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

[DJ Bebop]

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.

Have you tried anything that has been built in the last 10 years?

I've got this joint and it is anything but muddy. It is almost FRFR in its output content.

I am not an expert but to my ear, it is in balance across the whole frequency range. In fact I use to run a bi-amped system to get the balance between the highs, midrange, and lows I get from this one 15

No Mississippi mud here

Now there is a difference between being loud and being balanced. Running a 400’watt amp into a Super 12 is not going to be as loud as a 810 cabinet, probably one of the reasons folks don't think D-class amps aren't as loud as some other amp saddled to a larger cabinet as they are usually used with these smaller lighter Super cabs. But oddly enough, the Super 12 may have a better low-frequency response than the 810. So frequency response vs loud are two different things

 

[coyote1]

I can’t help but think that there are a lot of variables that you are ignoring to reach your conclusion, but, I think that the more important takeaway was that you found something that works for you. Ultimately, everything else here is pedantry.

I think I was clear that it’s mere anecdote and that I merely formulated hypotheses; I did not state a conclusion.

There might indeed be variables I’ve missed. That said, consider the Hammond. A classic Leslie utilizes a 15” speaker for the low rotor. What has the best chance of approximating the response characteristics of a 15” speaker? An array of 3” speakers? Or a 15” speaker?

 

[DJ Bebop]

The original poster said it himself:

That *is* what he said.
@M-Mittlesteadt, if that's a myth then I could save a lot of weight and money by running a 1x3". Is that right?

There is a difference between being loud and having a better frequency response. As I said right above this. A smaller newer speaker cabinet can have a better frequency response but be not as loud as a 70’ 810, Peavey 215, or a Sunn 200 S 215.

 

[mntngrown]

I have had several 2x15 cabs, to include Mesa Diesel, a fEarful I built myself with Greenboy's design, and a MAS design with one of the 15" Eminence in it. But my MAS 4x8, (sold), and now my MAS 6x6 go low and disperse the sound of a 4 or 5 string wonderfully. I think it all depends IMHO on total cab design with a chosen speaker(s). I would bet if I had you not look at my cab and played my 6x6 indoors or out in a mix, you would not be able to guess the woofer size. I of course defer to the expertise of Agedhorse and other expert designers.

 

[gln1955]

The original poster said it himself:

That *is* what he said.
@M-Mittlesteadt, if that's a myth then I could save a lot of weight and money by running a 1x3". Is that right?

Do you not get tired of making the same straw man argument over and over? You keep conflating tone with volume and completely missing the point of this thread.

 

[InkCow]

I think I was clear that it’s mere anecdote and that I merely formulated hypotheses; I did not state a conclusion.

There might indeed be variables I’ve missed. That said, consider the Hammond. A classic Leslie utilizes a 15” speaker for the low rotor. What has the best chance of approximating the response characteristics of a 15” speaker? An array of 3” speakers? Or a 15” speaker?

Well given that the speaker in the GK Backline cabinet doesn’t spin around and there’s no telling if the cabinet remotely resembles a Leslie outside of the size of the speaker, I would argue it’s coincidence that it has the right sound.

But if it does, then what difference does that make?

 

[LetItGrowTone]

The original poster said "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers".
If that's true then I could run a 1x3" and still fill my small venue as well as I could with a 1x15".

 

[coyote1]

Do you not get tired of making the same straw man argument over and over? You keep conflating tone with volume and completely missing the point of this thread.

Ahh, but tone and volume become intertwined. It’s a known physical and psychoacoustic phenomenon. Guitarists struggle with it, because below X volume their amps sound ‘meh’ but above that volume spring to life. No pedal or gain stage can emulate it.

 

[InkCow]

The original poster said "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers".
If that's true then I could run a 1x3" and still fill my small venue as well as I could with a 1x15".

Because you’re using a reductio ad absurdum argument, when OP was clearly talking about the popular perception that 15s go deeper than 210s.

 

[Fender_Bender]

Have you tried anything that has been built in the last 10 years?

I've got this joint and it is anything but muddy. It is almost FRFR in its output content.

View attachment 7458270

I am not an expert but to my ear, it is in balance across the whole frequency range. In fact I use to run a bi-amped system to get the balance between the highs, midrange, and lows I get from this one 15

No Mississippi mud here

Now there is a difference between being loud and being balanced. Running a 400’watt amp into a Super 12 is not going to be as loud as a 810 cabinet, probably one of the reasons folks don't think D-class amps aren't as loud as some other amp saddled to a larger cabinet as they are usually used with these smaller lighter Super cabs. But oddly enough, the Super 12 may have a better low-frequency response than the 810. So frequency response vs loud are two different things

No I have not tried any of the newer higher end 15’s . But I’m not surprised that better technology could remove some of the mud traditionally associated with a 15. When I went with my combo 15 years ago I went with something in between, a 12” driver.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

"Because you’re using a reductio ad absurdum argument".
I don't think so. I think 3" vs 15" exposes the absurdity that's already there, not mine.

