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

[InkCow]

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.

I think anyone who didn’t wake up this morning with the intention to fight on a message board understood that this was referring to cabinet configurations, not speakers specifically.

 

[agedhorse]

…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

Yes, this is part of the difference, the other part being that many designers have finally figured out that having all of the volume control in the first half of the rotation (giving the IMPRESSION that the amp is more powerful than it is) is no longer a big sales feature as the bass market matures and players have become more knowledgeable and sophisticated.

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.

Correct, there is a difference between low frequency extension and volume. These are just two of the variables describing speaker performance.

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.

Correct, that’s part of the design that combines both low frequency extension and volume variables to achieve overall performance.

@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?

To solve the volume part of the equation, low frequency extension is a separate variable.

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

Exactly. This introduces an additional variable called sensitivity, which is also a tradeoff against low frequency extension.

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?

It depends entirely on the speakers being compared, but size is just one variable in determining low frequency extension.

You might want to listen more from community discussions like this and argue less. You just might learn something (and irritate fewer people in the process).

 

[digmeout]

I bought an Ampeg V-4b bass head and a B40 4 X 10 speaker cabinet in 1975. The B40 was a revelation, no more Sunn 2 X 15's or 1 X 18's for me. I went on to buy another B40, which I eventually sold because the clubs I was playing didn't warrant it.

 

[DJ Bebop]

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.

He is right as far as if you are comparing an old 15 or 18 to a new-fangled small speaker. Even if you compare new generation speakers. Both can produce low end, only difference would be come area. The one with more cone area will probably be louder, all things being equal.

 

[cfortner]

Can we perhaps agree on the following statement:

When considering a single (!) speaker enclosure containing drivers of a single diameter, the total surface area of all the drivers is one of the fundamental parameters of the strength of bass reproduction in terms of sound pressure level (SPL) and lower cutoff frequency, provided the enclosure is well-designed with respect to the driver parameters.

 

[InkCow]

Can we perhaps agree on the following statement:

When considering a single (!) speaker enclosure containing drivers of a single diameter, the total surface area of all the drivers is one of the fundamental parameters of the strength of bass reproduction in terms of sound pressure level (SPL) and lower cutoff frequency, provided the enclosure is well-designed with respect to the driver parameters.

 

[agedhorse]

Can we perhaps agree on the following statement:

When considering a single (!) speaker enclosure containing drivers of a single diameter, the total surface area of all the drivers is one of the fundamental parameters of the strength of bass reproduction in terms of sound pressure level (SPL) and lower cutoff frequency, provided the enclosure is well-designed with respect to the driver parameters.

Not really. The other speaker parameters factor heavily into the low frequency extension and volume.

This is no different than saying all 15" drivers have about the same low frequency extension and volume. In fact, this is almost always NOT the case, unless the TS parameters are the same.

 

[JimmyM]

I have two instances where speaker size seems to matter. Anecdotal yes, but here they are. First, understand that my pair of 4x10s (Peavey, Ashdown, both with horn) are great for electric bass. They handle my Tobias 6 string just fine. Ok, onward.

1. I play upright bass. I have a Crate BX100 combo amp with a 15” speaker that sounds far better with the mic’ed upright than does my bass stack. I’ve tried using a 4x10 extension cabinet instead of the 15” for this, and it does not sound as good. That amp with that 15” sounds like the bass, only louder.

2. I run a Hammond organ emulation app into a rotary horn (MotionSound Pro3T), which has left and right low rotor simulation outputs. It sounded good thru those 4x10s, but I also own an actual Hammond A100 and Leslie… and something was missing from the sound of the Pro3T low rotor outputs. The Leslie uses a 15” for its low rotor. So I took the Peavey out of the emulation setup, and added a GK Backline 1x15. It fleshed out the low end, and now my Hammond emulation sounds right.

From my standpoint, the 15” clearly moves the air differently. My hypotheses: for the Hammond, nothing emulates a 15” speaker better than a 15” speaker! For the upright, its own sounding surface is very large - to best reproduce that, a large diameter speaker is the best option.

Now replace that 15 with a subwoofer 15 and tell me how it sounds

 

[fdeck]

Something that struck me recently: I've always been a little bit annoyed by TS theory because to my mind, the electromechanical parameters are more "real." These are things like the cone mass, spring constant, and so forth. You can cut out the cone and weigh it on a scale. But don't. Those "real" things are hidden by combining them into factors such as Vas and the mysterious Q's. My modeling method starts by converting the TS parameters into the equivalent EM parameters, and then using the EM parameters for computation.

But I've come to appreciate why the TS parameters are useful. The reason is that they effectively separate the parameters that affect the shape and the size of the curves. Or maybe "quality and quantity" if you will. This allows an engineer to look at different components and design alternatives (such as a 2x10 or 1x15) and see the similarities and the differences.

