woofer sizes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andydeedpoll
  • Start date Start date
A

andydeedpoll

i do love smilies...
hey,

i'm looking for monitors at the minute, and i'm getting a bit confused by woofer sizes. how big a difference is there between say a five inch woofer and a six inch woofer? and should i be looking at as big as i can afford, or should i not be letting it cloud my decision too much? i have a friend using the Alesis monitor one MK2 actives, and he swears by them. i just can't imagine having a six and a half inch woofer being all that important. when a five-inch could be So much cheaper :p

right now, i'm thinking that Anything will be better than my ikkle cheapo uber-old hifi speakers, with their ikkle 3-inch woofer and lack of any real definition/clarity/anything-useful-for-recording at all-ness :p

thanks for any help,

Andy
 
i think its so varied, but the 4" 5" to 6" and 8" are the norm, for Nearfiled monitoring..

1" and 2" are better for super-nearfield and 8" is near midfield, as is 10 and 12"....those huge Led Zepplin Woodstock PA type monitors are Far-fields and of course aren't often recommended for Nearfields or Midfields.

there is a lot of science in these things, but thankfully someone else did their math homework.

like my guitars I go for something I like, but also reading around here you'll possibly be able to reduce the overwhelming choices down to a few.

I bought and have enjoyed YSM1p's from Gear1Music.... highly recommended here and I wish I'd tried them sooner. I didn't have the money for DYNAUDIO's....

actually, HIFi versus "studio" brands is a joke imo... many HiFi speakers are better built and have better clarity than the "studio monitors" laying on the floor in Guitar center.

Mixing, mastering, tracking...room acoustics can "trick" your ears, as its not always the speakers fault the mix sucks. speaking for myself.
 
I can't ever trust monitors with anything less than a 8" woofer. Anything smaller produces a very artificial bass response.
 
Ford Van said:
I can't ever trust monitors with anything less than a 8" woofer. Anything smaller produces a very artificial bass response.
Yeah ..... I'll second that.
Usually when they're smaller than that, they'll design in an elevated upper bass region to make it seem like it has deeper bass than it does.
 
Lt. Bob said:
Yeah ..... I'll second that.
Usually when they're smaller than that, they'll design in an elevated upper bass region to make it seem like it has deeper bass than it does.

that's quite interesting - i'm genuinely quite suprised, because of how few speakers appear that have an 8" woofer, in comparison to the number that are around the 6" or smaller mark. but maybe i've just been looking in the wrong price range... :rolleyes:

thanks for the responses,

Andy
 
in a two-way you have the trade off
the driver has to carry quite a load of work.

in theory...
the larger speaker won't produce the upper mids as well...
while being better at the lows,
larger cones just can't move fast enough to produce the higher freq's.

So many hear better upper mid-range with the 6".
6" was the comprimise of this nearfield. is my understanding.
5"..
most tweeters 2K and up...so from 2k down....we have one cone doing all the work.

6" use the "port" bass extension, woofy..fake sound. not tight.imo.

I think 4" they would assume you have more than one pair or a sub added, or I would? with a sub you basically have a 3-way. 5"+sub?

so why not 3-way? well I ask that alot too...

barefoot made some gorgeous speakers with a powered sub I think...3-way's..very nice.
 
aha, i see! thanks. that makes more sense. thanks :)

i'm looking quite seriously at the Tascam VL-X5, and was a tad worried about the 5" woofer, which was the only thing stopping me from going for it. but i've decided that anything's going to be better, i've got to take the plunge on something at some point, they're not too expensive, they look nice (:p) and, just a general 'i don't really know what to look for anyway, so i might as well try something out, just for the hell' type of thing. *shrugs* :p

thanks :)

Andy
 
COOLCAT said:
so why not 3-way? well I ask that alot too...

barefoot made some gorgeous speakers with a powered sub I think...3-way's..very nice.

barefoot does make nice looking stuff (probably nice sounding too, but I can't afford them to try :o ), I recall he does 3-way and doesn't like ports.

In the budget world, ports will extend the bass response while creating a resonant peak. How low that extension is, and how bad that peak sounds is a function of design. However, a sealed 6.5" cabinet isn't going to produce much bass at all. You'd be looking at adding a sub there. but I don't think there are too many such beasts on the market.

A ported 6.5" in a good design can be an appropriate in a small environment, although as Ford Van says, the bass is unsatisfying. I used ported 6.5"s, then added a sub, but ultimately I've parts laying around for full-range 10" cabinets, if I ever get time to make them :(

Why not 3-way? Again, it's cost. Another driver, a more complicated crossover design . . . it's possible to get a good compromise out of an 8" cabinet without needing to go with a midrange. That should probably be the goal of the home studio.

Then there is the issue of the room. Some feel it's a bad idea to pump lots of bass into an untreated room. That is probably true, but is a bad room with a sub more likely to cause you to make the wrong decision, or is a bad room with no sub more likely to cause you not to make the right decision?

