Small speakers that sound 'big'

[rodneyat]

From my experience, this varies from builder to builder. As far as power goes..almost all of them lie or misrepresent the numbers. So, you are correct. Their number probably includes the tweeter. Which is probably rated at 100-150watts I've had 2 x210 stacks that sound as good as the 410 version of the same cabinet. And other times the 2x210 stack sounds anemic in comparison to the 410. Let your ears decide, if you have the ability to try them both first.

As far as overall volume/power goes. IME, if you really want more volume. You are better off at adding more cones than you are more power. But more cones also adds more to your back pain.

Don't worry about dogging me, I have thick skin, just trying to learn here. The car analogy wasn't meant to be literal, just my impression of how I think it might be.

As far as Mesa is concerned yes, I love them but its not practical for what I do now so I will go to something lighter.

Some of this stuff is so confusing for instance: Looking at the ampeg pro neo series, love the way they sound on Utube but I have questions because I investigate stuff and the more you do that the more questions it brings up.

Like the 210 pro neo series, rated at 550 watts at 8ohms. However when you go to the ampeg site and download the owners manual, it says that the drivers in that cabinet are rated at 200 watts apiece thats 400 watts not 550.

only thing I can think of is they are including some power for the horn or driver as they call it.

So I was wondering, their 410 cab is rated 850 watts, the 210 550 watts. It would be more expensive but it seems based on their numbers if I buy 2 210 cabs I will have a 410 cab that would be rated at 1100 watts instead of 850.

I will need two cabs anyway to bring the impedence down to 4ohms so that might be the way to go plus easier to carry the 210 vs the 410. Any thoughts on this ?

 

[KJung]

Don't worry about dogging me, I have thick skin, just trying to learn here. The car analogy wasn't meant to be literal, just my impression of how I think it might be.

As far as Mesa is concerned yes, I love them but its not practical for what I do now so I will go to something lighter.

Some of this stuff is so confusing for instance: Looking at the ampeg pro neo series, love the way they sound on Utube but I have questions because I investigate stuff and the more you do that the more questions it brings up.

Like the 210 pro neo series, rated at 550 watts at 8ohms. However when you go to the ampeg site and download the owners manual, it says that the drivers in that cabinet are rated at 200 watts apiece thats 400 watts not 550.

only thing I can think of is they are including some power for the horn or driver as they call it.

So I was wondering, their 410 cab is rated 850 watts, the 210 550 watts. It would be more expensive but it seems based on their numbers if I buy 2 210 cabs I will have a 410 cab that would be rated at 1100 watts instead of 850.

I will need two cabs anyway to bring the impedence down to 4ohms so that might be the way to go plus easier to carry the 210 vs the 410. Any thoughts on this ?

I assume these OT's are OK now, since the OP got his info and has checked out. I'm obviously very interested in the topic.

First, again, the 'thermal power rating' is probably the most useless piece of info in a published cab spec, so I wouldn't worry too much about that (i.e., 800 versus 1000 'thermal rating' is not really meaningful regarding the performance of the cab). As you pointed out, with the vast majority of cabs, you reach the mechanical limits of the cab (i.e., farting or compressing) earlier than the thermal limits. And, most heads rarely put out their maximum power in the vast majority of playing situations.

The difference between the manual spec and the web or cab spec from other sources is one of two things... a typo/sloppiness on the marketing intern's part, or possibly (related to the previous issue) Ampeg scrambling like everyone else to keep the neo driver cost down and switching speaker source/brand and not updating their marketing materials across the board.

The problem with combining a 210 and a 410 of the same impedance (8ohms) is that the amp delivers power evenly to both cabs. Hence the 210's two drivers see twice the power of the 410's 4 drivers. This COULD be an issue if you are using high power and your 210 hits its limits well before the 410. The optimum way to do that is a 4ohm 410 and an 8ohm 210, which will result in each of the six 10's to get the same power, and as a result, that stack behaves pretty much like a modular 610 (as long as the 210 and 410 in the product line are voiced about the same... which is sometimes the case, sometimes not). EDIT: Of course, doing this requires either a head that is safe down to 2.67ohms, or a dual mono design like the Eden WT800 or Genz Shuttle Max 12.2.

