5",6" or 8" Woofers?

[miroslav]

Then why the need for the debate???? Good lord, man, nothing personal, but it can get exasperating at times. You agree that woofer size itself means nothing, and yet you expend all this energy trying to debate otherwise.

Talk about exasperating...you're expanding a lot more energy debating THE SAME points that I've already agreed to...yet you don't say anything to the point I've been making and asking you about.

If your speaker can NOT output frequencies at the outer ranges of the 20-20k spectrum...why does it matter if there happens to be a null point in those same outer ranges?

AFA the size of the speaker...you can go on and on about the 15" speakers that sounded like shit......but for the most part, with studio monitors these days, larger speakers *tend to* have more extension in the low end compared to similar smaller ones. Look at the two Mackie sizes...or the JBLs...or the Yamaha...etc.
I know there are other ways to achieve that besides increasing speaker size...but I'm just trying to point out why a lot of folks think larger=more low end....I'm really not debating YOU about that.

 

[miroslav]

They advertise the 824 as having an 8.75" woofer. But that's a bit of marketing slight-of-hand; 8.75" is the size of the mounting frame containing the speaker element, but the cone itself is actually only about 6.5" in diameter.

I guess it's all in how you measure.

It matters not...'cuz if you compare them to the 6" Mackie 624 (or whatever size you're measuring)...one is still larger than the other, and the large one has more low end extension.
These are similar designs.

I think if you look at the current JBL crop of similar designs...you will find the same to be true, their larger speakers kick out more low end than their smaller ones...
...and that's why people come to the conclusions about speaker size.

Is it the only thing...no...but it just tends to fall out that way very often.
I'm just saying it's not that stupid or surprising why people consider speaker size and show concerns about using larger, full-bandwidth speakers in very small rooms.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Is it the only thing...no...but it just tends to fall out that way very often.

It''s just that "it tends not to fall out that way just as often" is a known fact many folks are selectively blind to.

It's the natural tendency for the human brain to see patterns and miss or ignore non-patterns; but that doesn't make those patterns predominant. If you have 100 doodads, and 40% of them follow some pattern and 60% of them randomly break that pattern, many people will see that 40% and call that "the rule" and call the 60% "the exception", when the reality is the tendency is really heaver towards just the opposite.

I'm just saying it's not that stupid or surprising why people consider speaker size and show concerns about using larger, full-bandwidth speakers in very small rooms.

Perhaps not surprising, but it's not exactly educated, and certainly not correct.

Yet another example where majority public opinion and reality are not related.

G.

 

[miroslav]

It''s just that "it tends not to fall out that way just as often" ....

If you say so....but I don't think it will have much affect on the bigger speakers = more low end perspectives.

Hey...now what about that room null point that a given set of speakers can't even hit? Does it really matter?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If you say so....but I don't think it will have much affect on the bigger speakers = more low end perspectives.

And as we all know from being stuck at red lights next to morons with horrendous-sounding subwoofers mounted in place of the rear half of their car, more = better.

And "more" means that I'll swamp out those pesky little bass nulls because phase cancellation disappears with amplitude. All I need to do is make that bass strong enough and it will stop cancelling out on me.

And since the majority has an unwashed predilection to believe both of those things, I might as well just go with that flow.



G.

 

[mixsit]

Glen with regard to relative extension and/or headroom in the bottom octaves I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying –too many other variables, but let’s do apples for apples. Could you give an example of in a given manufacture’s line where when the woofer size goes from 5 to 8 they don’t compromise on either extension or level or ball park distortion, (and hopefully where they’re also not playing games with their numbers?
At any price is fine.

 

[miroslav]

And "more" means that I'll swamp out those pesky little bass nulls because phase cancellation disappears with amplitude. All I need to do is make that bass strong enough and it will stop cancelling out on me.

But hey...what about those nulls when a speaker can't hit them...do they matter?

...let’s do apples for apples. Could you give an example of in a given manufacture’s line where when the woofer size goes from 5 to 8 they don’t compromise on either extension or level or ball park distortion...

I'm sure he's working on a list for ya!

If you compare similar speakers in any manufacturer's line...maybe it's just coincidence that they build them that way these days (NOT! ) but the larger speakers always have more low-end extension.
I think if they didn't, and their 5" beat out their 8"...the manufacturer would immediately pull the 8" model.

 

[mixsit]

..I'm sure he's working on a list for ya!

If you compare similar speakers in any manufacturer's line...maybe it's just coincidence that they build them that way these days (NOT! ) but the larger speakers always have more low-end extensions.
I think if they didn't, and their 5" beat out their 8"...the manufacturer would immediately pull that model.

Ok. I want keep it copasetic'eg here.

 

[mshilarious]

All other aspects of construction being equal (a big caveat), larger woofers will have a lower Fs. Look at the spec sheets for a quality brand of drivers and compare. Crap drivers, who cares?

I use 10"s

At some point you get too big (I am on the bleeding edge) and potentially need a 3-way design. That increases complexity and therefore cost quite a bit.

 

[miroslav]

Ok. I want keep it copasetic'eg here.

It's very copasetic'eg here!

Just some forum banter...

 

[miroslav]

At some point you get too big (I am on the bleeding edge) and potentially need a 3-way design.

