What makes an expensive speaker expensive

analogluvr --

[...] Paper is a great cone material and most of the speakers using paper cones always seem to sound more natural to my ears. And just because it is paper doesn't mean it's not high tech. People who have a Coral 10 that needs a recone can attest to that, it can't be done.
And as far as the folks who are saying part of the high cost is R and D, give your head a shake, there are no new developments in speaker technology!! The best speakers I have heard are still older efficient designs with paper drivers.
Just like 99% of high end audio megabuck speakers are a huge ripoff! When I go to the shows I invariably never enjoy the high dollar rooms with the megabuck SS electronics. They are very detailed and some of them are impressive sounding but they never sound like proper music to me.
And ctsooner don't take this as a slight against vandersteen, I think they are one of the few that actually do R and D and try to give you something for your money. I enjoy them and used to own a pair.

I would have to agree both on your statements regarding paper cones and the general lack of advance in speaker technology. I believe many of the older designs can be refined, but this is without changing the basics. Paper cones may break up more prominently than more modern "exotic" diaphragms, but given their natural sonic imprinting (at least to some ears) I'd wager the mode of their break-up as well as the general properties of the diaphragm has significant impact; "pistonic behavior" may come at a cost in other areas. The same in a sense seems to apply to the enclosures where most modern designs strive for an inert structural behavior (as the equivalent to pistonic ditto), contrary to older designs that may even use the cabinets as an integral part of the sonic signature. "Signature," or lack thereof, is a popular go-to phrase for newer designs, but where sought often leads to robbing the life and vibrancy of live acoustic music. Paper cones to my ears often has the more relaxed, vibrant, true-to-tone and naturally detailed (as opposed to "analytical") imprinting. More modern cones, like those of Raidho speakers, are exceptionally balanced and well-behaved, but to my ears are ever so slightly "dead" or even dull sounding. I used to own a pair of C1's, and they were wonderful in their own right, but ultimately that rather indescribable "something" was missing. Actually my first speakers were a pair of Coral 8..  

Paper cones are often treated, or even composites, and from this a variety of diaphragms emerges that may all be called "paper cones," but that does not follow the typical shortcomings of paper cones equally. Even if they did, what is truly gained in a discussion of sound by making reference to their mechanical properties as a basis to support our sonic impressions? All we have in listening to reproduced music through our stereo’s is what we hear, and to me that’s the reference first and foremost that should put into question theory; not the other way round. That is to say: the aspect of pistonic behavior of a cone not made of paper and its claimed advantages into "micro details" (and ultimately its superiority in musical reproduction as a whole) compared to the break-up behavior of a paper cone (or its varieties) can be moot for several reasons, in that our ears may tell us differently. It appears to be more of a marketing ploy to single out one aspect as all-important than to be humble (and less outspoken) on the challenge of implementation.

The "exotic" cone materials mentioned break up as well, perhaps not as prominently in their used audio band, but beyond that could be another story, and one that requires its measures. Certainly what matters here is the nature of their break ups. The tonal qualities, as highlighted by charles1dad, is also affected through the use of different cone materials - surely an important parameter? The associated use of typically butyl rubber surrounds for such (usually midrange) drivers also comes to mind, a material which high damping properties to my ears can quench some of the "life" of the sound. It's not only the use of cone material and surround ditto (and T/S data), but the sheer radiation area of the cone is also of significance. I've never quite fancied the sound of smaller mids drivers below 6" as I often find them to lack substance and fullness. As Mr. Ebaen says in his review of the WLM Diva's:

"10-inch paper cones with hard cloth surrounds simply sound different than 5-inch Beryllium or ceramic cones that are hung off loose butyl rubber. The former are more natural, relaxed and full to my ears. In turn, they're not as overtly 'resolved'. The sharpness and leanness often associated with accuracy is missing.   

[...]

It's a speaker that will tweak certain people because it lacks what they consider prerequisites for a hi-end worthy design - narrow baffles, small midrange drivers, exotic diaphragms, famous tweeters. WLM gets by with apparently lesser ingredients. Still and to my ears, the end result is a more inviting, tastier dish. What that really says about current high-end hifi sensibilities you may ponder yourself in some spare time. "

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/wlm/divamonitor_4.html

Indeed I'd go so far to say that a +12" driver, with paper cone and cloth surround, is a necessity for the required energy in the lower mids and upper bass, but I gather that's another story.