The real issue in matching a speaker cab to power is efficiency. A high efficiency cab will be much louder per watt (at least in the midrange), so won't really need that much power. A low efficiency cab, which typically has much more deep bass response (that is where the low efficiency comes from.... deep bass takes a lot of power) might need a LOT of watts to really start cranking, and you could need a lot of watts to really get the volume up. Of course, then you have to be a bit careful and use you ears to not crank the cab past its mechanical, and eventually thermal limits.

 

[RotoRick]

I assume these OT's are OK now, since the OP got his info and has checked out. I'm obviously very interested in the topic.

First, again, the 'thermal power rating' is probably the most useless piece of info in a published cab spec, so I wouldn't worry too much about that (i.e., 800 versus 1000 'thermal rating' is not really meaningful regarding the performance of the cab). As you pointed out, with the vast majority of cabs, you reach the mechanical limits of the cab (i.e., farting or compressing) earlier than the thermal limits. And, most heads rarely put out their maximum power in the vast majority of playing situations.

The difference between the manual spec and the web or cab spec from other sources is one of two things... a typo/sloppiness on the marketing intern's part, or possibly (related to the previous issue) Ampeg scrambling like everyone else to keep the neo driver cost down and switching speaker source/brand and not updating their marketing materials across the board.

The problem with combining a 210 and a 410 of the same impedance (8ohms) is that the amp delivers power evenly to both cabs. Hence the 210's two drivers see twice the power of the 410's 4 drivers. This COULD be an issue if you are using high power and your 210 hits its limits well before the 410. The optimum way to do that is a 4ohm 410 and an 8ohm 210, which will result in each of the six 10's to get the same power, and as a result, that stack behaves pretty much like a modular 610 (as long as the 210 and 410 in the product line are voiced about the same... which is sometimes the case, sometimes not). EDIT: Of course, doing this requires either a head that is safe down to 2.67ohms, or a dual mono design like the Eden WT800 or Genz Shuttle Max 12.2.

The real issue in matching a speaker cab to power is efficiency. A high efficiency cab will be much louder per watt (at least in the midrange), so won't really need that much power. A low efficiency cab, which typically has much more deep bass response (that is where the low efficiency comes from.... deep bass takes a lot of power) might need a LOT of watts to really start cranking, and you could need a lot of watts to really get the volume up. Of course, then you have to be a bit careful and use you ears to not crank the cab past its mechanical, and eventually thermal limits.

Ya, the sensitivity is only 98 vs 103 or greater for some newer cabs, but they sound so good and clean, and the low B for you 5 stringers sounded very good on utube.

Unfortunatley, in the pro neo series they don't make a 4 ohm cab, but I may just go with 2 210s then I'll be down to 4ohms. I know everybody here hates a 15 and a 210 together but when the Ampeg guy demonstrated it it sounded great, low, punchy and articulate on top.

Only thing I don't like about the cabinets is they don't have the corner protectors. I have had two companies so far on the phone tell me that when you run a 410 and 210 together, the cabs DON"T share the wattage the speakers do, but we know differently.

 

[CL400Peavey]

Ya, the sensitivity is only 98 vs 103 or greater for some newer cabs, but they sound so good and clean, and the low B for you 5 stringers sounded very good on utube.

Unfortunatley, in the pro neo series they don't make a 4 ohm cab, but I may just go with 2 210s then I'll be down to 4ohms. I know everybody here hates a 15 and a 210 together but when the Ampeg guy demonstrated it it sounded great, low, punchy and articulate on top.

just go with the 8 Ohm 410. "Getting" all the power is pointless. there negligible volume difference if the other specs are similar.

 

[KJung]

Ya, the sensitivity is only 98 vs 103 or greater for some newer cabs, but they sound so good and clean, and the low B for you 5 stringers sounded very good on utube.

Unfortunatley, in the pro neo series they don't make a 4 ohm cab, but I may just go with 2 210s then I'll be down to 4ohms. I know everybody here hates a 15 and a 210 together but when the Ampeg guy demonstrated it it sounded great, low, punchy and articulate on top.

Only thing I don't like about the cabinets is they don't have the corner protectors. I have had two companies so far on the phone tell me that when you run a 410 and 210 together, the cabs DON"T share the wattage the speakers do, but we know differently.