The older Technics hi-fi system (can't recall the model) I have in the studio mainly for "listening" is a large 3-way with a 12" speaker. I don't have a spec sheet for it so I don't know exactly it's frequency range...but it's pretty darn wide, and of course the cabinets are about 3 times the size of the Mackies 824.
It has adjustable high and mid levels, so you can tailor it to your taste, but I still prefer the Mackie 824 monitors for actual mixing....but the Technics sure sounds huge when I'm just jamming on some tunes.

 

[mixsit]

The older Technics hi-fi system (can't recall the model) I have in the studio mainly for "listening" is a large 3-way with a 12" speaker. I don't have a spec sheet for it so I don't know exactly it's frequency range...but it's pretty darn wide, and of course the cabinets are about 3 times the size of the Mackies 824.
It has adjustable high and mid levels, so you can tailor it to your taste, but I still prefer the Mackie 824 monitors for actual mixing....but the Technics sure sounds huge when I'm just jamming on some tunes.

My system is superbly neutral, dynamic as hell and wided to around 100-105spl (hint hint, wink wink nod nod.. say no more say no more.....
...That don't mean I don't lust for a full blown (but less accurate) 4-way JBL fun system to cover say.. 100-128.

 

[Tango944]

Thanks for all your advice on the monitors and room.
Just wanted to add that I auditioned the RP5 and 6s, and Yamaha Hm50 and 80s with a few well loved tunes, and the Rp6s had the sweeter sound but the clarity of the HM80s was just fantastic. I heard every instrument and new sounds I had never heard before. They should be with me tomorrow,now onto treating the studio.

 

[miroslav]

... but the clarity of the HM80s was just fantastic. I heard every instrument and new sounds I had never heard before. They should be with me tomorrow,now onto treating the studio.

Cool.
So you went with the big boys.

Good luck with them.

 

[mshilarious]

The older Technics hi-fi system (can't recall the model) I have in the studio mainly for "listening" is a large 3-way with a 12" speaker. I don't have a spec sheet for it so I don't know exactly it's frequency range...but it's pretty darn wide, and of course the cabinets are about 3 times the size of the Mackies 824.
It has adjustable high and mid levels, so you can tailor it to your taste, but I still prefer the Mackie 824 monitors for actual mixing....but the Technics sure sounds huge when I'm just jamming on some tunes.

That's the other issue, as you increase woofer size you really need to increase box size as well to get the benefit. I don't use nearfields at all, so this is not a problem for me; I went with 70L sealed soffit-mounted boxes.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen with regard to relative extension and/or headroom in the bottom octaves I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying –too many other variables, but let’s do apples for apples. Could you give an example of in a given manufacture’s line where when the woofer size goes from 5 to 8 they don’t compromise on either extension or level or ball park distortion

I think you meant the compromise in the other direction, from 8 to 5 . Not picking on a simple typo, just making sure we understand each other is all.

Apples to apples, specifically 8" to 5" in a nearfield, I can't say I know of one offhand. But then again, apples to apples is not the point I was trying to make; in fact it was specifically that when comparing apples with oranges, woofer size alone means nothing,

If you want to compare same manufacturer, but look between two lines in the same manufacturer, let me ask you, which is the better LF spec: the Mackie HR624 w/45Hz +/- 1.5dB or the MR8 w/40hz +/-3dB?

But all this talk is missing the real point, IMHO.

The only reason so many people are so keen on trying to peg how speakers sound by some simple quasi- metric such as woofer size - or frequency response, brand name, or smell - is because they do not trust their ears. And frankly, if they can't trust their ears, then what monitor they wind up buying is really quite irrelevant, because their mixes will be unreliable regardless of the speaker.

OTOH, if you got the ears, you're not going to give a shit about woofer size - or any of those other quasi-metrics, because you'll just pic the one that fits your ears.

So, when you look at it that way - which is really the only relevant way to look at it - whether you got the ears or not, woofer size doesn't matter when it comes to choosing your monitor. It's an extraneous and unnecessary complication in anyone's decision process, and a debate that spins it's wheels and goes nowhere.

G.

 

[mixsit]

Gads. Ears, years, logic all sort of align and says you don't get much usable 41Hz -E on the bass.. on a 5.
And active (or other means) you can attenuate where the driver would do well naturally to derive flat'. Very small quarters (head phones sure it's there.
My point really is the option to step back and do a decent size room. Is there a way around extreme excursion requirements?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Gads. Ears, years, logic all sort of align and says you don't get much usable 41Hz -E on the bass.. on a 5.

A larger woofer is no guarantee of getting good low bass or even any low bass either. Just a few of many popular examples of official studio monitors:

Adam A7: 6.5" = 46Hz +/-3dB
Yamaha NS-10M: 7" = 60Hz +/-10dB
Tannoy Reveal 8D: 8" = 47Hz +/- 3dB
MAudio BX8a (non-deluxe): 8" = 50Hz +/-5dB
JBL 4311: 12" = 45Hz +/-3dB

The OP's Yammie HS-80Ms have 8" woofers and go a bit lower, but kind of sloppily, specing out at 42Hz +/- 10dB, and still don't meet your bar of the E1 fundamental.

So much for woofer size ensuring one gets better low-end response. Those are just a few random examples that I bothered to take the time to look up, there are plenty more out there

And BTW, Bose is able to get to 40Hz and below decently using nothing but 4" drivers. Granted those are not nearfields and are not appropriately designed for studio use, but it is a legitimate example of what can be done with small-diameter drivers if one puts the effort into it.

G.