wrote in message
ups.com...

As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).

True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
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

Complete nonsense.

,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).

More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound
has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the
most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been
more accurate at anything compared to CD.

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.

Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show
that you don;t know what you are talking about.

Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.


Like the one you just invited to be started?

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.


So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row.
Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music
is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it
than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about
paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that
apparently has no clue about speaker design.

Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials.
Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at
virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you
will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the
drivers.

Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low
frequency drivers.
B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have
some paper mixtureswith other materials.


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.

Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no
surprise.

If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear.

The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various
high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for
anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong.

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.

If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about
what you say.
So far you have shown no evidence that you have a clue about audio at all.