 

[DJ Bebop]

I think I was clear that it’s mere anecdote and that I merely formulated hypotheses; I did not state a conclusion.

There might indeed be variables I’ve missed. That said, consider the Hammond. A classic Leslie utilizes a 15” speaker for the low rotor. What has the best chance of approximating the response characteristics of a 15” speaker? An array of 3” speakers? Or a 15” speaker?

Part of it may be the difference between a 4x10 vs a single 15. Yes a simgle 15 is going to sound more like a single 15 vs a 4x10 cabinet

 

[coyote1]

Well given that the speaker in the GK Backline cabinet doesn’t spin around and there’s no telling if the cabinet remotely resembles a Leslie outside of the size of the speaker, I would argue it’s coincidence that it has the right sound.

But if it does, then what difference does that make?

The 15” in the Leslie does not spin. It is stationary, firing downward into a rotating baffle. And I’m not discussing tone strictly here; the Leslie cabinet
(vastly different in size and shape from the Backline) provides its own sound characteristics, which are emulated in the cabinet model of the app.

 

[InkCow]

"Because you’re using a reductio ad absurdum argument".
I don't think so. I think 3" vs 15" exposes the absurdity that's already there, not mine.

Except no one is arguing that because 1x3 bass cabinets don’t exist.

But you do have 4x5s that could give a lot of 115s produced throughout history a run for their money (albeit with limitations on volume) with regards to full sounding bass.

 

[InkCow]

The 15” in the Leslie does not spin. It is stationary, firing downward into a rotating baffle. And I’m not discussing tone strictly here; the Leslie cabinet
(vastly different in size and shape from the Backline) provides its own sound characteristics, which are emulated in the cabinet model of the app.

Yes I get that (even if I got the mechanics of the Leslie wrong), but my point was that the supposition that the GK’s 15” speaker is the the reason it sounds good for this application. A sealed 15 probably sounds completely different; a ported 112 might sound even more authentic; etc.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

But you do have 4x5s that could give a lot of 115s produced throughout history a run for their money (albeit with limitations on volume) with regards to full sounding bass.

@InkCow, "c'mon man", if "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers", why do you need FOUR 5"s?

 

[DJ Bebop]

No I have not tried any of the newer higher end 15’s . But I’m not surprised that better technology could remove some of the mud traditionally associated with a 15. When I went with my combo 15 years ago I went with something in between, a 12” driver.

And I think that is part of the equation that is being missed. If you are comparing a 70’ 15 vs a 70’ 10 you may have a point on which is deeper. But the modern speakers designed today have been re-engineered to exhibit better frequency response and power handling than those speakers of old most people are thinking about.

I would not compare a Peavey TNT 15 in a combo amp to my Mesa Subway 15 as far as response or power handling. Even older JBL, Altec, EV, Cerwin-Vega, or my old favorite Gauss. No way

 

[DJ Bebop]

@InkCow, "c'mon man", if "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers", why do you need FOUR 5"s?

Again there is a difference between going low and going loud. The PBJ cabinet posted early goes very deep but to be as loud as say an 810 cabinet it needs more speakers to be as loud or louder than that 810. It has nothing to do with going lower in pitch than the 810, which it does. 400 watts into a single 12 is never going to be as loud as even a 410 cabinet. For volume, you need more surface area. Whether it comes from 410s, 215s, 412s, or 32 5 inch speakers

 

[LetItGrowTone]

The original poster said "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce" more low end "than smaller speakers".
As a general rule, is he right or wrong?

*
I can't continue like this (many of you will be glad to hear). I'm too old. Ok, you guys, carry on.

 

[InkCow]

@InkCow, "c'mon man", if "it's a myth that bigger speakers produce more low end than smaller speakers", why do you need FOUR 5"s?

Because of physics. I feel like you’re being pointlessly argumentative now: OP was talking about the popular perception that “if you want low end, you have to have 15s” not that “every single speaker is exactly the same, regardless of size”.

There are a lot of people who still subscribe to the belief that 210s or 410s cannot go as low as 15s and that if you want “bone thumping heft” you need a 15 or two, which is the myth that OP was lamenting.