Originally Posted by MaysEffect

I can see how what i'm saying may be a bit misleading, but i'm not sure you are accurately following my point. My initial point was a lack of cone depth (cone concavity >cone area) sacrifices BASS response and impact. I didn't say anything about its way of handling higher frequencies, the article i posted even made this argument for me - post #4 by electrodynamics made this exact argument, in which i 100% agree to.

I'm sure i also wrote (maybe not in this thread), using such a driver with less cone area (flat, convex) would work well with a dedicated subwoofer or low bass driver. In this i think we are agreeing to the same thing. But in the case where this particularly driver has to do both the work for mids and low bass, a larger cone area is more beneficial. Of course you have the hybrid type drivers that use phase plugs and pointed dustcaps which will add a bit in articulations and decreasing "phase" cancellations which help out mids>highs. But that wasn't my point, it was made in the article...which is why i linked it.

If you sacrifice the overall width, you can gain some back with depth, which was my point about the smaller 5 1/2 speaker with a deeper cone depth oppose to a flat shallow depth speaker.

I also including somewhere how a domed tweeter or midrange driver is best for dispersion of higher frequencies, this clearly goes against the idea of cone concavity which works better with bass and larger excursions drivers.