As I understand it 10 inch speakers have better dispersion than 15's. Is this correct? If that is the case how do a 410 and a vertical 215 compare? The 10 inchers have better dispersion but then loose some due to horz alignment? So in the end does one do a better job than the other?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
410 vs 215 dispersion
- Thread starter LowDownWays
- Start date
I may be missing what your asking, but the larger the speaker, the farther back the audience needs to be to hear it properly. And 10's with 15's sounds killer. Even some 12's thrown in there to boost up the mids fits into the mix quite well.
Rick Auricchio
Registered Bass Offender
The OP is correct in all the statements. Bill Fitzmaurice may check in later as to which is the better cab for dispersion.
My guess is that the 410 is better, but that's just a guess.
My guess is that the 410 is better, but that's just a guess.
410's in a square configuration (like the Avatar, Ampeg, SWR Goliath, etc) have issue with comb filtering due to the interaction of the drivers. This is to a degree lessened in a diagonal config (Bag End or like the Berg NV610 arrancement), it is reduced much further using 2 2x10's stacked on end rather than a 4x10.
This is of course not the answer to your question but a tid bit meant to illustrate that actual dispersion isn't the only consideration. For the 4x10, the issues happen more or less directly out front where for the 2x15 it's more off to the side...
Frequency also has an impact here. For the lower freq's it isn't a real world issue. As a general rule, higher freq's beam earlier in a 15 than in a 10 - (hedging my bet's as there may be some 15 that doesn't and a 10 that does...). For the large note, big bass, big booty, chest thumping kinda freq's - not a worry with the 15's ...
This is of course not the answer to your question but a tid bit meant to illustrate that actual dispersion isn't the only consideration. For the 4x10, the issues happen more or less directly out front where for the 2x15 it's more off to the side...
Frequency also has an impact here. For the lower freq's it isn't a real world issue. As a general rule, higher freq's beam earlier in a 15 than in a 10 - (hedging my bet's as there may be some 15 that doesn't and a 10 that does...). For the large note, big bass, big booty, chest thumping kinda freq's - not a worry with the 15's ...
A vertical 2x15 should have better midrange dispersion than a 4x10 box config.
The 2x15 should extend to 1.2khz or so before beaming, and the 4x10 should be around 600-800hz depending on how far the 10s are apart horizontally. That's from memory so someone can chime in with some exact numbers of course.
The 2x15 should extend to 1.2khz or so before beaming, and the 4x10 should be around 600-800hz depending on how far the 10s are apart horizontally. That's from memory so someone can chime in with some exact numbers of course.
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
Yes, when singly mounted.
Bingo. Placing tens side by side the midrange dispersion is halved, so what is gained by the smaller cone is lost and more.
So... it seems like a push then? I like 10 inch speakers for bass and would like to stay with them (I have a couple 410's). I would try the 2 -210 vertical stack but my tube head is 23 inches wide and would hang off both sides of the stack by a fair amount. Most 210's are what, 16-17 inches wide when stacked that way?
Liking 10" speakers for bass is silly. Speakers are speakers mostly. Nothing really inherent in the sound.
A pair of 2x10s on their ends is fine, but for that volume you could just get a 15/6 and it'd be just as loud with enough watts.
Also, you could get 2x10s that are designed for vertical stacking -- try Genz Neox 210Ts (or 212s, superior imho).
A pair of 2x10s on their ends is fine, but for that volume you could just get a 15/6 and it'd be just as loud with enough watts.
Also, you could get 2x10s that are designed for vertical stacking -- try Genz Neox 210Ts (or 212s, superior imho).
If you wanted to do a little work to get what you want, you could take one of your 4x10 cabs and add low pass filters to the tens on one side. Cross them over at 600 Hz or so, and the beaming will be eliminated. Your on-axis respons will only be cut 3 dB, but a few degrees to the side will be virtualy unaffected. The cost of the components will be nothing compared to buying a new cabinet.
I'm usualy with you there. I run a 2x10+1x15 setup, but occasionaly I turn down the lows a bit and boost the low mids a tad to get something closer to the wall-of-tens sound. Some people like it enough to just run all tens. You can hear the roll-off on the E string in alot of older recordings, so it has a vintage aspect I guess.
It's not the wall of tens sound. It's the frequency response curve and poor midrange dispersion --
Bill actually detailed a method of getting the SVT sound using a much smaller cabinet (a 3015LF crossed over at 200hz to a trio of guitar drivers) - with better dispersion and low end as well.
The low end rolloff you can get by turning down some bass, like you said.
I guess what I'm getting at is it's not the size of the driver that makes it happen. It's the particular driver in the particular enclosure.
Bill actually detailed a method of getting the SVT sound using a much smaller cabinet (a 3015LF crossed over at 200hz to a trio of guitar drivers) - with better dispersion and low end as well.
The low end rolloff you can get by turning down some bass, like you said.
I guess what I'm getting at is it's not the size of the driver that makes it happen. It's the particular driver in the particular enclosure.
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
That's a viable option. But a pair of 2x10s vertically aligned also have the advantage of being higher so that you can hear them better.
Ah yes, the Fernando syndrome: I don't care if it sounds good, just as long as it looks good. And my 4x10 looks mahvelous!
Well, you're not alone in that sentiment. Leo Fender's penchant for building cabs based on what looked good rather than what sounded best is what started this in the first place.
I think this quote may have been misinterpreted. I think the OP's concern is the head being off balance at a height like that.
____
[____]
| |
| |
| |
| |
.....one small push, or anything off balance would send the head tumbling down. dig?[____]
| |
| |
| |
| |
that's what's made me nervous about stacking stuff high & thin like that...not about looks, more concern for my head than anything.
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
I understand his concern completely, and sympathize. The trumping of function by form is what happens when the design parameters of cabs are dictated by marketeers instead of engineers. OTOH cabs like the Genz-Benz Neox show that sound engineering practice need not be totally abandoned to conform with the cookie cutter mentality that permeates this industry.
What about s 410's? not an 810 but 2 cabs. Generally (don't yell at me this is just my understanding) a 215 is 4 ohm, and so is 2 410's, so they could be called "equivalents." How would this then compare? The same could be said about a single 15 and 410 compared against each other.
Eh...
Actually, it doesn't matter how large the speaker is. Once you're in its field of dispersion, that's about as good as it's going to sound. If it ever sounds better far away from it, it's a result of room reflections reinforcing frequencies that make it sound good. It could easily sound worse farther away if the room reflects freqs that sound bad.
And while many people do mix driver sizes and cab sizes and love the results, it causes phasing. If that phasing is pleasing to you, that's one thing, but I've seen some rigs where phasing is really bad.
In general, they're not equivalents. The average 410 goes as low or lower than the average 115 and is noticeable louder. So a 215 will usually get buried by an 810 as well.
Use a 1x15 as a pedestal.
Build a pretty box out of 1/4" plywood to set behind you on stage, then hide a vertical array of 15's with horns and a couple of 2x18 subs behind a curtain.
Ok that's what i thought. I guess i was being confusing, (late night shift about to start) since i'm tired. I was so much talking about volume, tone, response etc., but rather what i meant was
410:115::810:215
if that makes sense. So for the sake of the thread, it seemd to me like it was comparing apples to oranges. If you wanted to do a fair comparison of the dispersion, it seems misleading to say that a 215 may have better dispersion results vs. a 410 when in reality it is the "big brother" of the 15 cabs compared to a "little 10". Again this probably makes no sense and I'll laugh when i see it in the morning.
