10s vs. 15s

[specplyrz]

My HT sub runs flat to 20Hz, is loaded with an 8 inch driver. It ain't the size of your pencil that counts, it's how you write your signature.

PERFECT!!! 'sept I never learned to write....

 

[specplyrz]

But surely a 10" driver in these is a larger driver than the others in the system (in the other enclosures)?

I think "the shadow" was referring to driver size rather than enclosure. You can get great bass out of a small enclosure... but it needs, as you rightly point out, a hell of a lot of power. I remember back in the 70s when Videotone brought out the Minimax speakers. These were perhaps the first affordable compact hi-fi units to have really good low end, but, boy did they take some power to drive them well...

Ahhh I see...well most home speakers now are going with multipal smaller 6.5 woofers/midrange units. Upper level speakers still go with the traditional 2-3 way design. 10's being the most common, or multipal 10's. Then you have the Electrostatics.....oh brother!!! Mine were 72" tall by 26" wide!!!! With 8"-12" subs built in.

 

[fdeck]

Here is my theory about 10's versus 15's.

I think they sound different because of marketing. The market expects 15's to have more low end than 10's, so they are designed that way.

DIY'ers are less constrained by the demands of the market. I designed a 15" cab that is not boomy at all, just by putting a mainstream 15" driver in a relatively small box. Now I may have gone overboard, and having listened to it, I might consider building a slightly bigger box for it. But I have several months to make that decision, while it is too cold to work in my garage anyway.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

I think they sound different because of marketing. The market expects 15's to have more low end than 10's, so they are designed that way.

Even I'm not that cynical. All things being equal larger drivers tend to work better at lower frequencies because the wavelengths of low frequencies are longer than those of high frequencies. The reverse is also true. But there's not a huge difference between a fifteen and a ten as that's only a 3:2 size ratio, whereas the wavelengths of the audible specrum range from about 1/2 inch to 56 feet.

 

[seamonkey]

In a perfect world yes, but the world isn't perfect. The size required of cabinets to achieve that is just too impractical for on stage use. But large PA systems with horn loaded subs can go flat to 32 Hz or even lower, and that's why they're able to give a depth of response through the PA that's simply unachievable with almost any backline bass cab.

Interesting, so it's probably best to do a DI and not mic if you want the full sound out front?

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Interesting, so it's probably best to do a DI and not mic if you want the full sound out front?

It doesn't matter that much as the guy in the FOH can diddle with your signal in either case to something very different from what you have on stage. In the pro ranks the DI tends to be more popular as it has a cleaner sound than a mic, though in some cases they'll use both and then mix the two to get what they want.

 

[bgavin]

Micing introduces all sorts of variables into the equation.

If the cab is bottomless to start with, and the PA is bottomless at the signal chain end, this is cumulative. One could argue the proximity effect of the typical mic used to record the cab compensates for lack of bottom, but... it goes on and on.

Using a DI introduces less color and variation to the FOH console. It also allows less mic bleed into the mix, because the DI means one less mic on stage.

I get fabulous clarity using my Countryman 85 DI and +48v phantom power with my passive basses. Recorded with Sonar and played back through my reference speakers, I get the tone and full bottom that I want from my basses.

This gives me an accurate comparison to find what I want in a bass cab. So far, I have not found it. Swapping out my reference speakers with various 10" and 18" bass cabs shows me how colored and pitiful they really sound. Like screaming through a wet blanket.