• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Will this 18” woofer work for bass cab?

Things have come a long way in the design of speakers and even quality cabs. I quit doing 18s a long time ago, and also quit doing 15s over two decades ago. Just not worth schlepping all that stuff around anymore, since smaller 12s and better cab designs have been able to fill that need for size. But to each his own.
Get cha one....
B1RKgr9CIAEUlpN.jpg
 
FYI Cone area

a 4x 10 have more cone area than a single 18. The voice coil diameter matters too, 2 inch are used on amps 10s I believe.

Bottom line is that if it works for YOU, it's ALL good.

View attachment 3491251

<pedantry alert> That chart is off by quite a bit, unfortunately. Looks like someone took the mounting center dimensions or outer frame size rather than the actual radiating surface size. Just as an example, the Eminence Deltalite 2510 has a radiating area of 54.27 sq. in. The Omega Pro 18 is listed at 179.65. </alert>
 
I use my 18 as a sub only not as a stand-alone cab.

The only other times I have used 18's was with another speaker or speakers like the
Peavey 1810, 1820 or the mighty 3620 all with a mix of 18's and 10's

Link Removed
My problem is that my Cab is rated at four ohms, and my Terror Bass Head doesn't run at 2 ohms, so finding an extension cabinet like a 2x10 is, of right now, not an option. Unless I can get a very very good 18” at 8 ohms that match’s my cabs specs. Btw I dont know how to do the math for the cabinet efficiency speaker Matching.
 
A triamp setup? Awesome! :thumbsup:

I haven’t seen anything like that since the 80s when Prog was in its “twilight last gleaming” stages.

And here I though I was so rad biamping with my rack gear back then. :laugh:

View attachment 3490903
My home h-fi is a tri-amp rig. Got the idea when I was in 8th grade lusting over Altec, Klipsch and JBL catalogs. When I turned 50, I spent the next 5 years researching, testing, and building it.
 
FYI Cone area

a 4x 10 have more cone area than a single 18. The voice coil diameter matters too, 2 inch are used on amps 10s I believe.

Bottom line is that if it works for YOU, it's ALL good.

View attachment 3491251
Forgive me if I sound dumb, but I find that I can get really good lows at lower volume with my 1x18 than with a 4x10. But then again, I did play a Mark Bass 4x10 Cab that filled the room I played it in with “Warm articulate Glory”.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Juice
So, are 80’s watts louder than tube watts?

That would make sense: I blame most of my hearing loss on the 80’s. (Or is it the other way around: I do rememeber stuff from back then as louder because I could still hear things clearly?)

Ha ha you very funny man, you "rememeber" 80's watts louder! :laugh:
:rollno:
“If you remember the '80's watts, you really weren’t there.”
latest

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iristone
Forgive me if I sound dumb, but I find that I can get really good lows at lower volume with my 1x18 than with a 4x10. But then again, I did play a Mark Bass 4x10 Cab that filled the room I played it in with “Warm articulate Glory”.

Not dumb. Each driver/cab have their own freq response and sensitivity. What I was getting at was that deepness does not just follow the size of the driver but a combination of factors. For ME, I seem to like the flavor of sealed 10s. Others may like different configurations and it's all good, whatever gets the job done.
 
Things have come a long way in the design of speakers and even quality cabs. I quit doing 18s a long time ago, and also quit doing 15s over two decades ago. Just not worth schlepping all that stuff around anymore, since smaller 12s and better cab designs have been able to fill that need for size. But to each his own.
Get cha one....
View attachment 3491244
I have no trouble gigging mine...
main-qimg-aab0c21a77d091b504cebd535214d927
 
Things have come a long way in the design of speakers and even quality cabs. I quit doing 18s a long time ago, and also quit doing 15s over two decades ago. Just not worth schlepping all that stuff around anymore, since smaller 12s and better cab designs have been able to fill that need for size. But to each his own.
Get cha one....
View attachment 3491244
I have a smaller one for those coffee house gigs...
a193afb4991cf7f384afd0013d9d5bf1.jpg
 
One warning on this type of drive (not just these drivers) is that the frequency response looks artificially better on paper than it does in the real world. If you were to look at the polar response, the pattern narrows as frequency increases, which offsets (or appears to extend) the actual rolloff. This can make a driver look like it has response a octave higher than it would if you considered reasonable off axis performance.

Large diameter drivers designed for full range or extended range operation use specific design features to increase both the sensitivity and the radiation pattern at higher frequencies, making it more usable. It's n ot something that's done on drivers intended to be used for low frequency only applications.
 
I just showed up to mention that dispersion vs aperture diameter. At least I have been shown that smaller apertures make less beaming. I suppose this simple diagram explains it although I haven't taken the time to factor in that with a speaker the source is at the aperture. I am supposing the cone sort of acts as it were the wave passing through the aperture. Hopefully I'll have an idea of how that situation is by showing my simple idea.

Small, large , and dual aperture interference pattern. Those dead spots out in listenerland.

diffract.jpg


Diffr-water-double.jpg
 
I also found out a smaller speaker and cabinet works better in a small room like an apartment. The BSE115T cabinet makes the most awful peaks and valleys. I can stand in one spot and it booms out loudly and a short distance over to the side and it's almost dead. I used the above diagrams to conclude I needed a smaller speaker diameter for the smaller room. So I tried a 1x10" cabinet and the improvement was excellent. Just by guesswork I am wondering if a 1x8" would work even better. I don't think an affordable 8" speaker's SPL would keep up with the stereo I practice with though. There may be some outrageously loud 8" at a very high price.

Also for home use, it seems the large cabinet is operating at it's minimum and is probably like a bagpipe that is not fully inflated. Intended frequency response it seems, is not valid at such low levels because the cone is barely moving and the enclosure again is not being filled up enough to resonate. Another one of my theories. Let's see if that's true LOL.
And I like this plot of large and small apertures showing the bubble forming at the smaller aperture. Hence my avatar inspiration. Not how I play baseball, sometimes I just like messing with people's heads LOL.

Water_ripples_Diffraction.png
 
Last edited:

Latest posts