Speakers...Why Does The Myth that Size Matters, Still Exist?

[M-Mittlesteadt]

There have been many sound/tone topics covered over the years regarding speaker cabs. One of the most popular myths debunked is that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers (obviously removing anecdotal evidence).

At one time, back in the early years of speaker design, that may have been the case. But cab and speaker design has come a long way and we now know that cabinet design has a lot to do with how speakers of various sizes can perform. Again, removing anecdotal evidence to the contrary, just about any size speaker can produce deep low end in the right cab.

Why does the myth that size matters, still exist? I'm not saying size doesn't matter at all. Not every speaker is designed the same way another similarly sized speaker is. It obviously depends on the speaker(s) being used, along with the cabs they are loaded in. If one wants a smaller, lighter cab then smaller speakers can fit smaller, lighter enclosures. But even a single 15" cab can be smaller than 210's, etc.

But I still read a lot of posts where people still prefer one size over another, claiming that their favorite speakers are (insert size here) without any context of the speaker/cab design affecting their choice.

I know it can be hard to let go of the old paradigm, but in a blind test no one can discern what size speaker sounds good to them, based on size alone. We know that the phenomenon of psychoacoustics can make a very tiny headphone speaker appear to sound deeper than a 15" speaker, for one example.

So as a point of discussion (no arguments please, just polite discussion), why do you think the myth that size matters, still exist?

 

[pb9717]

My honest answer is….. I don’t know. From personal experience I’ve had the impression that Bigger cones are “ wooofier”. I’ve had multiple 6” (PJB) cabs, multiple 10’s ( too many to name) Single 15’, and for the last 10+ years fEARless 12 cabs. I can only defer to true audio engineers for the most valid answer, but they aren’t loading Monster subs at arena’s with 10’s or 6’s, So I’m gonna say, as a laymen, that bigger speakers are better at low frequencies.

 

[jdjk7]

There have been many sound/tone topics covered over the years regarding speaker cabs. One of the most popular myths debunked is that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers (obviously removing anecdotal evidence).

At one time, back in the early years of speaker design, that may have been the case. But cab and speaker design has come a long way and we now know that cabinet design has a lot to do with how speakers of various sizes can perform. Again, removing anecdotal evidence to the contrary, just about any size speaker can produce deep low end in the right cab.

Why does the myth that size matters, still exist? I'm not saying size doesn't matter at all. Not every speaker is designed the same way another similarly sized speaker is. It obviously depends on the speaker(s) being used, along with the cabs they are loaded in. If one wants a smaller, lighter cab then smaller speakers can fit smaller, lighter enclosures. But even a single 15" cab can be smaller than 210's, etc.

But I still read a lot of posts where people still prefer one size over another, claiming that their favorite speakers are (insert size here) without any context of the speaker/cab design affecting their choice.

I know it can be hard to let go of the old paradigm, but in a blind test no one can discern what size speaker sounds good to them, based on size alone. We know that the phenomenon of psychoacoustics can make a very tiny headphone speaker appear to sound deeper than a 15" speaker, for one example.

So as a point of discussion (no arguments please, just polite discussion), why do you think the myth that size matters, still exist?

Speakers are a complicated topic. And most people have trouble with dealing with uncertainty-- they want to believe that if they buy a cab and it has some kind of speaker in it, that they'll know how it will sound. So, they broadly categorize the product based on easily-understood specs (cone diameter, wattage rating, impedance, etc) and call it a day. That, combined with persistent cultural memory from back when there were only a few models available and so generalizations could be drawn more accurately, it's really no wonder.

 

[Goatrope]

I think some of the "persistent cultural memory" ( I like that ) has evolved from the concept of bigger equals better low frequency, to expected form factor.

The top-line product descriptions typically include a speaker size and configuration giving us a glimpse into expected form.

I think many folks now are using that description as a decision point on form, rather than drawing hard conclusions about frequency range.

 

[el murdoque]

I would argue that while it is possible to create deep bass with small speakers, it does not entail that speaker size does not matter.

Bigger speakers can move more air, and thus create more bass.
Smaller speakers can produce more treble.
That is simple physics.

Yes, you can take a 6" speaker and optimize it towards bass by giving it a crazy long travel and by putting it into a perfectly tuned enclosure.
Maybe even to a point where it's hard to tell the difference between that and a 15" speaker in a blind test - as long as both play in the same (low) volume.
The thing is, when you have a 15" speaker that has seen the same treatment, the difference in volume will be significant and it will easily outperform the 6" speaker.

To get to the same SPL a great 15" speaker can do in a perfectly tuned enclosure, you'd probably need around eight 6" speakers.
Now you're dealing with several issues you have not had before and your 6" loaded cabinet has become a lot more complicated.

From that standpoint, it makes little sense to create a subwoofer that runs on 8 6" speakers when you can make one with a single 15" speaker.
Easier to tune, cheaper to make, probably even lighter.

 

[el murdoque]

I think some of the "persistent cultural memory" ( I like that ) has evolved from the concept of bigger equals better low frequency, to expected form factor.

The top-line product descriptions typically include a speaker size and configuration giving us a glimpse into expected form.

I think many folks now are using that description as a decision point on form, rather than drawing hard conclusions about frequency range.

When I see a cabinet with a single 15" speaker and no tweeter, I assume that this will not do well with frequencies above 10kHz, and so far, I have been right in that assumption every single time.
A bigger speaker is, by its nature, better suited for doing low frequencies at high SPL.

At the end of the day, you move air. The amount of air moved is determined by the travel of the speaker and by its surface area.
You can compensate the lack of one by improving the other, but only up to a point.

So when you see a large speaker, you expect it to do bass, and you're usually right.

