|
|
Post by klauth on Sept 27, 2018 5:44:41 GMT -6
Do you have a preferance for a particular sized woofer on your monitors....and why?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 27, 2018 6:23:51 GMT -6
Do you have a preferance for a particular sized woofer on your monitors....and why? Woofer size means nothing, and in most cases refers to the size of the driver frame. The Thiele Small parameters , the cabinet chamber size and tuning would tell you more if you know how to use them, but nobody publishes that data for the drivers used and why should they? The best thing has always been and always will be to listen to a pair of speakers in your room. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 27, 2018 6:35:09 GMT -6
I think a better question is what is the difference between the sizes of drivers in multi-driver arrangements, and what ratios between driver sizes work best for what you're doing?
The most common tweeter size is 1". The woofer size can range from 3" to 10" for most bookshelf-sized speakers.
Larger speakers are inherently able to reproduce lower frequencies, but their size and cone weight make it harder for them to reproduce higher frequencies. There is usually a balance between cone weight/size, efficiency, and raw frequency response that designers try to obtain so that they can use the lowest order crossovers without unnecessary sections. However, this also means that the tweeter/midrange response must also be considered as well.
Personally I think a smartly chosen 8" woofer is the best option if used with a midrange driver in a 3way system. I think a 6" driver is likely the best in a 2way based on the tradeoff of cone size and frequency response.
|
|
|
|
Post by klauth on Sept 27, 2018 6:37:40 GMT -6
Do you have a preferance for a particular sized woofer on your monitors....and why? Woofer size means nothing, and in most cases refers to the size of the driver frame. The Thiele Small parameters , the cabinet chamber size and tuning would tell you more if you know how to use them, but nobody publishes that data for the drivers used and why should they? The best thing has always been and always will be to listen to a pair of speakers in your room. You responded to a question...I didn't ask. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 27, 2018 7:03:16 GMT -6
Woofer size means nothing, and in most cases refers to the size of the driver frame. The Thiele Small parameters , the cabinet chamber size and tuning would tell you more if you know how to use them, but nobody publishes that data for the drivers used and why should they? The best thing has always been and always will be to listen to a pair of speakers in your room. You responded to a question...I didn't ask. No what I’m saying is this: Love the Volt 8’s but that means nothing compared to ATC or Dynaudio 8’s ! It’s like saying I prefer a speaker cabinet that’s 12in wide. I can find a 6.5in that performs more like the Volt 8 Than any other 8. Even when a speaker manufacturer says 8in woofer that refers to the size of the frame, not the cone radiating surface, there are 6.5’s that do in fact offer more diaphragm surface than some 8’s. Your asking about preferences for a nominal meaning less spec. Even if you compared diaphragm surface area it would mean nothing because it says nothing about how it is used. Even my statement about my preference for Volt 8’s is to broad they are all designed for different response in different cabinets and tuning even If I say my favorite is the Volt BM228.8 it still comes down to how it’s used and crossed. Now that 8 can go as low as my TAD 16in’s and the sound of both have very little to do with their size. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 27, 2018 7:08:32 GMT -6
I think a better question is what is the difference between the sizes of drivers in multi-driver arrangements, and what ratios between driver sizes work best for what you're doing? The most common tweeter size is 1". The woofer size can range from 3" to 10" for most bookshelf-sized speakers. Larger speakers are inherently able to reproduce lower frequencies, but their size and cone weight make it harder for them to reproduce higher frequencies. There is usually a balance between cone weight/size, efficiency, and raw frequency response that designers try to obtain so that they can use the lowest order crossovers without unnecessary sections. However, this also means that the tweeter/midrange response must also be considered as well. Personally I think a smartly chosen 8" woofer is the best option if used with a midrange driver in a 3way system. I think a 6" driver is likely the best in a 2way based on the tradeoff of cone size and frequency response. No bigger in no way means it will go lower, it is a combination of cone construction, suspension and the driver motor. It’s all about what the preferences of the driver manufacturer wants and it’s always a trade off. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 27, 2018 8:00:30 GMT -6