Actually, most of the 'hate' is a 115 with a 410, since you run into the same issue I described about with the 210/410.

A 115/210 stack can sound VERY good, and is typically well balanced. Now, will it sound 'better' than a 2 x 210 stack... who knows!

 

[groovaholic]

I have a simple analogy for the whole weight debate:

Particle board or plywood?
-Which weighs more?
-Which will hold up better?

The particleboard might actually SOUND better due to the density and lack of resonance, but it's a cab that will crumble (literally) when it fails.

I don't buy particleboard ANYTHING any more; it's just too heavy and brittle.

But it IS heavy!

Too bad we scared off the OP -- it sucks when folks' TalkBass ego gets in the way of information.

 

[KJung]

just go with the 8 Ohm 410. "Getting" all the power is pointless. there negligible volume difference if the other specs are similar.

All depends on the efficiency of the cab versus the absolute power of the head. It can be trivial if you have a powerful head at 8ohms and/or a relatively efficient 410. It can be lifechanging if you have a low powered head at 8ohms and/or or low efficient cab. It always depends.

Of course, also depends on your tonal profile (big low end versus more bridge pickup burp) and how loud you actually play, combined with technique ('polite fingerstyle versus aggressive slapping or really digging in).

 

[blindrabbit]

All of this discussion is far more useful, educational, and bass-relevant than the lengthy OT critique I was preparing to write regarding the terribly misinformed car analogy.

This has been a great thread to follow and watch develop. Shame that the OP didn't stick around to soak this all in.

KJung, regarding efficiency, I hadn't thought of (or recognized) the relationship between this and bass response before. Is this a safe rule of thumb across the board - bass response and efficiency are inversely correlated? So far I'm pleasantly surprised with the bass response of my Traynor TC112, which has a sensitivity of 98. However, if I wanted more bass from a 1x12 cabinet, is it reasonable to have one of the search criteria to be looking at *less* sensitive cabs?

 

[CL400Peavey]

All depends on the efficiency of the cab versus the absolute power of the head. It can be trivial if you have a powerful head at 8ohms and/or a relatively efficient 410. It can be lifechanging if you have a low powered head at 8ohms and/or or low efficient cab. It always depends.

Of course, also depends on your tonal profile (big low end versus more bridge pickup burp) and how loud you actually play, combined with technique ('polite fingerstyle versus aggressive slapping or really digging in).

just go with the 8 Ohm 410. "Getting" all the power is pointless. there negligible volume difference if the other specs are similar.

But you are right about the sensitivity.

to Rick,

A 8 Ohm cab that is much more sensitive than a 4 Ohm cab will be louder with less voltage applied. How much? depends, but if your head is 4 Ohm stable you can expand with a second 8 Ohm cab if you need to.

Actually, most of the 'hate' is a 115 with a 410, since you run into the same issue I described about with the 210/410.

+1

I dont even own a 10" speaker anymore.

 

[CL400Peavey]

Is this a safe rule of thumb across the board - bass response and efficiency are inversely correlated? So far I'm pleasantly surprised with the bass response of my Traynor TC112, which has a sensitivity of 98. However, if I wanted more bass from a 1x12 cabinet, is it reasonable to have one of the search criteria to be looking at *less* sensitive cabs?

not quite.

 

[blindrabbit]

not quite.

Ok, good to know. I'd never used that as a criteria before - I've only really relied upon ears - but it was interesting to think that it could be another way to assess gear before getting a chance to buy it.

 

[RotoRick]

just go with the 8 Ohm 410. "Getting" all the power is pointless. there negligible volume difference if the other specs are similar.

Well my amp only puts out like 300 watts at 8ohms, 550 at 4ohms and 800 at 2ohms. I would like to keep it at 4 ohms for safety.

 

[KJung]

Ok, good to know. I'd never used that as a criteria before - I've only really relied upon ears - but it was interesting to think that it could be another way to assess gear before getting a chance to buy it.

The 'not quite' response by CL400 is correct IMO, but there is a pretty good correlation (at least for the typical 1 way cab or 2 way cab with traditional high crossed over tweeter). Since there is 'no free lunch' with those classes of cab, and since the SPL is almost always measured at 1K (i.e., upper midrange response), IN GENERAL, a cab with a higher SPL spec will, almost by definition, have less deep low end (the 'no free lunch' thing) and more relative midrange response and 'brightness' up top.

