RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone?

Posted by weltersys (P) on April 24, 2012 at 07:24:46

In Reply to: RE: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? posted by waj4all on April 23, 2012 at 10:51:08:

"Specifically: "..even low efficiency small drivers sound just fine at those levels, which only require a few watts to achieve.". My argument was/is not about overall decibel-levels, or wattage. My argument is really about TONE. This does not address that. Indeed, non of the arguments you present addresses the points you seek to dispute, unfortunately."

I prefer the stereo speakers I listen to to be accurate reproducers of the electrical input presented to them.

For musical instrument speakers, "tone" deviation can be a very good thing.
A Leslie speaker provides the perfect "tone" for a Hammond organ, but sounds rather odd when playing recorded music through it.

As far as doubling speakers, as long as voltage applied is the same for two, and the mutual output is correlated, there will be an across the board increase of 6 dB throughout the entire frequency range, the increase is by no means limited to low or mid frequencies.

In practical use, the short HF wavelengths require a specific listening position to realize the gain, in actual small room use the gain nets out to be only 3 dB average, while a test mic (or ears) placed in free space equidistant to a pair of speakers will net 6 dB increase throughout the entire frequency range.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

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)

Follow Ups

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?

Post a Message!