Photo of the Day

Gavin Ehringer (windanseabeachboy) - 24 Nov 2004 11:41:31: In an earlier post (below), Dave Wronski points out that four 10" speakers push
more air
than a Showman with a single 15". If I understood him right, this is correct,
but not by the
factors he noted - if you consider the area dimensions of the two speakers, it's
actually
314 sq. inches for each 10" and 706 sq. inches for the 15". So, four 10"
speakers push
1,256 sq. inches versus 706 sq. inches for the 15". However, if you are talking
about 2 15"
speakers (Dual Showman cab), it's a whopping 1,412 sq. inches!
Furthermore, these are the flat dimensions of a circle - you actually need to
calculate
these as conical area, which would be much greater (for that, however, you need
the actual
depth of the cones as well). Given the great depth of the 15" cones, you could
fairly say
that you move much, much more air with the two 15"s.
Dale is correct about "sonic boom." Bigger speakers, having greater mass, have a
much
lower resonant frequency. That's what gives them their characteristic "bottom."
Here's something Mike Soldano had to say about 15" speakers, and why they are
not
popular in many of today's guitar amps"
"Twelve inch speakers seem to adapt more readily to this wider range of tones
than the
fifteen inchers do. From my experience, the 15" speaker gets a bit "flubby" and
undefined
when subjected to heavily overdriven tones. Another thing to consider is the
availability of
these speakers. While there are hundreds of models of 12" speakers specifically
designed
for guitarists to choose from, there are very few choices in the 15" size. And
bass speakers
really don't cut it. In fact, I've never heard a better 15" guitar speaker than
that JBL that
came in the Vibrasonic."
"Anyway, I have to agree with you, the Fender Vibrasonic Reverb was a pretty
cool amp.
And yes, it was basically a Twin equipped with a JBL D-130-F 15" speaker. That
amp was
so perfectly suited for surf guitar it's scary. It was, in my opinion, one of
the better amps
Fender ever built. I think if they brought it back as a reissue, they could
probably sell a few
of them." (BTW, Fender did reissue the Vibrasonic reverb as the "'65 Twin Reverb
Reissue
Custom 15," which is the amp I am presently using).
That said, four 10's was the original "Bassman" sound, and it is no surprise
that this never
caught on with bass men: the open cabinet robbed the speakers of tight bass
response,
while the light mass of the individual 10" speakers resulted in a higher
resonant
frequency. This was ideal for what was to come: distortion and the trebly
sustain that
characterized guitar sound in the late 1960s.
_______________________
--- In , dave wronski <stickmandw@y...> wrote:
> If you use an amp with four ten's you are moving 40
> inches of air, compared with 30 for a Showman.
> > 10 inch speakers? A mystery to me. I've heard many
> > of you mention using amps with
> > 10's. I've heard most of the bands on this list and
> > some of you using that set up
> > sound GREAT, but what's the deal? I thought 12's or
> > 15's had more sonic boom.> > Dale

Top
Richard (errant_jedi) - 24 Nov 2004 13:33:15: Well, both my Fender Vibrosonic Reverb and my Ampeg
B100R combo have 15" speakers, and after trying
several other amps with different configurations of
10" speakers I have to say I prefer the 15"'s. The
trend nowadays, especially in bass amps/cabs seems to
be for two or four 10" speakers to get a "tighter"
sound, but to my ears these seem less suited to lower
frequencies than 15"'s.
Richard
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?

Top
mctippens - 24 Nov 2004 14:02:43: That's good analysis, Gavin.
The surface area formula for a cone, ( I just looked it up) is not too bad. It's
(Pi)(r)(s) where s is the slant height of the cone, i.e. it can figured without
the depth of the cone. But it does get more complicated when ya consider that
the speaker isn't a complete the cone. It has that dome in the middle. If that
dome is of large sperical radius, then I figure we can approximate it as flat.
So heres what I'm figuring as a more complete form for the surface area:
[(Pi)(R)(S) - (Pi)(r)(s)] + (Pi) r^2
where R is the radius of the speaker, r is the 2d radius of the dome (not the
spherical radius), S is the slant height of the speaker, s is the slant height
of the section of the cone that got removed.
-Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Ehringer <>
Sent: Nov 24, 2004 9:41 AM
To:
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some thoughts...
<html><body>
<tt>
 
In an earlier post (below), Dave Wronski points out that four 10" speakers push
more air 
than a Showman with a single 15". If I understood him right, this is correct,
but not by the 
factors he noted - if you consider the area dimensions of the two speakers, it's
actually 
314 sq. inches for each 10" and 706 sq. inches for the 15". So, four 10"
speakers push 
1,256 sq. inches versus 706 sq. inches for the 15". However, if you are talking
about 2 15" 
speakers (Dual Showman cab), it's a whopping 1,412 sq. inches! 
 
