CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 09:45:52 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Headphone Driver : Impact of diaphragm material  (Read 403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AstralStorm

  • Speculation and Speculums
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +250/-164
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 559
  • Warning: causes nearby electronics to go haywire
Re: Headphone Driver : Impact of diaphragm material
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2012, 07:15:26 AM »

Also, mass:
Lighter material = more high end extension, higher resonant mode frequency, less dependence on spider dampening
Heavier material = less high end extension, lower resonant mode frequency, more dependence on spider dampening

Here's the reason 'stats have great high end extension and why balanced armatures have high resonant frequency.
(BAs don't have the extension, because they're highly dampened - otherwise they'd ring like hell.)

For example, mylar is a comparably heavy, stiff material, while cellulose is very light and flexible. Most microfibres are inbetween.
Carbon nanotubes are an interesting rare material, stiff and pretty light. Metal film is comparable to mylar, but usually slightly lighter.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 07:20:43 AM by AstralStorm »
Logged
For sale: Hifiman HE-500; Paradox; Brainwavz B2. PM me if you would like to buy them.

Anaxilus.

  • Dikus Beligerantis Analmorticus
  • Pirate
  • **
  • Brownie Points: +65535/-65535
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 577
Re: Headphone Driver : Impact of diaphragm material
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2012, 07:39:32 AM »

Mylar is heavier than cellulose?  Maybe we are thinking of different versions of mylar and cellulose.  Are you ruling paper cones out as cellulose?
Logged
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading - Lao Tzu

AstralStorm

  • Speculation and Speculums
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +250/-164
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 559
  • Warning: causes nearby electronics to go haywire
Re: Headphone Driver : Impact of diaphragm material
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2012, 07:28:18 AM »

Actually yes. Paper cones are more dense, thicker and softer, also sensitive to moisture. Really low grade material compared to cellulose.
Logged
For sale: Hifiman HE-500; Paradox; Brainwavz B2. PM me if you would like to buy them.

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Re: Headphone Driver : Impact of diaphragm material
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2012, 02:08:20 AM »

It's probably better to think in terms of stiffness / mass than what's heavier or lighter. Cones tend to be targeted for a certain application tend to be of a similar mass (regardless of material, even exotic) that suits that application.

Materials like magnesium and aluminum requires a smaller amount of mass to achieve a certain targeted stiffness. Treated / doped / impregnated paper / cellulose is about the same as poly. From what I've seen, for equiv. pairs in a driver line, the paper and poly cones tend to weigh the same +/- a 0.5 grams. They do sound different. I think "paper" just sounds "faster" but has decay issues in comparison to poly. No one (at least no one respectable) uses non-treated "paper" these days.

End it end, it really doesn't matter if it's tuned to sound like shit, i.e. new Denon flagships.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]