drivers though as I find I don't fatigue listening to them.
Its a question that will never really have a definite answer, as both cones and comp drivers have special characteristics!
One cone that was a favorite of mine for midrange ( please dont shoot me )was the JBL E-120! The paper cone had the cone sound, and the aluminum dome gave it that crispness! I know, I know, its an instrument speaker, but it worked really well!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote