10 inch speakers vs. 12 inch speakers

[MikeD1687]

Hello everyone,

I have an Epifani UL410 right now, and I like it, but I'd like something even more portable .

So, I was interested in their 12 inch line of speakers.

My question is, how loud are their 12's? Do you think I'd have to worry about a major drop in volume from the 4 10's to 2 12's? I know it's less air pushed, but who knows?

I want to get one 212 to start off, and then get a second to pair it up with for bigger gigs.

The reason I want 12's is because 2 12's are a bit more portable than the 4 10's, and I love how my fretless sounds through 15's, so I think the 12's might afford me that same sound. But, does the slap stuff and muted 16th funk stuff sound as clear through the 12's as 10's? I can't stand how 15's sound for funk. Too murky and mid-rangey.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Brad Maestas]

The UL212 actually weighs two pounds more than the UL410 and it's about the same size. A more feasible choice would be going with two 112 cabs. Even more portable would be a UL110 with a UL112. Tombowlus sometimes uses a pair of 110/112's! I haven't gotten the chance to personally A/B a UL410 against my UL110/UL112 or UL112/T112 stacks yet so I can't make a direct comparison but my 12/12 stack gets ridiculously loud. I have, however, A/B'd them against other manufacturer's 210's and 410's and the Epi 12's are hoss. I use the 12s' for slap and muted-16th stuff all the time and I don't perceive any lag in transient response as opposed to 10's.

Do a thorough search. This has probably already been discussed at some point. In particular, check out the Bowlus Bass Borg thread.
Bowlus Bass Borg GTG - Resistance is futile!

[jellisii]

Originally Posted by MikeD1687

Hello everyone,

I have an Epifani UL410 right now, and I like it, but I'd like something even more portable .

So, I was interested in their 12 inch line of speakers.

My question is, how loud are their 12's? Do you think I'd have to worry about a major drop in volume from the 4 10's to 2 12's? I know it's less air pushed, but who knows?

I want to get one 212 to start off, and then get a second to pair it up with for bigger gigs.

The reason I want 12's is because 2 12's are a bit more portable than the 4 10's, and I love how my fretless sounds through 15's, so I think the 12's might afford me that same sound. But, does the slap stuff and muted 16th funk stuff sound as clear through the 12's as 10's? I can't stand how 15's sound for funk. Too murky and mid-rangey.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

The simple math (area of a circle) says that the 2x12 moves less air. 4x10 has surface area of 78.5"/ driver, x 4 is 314" of surface flat. The 2x12 has surface area of 133"/driver, x2 is 266" of surface to move air.

There are other areas that aren't covered by the simple math equasion, including the cone depth, and throw (both of which favor the 12"), so it may be a wash, but that's a *lot* of surface area to make up with just tiny measurements. Enough tiny measurements can do it, tho.

The reason 15's have a hard time with the sound you like for funk is that they're seldom fast enough. It's a *LOT* of cone and air to move for each attack, and then stop for each mute. A powerful amp with good slew rates helps, but getting that much cone to move (and stop) that quickly for the snappy attacks that you want is an interesting engineering feat. Cone material makes a big difference here. While stiffer is generally cleaner, and helps the speed of attacks and mutes, it's often heavy, which works against the same. Speaker engineering is all about tradeoffs. Box setup has a lot to do with it as well, but I'm less clear on it. Perhaps someone else can mention this.

I'm shure that someone will say that I'm wrong, tho.

Final judgement: Go with your ears. If you like the sound of the 2x12 better, go with it. You may just need to work with 2 seperate rigs for the variety of stuff that you're playing, assuming you're not playing it all with the same band on the same night.

I find that my setup in my profile was flexible enough for me, with the right bass. I wish I had a nice horn or dome tweeter, rather than the POS peizo that's in my box (why, mr RABE, WHY), but otherwise, it's done everything from metal to lounge jazz.

[MikeD1687]

Originally Posted by VintageBT6Lover

The UL212 actually weighs two pounds more than the UL410 and it's about the same size. A more feasible choice would be going with two 112 cabs. Even more portable would be a UL110 with a UL112. Tombowlus sometimes uses a pair of 110/112's! I haven't gotten the chance to personally A/B a UL410 against my UL110/UL112 or UL112/T112 stacks yet so I can't make a direct comparison but my 12/12 stack gets ridiculously loud. I have, however, A/B'd them against other manufacturer's 210's and 410's and the Epi 12's are hoss. I use the 12s' for slap and muted-16th stuff all the time and I don't perceive any lag in transient response as opposed to 10's.

Do a thorough search. This has probably already been discussed at some point. In particular, check out the Bowlus Bass Borg thread.
Bowlus Bass Borg GTG - Resistance is futile!

So you think I'd be okay with two UL112s? I know that's what Richard Bona uses, and it sounds wonderful to say the least.

My amp is 1000 watts bridged at 4 ohms, so that's good power into them.

I play with a jazz/r&b quintet (me, drums, keys, guitar, sax) and a hip-hop band (guitar, me, drums, turntables, 3 mc's). I'm always usually fine with the hip hop band volume wise, but the quintet's keyboard player is really loud. I suppose if I elevate the cabinets I could hear myself better too.

Thanks for the replies.

[Pneuma]

Originally Posted by jellisii

The reason 15's have a hard time with the sound you like for funk is that they're seldom fast enough. It's a *LOT* of cone and air to move for each attack, and then stop for each mute. A powerful amp with good slew rates helps, but getting that much cone to move (and stop) that quickly for the snappy attacks that you want is an interesting engineering feat. Cone material makes a big difference here. While stiffer is generally cleaner, and helps the speed of attacks and mutes, it's often heavy, which works against the same. Speaker engineering is all about tradeoffs. Box setup has a lot to do with it as well, but I'm less clear on it. Perhaps someone else can mention this.

I'm shure that someone will say that I'm wrong, tho.

Yeah, I've actually heard that slow/fast bass is a myth. It would seem that what some people refer to as "slow" and "muddy" ends up just being bass that you don't hear with smaller speakers. Just as a reference, here's a quote from Dan Wiggins (engineer at Adire audio)

"Speed is velocity. Drivers operating in their passband above resonance are acceleration devices (power in is directly proportional to acceleration; F=ma becomes BLi = ma). SPL is in fact a function of acceleration; double the acceleration, you double the SPL output.

Speed is the integral of acceleration over time. Double the time of the acceleration, you double the velocity.

As you drop an octave, you double the time of the frequency, hence doubling the speed (assuming equal power throughout the waveform).

Note this is why excursion quadruples as you drop down an octave - distance is the integral of velocity over time, meaning that halving the frequency requires 4X the excursion.

So to be technical, the "fastest" subwoofer is the one that plays the deepest the loudest. Speaking strictly in terms of cone velocity..."

*snip*

"Oh, I agree with you! Fast bass - at least as many audiohphile classify it - is actually a lack of bass. We've done work for many high end companies... It's nearly a 100% predictable occurance that they will ask for "flat to 20, -3 dB at 16 Hz) for their high end product. So they get that kind of response. And it's immediately classified as slow and boomy. Rolling off the bottom end around 35 Hz or so "tightens" and "speeds" up the perceived bass. Of course, it's really just cutting the deep stuff out...

Objectively, physics says deep extension is fast. Of course perception is really what we need to concern ourselves with, and that is often to roll off the deep bass. Provide some of it there, but if the 20 Hz level is a good 10 dB down from the 35-40 Hz range, there's enough deep stuff to hint at its existence, without making the perception "slow".

I just love throwing in the actual physics of what fast bass physically IS - it's the lowest, loudest, flattest extension bass. In other words, in terms of the actual physics of the situation, a 6.5" woofer cutting off at 40 Hz is nowhere near as fast as a 12" woofer extending down to 16 Hz..."

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

Final judgement: Go with your ears. If you like the sound of the 2x12 better, go with it.

On that, I couldn't agree more. Regardless of whether 15s, 10s, or 12s are fast or slow, if you don't like the sound, don't buy them.

P.

[FR5]

I have played my fretless through a T410 (not the UL version) for a while, before switching to a 210UL + 112UL combination. Mostly for portability reasons, but also because the all 10's cab was a bit too harsh/direct to my liking.

I love the 112UL cab. As stand alone cab it is perfect, in combination with the 210UL cab the sound is massive yet smooth. Maybe this is the combination that you are looking for?

Grtz, steven

[BassIan]

The discussion of "fast" vs "slow" drivers has been covered before extensively. Pneuma's post with the quotation somewhat covers it again.

The best way to answer your question is not to compare 10s to 12s in general. This is impossible. If you get a good comparison between the two Epi cabs, that'll be something for you to go on.

As has been repeatedly discussed, the T/S Parameters of the drivers as well as proper enclosure design and good amplification affect the sound of the driver.

What you describe as "fast" bass is usually the lack of true bass. Many of the best tones bassists try to find have little if any material below 80hz. Sure, you're not getting any fundamental tones, but the low-order harmonics and (as bgavin sometimes has commented) doppler distortion in a near-field situation with many speaker cabinets make it *seem* deep. The TRUE deep sub-bass is what often gets described as "slow".

What needs to be understood when discussing the cone speed or area of a driver with reference to its "quickness" or loudness is that physics still applies. Produce a signal with an amplifier at a particular combination of frequencies (let's say your open E string, which has its fundamental and all of its harmonics), and drive a 10" driver with it. Now produce the same signal (you've recorded that pluck of the low E and can replay as much as you like) from the amplifier and drive an 18 with it. The two cones must move with the same frequency, otherwise they're generating a different note! Assuming the drivers have the exact same excursion to reproduce the signal, the cones MUST move at the same velocity with the same acceleration, or else they are producing different notes.

Now account for the fact that two different drivers will have different parameters that account for different excursion when the same electrical signal is applied. If you increase excursion, at the same freqency (one driver is more sensitive than the other, or you increase the power to both), the cone will accelerate more quickly (Since F = ma = BLi, where B is magnetic field, L is inductance, i is current) than it did before, since it must displace a greater distance in the same period (or inverse of frequency) to produce the same signal only louder.

This is a bit scattered since I'm at work. My point is, it takes a lot of physics understanding to begin to describe the differences between drivers and why they sound different. The best way for most people to make their gear choices is to listen and compare by ear, then choose what sounds best. Just be careful not to develop prejudice about any particular driver size, and let the sound speak for itself.

[jokerjkny]

lots o' great thoughts here!

just to bring the post into the Epifani mindset, i've used / owned by a pair of UL112's and a single UL310, mostly w/ my old UL502 amp (crosses fingers for UL902 this summer... ).

played w/ a neutral EQ on the amp, the UL112's have a more full, "i could actually not touch my EQ" kinda sound. full, balanced, and very sweet. but when i do my usual crank the low mids thing, the low mids push isnt as thick or as round as with the UL310. rather its like the "Q" thru the UL112's is a bit more pointed. hope that makes sense. still, its not really a bad thing, just different epifani sounds.

for slap, i can hear how you dont like 15" speakers. i'm not a 15" speaker fan by any stretch of the imagination, tho i will say i LOVED a UL215 i heard in the shop. just monster! still, the 12" speakers work fine for my slap. definitely quick enough and punchy enough.

volume wise, both are farkin' loud. w/ the UL112 pair, i was doing a funk rock combo at the time, and i easily kept up w/ a 50 watt non-master marshall cranked thru a 4x12 halfstack.

only thing i found lacking was a touch in the low B handling. in a pair its waaay better, but not quite the focused fundamental kick of the UL310. still, of ALL the 12" loaded cabs i've owned and tried, the Epifani's cut/punch like no other.

[jokerjkny]

Originally Posted by MikeD1687

(...)
I play with a jazz/r&b quintet (me, drums, keys, guitar, sax) and a hip-hop band (guitar, me, drums, turntables, 3 mc's). I'm always usually fine with the hip hop band volume wise, but the quintet's keyboard player is really loud. I suppose if I elevate the cabinets I could hear myself better too.

(...)

IMHO, the UL112's would be perfect for this setup.

and low mids are your friend.

[Crescent Seven]

This thread has far too much educational content.

You know, I had a short but HOT love affair with 18" speakers, until I realized that those ginormous lows that sounded sweet with just me and my drummer sounded like poop with the whole band. Once we auditioned our guitarists and I got the 1001rbII, I realized that the tighter sound of 10's are the direction I really need to be going.
Right now I'm using a 2x10 with a 1x15, and it really does sound great, but after playing several ported 4x10 cabs I realized that I can get that same low end pump with much more clarity if I went with the 10's.
I haven't put any 2x12's to the test (nobody around here ever has any), but if they are a best-of-both cab between the 15 and the 4x10, I might have to seriously look into one.
C7

[ctxbass]

I played mostly through 15s for about thirty years. I recently tried and bought a Bergantino HT112 and EX112. All the lows I loved from the 15s but focused...... no more mud.

[MikeD1687]

Awesome, thanks for the replies everyone.

I think I'm going to go for the pair of UL112's first, and if that doesn't work out, swap one of them for a UL210.

So that brings me to....Anyone wanna buy an almost brand new UL410 (4 ohm) cab?

Thanks again everyone, all of this speaker theory almost fried my brain.

[Brad Maestas]

PM sent

[paulraphael]

Originally Posted by BassIan

The discussion of "fast" vs "slow" drivers has been covered before extensively. Pneuma's post with the quotation somewhat covers it again.

Although I'll suggests that the conclusions again are wrong ... and not by any fault of Pneuma. The problem is that in the consumer/pro audio world, engineers try to explain a lot of complex phenomena with an inadequate number of simple metrics.

When you do that, it's easy to come to solid sounding conclusions like "if two speakesr produce frequency X, then they're traveling at the same speed, so there can be no velocity differences between speakers." It's also easy to point out observable phenomena like changes in frequency response yielding certain unrelated perceptions.

A metric that's missing in consumer audio (and I'll include bass amplification under this umbrella) is one that measures actual fidelity to detail, including transient peaks. In other areas of signal dynamics, and in optics, they use a metric called modulation transfer function. It's basically a way of graphing how true the output waveform stays to the input waveform over a range of frequencies. It is not about frequency response. It's about maintaining resolution of fine detail.

Two lenses might have the same frequency response (color transmition and absorption over the visible spectrum) and the same efficiency (percentage of light that getting transmitted vs. absorbed) but still one may be much sharper than the other. The difference in sharpness is obvious to anyone looking, but without a metric for measuring that difference, you'd have engineers saying "you're dreaming! those lenses measure the same!" Fortunately the optics industry has adopted MTF curves, which correlate very well with perceived sharpness.

My wish is that the audio industry would adopt the same metric. It was originally conceived for testing the resolution of entire systems in signal transmitions. I've seen it applied to audio only in a few technical settings, but it would serve us well in settling these silly disputes. I have zero doubt that MTF charts of speakers would corroborate a whole lot of what people are hearing (and being told they're not hearing).

A speaker has an impossible job, trying to track complex waveforms with a massive physical driver. It only follows that some will do it more accurately than others. The result of innacuracy isn't the loss of pitch definition, but rather the rounding and diminishing of fine detail and transient peaks ... which we perceive as it sounding "slower."

[jellisii]

Originally Posted by paulraphael

Although I'll suggests that the conclusions again are wrong ... and not by any fault of Pneuma. The problem is that in the consumer/pro audio world, engineers try to explain a lot of complex phenomena with an inadequate number of simple metrics.

When you do that, it's easy to come to solid sounding conclusions like "if two speakesr produce frequency X, then they're traveling at the same speed, so there can be no velocity differences between speakers." It's also easy to point out observable phenomena like changes in frequency response yielding certain unrelated perceptions.

A metric that's missing in consumer audio (and I'll include bass I amplification under this umbrella) is one that measures actual fidelity to detail, including transient peaks. In other areas of signal dynamics, and in optics, they use a metric called modulation transfer function. It's basically a way of graphing how true the output waveform stays to the input waveform over a range of frequencies. It is not about frequency response. It's about maintaining resolution of fine detail.

Two lenses might have the same frequency response (color transmition and absorption over the visible spectrum) and the same efficiency (percentage of light that getting transmitted vs. absorbed) but still one may be much sharper than the other. The difference in sharpness is obvious to anyone looking, but without a metric for measuring that difference, you'd have engineers saying "you're dreaming! those lenses measure the same!" Fortunately the optics industry has adopted MTF curves, which correlate very well with perceived sharpness.