Furthermore, these are the flat dimensions of a circle - you actually need to
calculate 
these as conical area, which would be much greater (for that, however, you need
the actual 
depth of the cones as well). Given the great depth of the 15" cones, you could
fairly say 
that you move much, much more air with the two 15"s. 
 
Dale is correct about "sonic boom." Bigger speakers, having greater mass, have a
much 
lower resonant frequency. That's what gives them their characteristic "bottom."
 
 
Here's something Mike Soldano had to say about 15" speakers, and why they are
not 
popular in many of today's guitar amps" 
 
"Twelve inch speakers seem to adapt more readily to this wider range of tones
than the 
fifteen inchers do. From my experience, the 15" speaker gets a bit "flubby" and
undefined 
when subjected to heavily overdriven tones. Another thing to consider is the
availability of 
these speakers. While there are hundreds of models of 12" speakers specifically
designed 
for guitarists to choose from, there are very few choices in the 15" size. And
bass speakers 
really don't cut it. In fact, I've never heard a better 15" guitar speaker than
that JBL that 
came in the Vibrasonic." 
 
"Anyway, I have to agree with you, the Fender Vibrasonic Reverb was a pretty
cool amp. 
And yes, it was basically a Twin equipped with a JBL D-130-F 15" speaker. That
amp was 
so perfectly suited for surf guitar it's scary. It was, in my opinion, one of
the better amps 
Fender ever built. I think if they brought it back as a reissue, they could
probably sell a few 
of them." (BTW, Fender did reissue the Vibrasonic reverb as the "'65 Twin Reverb
Reissue 
Custom 15," which is the amp I am presently using). 
 
That said, four 10's was the original "Bassman" sound, and it is no surprise
that this never 
caught on with bass men: the open cabinet robbed the speakers of tight bass
response, 
while the light mass of the individual 10" speakers resulted in a higher
resonant 
frequency. This was ideal for what was to come: distortion and the trebly
sustain that 
characterized guitar sound in the late 1960s. 
 
_______________________ 
 
--- In , dave wronski <stickmandw@y...> wrote: 
> If you use an amp with four ten's you are moving 40 
> inches of air, compared with 30 for a Showman. 
 
> > 10 inch speakers? A mystery to me. I've heard many 
> > of you mention using amps with 
> > 10's. I've heard most of the bands on this list and 
> > some of you using that set up 
> > sound GREAT, but what's the deal? I thought 12's or 
> > 15's had more sonic boom.> > Dale 
 
 
 
 
</tt>
 
<tt>
. 
Visit <a
href=""></a> for archived messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc. 
</tt>
 
 

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="" alt=""><img
src=""
alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src=""></td></tr>
</table>


 
<tt><hr width="500">
Yahoo! Groups Links 
<ul>
<li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a
href=""></a> 
<li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a
href="mailto:?subject=Unsubscribe">Surf\</a> 
<li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
</ul>
</tt>


</body></html>

Top
Gavin Ehringer (windanseabeachboy) - 24 Nov 2004 17:15:11: --- In , mctippens@e... wrote:
> That's good analysis, Gavin.
Thanks, Marty. Not to be a techo-nerd, but besides the surface area to be
considered,
you've also got the issue of cone movement, i.e. the distance it moves while
displacing the
air. This would vary according to the voice coil, etc.
My real point, however, is simply that a big, clean 15" (ala the Showman or the
Twin
Reverb Custom 15) has a distinctive, thick bass response that was common to Dick
Dale's
sound and still is worthy of consideration. When you start introducing
distortion, however,
many would agree with Dave Wronski, that the smaller speakers give a more
pleasing
overall tone.
To each his own, it's all about tone.
Gavin
> -Marty
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Ehringer <gavinehringer@e...>
> Sent: Nov 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> To:
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some thoughts...
>
>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> 
> In an earlier post (below), Dave Wronski points out that four 10" speakers
push more air
 