 

[DrBnz]

The physics of moving air?? I'm guessing here.....

 

[agedhorse]

It depends very much on the design tradeoffs. Sometimes there’s an easier, more effective solution, but sometimes pushing the design envelope a little can get closer to both worlds.

There’s also the fact that some designers just get tired of fighting the fight, trying to educate folks that will cling to their traditions because that’s all they have to cling to, and don’t want to learn.

 

[Nuisance]

Why does the myth that size matters, still exist?

That's what she said???

 

[TeaTime]

Take a look around you. Humans are very adept at refusing to accept evidence-based facts when it's easier to keep shouting an outdated misconception.

 

[12BitSlab]

Why do people cling to the Newtonian Theory of Gravity 120 years after it was disproven?

Because that is what they were taught in school.

Why do people constantly misuse the words iconic, actually, unique, virtually, and what/which?

Because that is what they hear every day.

Why do people think that octane adds “more power” to gasoline?

Because their friends in high school told them it does.

It has been my experience that most people get to a point where they are comfortable and do not want to learn any more than they have to.

 

[Bassaga]

"Acoustic basses will never work! They're just not big enough, you need a bigger surface to produce those frequencies! You can't deny the physics, ya stubborn morons!"

"Speaker size has nothing to do with anything, it's all in how it was designed, ya stubborn morons!"

I suppose the truth lies somewhere the two, but Talkbass isn't ready for it.

 

[Fender_Bender]

I don’t have experience with drivers below 8” so cannot comment on them, but every 15” I have ever tried sounded muddy to me.

 

[Topkat13]

If it’s a myth…and I think it is…why does I matter?

 

[mikewalker]

I don’t have experience with drivers below 8” so cannot comment on them, but every 15” I have ever tried sounded muddy to me.

I have had a couple of 2-15 cabs I can remember clearly ... Acoustic in the 70s and Mesa in the 90s - neither one sounded muddy at all.
YMMV, of course!

 

[J Wilson]

It's changed quite a bit since I started out in the 70's.

In those days, 15's and 18's were the norms for bass. Single 15's, the almost regulation 215's that everyone ran, and then front loaded 18's or common in those days, the last of the folded horn 18's. 12's were pretty much the thing for guitar amps (Twins and Marshall stacks), and 10's were fairly rare, even in guitar amps. We were furniture movers, all of those bass bins were generally over a 100 lbs (my 215BW Peavey was 168#, don't ask about the 118FH/BW), and amps back then were rated at 200w in most cases, mostly transistor amps. You'd see the occasional SVT or the like, but they were rare, and of course the 810 Ampeg was no peach to move either. The big Acoustics were around then, again, BIG rigs.

Peavey 215BW Ported 215

Peavey 118FH/BW Folded horn single 18

Peavey 118BW, front loaded, ported single 18. Move these three around much, even in my young bull days, I still needed a can of Popeye's spinach once in a while.

It wasn't really until the advent of Trace Eliott and then SWR and later Eden with the Nordschow designed 10" cabinets that things began to change in the later 80's, accompanied by higher-wattage amps to finally get us out of that 200w rut. Some of us threw our hands up and ran racks with rack preamps and PA power amps and cabinets to escape the constraints.

Today, 18's are almost totally relegated to giant traveling FOH systems. Most of the builder offer 15 bins I think out of tradition, but for me.12's are the new 15's: Neo speakers, lightweight cabinets (pick any Subway head and match it with TWO Subway 215's, and the three pieces together weigh less than my old 215BW !) and reliable high-power heads, this is a WAY different world than 50 years ago when I started out.

 

[cfortner]

It is no problem to create a frequency of say 20Hz with a small piece of cardboard by moving back and forth. The question is with what volume (SPL). This will be very quiet, almost inaudible.

Small loudspeakers, e.g. 6", can reproduce low frequencies in, say, upscale room volume, with appropriate construction (soft suspension) in appropriately tuned housings.

If you want to play higher volumes above 100dB/1m, you need either several small (in total larger membrane surface) or larger (12-15", larger membrane surface) speakers.

Achievable volume (SPL) and membrane size depend on each other at low frequencies.

Therefore: Yes, size is a parameter which matters for bass players playing live on stage and not in the living room.

But there are a lot of more parameters which matter also.

 

[lomo]

It's easy to form an opinion based on instinct and fragment of partial truth. Formulating an informed view requires effort, a capacity for critical thinking and a willingness to accept information that challenges one's beliefs. Sometimes it even requires knowledge of matters such as physics, math, history, etc........so here we are. Most people are apt to believe what makes them feel good about what they believe, hence Bass=Big.

 

[DJ Bebop]

 

[fdeck]

I joined TB at exactly a moment when people were debating this same question. I remember reading, “tens are fast and fifteens are deep because physics.” As a physicist, I wondered: “What physics?” So I decided to find out.

The problem is that it’s hard to make intuitive guesses about the behavior of speakers, because all of the parameters such as cone size, mass, magnetic field, box size, etc., are intertwined in non-intuitive ways. So the simplistic explanations and car analogies tend to be false. But if stated often enough by people who are popular on the forums, or by marketing departments, they become the accepted truth.

I’m a technologist by day. It’s my job to understand how things work. People will ask me why some idea hasn’t been turned into a product. Sometimes it boils down to: Because somebody has to think that they can sell one. You can design a small speaker with the same response curve as a big speaker, but will anybody want it? Can you sell it? There’s a three way tradeoff between efficiency, size, and low frequency extension. A small speaker with plenty of low end might be unacceptably quiet for any mainstream use. Also, it’s likely to be used in smaller spaces where too much low end is a liability.

One of the reasons why I like building my speakers is because I’m responsible for nobody’s misconceptions but my own.