Tippy

Wow, Focal defies physics? Isnt aluminum stronger than paper with equal mass and weight? If aluminum is weaker or less rigid of equal mass and weight than paper of any shape, I totally stand corrected. I am a bass player and I use Hartke equipment. Hartke uses aluminum drivers and the sound is very brilliant (grand piano like), I always associated this with the aluminum cones. Hartke stated himself that he used aluminum because it distorted less than paper. This is based off my memory of about 16 years ago, maybe paper has come along way. We have totally hi-jacked this thread and I apologize.

TBH996

True, aluminum is a stonger material than paper when speaking generically (i.e. I'd rather aluminum fenders instead of paper ones), however, there are resonance issues that aluminum has that paper doesn't. A resonance in a speaker cone adds coloration to the sound that isn't in the music material being played...just like in your grand piano statement. A piano string, which is also made of metal, is resonant. A well made paper cone will be more musically accurate than an aluminum cone at a similar price point.

The nice thing about an aluminum cone speaker is that, if done right, the cone will become a heatsink for the voice coil of the speaker thus potentially extending the life of those parts by reducing their operating temperatures (the inside of a woofer motor will reach temperatures near 300 degrees when played hard).

Every manufacturer has different feelings about their cone material, some legit, some marketing based. I've worked with paper, poly, kevlar, and aluminum. All of them have their strong points, however, in the end, it's all subjective based on what you like to hear when you listen to music.

Tippy

TBH996 - I to agree, paper is warmer "sounding" than all other materials because the principal material is wood. You wouldnt want a metal enclosure for speakers, although metals may flex less than woods of the same thickness and rigidity is key to enclosures of high power.

I agree with everything you have said except that high-end speaker companies use mostly paper, I am only talking sub-woofers, not mids.

Then, you had posted what I believed was an inaccurate bar graph (not your data though). How can Focal say paper is over 4 X's more rigid than aluminum and about 8 X's more rigid than polypropylene.

My definition of rigidity is: resistance to flex

I am going to ask some engineers at work about Focal's graph.

My whole point of posting initially was to say, it does not matter if you have put in the most high-end, brilliant sounding, and the highest clarity speaker ever made, it will not matter if the initial frequencies are all wrong for a good sound, prime example, the CDR-220. All midrange with no lows or highs. Perfect for talk radio though.

Further adding, put money into the head unit first, this will be the best bang for the buck for the first go around of good sound and then concentrate on the speakers. I believe the head unit makes about an 80% + improvement of the sound in a 996. The factory speakers can be "Bose-d" up somewhat to make a decent sound (of course they will still sound a little weak compared to aftermarket).
But of course, to truely top it off, you will need a good set of speakers.

Initially, I would rather spend $300 on a mid-level head unit than $1500 for the high-end Focals. I guarantee the head unit change will undoubtely sound many times better than just the speaker change.

TBH996

You can change the head unit 100 times. If you do not have a full range speaker set up, you still won't accurately hear full range sound. To be more specific, changing the head or the OE location speakers will still leave you short on sound quality. The first thing to do with any system, anywhere, anytime is to get it to play full range. In this scenario, that means adding a subwoofer. Period. End of discussion. Anything you add before attaining the ability to play full range will not allow you to benefit from the maximum potential of that component.

The head unit may make your mids an highs sound a little better, but with no low end fundamentals, it's still gonna sound weak.

Regarding cone rigidity, you need to widen your thought process and understand more of the details of speaker design. Go to this link and it'll clear up a lot of things. It lists the pros and cons of most common cone and surround materials.

http://www.vmpsaudio.com/d-cones.htm

Tippy

Yes, and I have agreed, to have the full range, you have to have speakers too, not just the head unit. I was saying I believe you will get more sound from a head unit than the speakers if just one or the other is changed.

Yes again, regarding lows, I stated that I have an Infinity Basslink and you have to have a sub to round out the "spectrum".

A third yes is that paper "sounds" better than other materials on the mids, but I would, like most manufacturers do, is use something more rigid than paper for a sub because I have seen woofers on a high speed film distort horribly when pushed beyond their limit.

And a fourth yes, rigidity and strength are not the same. Rubber comes into mind, low rigidity but high tensile strength. The only thing I disagreed on was Focals' graph, it just doesnt add up to me. Until I understand why, my German hard-headedness is going to argue "no".