The response equation breaks down in the following way. There's a factor Fs, the resonant frequency, that shifts the entire curve to the left or right (as viewed on the customary logarithmic graph). You want that factor to be in a ballpark that makes your design useful as a bass speaker. There are the Q factors, which govern the shape of the curve, i.e., whether it has a "hump" or a "sag" around Fs. Together, Fs and the Q's determine the tone quality of the speaker at low frequencies, if you can compensate for differences in overall sensitivity with the gain of the amplifier.

What's left? Size. It turns out that the overall sensitivity of the speaker is affected by nearly all of the TS parameters, but one factor stands alone: Cone area. It turns out that cone area affects sensitivity but is not in the part of the equation that governs the shape of the curve.

This is the origin of "size doesn't matter." It's explicit in the equations that govern how speakers work. And those equations match physical (i.e., audible) reality quite accurately. It doesn't mean that a tiny speaker can be just as loud as a big one. It means that the size of the speaker by itself is not predictive of its tone quality.

 

[HolmeBass]

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".

For Pete's sake, I don't think English is even their first language. Can you just let it go? So they mis-spoke slightly, so what? No one is so daft as to say you can replace any size driver with a different single driver of any size. That is simply NOT what is happening here. Key in on the intent please.

When people come on her and ask about 15's vs 10's, they also are probably not comparing a 110 to a 115 and expecting the same results. If they were, anyone who is a regular here and is worth their salt would explain that the roughly equivalent match would be a 210 vs a 115. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And in comparing those two basic planforms, across all/many brands, I feel quite strongly that no definitive statement can be made based on 10s vs 15s. Especially if you include both sealed and ported 115's and 210's.

 

[agedhorse]

Now replace that 15 with a subwoofer 15 and tell me how it sounds

This is a good point, back in the day, many 410’s were very mid oriented and not all that high power handling, so when players used say a JBL 2225 (or 2241) on the bottom, the match was pretty good.

In fact, a Subway 115 combined with one of those mid oriented 410’s wouldn’t be too bad either.

 

[coyote1]

Now replace that 15 with a subwoofer 15 and tell me how it sounds

This is a good point, back in the day, many 410’s were very mid oriented and not all that high power handling, so when players used say a JBL 2225 (or 2241) on the bottom, the match was pretty good.

In fact, a Subway 115 combined with one of those mid oriented 410’s wouldn’t be too bad either.

For the Hammond emulation, a sub 15 would likely sound like crud. In the Leslie, the crossover is around 800 Hz. So the 15 needs to be less specific. A speaker designed for <80hz? Nah.

 

[rodl2005]

I only use my HG410 Bergantino cab coz it sounds different than my Fender Bassman Pro Neo 115
They both produce what I want them to.
But they sound different

 

[JimmyM]

For the Hammond emulation, a sub 15 would likely sound like crud. In the Leslie, the crossover is around 800 Hz. So the 15 needs to be less specific. A speaker designed for <80hz? Nah.

And that’s enough to tell you that size tells you nothing about how a speaker sounds.

 

[agedhorse]

For the Hammond emulation, a sub 15 would likely sound like crud. In the Leslie, the crossover is around 800 Hz. So the 15 needs to be less specific. A speaker designed for <80hz? Nah.

I wasn't talking about a Hammond application. I was talking specifically about a 115 + 410 application.

 

[coyote1]

And that’s enough to tell you that size tells you nothing about how a speaker sounds.

Nothing? Point out to me then a 15” tweeter.

 

[rogypop]

The diameter of the cone most definitely tells you how the speaker might sound, 45° deg OFF AXIS.

There are 18 inch drivers with response simmilar to most 12s, say Eminence sigma 18, however once you move past the hot spot directly in front of the cone (where bass player's knees usually are) good chunk of midrange is lost along with all the upper midrange and treble where the articulation and punch lives, so one might perceive large diameter woofer bassier and/or darker with a good reason and physics behind it as the loudspeaker dispersion characteristics are inversely related to the cone diameter.

There is an audiophile cult based around large diameter fullrange drivers, say 12's and even 15's equipped with whizzer cones and phase plugs which do extend north of 15k and they do sound good indeed, the only issue is laser beam dispersion and listening sweetspot that covers only small part of the sofa.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

Smaller cones are not usually used for making a lot of bass, and larger cones are not usually used for making tweeters,
because, evidently, there's a relationship between a cone's area and the reasonable practically achievable properties of the total driver design. (They could force a small cone to function as a subwoofer, or a 15" to function as a tweeter, but not in the general case.)

So, there *is* a general rule and it seems that just about every driver manufacturer recognizes this.

So, the difference between drivers of different diameters is that the larger one has more cone area, and generally speaking this seems to have some consequence in the real world, which most people recognize.

 

[41 Hz]

I can't get past that low end cushion that 15" speakers provide. I also have come to recognize and dislike the 'honkiness' of 10" speakers. I've never experienced a 10" based cab, regardless of speaker numbers that can provide the warmth I'm after. YMMV. I also remember reading somewhere that only 15" speakers can reliably get down to the fundamental frequency of that low E.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

@41 Hz, someone is likely to jump on that last sentence, with glee, but I understand what you're saying. (They'll also jump on your expressed desire to hear the fundamental of low E, but that's a different topic.)