I think a better question is what is the difference between the sizes of drivers in multi-driver arrangements, and what ratios between driver sizes work best for what you're doing? The most common tweeter size is 1". The woofer size can range from 3" to 10" for most bookshelf-sized speakers. Larger speakers are inherently able to reproduce lower frequencies, but their size and cone weight make it harder for them to reproduce higher frequencies. There is usually a balance between cone weight/size, efficiency, and raw frequency response that designers try to obtain so that they can use the lowest order crossovers without unnecessary sections. However, this also means that the tweeter/midrange response must also be considered as well. Personally I think a smartly chosen 8" woofer is the best option if used with a midrange driver in a 3way system. I think a 6" driver is likely the best in a 2way based on the tradeoff of cone size and frequency response. No bigger in no way means it will go lower, it is a combination of cone construction, suspension and the driver motor. It’s all about what the preferences of the driver manufacturer wants and it’s always a trade off. As I mentioned in another thread, cone size can determine an overall efficiency at a given frequency when the physical-to-air pressure conversion happens, but it's also a matter of diminishing returns in cone size. However, total cone movement can and will also matter here too. An 8" driver might only need to move 1/4" to reproduce the pressure needed for the ear to hear a certain frequency, but a 4" driver moving 1" might be able to do the same, albeit with a lot more current necessary to do so. But then you have to worry about the tradeoff of a 4" speaker moving 1" not having the necessary slew rate to also reproduce midrange frequencies either. If that speaker is at the end of it's useful travel and the amp is working hard to get it there, it's going to have a hell of a time recovering in time to reproduce the smaller waveforms.. And now you're talking about needing very powerful amplifiers to control a speaker that's inefficiently sized to do.. I still say that it's a balance between all these factors, and the smartest move is to use a driver of sufficient size so that it doesn't need to have large excursions and large recovery times. |
|
|
|
Post by klauth on Sept 27, 2018 9:59:55 GMT -6
"Your asking about preferences for a nominal meaning less spec."
Please dont participate if, you cant stay on the specified question matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 27, 2018 11:28:30 GMT -6
Do you have a preferance for a particular sized woofer on your monitors....and why? It all depends on the application. Personally, I LOVE dual 15" JBLs like there were in the big speakers at Automatt Studio A, but I have no place to put them.  
On nearfields and medium fields it all depends on the cabinet design and distance, as well as excursion vs. diameter. All other things being equal (which they seldom are) greater excursion usually equates to greater harmonic distortion, especially at highr volume, for mechanical reasons, but I've heard some speakers that were rather small and sounded great.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 27, 2018 11:48:48 GMT -6
Woofer size means nothing, and in most cases refers to the size of the driver frame. The Thiele Small parameters , the cabinet chamber size and tuning would tell you more if you know how to use them, but nobody publishes that data for the drivers used and why should they? The best thing has always been and always will be to listen to a pair of speakers in your room. You responded to a question...I didn't ask. But probably should have.
The answer is that it depends entirely on the application - both the overall design of the speaker and the environment and placement in which it is to be used.
In general, I prefer a larger woofer to a smaller woofer, as the mechanical stresses are not as great and the efficiency with which it couples low frequencies to the air load tends to be better, although cabinet design also affects that. And there are tradeoffs in cab design - for example, a bass port will inctrease LF efficiency, but it also has an adverse effect on phase response. Small diameter, high excursion speakers tend to have significantly greater harmonic distortion as level increases and poorer recovery time.
(EDIT: Plus, I just get an emotional kick from seeding those big soffitt mounted main speakers when I walk into the control room at a major shop!)
Speaker design is a very complex subject and you really can't credit any one "visual" parameter as having much real importance except perhaps emotional.
If you don't mind my asking, what is the actual point of the question? Is there a reason, beyond a "what's your favorite color?" sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by klauth on Sept 27, 2018 12:55:29 GMT -6
Am curious about individual perceptions, inspirations and know how....unorthadox methods. Yes, I'm aware of the science behind the formulations we use in the acoustic realm but, there are those who defy these things and create with their own schtick so....I'm asking what YOU as your own creators...."like" in a woofers size that gets you there...and NOT what's technically "right".
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 27, 2018 13:20:43 GMT -6
I'm happy with the 40mm and 45mm in my HD650's and Q701's.
|
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Sept 27, 2018 20:48:12 GMT -6
Along the lines of what Svart says, it's a trade off. Generally speaking, for me vocals sound better out of a 6 inch woofer, and everything else sounds better out of an 8 inch woofer.
