Which Is Louder, 2x10 or 1x15?

[jnammy]

I know this is a really general question, but with all else being equal, such as speaker sensitivity, similar engineering of the cabinets from the same brand, same ohm rating, run by the same amp with plenty of power, what would get louder without distorting, a 2x10 or 1x15? For example, regardless of the tonal differences, would an Epifani PS 210 be louder or the PS 115? I'm leaning towards the 1x15, but what do you all think?

 

[DukeLeJeune]

All else being equal, whichever one has the greatest air-moving capability will play louder at low frequencies before "farting out". Air displacement is calculated by cone area times excursion. A single 15" woofer has about 20% more cone area than two 10" woofers, so if the two 10" woofers don't have enough excursion to make up for the cone area difference then the single 15" will probably play louder, but the difference might not be very much.

 

[JimmyM]

According to Epifani, the 210 clocks in with slightly higher sensitivity, but since those sensitivity specs are often figured out through less than complete methods, I'd say they're probably about the same.

 

[jnammy]

Great answers Duke & Jimmy, thanks.

 

[rpsands]

What is this shenanigans, everyone knows 2x10s are all louder than all 1x15s, but the 15s go lower and are boomier and muddy

Non-smarmy answer: You can't know without knowing the speaker displacement because everyone who sells commercially available cabinets lies through their teeth about sensitivity figures and true power handling.

 

[bassman251]

All else being equal, whichever one has the greatest air-moving capability will play louder at low frequencies before "farting out". Air displacement is calculated by cone area times excursion. A single 15" woofer has about 20% more cone area than two 10" woofers, so if the two 10" woofers don't have enough excursion to make up for the cone area difference then the single 15" will probably play louder, but the difference might not be very much.

I believe two 10" have slightly more surface area then a single 15".

 

[KJung]

Non-smarmy answer: You can't know without knowing the speaker displacement because everyone who sells commercially available cabinets lies through their teeth about sensitivity figures and true power handling.

+1 Even within the same line of cabs, a 115 driver and cab tuning could be very different from a 210. So, no way of knowing for sure. For example, the Accugroove 115 is actually a more even, tighter voiced box than the Accugroove Tri210. So, to my ear, the Tri210 goes deeper, but the 115 is 'louder' in that its more even and present mid response results in higher SPL in that particular region. I find the Epi115UL versus 210UL similar, with the 210UL actually sounding wider and deeper, and the 115UL sounding punchier. And, while I'm at it, I found the exact same thing with the old Bergantino HT210 versus HT115.

For all of the above, I prefer the 115 executions for stand-alone use versus the 210's, in that they are all a bit tighter and punchier to my ear, and hence seem to put out more usable perceived 'volume per watt'.

My EE oriented friends can help me out here, but I believe many 15's have better xmax and xmin specs than most 10's, resulting in them being able to take a bit more of a beating. However, I'm not sure how this translates comparing one 15" driver to two 10" drivers from the same speaker manufacturer.

I've never found a 210 that really did it for me in a gig situation. I'm using a small Schroeder 115L+ for my small and medium sized gigs, and it kills IMO.

 

[alexclaber]

My experience has found that with cheaper speakers the 10"s are often a better bet - the cheap 15"s have too little motor strength and require too large an enclosure to sound good which results in mud and boom problems. Once you get to the better drivers on the market the 15"s have a clear advantage over two 10"s in maximum output whilst still sounding tight, punchy and sufficiently deep.

Alex

 

[KJung]

My experience has found that with cheaper speakers the 10"s are often a better bet - the cheap 15"s have too little motor strength and require too large an enclosure to sound good which results in mud and boom problems. Once you get to the better drivers on the market the 15"s have a clear advantage over two 10"s in maximum output whilst still sounding tight, punchy and sufficiently deep.

Alex

As always, that makes sense, and matches my experience with some of the 'higher end' cabs mentioned above.

 

[Bassmickeyd]

Which Is Louder, 2x10 or 1x15?

I'd guess The amp, since speakers are silent when not plugged in.
But guessing what you really meant was. "what puts out more volume?"
Since the 2x10" have 20" of speaker area and they will displace a high frequency which will travel further so it would be perceived as 'louder'. Though, if you lived beneath a crappy bassist with a 15" cab., you contest that it be louder than a better bassist with a 2x10.
Plus where you tried such an experiment would have a lot to do with its outcome. In a controlled area like a studio the 2x10 would win in a school gym the 15" would win.

 

[pringlw]

I believe two 10" have slightly more surface area then a single 15".

Remember your high school - pi r2

15X15 = 225
10X10 = 100 (X2 = 200)

 

[alexclaber]

Since the 2x10" have 20" of speaker area...

One 15" has the same area as two and a half 10"s. Area is proportional to the diameter squared! (And the working diameter is always less than the nominal diameter because the frame and surround are not part of the radiating area).

Alex

 

[Marley's Ghost]

Subscribed. Gonna grab a seat and some popcorn and watch the fun!

 

[Bassmickeyd]

"One 15" has the same area as two and a half 10"s. Area is proportional to the diameter squared! (And the working diameter is always less than the nominal diameter because the frame and surround are not part of the radiating area)."
Thank Alex

This should be a lesson to you kids.
Don't sleep thru physics.

 

[Bassmec]

I know this is a really general question, but with all else being equal, such as speaker sensitivity, similar engineering of the cabinets from the same brand, same ohm rating, run by the same amp with plenty of power, what would get louder without distorting, a 2x10 or 1x15? For example, regardless of the tonal differences, would an Epifani PS 210 be louder or the PS 115? I'm leaning towards the 1x15, but what do you all think?