My wish is that the audio industry would adopt the same metric. It was originally conceived for testing the resolution of entire systems in signal transmitions. I've seen it applied to audio only in a few technical settings, but it would serve us well in settling these silly disputes. I have zero doubt that MTF charts of speakers would corroborate a whole lot of what people are hearing (and being told they're not hearing).

A speaker has an impossible job, trying to track complex waveforms with a massive physical driver. It only follows that some will do it more accurately than others. The result of innacuracy isn't the loss of pitch definition, but rather the rounding and diminishing of fine detail and transient peaks ... which we perceive as it sounding "slower."

I believe slew rates cover this on the amplifier side. I don't know about the speaker side.

[bgavin]

For speakers, it is impulse testing.

You can scope the driver response to a transient, and measure the amount of rise time and overshoot. Because it has mass, no driver can respond accurately to a square wave. Better drivers get closer to the ideal than do poor drivers.

When I was doing mainframes at IBM, digital circuits were always scoped for clarity and rise characteristics as part of the bug shooting process.

One of the early differences between Intel chipsets and the asian copies, was the quality of the signal. Very apparent on a scope.

[paulraphael]

Slew rates touch on the idea, definitely. A slew rate number gives a snapshot of the speed of an amplifier's response at some given test frequency.

MTF would chart its actual ability reproduce a waveform over its whole frequency response. The slew rate would be one of a number of factors contributing to this.

You can also measure the MTF a whole system: a preamp, amp, and speaker combination, for example. Since each measurement is always a fraction of 100%, you just multiply the curves of everything in the signal chain, and in the end you get to see just how much information you've lost along the way.

if audio performs anything like optics, then hi fi won't look quite so hi on paper ... it will become clear how much gets lost at every link in the chain. it makes sense that high end mastering engineers (and deep pocketed audio snobs) keep their signal chains as short and as simple as possible.

[BassIan]

Originally Posted by paulraphael

Although I'll suggests that the conclusions again are wrong ... and not by any fault of Pneuma. The problem is that in the consumer/pro audio world, engineers try to explain a lot of complex phenomena with an inadequate number of simple metrics.

The conclusions are limited to the definition of the problem. I'll definitely agree that we are using too few metrics here to adequately describe the problem. However, to explain concepts and avoid generalizations that are common around here (generalizations tend to use far fewer metrics than these oversimplifying engineers use).

Originally Posted by paulraphael

When you do that, it's easy to come to solid sounding conclusions like "if two speakesr produce frequency X, then they're traveling at the same speed, so there can be no velocity differences between speakers." It's also easy to point out observable phenomena like changes in frequency response yielding certain unrelated perceptions.

The conclusions made here have obvious omissions that should be apparent in the definition of the problem. Obviously when we're playing bass we're not dealing with a 10" and an 18" speaker that are identical in every way but for diameter and cone mass. That's impossible. However, to make this particular concept clear, it is instructive as a thought experiment to refer to these conclusions.

Originally Posted by paulraphael

A metric that's missing in consumer audio (and I'll include bass amplification under this umbrella) is one that measures actual fidelity to detail, including transient peaks. In other areas of signal dynamics, and in optics, they use a metric called modulation transfer function. It's basically a way of graphing how true the output waveform stays to the input waveform over a range of frequencies. It is not about frequency response. It's about maintaining resolution of fine detail.
...
My wish is that the audio industry would adopt the same metric. It was originally conceived for testing the resolution of entire systems in signal transmitions. I've seen it applied to audio only in a few technical settings, but it would serve us well in settling these silly disputes. I have zero doubt that MTF charts of speakers would corroborate a whole lot of what people are hearing (and being told they're not hearing).

