Since this issue was not specifically addressed in another related thread, I thought it'd be interesting to raise it here.
The issue is; whether or not most equipment (especially speakers) are up to the task of closely replicating the typical sound of real instruments.
It could be argued that the speaker-types favored by Hi-Efficiency inmates, here, come much closer to this goal than the vast majority of the much more popular type(s). And that this is not just because of their dynamism, but also because of their more 'hefty' midrange tone (similar to that of real instruments). Both of which are features most other types of speakers lack - hence the superior realism of H-E speaker-types (especially those with the midrange tonal 'weight' afforded by the cone-surface area of large mid-woofers, in large enclosures).
Arguably the most popular speaker-type (sub-woofed small-coned mini-monitors, crossed-over below 200hz) are acknowledged to be somewhat compromised in dynamism. Could their lack of lower midrange tone/heft be, also, a factor in their lesser realism compared to speaker-systems with large mid-woofers as cited above?
I'm inclined to believe so, but I'm also very interested in what the experts here have to say on this issue.
Thanks!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 13:02:21 04/21/12 (20)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - Paul Joppa 15:24:35 04/22/12 (13)
- There is no substitute for cubic inches {Walter Chrysler} - Cleantimestream 19:04:52 04/23/12 (1)
- RE: There is no substitute for cubic inches {Walter Chrysler} - waj4all 20:00:29 04/23/12 (0)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 16:05:12 04/22/12 (10)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - Paul Joppa 19:39:20 04/24/12 (5)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 22:39:50 04/24/12 (4)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - Paul Joppa 14:40:56 04/25/12 (1)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - Inmate51 20:41:26 04/25/12 (0)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - cids 06:53:53 04/25/12 (1)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 09:01:53 04/25/12 (0)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - weltersys 07:22:15 04/23/12 (3)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 10:51:08 04/23/12 (2)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - weltersys 07:24:46 04/24/12 (1)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 10:27:27 04/24/12 (0)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - Coner 21:57:54 04/21/12 (5)
- RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? - waj4all 12:42:55 04/22/12 (4)
- WAF (nt) - djk 12:51:19 04/22/12 (3)
- RE: WAF (nt) - waj4all 13:02:44 04/22/12 (2)
- RE: WAF (nt) - RC Daniel 14:47:26 04/22/12 (1)
- RE: WAF (nt) - waj4all 15:27:28 04/22/12 (0)