Historical

Pro and Con the Paper Cone, from December 1962 (Vol.1 No.2)

In the last issue, Irving M. Fried of Lectronics presented the case for poly-foam loudspeakers, asserting that cone woofers are doomed to extinction. Since we got the magazine out late last time, only one contributor met this issue's deadline with a rebuttal, which we present herewith.—J. Gordon Holt

Mr. Fried's article championed progress in loudspeakers and, as such, was laudable. However, the point of view expressed contained some calculated omissions of such a nature as to lead us to believe that we are actually cheating ourselves by using paper-cone speakers. To be sure, there is room for improvement in the field of loudspeakers, but we are discussing a field where there is no absolute black or white, but just an infinite number of shades of gray. Because recorded sound is an illusion, perfection is impossible. Let us, then, examine some of the article's contentions to see how valid they are.

Bookshelf speakers came under fire, the intimation being that they were boxy sounding, deficient in bass, and lacking in clarity. By boxiness, it is assumed that "size" of sound—spaciousness, if you will—is insufficient. May I point out that a certain amount of psychology comes into play here: When the eye sees a enclosure, the ear is apt to "hear" a small sound. It has been established by Acoustic Research that two systems of equivalent quality and efficiency, differing primarily in size, are played behind some sort of screen, the ear is unable to tell which is the bigger of the two.

The matter of bass deficiency can be quickly dismissed by actual measurement and/or some critical listening. If the writer had in mind the overpowering bass output of a multi-woofer system or the 30" Electro-Voice woofer, then the bookshelf will, by comparison, sound shallow. The balance of frequencies us far more important, though, than mere propagation of bass.

The issue of "clarity" appears to be a matter of lesser-quality mid- and upper-range units. Inferior speakers are prone to distortion and peakiness, and will muddy the sound of any system, regardless of size.

Next came cone compositions other than paper. Polymerized cones were accused, rather fatuously, of "coloring" the sound. Well, what speakers don't? As long as speakers are electromechanical devices, involving vibration of a solid material, they will always color the sound.

Paper cones were also claimed to be susceptible to heat and humidity effects. They probably are, and if exposed to blistering sunlight or live steam for a while, they would undoubtedly suffer damage. But al though researchers can no doubt show that an average living room environment will cause measurable changes, I have never heard anyone claim that the changes are audible. So confident are many speaker manufacturers of the stability of their speakers that they will not charge for repairs unless some abuse is evident. This is an unofficial policy of Electro-Voice and an advertised one of J. B. Lansing, and I understand they are not the only ones who do this.

It was also claimed that styrene cones will reproduce more of the dynamic range of the program material, and while Mr. Fried offered a logical reason why this might be the case, the contention remains to be proven beyond all doubt to the purchasing public. And at that, is the difference sufficient to warrant scrapping an expensive paper-cone system? I'm sure the man who owns a $500 conventional system is going to demand some dramatic proof of the styrene cone's superiority before he'll consider a trade-in. Since no speaker is a perfect transducer, there are doubtless some problems with styrene cones that the article failed to mention. A gain in one area means a sacrifice in another.

The subject of cone breakup was discussed, but with undue emphasis. This is an acknowledged problem, but the efforts of manufacturers to overcome it were given little credit. The really good woofers were swept under the rug with the statement that they were "prohibitively expensive." The JansZen Z-400 and the EMI Bookshelf system utilize woofers that, according to the article, are too expensive. Really? Let's examine this for a moment. Since the range of good bookshelf systems runs from about $100 to about $230, the two above-mentioned units, each costing in the vicinity of $160, are in the medium-price range. Neither of them uses an expanded polystyrene woofer, but this doesn't stop them from being really good bookshelf systems. These, and many other systems in their price range, will not "shatter" until they are called upon to deliver a signal far in excess of the average listener's needs. They may be loaded with cone breakup, but as long as the breakup is not audible, and the speakers sound as natural as these, its existence becomes a purely academic matter.

None of this is intended to belittle the new cone designs. Any attempt to improve speakers is always wel comed. There are three of these systems on the market now, I believe: the estimable Leak "Sandwich" system, the impressive ADC system, and some British-made styrene woofer whose name eludes me for the moment (footnoe 1). These entries may mark an incipient revolution in our listening habits. But on the other hand, those of us who now own conventional speaker systems are not in as dire straits as we would be led to believe. The article would have better served the readers of The Stereophile had the pros as well as the cons of paper woofers been discussed. As the article was presented, it came as close to being an advertisement, without actually being one, as The Stereophile's policy would allow.

Polystyrene cones, like transistors, are interesting developments, but considerable research remains to be done. As a practical matter, conventional cones and tube-transformer circuits will remain with us for some time to come, and we will continue to enjoy them. Polystyrene cones and transistors represent progress, to be sure, but let's take the time to decide how significant is this progress before we scrap all our "old- fashioned" conventional components.—C. J. Dougherty, Jr.
Philadelphia, PA

To which Mr. Fried replies: It was not the intent of my article to imply that expanded polystyrenes produce "perfect" bookshelf speakers, but only to point out that new cone materials are making it possible to produce better loudspeakers than could be made from paper.

Why? Because they make better pistons. Mr. Dougherty did not take issue with my explanation of why expanded polystyrene should be a superior cone material, so his main gripe seems to be that there is no sense getting excited about polystyrenes when paper-cone systems are as good as they are. This, of course, is a matter of personal taste.

One's judgment about this kind of thing can only be subjective. If, in direct comparison, Mr. Dougherty cannot hear the difference between a good styrene system and one of the popular brands of compact paper-cone system, or doesn't feel the difference to be worth mentioning, then all this talk about superior naturalness and transient response is a waste of words. He's satisfied with the state of the art as it now stands. If he, like most other listeners, can detect the superior musicality of the styrene-cone system, then it is entirely up to him whether the improvement warrants replacing his present paper-cone system.

Certainly, the styrene cone is not the end of all speaker research. But it has opened up new avenues of development beyond the dead end that paper cones had brought us to. Even if another, superior material comes along to replace polystyrene, the point of my article still stands: Paper cones are already obsolete.—Irving Fried

---

Footnote 1: Don't forget Jensen and Electro-Voice. And as for the other unit, see page 12 of this issue.—J. Gordon Holt