The PS 210 is a pathetically inefficient 2x10 cab according to this document:
http://www.epifani.com/products/ps_210.php
Whereas this document shows rather respectable figures for SPL
for one of their range of 15" speakers:
http://www.epifani.com/products/club115.php
The performance series according to the companies own documentation appears to be missing the word Low from the full scientific description, so I think they should rename the Cabs the.
LP 210 and LP 115.
perhaps the HP 210 would be a more descriptive moniker according to these figures:
http://www.epifani.com/products/club210.php
You would need an amplifier of half the wattage to achieve the same sound pressure level with this cab as opposed to the PS 210.
Perhaps its performance is in creating heat rather than sound from ac waveforms.
PS Just for the record the term muddy has got far far more to do with poor technique than speaker diameter.

 

[KJung]

The PS 210 is a pathetically inefficient 2x10 cab according to this document:
http://www.epifani.com/products/ps_210.php
Whereas this document shows rather respectable figures for SPL
for one of their range of 15" speakers:
http://www.epifani.com/products/club115.php
The performance series according to the companies own documentation appears to be missing the word Low from the full scientific description, so I think they should rename the Cabs the.
LP 210 and LP 115.
perhaps the HP 210 would be a more descriptive moniker according to these figures:
http://www.epifani.com/products/club210.php
You would need an amplifier of half the wattage to achieve the same sound pressure level with this cab as opposed to the PS 210.
Perhaps its performance is in creating heat rather than sound from ac waveforms.
PS Just for the record the term muddy has got far far more to do with poor technique than speaker diameter.

Remember, published SPL is measured typically at 1K. While published SPL figures are typically pretty useless as input to cab choice, they do seem to be a relatively good indication of the voicing of the cab, with higher published SPL cabs having, IME, more going on in the upper midrange (since that's the area that SPL is typically measured for these types of specs), and lower SPL cabs, in general, having deeper bass response (and hence, unless they are three way designs, typically having less forward upper mid response due to lower tuning and woofers that roll off a bit around that typical 1K measurement area).

Also, based on the above, it is not unusual to see the neo versions of a cab manufacture's line having higher SPL, since many current neo executions have a bit of a bump in the upper mids. This becomes clear when you A/B the PS line with the UL line of Epifani cabs. The PS line has a bit more going on in the lower mids, without quite the deep bass extension nor the upper mid presence of the UL line. I believe it is that upper mid presence that bumps up that published SPL spec.

Edit: +1 to your last comment. It's better at this point in speaker and cab development to not overfocus on speaker cone size... there are 8" speakers that sound like subwoofers, and 15"s that are voiced tight as a drum.

 

[Bassmec]

Remember, published SPL is measured typically at 1K. While published SPL figures are typically pretty useless as input to cab choice, they do seem to be a relatively good indication of the voicing of the cab, with higher published SPL cabs having, IME, more going on in the upper midrange (since that's the area that SPL is typically measured for these types of specs), and lower SPL cabs, in general, having deeper bass response (and hence, unless they are three way designs, typically having less forward upper mid response due to lower tuning and woofers that roll off a bit around that typical 1K measurement area).

Also, based on the above, it is not unusual to see the neo versions of a cab manufacture's line having higher SPL, since many current neo executions have a bit of a bump in the upper mids. This becomes clear when you A/B the PS line with the UL line of Epifani cabs. The PS line has a bit more going on in the lower mids, without quite the deep bass extension nor the upper mid presence of the UL line. I believe it is that upper mid presence that bumps up that published SPL spec.

Edit: +1 to your last comment. It's better at this point in speaker and cab development to not overfocus on speaker cone size... there are 8" speakers that sound like subwoofers, and 15"s that are voiced tight as a drum.

Lets have a graph of SPL then, where is that Tom Bowlus chap!, having another free lunch from yet another gear manufacturer no doubt.
Get him on the case, perhaps he might be able to introduce a gear manufacturer called Bruel and Kajaer to the professional bass player.
http://www.bksv.co.uk/Products/SoundLevelMeters/PCSoftwareforSoundLevelMeters.aspx

 

[KJung]

Lets have a graph of SPL then, where is that Tom Bowlus chap!, having another free lunch from yet another gear manufacturer no doubt.
Get him on the case, perhaps he might be able to introduce a gear manufacturer called Bruel and Kajaer to the professional bass player.
http://www.bksv.co.uk/Products/SoundLevelMeters/PCSoftwareforSoundLevelMeters.aspx

+1 Most of the EE types on the site have been asking this for a long time.

TBer Alexclaber (who posted above) has VERY detailed (and very impressive) specs on his line of cabs in his website, and Phil Jones also provides this information.

 

[greenboy]

Remember, published SPL is measured typically at 1K.

You've said that more than once. It's like you believe these bass cab companies actually measure ; }

The figures are useless even if they actually came from measurements. Nobody knows for sure unless the spec includes more information about the figure, therfore they are UNREFERENCED. You don't know if that is a bandpass average, a highest point in the curve, a !K Hz number, or as is usually the case, a marketer's mood after good coffee.

Then there is the issue on how measurments are derived. If intelligent testing standards aren't sought out and adhered to that rule out a lot of variables like room effects, boundary loading etc, then the figures are useless anyway.

Bottom line. Forget 99% of the bass cab companies for honestly derived specs.

 

[Bassmec]

Perhaps Tom thinks that this would radically limit his intake of port
and cigars and somewhat curtail his most poetic waxings.
"A picture paints a thousand words" as the old song goes.