Karaoke Forums

When would I want paper vs polyprop ?  Is paper brighter  and punchier at lower volumes ?

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

From the perspective of my old ears....No.

Just the opposite.....Paper cones once broke in, sound "warmer" to me.

This new digital world can sound kinda harsh and brittle. Paper cones really are the last bit of warmth left.

I thought so but wasn't sure.  Thanks.   Yeah,  Personally, I think audio state of the art was the 1950's-1970's

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Paper didnt take 1000 watts to light a 100 by 100 room. It was more delicate and maybe only lasted a few years but it was not costly to recone. It did not produce the ineffective actions to remove the glue between a coil and the cone. But the old dynamic speakers were undestructible .. Google time!!!

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

Are you kidding ?  Assuming a person kept the speaker cloth or grill on paper, the dog didn't run thru it, or assuming they didn't put their shoe thru it... In controlled normal climate conditions paper lasts VERY long assuming it's not roughed up, or  overloaded, BUT climate conditions must be somewhat normal and stay dry.. wet to dry they get brittle and that's it, but my speaker paper has lasted as long as paper in old books before it turns to parchment and cracks, some over 50 years and going strong (well at around 25 watts digital today as center speakers ).  I still have my early 70's JBL 12 cabs with original paper, I have early 60's Lafyette Criterion cabs paper intact, I have Fischer 15 cabs paper intact, Ampeg, Fender, Marshall (celestians) intact.. BW speakers that are at least 10 years old great shape.. Paper is vulnerable true.. but if handled right, it lasts.. Humidity and dryness changes that swing to far each way will of course turn paper into brittle-cracked material.

This is Pristine, and it's my age. NIB


What I figured is paper is more sensitive and cleaner.  Doesn't need the higher wattage to get tonal characteristics..  Particularly for guitar.. Which is why I really think the current stock Fender speakers (eminence) that are poly need to come out.. Fender amps need Lansing speakers IMHO

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Kappy you asked a very general and non specfic question. I gave you a very general and non specific answer. Now you want to argue semantics and details which were not addressed in the original question.

If you have those speakers that sound original then you have lived a very sheltered life and never jammed in the basement. If you have never had the need to find a place that reconed speakers you must have just been sitting on the internet just looking at them,.

I did not qualify the factors in durability of paper speakers I made a general statement which that anybody that ever grew up with the old speakers would agree with. Now if you want an engineers analysis of the hypothesis I can do that too. However I do charge $100 plus an hour and I do not do it from assumptions or blogs on the internet I do it from years and years of personal experience and proven tests and statistics based upon accurate and well detailed logs.

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

Yeah.........But you gotta admit they sound better

I wasn't aware "Audio Characteristics" was that nebulous a question.  I spent most of my life with speakers that have paper diaphragms and cones,  I'm well of the physical characteristics of paper. Keith answered the question. SOUND differences was what I was asking about. I take care of my speakers, match them appropriately and don't "blow them". I keep my stuff in climate controlled areas because I know paper is more delicate.  Still, they last, on moderate and lower volumes that I expose them to. Of course MANY have since ripped and cracked, I've even blown some as a kid..Short of my error, gently used last.. those that turned into parchment, and saltine-like substances for the most part were the used cabs I purchased, One pr was likely overloaded ( KLH pair of 10's that was matched with a Sherwood 90 tube watt head, crossover and horn shot too). Do I pamper my equipment ? Damn right I do !  I respect it, ask questions about it, learn to use it, and as a result, my investment in decent equipment lasts in most cases, I buy the best I can afford.  Regarding poly outlasting paper.  Where's the mystery ?  Yes, I am asking for a SOUND comparison that would likely entail some amount of engineering acumen. Assuming it didn't, I'd have figured this out myself.  EQ response across the spectrum at different volumes for a like make, like size comparable quality ASSUMING such a thing exists. Keith answered my question.  Paper can't be compared.




This is what I was wondering, if apples to apples (assuming such a comparison can be made sound-wise given price point) it pays for me to stick with paper because realistic on lower-medium volumes, and arguably even louder volumes I get better response and clarity across the audio spectrum with paper.. I've always liked Paper, but I've never really cranked polyprop to a point where I could do a head-to-head.. So I'd just assume stick with the BW's since I have the baskets and can easily replace a shot part... I always liked paper cones, but never could figure out why the manufacturers went with poly. I want sound, not longevity at the expense of warmth.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I have installed many old jukeboxes with the old 100 watt tube amp and the old speakers They matched. They came out with the solid state amps which the specs were1% versus 10% They matched They came out with laser cd jukeboxes which was easy to use with any type of speaker. We had old wurlitzer speakers which no contemptory speakers could match We fought for them to take them home and put in our basement stereos However some were punched with over driving and did not retain the original quality.

