Are two 12 as loud as four 10's?

[greenboy]

I just did a A/B side by side comparison and they are both silent. Its a tie folks. Without anything pushing them, they are both pretty quiet.

That's 'cause the drivers are blown up from being underpowered. Sometimes that even happens when shipping a cab takes too long - which is why there is such a high incidence of cabs from China with dead speakers in them.

 

[BellBottomBlues]

hi,

on paper it sounds a go for the 4x10...unfortunately it's all paper ...i just played a biker party with a 2x12 and FOH support and it was great sound...(my cab was rated at 600 w rms) 100 less than most 4x10s.....it's all personal preference....Ampeg 4x10s sound great till you it em with !power...... go with what fills your budget and sounds good.!!!! just buy quality stuff you can upgrade with later !!!!!!


my 2 cents worth

The fact that you used FOH support you killed an argument you might've had.

 

[pickles]

Not to mention he missed the "like designs" part.

A ported 600 watt 4 ohm efficient 2x12 vs a 400 watt 8 ohm sealed ampeg 4x10 ... the 2x12 will be MUCH louder especially in the deep lows.

 

[Munjibunga]

I would say "somewhat" irrelevant...the total speaker surface (diameter) is going to come into play along with efficiency and wattage. 4x10 = 40" of speaker surface where as 2x12" = 24" of speaker surface. Simple math outside of efficiency and wattage will tell you the 4x10 will win!

The speaker area of the 410 is 314 square inches. For the 212, it's 226 square inches. Your math is a little too simple.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

Your math is a little too simple.

Not to mention irrelevent. Potential output is limited by total driver displacement (T/S spec Vd) and displacement is not determined by cone area.

 

[joelb79]

Regardless Bill.. most 410's are louder. I say most because I know some are just as loud. But the audio perception created by two extra cones with equally spec'd Vd (given each speaker in a correct enclosure for the application) would mean a much louder cabinet if it was 4 10's rather than 2 12's.

All that said I find 410's are louder because the extra two cones increase the +100Hz content enough to be perceived as louder.

 

[Dr. Eagle]

Irrelevant. You have to look at the efficiency of the cab, not the diameter of the speakers.

Thank you... I couldn't agree more. And IMHO the volume of the cabinet shouldn't be the primary driver (no pun intended) for picking a cabinet, rather the tone. I think there's a major difference between the tone of 12s and 10s and I've always tended toward larger speakers.

 

[figuredbass]

Not to mention irrelevent. Potential output is limited by total driver displacement (T/S spec Vd) and displacement is not determined by cone area.

I see by your post that the driver displacement parameter is far more significant than some of us realized, myself included. I always assumed that a speaker's (or speaker cabinet's) maximum volume capability was determined by it's SPL rating in relation to its maximum power ratings. It had never occurred to me that the maximum driver displacement could possibly be reached BEFORE the maximum safe power is reached. In light of this, I'm wondering whether speaker manufacturers ought to publish an additonal spec (yup, one more!) called "Maximum SPL," which would be the maximum volume the speaker can ACTUALLY produce, whether at the point this occurs its maximum power rating has been reached or NOT.

OTOH I suppose that if maximum driver displacement occurs at an applied wattage that's greater than the driver's nominal power rating (and therefore safe real world operating maximum), it wouldn't really be needed to be considered as a determinant of the driver's maximum volume capability, at least not from a practical standpoint.

 

[A9X]

In light of this, I'm wondering whether speaker manufacturers ought to publish an additonal spec (yup, one more!) called "Maximum SPL," which would be the maximum volume the speaker can ACTUALLY produce, whether at the point this occurs its maximum power rating has been reached or NOT.

Driver manufacturers would assume that the person buying the speaker would be able to use a modelling program and understand T/S and other aspects of design. There are a number of parameters that would affect this especially at low frequencies and they would determine maximum power able to be applied at a given frequency and the driver manufacturer could have no way of knowing how you're going to implement your design. WinISD will show the max SPL capability.

 

[Dr. Eagle]

The fact that you used FOH support you killed an argument you might've had.

