Menu
"mono_tones_1" <> wrote:
Man, I enjoy this thread.
I love the point Dave made about different speakers doin'different
things, and they all have their pro's and con's. that's why i brought
it up, because I was considering different speaker configs for the
two guitars to get them transparent in the mix.
I was set straight about the math.
<SNIP>
Well, here is somthing that puzzles me. If you consider that the
speaker will move air in an angle 90 degrees from its surface,
wouldn't the air movements of one side of the centre and the ones
from the other side interfere, and hence partly cancel out in some
frequencies, and amplify in others?
<SNIP>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope you got the formula right. Someone posted figures for
ten and fifteen inch speakers, and I think they squared the
diameter instead of the radius. Without a calculator handy,
I figure a ten inch diameter is about 75 square inches, while
a fifteen is about 168 square inches, based on pi * r².
(Rough, in-the-head calculations made using 3 for pi, so the
actual results would be a little higher.)
So, 2 fifteens push more air than 4 tens.
Bigger diameters do indeed produce longer wavelengths,
due to the larger area usually allows for longer excursions.
You are correct in the observation that it is possible that
a sloppy cone could produce self-canceling waves. That's
why the good ones cost plenty.
And, yes, all speakers have frequency 'colorations' due to the
asymmetry of the wave produced by the cone shape. Hence,
some like the feel of the sound of one brand over the other.
Most sophisticated speaker systems will split the frequencies
and drive diffeerent amps and speakers dedicated to those
ranges. This produces the cleanest sound, as the speakers
won't waste any energy trying to produce frequencies they
can't do.
In our case, it's a matter of taste as to the sound you want to
have. Bigger Speakers, fatter sound. Smaller Speakers, more
sharper.
Sorry to drone on.
My 2¢ worth.
Bill, the indentured Surf.
