Is this a 'never mind the quality, feel the width' sort of question?
Im in fact wondering where the truth is for one, and why such disparity exists in this plain to see facet of the audio industry.
One can argue much about claimed parameters of just about any audio component. Are tube watts indeed superior to solid state watts? Whats the true maximum output of a 300B tube? How was that SPL number arrived at?
. And likewise, impedances, and sensitivity?
But how on earth can any despairity, difference, in critical or even subjective terms, alter a simple ruled result? Its misleading and undermines consumer confidences. IMO
On one hand, I feel the driver has to be considered the whole of the active sound producing unit. The cage, voice coil, surround, magnet, vibrating element or diaphragm
the whole enchilada
the part that fills the hole in the cabinet.
On the other though, with such often made references to the type of cone materials being used, paper, reinforced this & thats, Kevlar, titainium, aluminum, coated such & such alloys; its only that portion moving the air itself. In short, the part we can actually see working.
Years ago, when one speaker maker said they used a six inch midrange driver, you could count on it being six inches across the paper cone itself. I see that no longer being so much the standard and simply wondered how come dat is?
I must have missed that memo.