If you want to tap over 60 years experience in audio then talk specifics and not general ego crap.. Why contaminate  engineering with psych BS?

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

  Excellent question Ollie.  So how do the audio characteristics differ ? Does poly have any sound advantage over paper or not (across the audio spectrum) given like speaker size, and decent quality ? Keith answered this I believe.  I have no interest in psych BS.. My question wasn't that ambiguous, I was wondering if I was correct in assuming that sound-wise PAPER is the better choice across the audio spectrum assuming a person is sensitive enough to hear what some may consider to be subjective differences ?  But are the differences notable ? I agree with Keith, but wasn't certain prior to asking this question.

  I'm looking for some of that engineering, as opposed to..


AND...



Ollie, I've heard YOUR



Don't turn this around on me.  Your life history and ongoing one-upping is fine ASSUMING you DO introduce some of your engineering acumen as opposed to..


 LMAO


Anyway,  Thanks Keith !   You answered my concern !

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

The old original speakers were being driven by an amp that did not have the high low freq capabilities and had to have thinner cones to compensate Now that the amps have full freq capabilities it is not the speakers that have the weak  link in the chain. It is simple as that You are over complicating a simple engineering evolution BTW we were srguing this 50 yrars ago..

With my audio procs I can drive any set of speakers or an inhouse audio system with full audio quality Fx or not...  LMAO  I do audio in real life not on the net!!!

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

Keith,

   I wonder if the evolution in listening style (or the downward slope over the past generation IE.. bass booming today and less sensitivity to mids rising)- or over time due to listening standards catering to mainstream pop listeners that just aren't accustomed to certain warmth, and audio features, manufacturers CAN get away with much of what they do today in terms of cutting back on quality overall ?  Those of us that grew up in a classical/Rock era with ballad listened to, and became accustomed to certain features, and sound, yet over the years listeners are becoming more desensitized.  Few have a reference point in the past as to just HOW good a marantz, or McIntosh receiver thru just two speakers can be ! That warmth can't be touched by even the surround systems of today in terms of how spatial or dimensional the sound layers were thru two speakers alone, but preferences are different today, and over time, the listener has learned to settle for less of what we lived with as a result of the slow degradation.. (No head to head comparison for many) I feel the older sound produced as Ollie mentioned given equipment in general WAS superior in the past (JMHO).  

Quality mattered more 40 years back because the listeners demands was more critical ? But only Because we were used to it perhaps ? (Is the listener today evolving to a LESS critical listening group in general not requiring sensitivity we were used to).. Today the kids have kickers and boomboxes, and crank bass, and that's more of their need.. We had parents that listened to classical, we listened to Rock styles that demanded better dispersion overall.  Here's what I'm wondering.. Years back, the 70's JBL 4311B's (which still to date sound great as my surround mains) aren't the types of speakers most have.  They are relatively large, but to me they sound great.. Perhaps music trend, and listener demand just doesn't require the sensitivity in a speaker and audio-gear we grew up to know ????

Just wondering

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Back in the 70's component audio was in it's glory.

That's when I bought my Marantz and Technics recievers....Mom still uses the Technics with my paper cone Cannon speakers.....Remember a good reciever and pair of speakers cost $1200 in 1974 and you will see just how serious I was about quality sound then.

I bought the first Sony CD player made in 1980 and my first cd was a digitally remastered Benny Goodman disc. Now THAT was a great experience because till then all you could get was hissy/sctatchy repro's of BG.

The older 80's tape decks, CD stuff, even VCR's were made better.. My Sony Tape deck and VCR's still work fine.. Stuff I bought in the 90's has since crapped out.. Electronics quality has gone down the tubes in many cases, even though technology has supposedly advanced. When I hit tag sales or flea markets, it it was made in the 1980's, and was electronic and still works, I buy it.. It's worth cleaning and refurbing IMHO... I like metal chassis on my electronic componants too.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Yep

6 Years ago I sold my vintage Tecnics 1200 turntable on eBay for huge bucks.....It was like new. I bought it back in early 70's and it basically stayed in the original box caused i moved so many times.....turns out they have started remaking it for DJ's yet the vintage ones are considered better.....I wish I had bought 10 of them.