But while everyone fetishizes tweeter material, Eric is right to point out woofer construction is just as important, if not more so. Think of a guitar cab. Size doesn't matter as much as material and enclosure in terms of focus and fine frequency resolution rather than coarse impression of moving air.
Because even when I don't like the sound of a tweeter if it seems unnatural on strings for example I can often judge the highs just fine, yet the woofer being off is a big problem, particularly for judging depth and effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Sept 27, 2018 23:28:30 GMT -6
Big woofers don't seem fashionable anymore. In my experience, 15" seems the biggest that can sound musical, 18's don't sound right to me, I'm thinking about the 70's Cerwin-Vega's and the Ampeg B-18 and B-18x. Even modern PA subs typically sound pretty awful, especially given the kick drum style many mixers use today.
The big Westlakes in the Hidley rooms of the time sounded good, and the big Urei's. I have always liked the the Altec 604's and the variants, mainly because they had limited headroom that you could actually judge frequence balances with for normal system consumption. Super linear systems with huge headroom are not necessarily an asset making music for mass consumption. At least from my perspective. I've thought about a plug in that you could drag down from the top of the monitor screen that would reduce audio headroom to reveal any gross frequency or transient imbalance that would effect smooth playback response on most systems.
Anyway, I like going between 8" and 5" woofers, both with a sub, but the sub's on a foot switch, so I can check that too.
What I'd really like would be a reliable software band pass that would let you judge marginal delivery equipment so your mix would read as well as possible on them. Obviously modern pro mixers and masterers know how to do this for their market.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Sept 28, 2018 9:59:19 GMT -6
Do you have a preferance for a particular sized woofer on your monitors....and why? I like using small nearfield speakers, with 5 or perhaps 6.5 inch woofers, because for me...I find it better for the way I work in the studio, in order to get the best translation to outside re-production systems. Like speakers inside a car door, or speakers inside a bluetooth "pill" type thingie. Larger woofer systems are fun, sure, but I don't prefer working with them, for the reason I stated above. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 28, 2018 14:29:08 GMT -6
BIG woofer = BIG **** = Bigger, Better Music. Pretty simple math....
|
|
|
|
Post by klauth on Sept 28, 2018 14:49:26 GMT -6
BIG woofer = BIG **** = Bigger, Better Music. Pretty simple math.... Been waiting for you to chime in, haha |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 28, 2018 15:15:19 GMT -6
PS - I'm going to go for new 8's here shortly. JBL 708P's to be exact. Even though the 8's don't correspond with my personal **** size. Why? Cause I've used 8's for years I guess. Seems the right thing to do. Both the 5" and 8" 7 series JBL's are getting rave reviews, but bigger is better right? Oh wait...I'm thinking back to my Tannoy days and have a painful memory that bigger was actually worser. Anyway, the LSR 28P's that I've had for close to 15 years have mixed feature films, grammy winning records, iMax films (that actually translated well to big screen - whoohoo), TV shows, and mostly mp3's that people listen to with earbuds.
So yeah....
8's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Sept 28, 2018 15:57:49 GMT -6
Big woofers don't seem fashionable anymore. In my experience, 15" seems the biggest that can sound musical, 18's don't sound right to me, I'm thinking about the 70's Cerwin-Vega's and the Ampeg B-18 and B-18x. Even modern PA subs typically sound pretty awful, especially given the kick drum style many mixers use today. The big Westlakes in the Hidley rooms of the time sounded good, and the big Urei's. I have always liked the the Altec 604's and the variants, mainly because they had limited headroom that you could actually judge frequence balances with for normal system consumption. Super linear systems with huge headroom are not necessarily an asset making music for mass consumption. At least from my perspective. I've thought about a plug in that you could drag down from the top of the monitor screen that would reduce audio headroom to reveal any gross frequency or transient imbalance that would effect smooth playback response on most systems. Anyway, I like going between 8" and 5" woofers, both with a sub, but the sub's on a foot switch, so I can check that too. What I'd really like would be a reliable software band pass that would let you judge marginal delivery equipment so your mix would read as well as possible on them. Obviously modern pro mixers and masterers know how to do this for their market. I was just doing some critical listening in my garage while also building historical big muff recreation pedals. I have this little Lepai 20 watt Class D or Class H or whatever it is tiny amp in there with a couple of 2" Cambridge computer cube speakers. It was a really interesting listen. The Grimes album "Art Angels" that I played totally overloaded the system and it got distorted and farty really quickly. All my other references sounded fine. So I was thinking this would be a good system to check bass and RMS/LUFS levels on, if anything is going hard in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 28, 2018 19:24:51 GMT -6