> than a Showman with a single 15". If I understood him right, this is correct,
but not by
the 
> factors he noted - if you consider the area dimensions of the two speakers,
it's actually
 
> 314 sq. inches for each 10" and 706 sq. inches for the 15". So, four 10"
speakers push
 
> 1,256 sq. inches versus 706 sq. inches for the 15". However, if you are
talking about
2 15" 
> speakers (Dual Showman cab), it's a whopping 1,412 sq. inches! 
> 
> Furthermore, these are the flat dimensions of a circle - you actually need to
calculate
 
> these as conical area, which would be much greater (for that, however, you
need the
actual 
> depth of the cones as well). Given the great depth of the 15" cones, you could
fairly say
 
> that you move much, much more air with the two 15"s. 
> 
> Dale is correct about "sonic boom." Bigger speakers, having greater mass, have
a much
 
> lower resonant frequency. That's what gives them their characteristic
"bottom." 
> 
> Here's something Mike Soldano had to say about 15" speakers, and why they are
not
 
> popular in many of today's guitar amps" 
> 
> "Twelve inch speakers seem to adapt more readily to this wider range of tones
than the
 
> fifteen inchers do. From my experience, the 15" speaker gets a bit "flubby"
and
undefined 
> when subjected to heavily overdriven tones. Another thing to consider is the
availability
of 
> these speakers. While there are hundreds of models of 12" speakers
specifically
designed 
> for guitarists to choose from, there are very few choices in the 15" size. And
bass
speakers 
> really don't cut it. In fact, I've never heard a better 15" guitar speaker
than that JBL that
 
> came in the Vibrasonic." 
> 
> "Anyway, I have to agree with you, the Fender Vibrasonic Reverb was a pretty
cool amp.
 
> And yes, it was basically a Twin equipped with a JBL D-130-F 15" speaker. That
amp
was 
> so perfectly suited for surf guitar it's scary. It was, in my opinion, one of
the better amps
 
> Fender ever built. I think if they brought it back as a reissue, they could
probably sell a
few 
> of them." (BTW, Fender did reissue the Vibrasonic reverb as the "'65 Twin
Reverb Reissue
 
> Custom 15," which is the amp I am presently using). 
> 
> That said, four 10's was the original "Bassman" sound, and it is no surprise
that this
never 
> caught on with bass men: the open cabinet robbed the speakers of tight bass
response,
 
> while the light mass of the individual 10" speakers resulted in a higher
resonant 
> frequency. This was ideal for what was to come: distortion and the trebly
sustain that
 
> characterized guitar sound in the late 1960s. 
> 
> _______________________ 
> 
> --- In , dave wronski <stickmandw@y...>
wrote: 
> > If you use an amp with four ten's you are moving 40 
> > inches of air, compared with 30 for a Showman. 
> 
> > > 10 inch speakers? A mystery to me. I've heard many 
> > > of you mention using amps with 
> > > 10's. I've heard most of the bands on this list and 
> > > some of you using that set up 
> > > sound GREAT, but what's the deal? I thought 12's or 
> > > 15's had more sonic boom.> > Dale 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </tt>
>
> 
> <tt>
> . 
> Visit <a href="">http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/SurfGuitar101</a> for archived messages, bookmarks,
files,
polls, etc. 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a href="http://
us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129bb274j/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/
S=1705032047:HM/EXP=1101404583/A=2434971/R=0/SIG=11eeoolb0/*http://
www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185400" alt=""><img src="
us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/111704_1104_g_300250a.gif" alt="click here" width="300"
height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="
M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S=:HM/A=2434971/
rand=350831554"></td></tr>
> </table>
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
> <tt><hr width="500">
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> <ul>
> <li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a
href="
group/SurfGuitar101/"></a> 
> <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a href="mailto:?subject=Unsubscribe">SurfGuitar101-</a> 
> <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="
terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
> </ul>
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
>
>
> </body></html>

