In Reply to: Large Cones = More Realistic Lower-Mids Tone? posted by waj4all on April 21, 2012 at 13:02:21:
The question in my mind is, WHY does area matter? Why do small cones often (usually?) seem to lack "heft"?I see three candidate reasons:
1) baffle step causes bass loss. The turnover frequency goes up into the midrange when the box gets narrow. Big cones are usually in big (wide) boxes. Problem is, imaging improves, sometimes dramatically, when the box is narrow.
2) You can restore heft with BSC equalization, but that does not affect the directivity shift so it's not the same thing. A narrow box becomes omnidirectional in the lower midrange, exposing room resonances and damaging the impression of the recording venue - perceived as losing heft/impact/naturalness.
3) excursion limitations cause small drivers to get muddy unless they are crossed over high and steeply. Bigger drivers crossed at the same frequency will have less excursion. At one time, Doppler distortion was blamed; I don't hear that argument so much these days. My own experience leads me to guess that audible excursion-limited sonic quality begins at a tiny fraction of the Thiele-Small-specified xmax.
Edits: 04/24/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)