I'm somewhat familiar with these, though my focus of study doesn't lead me in the direction of modulation transfer functions. I understand that this is a factor in audio as with your further lense example. Certainly this metric has an impact on the apparent "speed" of a driver. My argument, and the argument of others, comes into play when people use cone mass or simply the nominal diameter of a speaker to judge its "speed" or its response. It is an attempt to point out other factors, not exhaustively, that will affect the reproduced sound. Basically, keeping it apples-to-apples. Another problem is that nobody (aside from Meyer, Bill Fitzmaurice, and Phil Jones, and I've only seen impulse testing graphs from Meyer) publishes any useful data that can be used to compare on anything more than an advertising level. So, even though the metrics could be used in these comparisons, they aren't available. Logic and reasonable physical thinking is available to anyone, though. Having the knowledge and using the correct terminology can really help in discussions like these.

Originally Posted by paulraphael

A speaker has an impossible job, trying to track complex waveforms with a massive physical driver. It only follows that some will do it more accurately than others. The result of innacuracy isn't the loss of pitch definition, but rather the rounding and diminishing of fine detail and transient peaks ... which we perceive as it sounding "slower."

I'm with you here. To reiterate what I said above, the comments I made along with others were in response to the use of cone mass, nominal diameter, and thermal power dissipation ability as the factors that change the sound of a driver or make it sound slow/fast. It was not meant as an exhaustive study nor meant to omit transfer functions. Simply meant to promote some thought that had a more firm grounding in basic mechanical physics.

Now we need to convince manufacturers to post actual data... that's never gonna happen. So, as always, listen before you buy, and YMMV...

[Pneuma]

Originally Posted by paulraphael

Although I'll suggests that the conclusions again are wrong ... and not by any fault of Pneuma. The problem is that in the consumer/pro audio world, engineers try to explain a lot of complex phenomena with an inadequate number of simple metrics.

Quite valid points (and I edited out a lot of them for brevity). However that still doesn't really tell us if there *is* a problem. It just tells us that we lack data to determine what causes some things we may or may not be hearing.

The result of innacuracy isn't the loss of pitch definition, but rather the rounding and diminishing of fine detail and transient peaks ... which we perceive as it sounding "slower."

Very possible. However, it's also quite possible that the explanation Dan gave would hold true, even with further testing. Is what we call "slower" actually slower, or is it just how we describe it?

I wonder if Adire has actually tested for transient response and he just didn't mention it or not. Mr. Wiggins routinely divulges a lot of information about his products, their design, and the theory behind it than the vast majority of speaker makers.

Bill Fitzmaurice is another. I wonder what he'd have to say about slow speakers.

P.

[paulraphael]

Originally Posted by Pneuma

Very possible. However, it's also quite possible that the explanation Dan gave would hold true, even with further testing. Is what we call "slower" actually slower, or is it just how we describe it?

I bet it can be either or both. Different causes can lead to similar perceptions. It used to be thought that tube amps sounded warm because they rolled off the highs and lows (in the old days they did). People know that cutting off frequency response led to a perception of warmth, and based on this some engineers said you could duplicate tubes exactly with e.q.

But then tube amps with flat frequency response came along, and they still sounded warm, which led people to find a more complicated explanations in harmonic distortion.

it's not that the frequency response theory was bogus; just that it wasn't the whole story. and definitely not the most interesting part of the story.

Originally Posted by Pneuma

I wonder if Adire has actually tested for transient response and he just didn't mention it or not. Mr. Wiggins routinely divulges a lot of information about his products, their design, and the theory behind it than the vast majority of speaker makers.

Bill Fitzmaurice is another. I wonder what he'd have to say about slow speakers.

P.

I don't know. I have found that a lot of equipment designers, including some brilliant ones, don't start with scientific theories. A lot of them work like chefs ... trying a little of this, a little of that, until they end up with something delicious. They may know empirically that adding a certain herb early gives different results from adding it right at the end of cooking, but they may not know the science behind it. We don't pay them for the answers ... we pay them for their great pallettes (or ears) and all the work they put into discovering something great.

I think people get caught up by the speed thing because speed is probably the wrong word. It's a great description of what things sound like, though. I know from auditioning stereo gear that some of it sounds so much faster subjectively you'd swear someone turned up the tempo. What creates that illusion can be harmonic leanness, or it can be sharp, accurate transients ... what some people call "leading edge zip." Neither is precisely about speed, in miles per hour, but speed is a great description of the effect.