I must have missed something. Where you have FOH support, IMHO you should ALWAYS use the PA rather than stage volume. Otherwise the sound man has no control to get the mix right other than yelling at you through the talkback mike to turn down.

 

[A9X]

And IMHO the volume of the cabinet shouldn't be the primary driver (no pun intended) for picking a cabinet

Some of us have been talking about volume displacement as being the determinant for potential max SPL, not the enclosure volume. See earlier chart.

 

[figuredbass]

There are a number of parameters that would affect this especially at low frequencies and they would determine maximum power able to be applied at a given frequency and the driver manufacturer could have no way of knowing how you're going to implement your design. WinISD will show the max SPL capability.

Interesting - I didn't know this. I would still like to see a "Maximum SPL" spec of a given cabinet once loaded with its specific drivers. I'm assuming this at least would be possible (?)

 

[A9X]

Interesting - I didn't know this. I would still like to see a "Maximum SPL" spec of a given cabinet once loaded with its specific drivers. I'm assuming this at least would be possible (?)

Some manufacturers, eg Eminence for the 3015 (and others) do offer cab designs, often with quite a lot of detail which will allow you to determine what sort of max SPL is possible. It's still frequency dependent though.

 

[Dr. Eagle]

Some of us have been talking about volume displacement as being the determinant for potential max SPL, not the enclosure volume. See earlier chart.

OK I must have missed (skipped) all the technical discussion. I was giving a general reply to the overall thread title. Just running a quick calc on the driver area, I can see the advantage there goes to the 10s.

I still say the overall driving force in picking a cabinet should be the tone/sound rather than the SPL. But that's just my Humble opinion.

 

[A9X]

OK I must have missed (skipped) all the technical discussion. I was giving a general reply to the overall thread title. Just running a quick calc on the driver area, I can see the advantage there goes to the 10s.

But the Sd (surface area) combined with the amount of excursion determines SPL.

I still say the overall driving force in picking a cabinet should be the tone/sound rather than the SPL. But that's just my Humble opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly, providing the rig gives you enough horsepower for the job. But tone is so personal - eg lots of people love Ampeg fridges, but to me they sound like mud.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

I'm wondering whether speaker manufacturers ought to publish an additonal spec (yup, one more!) called "Maximum SPL," which would be the maximum volume the speaker can ACTUALLY produce, whether at the point this occurs its maximum power rating has been reached or NOT.

Many do list maximum SPL output figures, but not one is accurate. One reason why is that they don't take displacement into consideration, and the vast majority of drivers cannot run to even half their thermal rating before exceeding xmax. Moreover, none of the maximum SPL output claims are the result of actually measuring the cabs. They're arrived at by adding the cab's thermal power handling capability to the cab's 1m/1w rating (which are themselves, shall we say, highly optimistic in most cases). Doing so assumes that power input versus acoustic output is linear, which it is not, and ignores completely the presence of thermal power compression.

 

[A9X]

Many do list maximum SPL output figures, but not one is accurate. One reason why is that they don't take displacement into consideration, and the vast majority of drivers cannot run to even half their thermal rating before exceeding xmax. Moreover, none of the maximum SPL output claims are the result of actually measuring the cabs. They're arrived at by adding the cab's thermal power handling capability to the cab's 1m/1w rating (which are themselves, shall we say, highly optimistic in most cases). Doing so assumes that power input versus acoustic output is linear, which it is not, and ignores completely the presence of thermal power compression.

What he said.

 

[Jamiebass]

I thought I read somewhere on TB that a 3db increase actually doubles volume,

Wrong, unfortunately. A 10 dB increment is a perceived doubling of volume. If you double the power, like going from 100 watts to 200 watts, you will get a 6 dB increase.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

If you double the power, like going from 100 watts to 200 watts, you will get a 6 dB increase.

3dB.

 

[greenboy]

If you double the power, like going from 100 watts to 200 watts, you will get a 6 dB increase.

Earlier I posted that a doubling of power would be 3 dB. Seems like the thread is in a loop of regurg. Who will win? ; }