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 24 Nov 2004 21:11:39: I think on surfgutiar101 techno-nerdiness is ok, Gavin, in moderation anyway. On
Cowabunga we'd be banned! The cone displacement was brought up in my earlier
post as the reason for the darker sound of the 15" even though the surface area
is less than the 4x10 config. I'm guessing the long throw of a 15" has an
easier time producing the longer wave forms.
Dave gets a great sound out of his rig. I haven't seen him play through 15's.
Rob Woolsey also gets an excellent tone through a 4x10 Super Amp.
I agree that these amps are not producing exactly the Dick Dale sound.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: Gavin Ehringer
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
--- In , mctippens@e... wrote:
> That's good analysis, Gavin.
Thanks, Marty. Not to be a techo-nerd, but besides the surface area to be
considered,
you've also got the issue of cone movement, i.e. the distance it moves while
displacing the
air. This would vary according to the voice coil, etc.
My real point, however, is simply that a big, clean 15" (ala the Showman or
the Twin
Reverb Custom 15) has a distinctive, thick bass response that was common to
Dick Dale's
sound and still is worthy of consideration. When you start introducing
distortion, however,
many would agree with Dave Wronski, that the smaller speakers give a more
pleasing
overall tone.
To each his own, it's all about tone.
Gavin
> -Marty
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Ehringer <gavinehringer@e...>
> Sent: Nov 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> To:
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
>
>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> 
> In an earlier post (below), Dave Wronski points out that four 10" speakers
push more air
 
> than a Showman with a single 15". If I understood him right, this is
correct, but not by
the 
> factors he noted - if you consider the area dimensions of the two speakers,
it's actually
 
> 314 sq. inches for each 10" and 706 sq. inches for the 15". So, four 10"
speakers push
 
> 1,256 sq. inches versus 706 sq. inches for the 15". However, if you are
talking about
2 15" 
> speakers (Dual Showman cab), it's a whopping 1,412 sq. inches! 
> 
> Furthermore, these are the flat dimensions of a circle - you actually need
to calculate
 
> these as conical area, which would be much greater (for that, however, you
need the
actual 
> depth of the cones as well). Given the great depth of the 15" cones, you
could fairly say
 
> that you move much, much more air with the two 15"s. 
> 
> Dale is correct about "sonic boom." Bigger speakers, having greater mass,
have a much
 
> lower resonant frequency. That's what gives them their characteristic
"bottom." 
> 
> Here's something Mike Soldano had to say about 15" speakers, and why they
are not
 
> popular in many of today's guitar amps" 
> 
> "Twelve inch speakers seem to adapt more readily to this wider range of
tones than the
 
> fifteen inchers do. From my experience, the 15" speaker gets a bit "flubby"
and
undefined 
> when subjected to heavily overdriven tones. Another thing to consider is the
availability
of 
> these speakers. While there are hundreds of models of 12" speakers
specifically
designed 
> for guitarists to choose from, there are very few choices in the 15" size.
And bass
speakers 
> really don't cut it. In fact, I've never heard a better 15" guitar speaker
than that JBL that
 
> came in the Vibrasonic." 
> 
> "Anyway, I have to agree with you, the Fender Vibrasonic Reverb was a pretty
cool amp.
 
> And yes, it was basically a Twin equipped with a JBL D-130-F 15" speaker.
That amp
was 
> so perfectly suited for surf guitar it's scary. It was, in my opinion, one
of the better amps
 
> Fender ever built. I think if they brought it back as a reissue, they could
probably sell a
few 
> of them." (BTW, Fender did reissue the Vibrasonic reverb as the "'65 Twin
Reverb Reissue
 
> Custom 15," which is the amp I am presently using). 
> 
> That said, four 10's was the original "Bassman" sound, and it is no surprise
that this
never 
> caught on with bass men: the open cabinet robbed the speakers of tight bass
response,
 
> while the light mass of the individual 10" speakers resulted in a higher
resonant 
> frequency. This was ideal for what was to come: distortion and the trebly
sustain that
 