Big woofers don't seem fashionable anymore. In my experience, 15" seems the biggest that can sound musical, 18's don't sound right to me, I'm thinking about the 70's Cerwin-Vega's and the Ampeg B-18 and B-18x. Even modern PA subs typically sound pretty awful, especially given the kick drum style many mixers use today. The big Westlakes in the Hidley rooms of the time sounded good, and the big Urei's. I have always liked the the Altec 604's and the variants, mainly because they had limited headroom that you could actually judge frequence balances with for normal system consumption. Super linear systems with huge headroom are not necessarily an asset making music for mass consumption. At least from my perspective. I've thought about a plug in that you could drag down from the top of the monitor screen that would reduce audio headroom to reveal any gross frequency or transient imbalance that would effect smooth playback response on most systems. Anyway, I like going between 8" and 5" woofers, both with a sub, but the sub's on a foot switch, so I can check that too. What I'd really like would be a reliable software band pass that would let you judge marginal delivery equipment so your mix would read as well as possible on them. Obviously modern pro mixers and masterers know how to do this for their market. With 18s it depends a lot on the design of the driver. Cerwin-Vegas are universally horrible, really poorly designed. They have an extremely slow suspension system which, exacerbated by the really heavy, overdamped cone make them very slow and muddy.Plus they're round wound, not edgewound, and have a fairly large gap, which cuts the efficiency. The original stock speakers in the Ampeg B-18 (which was a very early 18" design) are not much better. The Gauss 18s, which did have an edgewound coil, are not much better because the double spider , heavy cone, and excessively stiff suspension make for a sluggish, inefficient design. Trading efficiency and sensitivity for increased power handling is a pretty dumb compromise. Put a JBL K151 or one of the lighter coned, less stiff versions of the Peavey Black Widow 18 (which are more or less JBL E-series clones) and you'll hear what a 18 is really capable of. Not all BW18s are like that, they make AT LEAST half a dozen very different 18" recone kits. The EVM-18s were not bad, either, if memory serves.
I have a K-151 in my B-18, it makes a lot of difference.
I hear from William Wittman that Vox had some 18" bass cabs that were excellent but I have no experience with them - they're extremely rare in the US.
Note that this is for bass guitar applications, not studio monitors. For studio monitors I think that 15" is the limit.
Don, do you remember what the big mons in Automatt Studio A were? They were JBL loaded but I'm not sure of the design - Westlakes? Hidleys? AFAIK they were double 15's, 12" or 10" midbass, 2440 2" on a big horn for the high mids and a bullet or slot supertweeter...
I generally don't like separate subwoofers. I have a really nice Klipsch 15" sub that I don't use if anybody is interested. It might be loaded with an EVM15 but I'd need to open it up to be certain. Shipping would likely be costly.
And yes, big woofers don't seem to be "fashionable" anymore, probably due to the glut of home/bedroom recordists who have no room.
Me, I'm not all that concerned with what's "fashionable" - fashions come and go. I'm more interested in what works.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 28, 2018 19:36:26 GMT -6
Big woofers don't seem fashionable anymore. In my experience, 15" seems the biggest that can sound musical, 18's don't sound right to me, I'm thinking about the 70's Cerwin-Vega's and the Ampeg B-18 and B-18x. Even modern PA subs typically sound pretty awful, especially given the kick drum style many mixers use today. The big Westlakes in the Hidley rooms of the time sounded good, and the big Urei's. I have always liked the the Altec 604's and the variants, mainly because they had limited headroom that you could actually judge frequence balances with for normal system consumption. Super linear systems with huge headroom are not necessarily an asset making music for mass consumption. At least from my perspective. I've thought about a plug in that you could drag down from the top of the monitor screen that would reduce audio headroom to reveal any gross frequency or transient imbalance that would effect smooth playback response on most systems. Anyway, I like going between 8" and 5" woofers, both with a sub, but the sub's on a foot switch, so I can check that too. What I'd really like would be a reliable software band pass that would let you judge marginal delivery equipment so your mix would read as well as possible on them. Obviously modern pro mixers and masterers know how to do this for their market. With 18s it depends a lot on the design of the driver. Cerwin-Vegas are universally horrible, really poorly designed. They have an extremely slow suspension system which, exacerbated by the really heavy, overdamped cone make them very slow and muddy.Plus they're round wound, not edgewound, and have a fairly large gap, which cuts the efficiency. The original stock speakers in the Ampeg B-18 (which was a very early 18" design) are not much better. The Gauss 18s, which did have an edgewound coil, are not much better because the double spider , heavy cone, and excessively stiff suspension make for a sluggish, inefficient design. Trading efficiency and sensitivity for increased power handling is a pretty dumb compromise. Put a JBL K151 or one of the lighter coned, less stiff versions of the Peavey Black Widow 18 (which are more or less JBL E-series clones) and you'll hear what a 18 is really capable of. Not all BW18s are like that, they make AT LEAST half a dozen very different 18" recone kits. The EVM-18s were not bad, either, if memory serves.