However, it is a very rough estimate, and once you get into mid driver cabs, the whole logic goes out the door.

 

[CL400Peavey]

Ok, good to know. I'd never used that as a criteria before - I've only really relied upon ears - but it was interesting to think that it could be another way to assess gear before getting a chance to buy it.

The problem is those sensitivity ratings are averages. With out seeing a response chart or listening to the cab yourself its impossible to say. Even claims that a cabinet has a response to a certain frequency dont really matter if there isnt roll off figure.

40 Hz looks a lot better than 40 Hz -10 dB.

Its a careful balance between a lot of specs. Push one way out there and the others have to change. This is why a lot of people here say "Dont just slap speakers in a box!" every time someone brings up a DIY or mod thread. Its also why I believe the cab is as, if not more important than the amp you use. 100-200 watts can be more than enough given a sensitive cab and tonal goals that match its output. 1,000 may not be enough if you have a cab that isnt very sensitive and want to push a ton of air.

This all gets compounded even more when you are trying to shrink the rig down. Giving up extra speakers gives up sensitivity, displacement and power handling. These can be circumvented with more clever designs, and there are few examples of amazing cabs that push the boundaries of Hoffman's Iron Law.

AudioKinese Thunderchild
fEARful/fEARless
Baer
Barefaced Bass

 

[KJung]

The problem is those sensitivity ratings are averages. With out seeing a response chart or listening to the cab yourself its impossible to say. Even claims that a cabinet has a response to a certain frequency dont really matter if there isnt roll off figure.

40 Hz looks a lot better than 40 Hz -10 dB.

+1 My comment was based on the published 1K SPL spec alone. The 'low end response' published specs should always be ignored completely for the vast majority of cabs. To your point, they are either fantasy, or more often, -10db when many are interpreting them as -3db.

 

[Bass_Pounder]

Well my amp only puts out like 300 watts at 8ohms, 550 at 4ohms and 800 at 2ohms. I would like to keep it at 4 ohms for safety.

The difference between 300 and 550 watts is only about +2db.

To get twice as loud, it takes 10X the power.

 

[KJung]

The difference between 300 and 550 watts is only about +2db.

To get twice as loud, it takes 10X the power.

It is not just about volume. First, 2db is definitely noticeable (remember, it is a log scale). Second, an amp with low power driving a large, even medium efficiency cab can hit its limiting way before the drivers reach their limits. That ends up being VERY frustrating when pushing the volume and digging in.

Almost doubling with wattage of a relatively modestly powered amp can result in a bit more volume, but more importantly, that big more volume actually sounding better (less compressed low end).

Remember, adding another 810 to an SVT technically only results in a 3db increase in absolute volume, since a tube amp does not increase output based on cabinet impedance

 

[Bmorefoozler]

The difference between 300 and 550 watts is only about +2db.

To get twice as loud, it takes 10X the power.

Not very noticeable unless...
that 2 db is the difference between hitting power compression and NOT hitting power compression at your normal gigging volume. It's not a big deal unless it is. So it might not be noticably louder, but it might sound better to you and have better dynamic range at a given useful volume.

 

[KJung]

Not very noticeable unless...
that 2 db is the difference between hitting power compression and NOT hitting power compression at your normal gigging volume. It's not a big deal unless it is. So it might not be noticably louder, but it might sound better to you and have better dynamic range at a given useful volume.

+1 A DB750 going into a 112..... not much reason or benefit to go to 40hms. A Markbass LMIII or Genz 6.2 into a big 212 of 410..... impedance can really make a difference per the above.

It depend!

 

[madmachinist]

i couldn't sift thru every post , but do you remember Stanley
in the 70's/198S with his Bose-lookin' 30 or so 4"
speakers -dome thingy he played that awesome piccolo. school days live shows . i think it may have had
an cerwin-vega/gauss or acoustic folded 18 horn too, but i remember the
blowse array.
i think it was in atlanta , chastain park ?.

it was great for Stanley Clarke, but likely too HiFi for a
sloppy player like me!