AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
shall meet).

Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
(Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)

So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.

Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
like the one above LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.

I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.

You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in
the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic
circles.

As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?