Paper vs. Plastic (drivers)

rskarvan

I'd like to see an intelligent discussion regarding Polk's older coated paper cones and their newer blue cones (used in the i-series speakers). To keep comparisons on the same level - lets limit the discussion to the 6-1/2"ers.

What are the differences? Which is better? Why the change?

The old coated paper ones seemed to be pretty good and reasonably durable. Both use rubber surrounds.

THe newer ones are - well - different.
Personally, I prefer the old glossy-looking black paper cones.
I may be wrong.... but, I think the older ones just simply sounded sweeeter - imo.

I suspect the newer cones are easier to mass-produce.
Is that the reason for the change?

Likewise, is there any significant difference between the old SL3000 tri-laminate tweeter and the new tweets used in the i-series speakers (RT55i)? Its my understanding that both are tri-laminate.... but, they look/appear different. Again, which is better? Why?

Thanks for commenting (in advance).

George Grand

I can't pass comment on the new Polk stuff, but I do know that there are OUTSTANDING speakers, that are considered classics, that use paper drivers. I also know, that I have heard speakers that sound absolutely horrible, and they are loaded with drivers made of newer, more "exotic" materials. Exotic materials does not a great speaker make.

George Gand (of the Jersey Grand's)

JohanK

I haven't done any bench testing or anything to compare the old and new but I can give you some subjective impressions. I use RT55s (2 pairs) as surrounds and RTA-8TLs (with SL3000 tweets) as front mains. I also have a pair of Monitor 7Cs.

Personally, I like the coated paper better. Like you said, smoother is a good word to use as to why. The poly drivers sound a little more sterile, IMO. I like the SL3000 tweet better than the newer tweets; they are both bright but the 3000 does it w/o being obnoxious. I like the original SL2000 silver coil tweets best though I haven't heard the Peerless 810665 tweet in a Polk speaker.

...just my 2 cents.

lycombs

Good questions and thoughts. Let's add the question of the difference between the 6 1/2 in the RT3000s, which are NOT blue,....as compared to the RT2000 and others? Different materials,....different coatings,....different performance (obvious)???

Per the term "intelligent discussion", it would be great to get a Polk definition and terminology on this. Thx.

RuSsMaN

In my limited experience, I think paper sounds incredible, if done right. Even un-coated/un-treated. No scientific proof to back this up, just what my ears tell me. I do enjoy the kevlar fiber that is used today also, but I do think it produces a slightly forward, less natural midrange (due to the stiffness of the cone?).

Paper is ok in my book.

Cheers,
Russ

rskarvan

I think there's something to paper drivers (properly designed) having material characteristics that are superior to polymers/plastics. I think paper drivers are inherently very well dampened. The nature of paper probably also kills any resonance in the driver also. Polk's coating the old SRS paper drivers was a move that made them much more durable than paper drivers (saving them from aging issues).

I heard a similar discussion over saxaphone reeds. Nobody has improved on the original wooden reed; though, many have tried.

Micah Cohen

I love Paul.

Strong Bad

A night out at Kaos to relieve some of that stress that Micah is causing you.

Come on Polk boys, bring Paul out to keep his sanity.

By the way, nice explanation on the differences in the cone materials. Now...if they would only make some SDA's with the new technology....

George Grand

That WILL happen if his hands are tied behind his back.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

Aaron

Paul,
I think your assessment of the sound of the older drivers vs. the newer drivers is right on the money. That's basically what I've experienced word for word. I didn't, however, have all the technical reasons to back up my observations. Thanks!

Aaron

rskarvan

Paul, Thanks for answering my question.
I have a mixed HT system and I was curious as to
which was better, why, and what exactly the differences
are. You answered my question very thoroughly.

Half of the audio equipment is inside your own head.
Thats why everything is so dang subjective.
Maybe the brightness & accuracy of the blue cones
just sounds less friendly to my ears.

Thanks again.

Ron

lycombs

Paul,...thanks for the info. Realize you are busy but I think it makes us much better disciples for Polk by better understanding the details that you have provided.

One last question,.....with regard to the 61/2s in the RT2000s (blue) versus the 6 1/2s in the RT3000s (black), what's the basic differences there? Are the 3000 6 1/2s different still? Obviously, the power handling ratings are different, but that can be more than just cone structure, i.e. crossover design, etc,..

Thanks in advance.

Micah Cohen

I'm trying to get Paul to come back and pick this up. Paul takes time.

MC

lycombs

It does,....thanks Paul.