Ribbon vs. Cone?

Early B.

Just wanted to get some opinions on ribbons vs. cones. More specifically, I'm most interested in the sound differences of using ribbons on the mids as opposed to a cone. What are the pros and cons of ribbons?

The reason I'm asking is because some people believe ribbons, particularly in the midrange, are hands-down superior to cones, in general. Of course, some people say the same thing about the highs, but I'm less concerned about that.

What's been your experience? Does it matter? Is it another preference issue or are ribbons generally accepted to be superior?

Thanks.

Ricardo

I sold my 1.2 TL's for ribbons (Carver AL-III's). I lost punch, but mids/highs sweetness and details, plus imaging, made the ribbons a better speaker for my ears.

treitz3

Hmmm, good question. To me the differences can be great to very small.

Ribbons get mids very accurate most all the time, especially with 48" ribbons and above and proper amplification. That said, the precise imaging and location of instruments and singers are not as pinpoint as a cone speaker with the various systems I have heard.

With cone speakers, in my experience, they have to be of very high quality and are seemingly more system/synergy dependent. When done right, can be a wonderful experience and IMHO can trump mids from a ribbon. However, the times I have run across this have been rare [3 rigs my entire life rare]. With cones, it seems to me that the mids are more prone to sounding flustered instead of accurate.

Personally, I believe it just comes down to your particular tastes/preferences in reproduction and the types of music that you listen to....as well as how loud your preferences are and whether or not both type of speakers have the room to breath/sing properly.

My .02 cents.

tonyb

As always a good speaker design and quality parts can't be beat.Cones or ribbons.I personally like the ribbons on the highs.Thats not to say a cone can't get it right either.Now combine the two.......and thats what I ended up with and couldn't be happier.Well...unless someone was giving away some Montana top of the line speakers,then maybe.

mhardy6647

Note that planar drivers and ribbons, while related in principal, are different. Planars (e.g., as used in the Magneplanar speakers) are rather more robust and considerably cheaper than true ribbons. An electrostatic panel is a special case planar driver

Planar drivers in general have very low moving mass, relatively powerful "motors" per unit surface area, and are linearly driven. Excursion is low. They tend to produce remarkably uncolored sound, especially midrange, and have excellent to superb transient response. There are exceptions to all generalities, though, including this one!

I have a pair of Quad ESL-57 full range electrostatics and they are very good within their limitations (which basically amounts to relatively-low maximum SPL output). Magneplanars are pretty nice, too, but almost unreasonably power-hungry relative to my tastes.

skipf

Ribbons hands down. The 60" ribbons in my ALS Platinums are full spectrum, producing sound from 100hz to 20,000hz. They do have a nasty spike at 6000hz that is controlled by a notch filter in the passive X-over. You can also bi-amp with an external X-over and EQ to tame the 6000hz spike. I have heard no cone speaker that can match the crystal clear range of the 60" ribbon. They must be heard to be fully appreciated. Ribbons are very power hungry though.

jdhdiggs

Ribbons and planars every day. Cones are too much of a point source, they just don't have the "body" of the sound. A string bass' sound doesn't come from a 6.5" circular area, it comes from 12 square feet of area and the difference in presence is huge. Planars seem to translate this presence or body much better than cones.

dkg999

Once you go flat, you never come back! +1 jdhdiggs comments!

VR3

Eh,
I wouldnt say cones cant reproduce bass prescence --

But maybe I am use to having stereo subs with 2 15", 1 12" per side?



Maybe

Would love to get my ears on some good ribbon/cone combos..

Ricardo

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Eh,
I wouldnt say cones cant reproduce bass prescence --

But maybe I am use to having stereo subs with 2 15", 1 12" per side?



Maybe

Would love to get my ears on some good ribbon/cone combos..

Didn't you listen at the amazings at the fest???? Oh, that's right...you were busy taking pictures and soldering tweeters

VR3

I liked the Amazings --

But DEFINITELY not my cup of tea by any margin....

I listened, spent probally 30 minutes max in the room -- just couldn't get into it...

jdhdiggs

Sid, You need to try some big maggies with a sub.

VR3

What I gathered from the Amazings,

And conversed with Jesse about was - in a nut shell...

"It seems new style speakers are extremely point source and extremely high resolution. Where as the older style is based more on smoothness, lower resolution and an expanded stage"

I find SDA, Carver Amazings, so on and so forth to be lower resolution, easier to listen but sound ultimately bigger. A general trend to the SDA and Amazings is a low center image...

I really really want/need a HUGE/PROMINANT center image in my sound --- and exacting soundstaging to like a pair of speakers....

One reason why I just couldnt get into the Amazings, the Amazings were far more relaxing than anything ---

This is all my opinion... no facts, Amazings just werent my thing

ka7niq

There are good examples of each.
MHardy made a great point about not all planers being ribbons.
Apogees are easily the best ribbon speakers I have ever heard.
My old Magnepan MG 3A's had a ribbon Tweeter.
I own VMPS RM 40's, they do some nice things.
MY real Love is Electrostatics, within their limitations of course.
Unfortunately, I smoke, so Electrostatics are out for me Until I quit.
I am cut way down on the smoking, off cigarettes, but still on Cigars.
Once I quit, a pair of Inner sounds might be in my future ?

ka7niq

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Ribbons and planars every day. Cones are too much of a point source, they just don't have the "body" of the sound. A string bass' sound doesn't come from a 6.5" circular area, it comes from 12 square feet of area and the difference in presence is huge. Planars seem to translate this presence or body much better than cones.

My friend is a music teacher/audiophile, and known classical guitarist.
He bought Vandersteen 5's.
Before he did, he came over to hear my old Magnepan MG 3a's, and my other friends VMPS RM 40's.
He just could not get used to 6 foot tall piano's, if ya know what I mean.
I have had several musician friends over the years, and all loved Vandersteens.
Go figure ?

Texas42

I think (as most have said) it comes down to a matter of preference. I have a pair of Martin Logan SL3's (electro statics) which give me a nice, diffuse, 'open' kind of sound that is extremely quick and articulate (especially in the mids). I also have a pair of Klipsch LaScalas (horns) which are extremely dynamic (105db at one watt) which have lifelike realism which my MLs can't touch (at least in that regard). The MLs are more articulate though. Then I have a pair of Polk SDA-1Bs which have that incredible headphone like imaging (and deeper bass than the other two designs). Which do I like best of them all?? Depends on the music and my mood. I guess there really is more than one way to de-fur a feline....