I don't know the answer to that one, other than the obvious . . . fix the room!

Finally, I can't imagine a 5" being ideal, other than as a reference set for a typical home stereo.
 
mshilarious said:
but is a bad room with a sub more likely to cause you to make the wrong decision, or is a bad room with no sub more likely to cause you not to make the right decision?
.

or ........how is the lower bass frequencys from a sub, any worse than the lower freq's from a 8" woofer in standard monitor cabinet?

isnt' 120hz, a 120hz?? or 80hz is still 80hz no matter what "box" it comes from?
 
COOLCAT said:
isnt' 120hz, a 120hz?? or 80hz is still 80hz no matter what "box" it comes from?

The amplitude is a lot different. The nodes will still have the same effect, but if the bass is quieter in comparison to the rest of the music, you won't notice the problems. So the story goes.
 
andydeedpoll said:
aha, i see! thanks. that makes more sense. thanks :)

i'm looking quite seriously at the Tascam VL-X5, and was a tad worried about the 5" woofer, ...
You didn't mention your room and volume requirements, but I'd be inclined at a particular budget level to want something larger that can do similar quality (accuracy and bass extension) but at reasonable volumes.
Turn it around. Once you cost in everything else in the speaker, how much more does a few inches of cone add? ;)
 
mixsit said:
You didn't mention your room and volume requirements, but I'd be inclined at a particular budget level to want something larger that can do similar quality (accuracy and bass extension) but at reasonable volumes.
Turn it around. Once you cost in everything else in the speaker, how much more does a few inches of cone add? ;)

yeah, i've been thinking a bit along those lines. at some point, i'm going to have to invest in some room treatment. the only problem is, this time next year i'm going to be packing myself into a room about a third the size of this one when i run off to uni (to do a Popular Music and Recording course :)). anything i use now and want to keep using has got to be small, basically, and i don't see that much point in investing in room treatment that is going to be effectively pointless in less than a years time. i've yet to look into it properly. but i will do (i promise! :p)

Andy
 
andydeedpoll said:
yeah, i've been thinking a bit along those lines. at some point, i'm going to have to invest in some room treatment. the only problem is, this time next year i'm going to be packing myself into a room about a third the size of this one when i run off to uni (to do a Popular Music and Recording course :)). anything i use now and want to keep using has got to be small, basically, and i don't see that much point in investing in room treatment that is going to be effectively pointless in less than a years time. i've yet to look into it properly. but i will do (i promise! :p)

Andy

You could always sell anything that you can't take with you. On the other hand, you will likely benefit from using more treatment in a cramped space.
 
In my opinion for an all purpose flat response monitor set go and listen to the Yamaha HS80M. They're like big ns-10's, The 8 inch cone sounds really nice.
 
mshilarious said:
barefoot does make nice looking stuff (probably nice sounding too, but I can't afford them to try :o ), I recall he does 3-way and doesn't like ports....
I just posted this little explanation of my design philosophy on Gearslutz. It gives you the gist of why I chose the driver sizes I did. On a budget, I would probably choose a 6.5" 2-way as the best compromise, all other things being equal.

Thomas
 
This is really funny... I have been using the 5" for a few years now (Samson Resolv 65A's)... yeah I know... Samson???

But I got to tell you, last year I added a sub to it and the difference was unbelievable! I recently decided to "upgrade" and bought the B2031A's and get rid of the Samsons. I got the Truth's in last week and tweaked them into my room and began mixing with them. I got to tell ya, I found myself constantly switching back and forth between the 65A's and the truths. Maybe I am just so used to the Samsons?? Maybe I just need more time on the Truths?? Either way i am thinking twice about selling the samsons. I figured the 8" woofer would give me a better representation for the lows, and maybe they will once I get used to them. But I sure do like the smaller ones with the sub!!
 
I can't believe the level of misinformation floating around about speakers. I think it's time to clear up some misconceptions. I also feel that it's important that I review some basic laws of physics about how real speakers work in the real world. I'll skip the math and techy stuff and try to present it in easy to understand terms.

It all boils down to one basic axiom, and four smaller axioms:

1. The basic axiom: "Everything in designing a speaker is a trade off."

This can also be stated as:

"There no such thing as a free lunch."

or

"You want something? What are you willing to give up to get it?"

These are the four smaller axioms:

Axiom 2. "Small won't get you big, without some fancy tricks."

Axiom 3. "To get good bass response, you hafta move the air in the room - a lot of air."

Axiom 4. "As the frequency goes up, the dispersion narrows."

Axiom 5. "As the frequency goes down, the bass will roll off dramatically at some point."