I have a K-151 in my B-18, it makes a lot of difference.
I hear from William Wittman that Vox had some 18" bass cabs that were excellent but I have no experience with them - they're extremely rare in the US.
Note that this is for bass guitar applications, not studio monitors. For studio monitors I think that 15" is the limit.
Don, do you remember what the big mons in Automatt Studio A were? They were JBL loaded but I'm not sure of the design - Westlakes? Hidleys? AFAIK they were double 15's, 12" or 10" midbass, 2440 2" on a big horn for the high mids and a bullet or slot supertweeter...
I generally don't like separate subwoofers. I have a really nice Klipsch 15" sub that I don't use if anybody is interested. It might be loaded with an EVM15 but I'd need to open it up to be certain. Shipping would likely be costly.
Klipsch pro used EVM 15 OEM’s . |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 28, 2018 19:39:59 GMT -6
With 18s it depends a lot on the design of the driver. Cerwin-Vegas are universally horrible, really poorly designed. They have an extremely slow suspension system which, exacerbated by the really heavy, overdamped cone make them very slow and muddy.Plus they're round wound, not edgewound, and have a fairly large gap, which cuts the efficiency. The original stock speakers in the Ampeg B-18 (which was a very early 18" design) are not much better. The Gauss 18s, which did have an edgewound coil, are not much better because the double spider , heavy cone, and excessively stiff suspension make for a sluggish, inefficient design. Trading efficiency and sensitivity for increased power handling is a pretty dumb compromise. Put a JBL K151 or one of the lighter coned, less stiff versions of the Peavey Black Widow 18 (which are more or less JBL E-series clones) and you'll hear what a 18 is really capable of. Not all BW18s are like that, they make AT LEAST half a dozen very different 18" recone kits. The EVM-18s were not bad, either, if memory serves.
I have a K-151 in my B-18, it makes a lot of difference.
I hear from William Wittman that Vox had some 18" bass cabs that were excellent but I have no experience with them - they're extremely rare in the US.
Note that this is for bass guitar applications, not studio monitors. For studio monitors I think that 15" is the limit.
Don, do you remember what the big mons in Automatt Studio A were? They were JBL loaded but I'm not sure of the design - Westlakes? Hidleys? AFAIK they were double 15's, 12" or 10" midbass, 2440 2" on a big horn for the high mids and a bullet or slot supertweeter...
I generally don't like separate subwoofers. I have a really nice Klipsch 15" sub that I don't use if anybody is interested. It might be loaded with an EVM15 but I'd need to open it up to be certain. Shipping would likely be costly.
Klipsch pro used EVM 15 OEM’s . This was the top of the line "home theater" sub made at the same time as those Pro series. Late '80s/early '90s. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 28, 2018 20:55:57 GMT -6
How bigs the cabinet? Vented ? What type of surround?
|
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Sept 29, 2018 8:05:58 GMT -6
When Maria Muldaur sang "It ain't the meat, it's the motion", she might have made reference to this thread about the size of woofers. Come to think about it, I haven't heard much from her lately. Maybe she is back as a waitress at the Doughnut Shop.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 29, 2018 8:20:49 GMT -6
When Maria Muldaur sang "It ain't the meat, it's the motion", she might have made reference to this thread about the size of woofers. Come to think about it, I haven't heard much from her lately. Maybe she is back as a waitress at the Doughnut Shop. I mixed one of her shows a couple years back. |
|