The problem:

Think of the air in a room as a big bale of loosely packed cotton. You want to move the whole bale of cotton, but all you have is a small stick. (The "stick" is your speaker.) The stick won't move the whole bale; all it will do is poke into the bale and move the cotton near the stick. You need what's called "better coupling". Speakers are like small sticks; they don't do a good job of moving large soft objects. You need a better way to tie the speaker to the air in the room. You can:

Use a bigger stick: You can use a bigger cone, but there are limits to how big you can make it, and drawbacks start to outweigh benefits as the size goes up. if the stick is as big as the room, how do you move the stick? The bigger cone has to be heavier and stiffer, so that it doesn't flex as it moves. Heavier means sluggish. That limits the cone to slower starting notes like pipe organs. Stiffer, yet light, cones means more exotic materials (i.e., "expensive") like Kevlar, Aluminum, and Graphite Composites.

Move the stick more: This was the principle of the acoustic suspension speakers; make the speaker move longer distances to push more air. Unfortunately, it required a lot heavier cone and a long voice coil which dropped the efficiency way down and made the system sluggish as hell.

Use a lotta little sticks: The Bose approach, where you use multiple bass drivers to simulate the cone area of a larger driver. The problem is still back to basic physics; even though you equal the area of a large speaker, the cone diameter of each speaker determines one of the low frequency cutoff points, and you pay for the bass boost with phase cancellations and beaming at higher frequencies.

Taper the stick from small to large: It's called an acoustic transformer, and that's how horns work. They transform a high energy, large motion, speaker cone to to a lower energy, less motion, signal appearing at the horn mouth that couples better to the air in the room. The problem with low frequency horns is that the mouth of the horn has to be huge and (like every transformer), the throat of the horn (or the transformer's primary) can easily saturate when overdriven.

Tie a second stick to the first stick: This is what a Helmholz resonator does; it can either be done with a tuned hole in the box to move more air in a very small frequency range just below where the speaker starts to roll off (Axiom 5), or by using any tuned mass (like a passive radiator) to move air in that range. The efficiency of this port is tied to a lot of other factors, including cabinet volume.

Use eq to boost the bass and fix problems: That works ok, but only up to a point. You can't fix room nodes electronically, since those are caused by bass buildup over time, and they're different for each room. You can do some slight boost to help a steady dropoff, but you quickly run out of power (or speaker capacity) at very low frequencies.

A brief side trip about Axiom 4: High Frequency Dispersion: This dispersion problem is true of microphones as well as speakers. Even with a perfect omni measurement mic, you have a choice of flat response on-axis, but the high end will drop off as you move off axis, or you can have flat response off-axis, but the high end will increase as you move on axis. With speakers it's the same thing; as you raise the frequency, the coil decouples from the cone and the bulk of the high end energy comes from the center of the speaker, while the sluggish cone works against the fast moving coil, further damping out the high end. The beam narrows and you lose highs as you move further off-axis.

So, what have we learned? Basically, just three things; that below a certain frequency, a speaker needs help to produce low end, and that bigger is generally better, but not without some compromises. And, we know that above a certain frequency, the high end dispersion begins to go down as the frequency goes up.

We add all of this knowledge to our first basic axiom ("Everything is a trade off.") and we can now discuss our choices, the tradeoffs, and make some more intelligent decisions about how to choose a speaker system.

more to come...
 
Thanks Harvey!!

The Trade off seems to be the dilema we find ourselves in often when producing audio, as in most aspects of life in general !! :D

Like the stones said............."but if ya try sometimes; ya get good monitoring!! ;)
 
Harvey Gerst said:
A brief side trip about Axiom 4: High Frequency Dispersion: This dispersion problem is true of microphones as well as speakers. Even with a perfect omni measurement mic, you have a choice of flat response on-axis, but the high end will drop off as you move off axis, or you can have flat response off-axis, but the high end will increase as you move on axis.

OK, so this thread is about monitors, but regarding omni mikes, there is yet another key tradeoff: smaller omni capsules generally are flatter off-axis at higher frequencies than larger omni capsules, but they also have higher self-noise (less signal requires more gain). So, those tiny capsule mikes like Earthworks are great in the high frequency range, but of little interest to me because of high self-noise.

Getting back to monitors, Bob Katz gives what I regard as great advice on monitoring in his book "Mastering Audio", a part of which is to first realize that when you are mixing and then mastering, you are probably wanting to come up with a compromise that works as well as possible on a wide range of monitoring systems. Your best bet when mixing and especially mastering is to use the best, most accurate, full-range system you can possibly get in the best sounding room you can create and pretty much use it all the time, preferably as a carefully calibrated monitor system with referenced monitor gain. You'll hear what things really sound like, or as close to it as possible for you and that system should be relatively near the middle of the curve compared to the many other systems the final track will be heard on with their many and varied inaccuracies. Then you can take copies out and listen in cars, boom boxes, hi-fi systems, headphones, etc. to check the balance and tradeoffs between those various situations.

Otto
 
Back
Top