> characterized guitar sound in the late 1960s. 
> 
> _______________________ 
> 
> --- In , dave wronski <stickmandw@y...>
wrote: 
> > If you use an amp with four ten's you are moving 40 
> > inches of air, compared with 30 for a Showman. 
> 
> > > 10 inch speakers? A mystery to me. I've heard many 
> > > of you mention using amps with 
> > > 10's. I've heard most of the bands on this list and 
> > > some of you using that set up 
> > > sound GREAT, but what's the deal? I thought 12's or 
> > > 15's had more sonic boom.> > Dale 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </tt>
>
> 
> <tt>
> . 
> Visit <a href="">http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/SurfGuitar101</a> for archived messages, bookmarks,
files,
polls, etc. 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a href="http://
us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129bb274j/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/
S=1705032047:HM/EXP=1101404583/A=2434971/R=0/SIG=11eeoolb0/*http://
www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185400" alt=""><img src="
us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/111704_1104_g_300250a.gif" alt="click here"
width="300"
height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="
M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S=:HM/A=2434971/
rand=350831554"></td></tr>
> </table>
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
> <tt><hr width="500">
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> <ul>
> <li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a
href="
group/SurfGuitar101/"></a> 
> <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a href="mailto:?subject=Unsubscribe">SurfGuitar101-</a> 
> <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="
terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
> </ul>
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
>
>
> </body></html>
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
dave wronski (stickmandw) - 24 Nov 2004 21:41:54: Good point with the math explanation. I think the
effectiveness in a band setting comes down to how many
of the guitar frequencies are left after the battle
with the bass player for low frequency turf? British
60's bands were able to rock the house with 30 watt
Vox ac30's because they were because of the way
they're voiced. -dave
--- Gavin Ehringer <>
wrote:
>
>
> In an earlier post (below), Dave Wronski points out
> that four 10" speakers push more air
> than a Showman with a single 15". If I understood
> him right, this is correct, but not by the
> factors he noted - if you consider the area
> dimensions of the two speakers, it's actually
> 314 sq. inches for each 10" and 706 sq. inches for
> the 15". So, four 10" speakers push
> 1,256 sq. inches versus 706 sq. inches for the 15".
> However, if you are talking about 2 15"
> speakers (Dual Showman cab), it's a whopping 1,412
> sq. inches!
>
> Furthermore, these are the flat dimensions of a
> circle - you actually need to calculate
> these as conical area, which would be much greater
> (for that, however, you need the actual
> depth of the cones as well). Given the great depth
> of the 15" cones, you could fairly say
> that you move much, much more air with the two 15"s.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?

Top
reverbrob - 25 Nov 2004 15:11:16: Thanks, Marty. Here's my six cents. I've found my 4x10 Super to be
the most "hi-fi" of any of the amp/cab combinations I've used--- it
has the flattest, least peaky frequency response and seems to get
along with any guitar I throw at it. Another way of saying it: the
4x10 seems to have the least identifiable tone of its own--- the
least coloration. By comparison, my 15" JBL cab had some sort of
midrange peak that got annoying pretty fast, particularly awful with
my Jazzmaster. The same Jazzmaster sounded smooth and nice with the
4x10.
This makes some sense when you think about hi-fi speakers: they use
very small drivers for high frequencies, larger for midgrange, even
larger for bass, with a crossover network to divide the spectrum up
so the drivers aren't trying to reproduce frequencies they're not
good at. A large mass (big cone) just can't move fast enough to be a
good tweeter. When large speakers try to reproduce high frequencies
the response gets peaky and the dispersion gets narrower and narrower
as the frequency goes up. I hear this as a nasty little "beam of
death" right out in front of the speaker, and then a very different
sound off to the sides a bit. The bigger the speaker, the more
pronounced the effect. To my ears, the 10's suffer much less from
this.
Anyway, that's why the 4x10 Super is my bread-and-butter amp--- it
works for everything but I'll admit it definitely isn't that Dick
Dale surf sound. The alternate rig is the same old Showman but with
a 2x12 Celestion Vintage 30 cab... definitely not neutral, but a
better kind of coloration for my purposes, which I guess is more edgy
rock 'n roll than big deep classic surf.
Rob Woolsey
Detonators

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 25 Nov 2004 16:43:53: Yeah, that makes sense that the 4x10's give the most neutral sound coloration.
It's a more versatile configuration.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: reverbrob
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 1:11 PM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
Thanks, Marty. Here's my six cents. I've found my 4x10 Super to be
the most "hi-fi" of any of the amp/cab combinations I've used--- it
has the flattest, least peaky frequency response and seems to get
along with any guitar I throw at it. Another way of saying it: the
4x10 seems to have the least identifiable tone of its own--- the
least coloration. By comparison, my 15" JBL cab had some sort of
midrange peak that got annoying pretty fast, particularly awful with
my Jazzmaster. The same Jazzmaster sounded smooth and nice with the
4x10.
This makes some sense when you think about hi-fi speakers: they use
very small drivers for high frequencies, larger for midgrange, even
larger for bass, with a crossover network to divide the spectrum up
so the drivers aren't trying to reproduce frequencies they're not
good at. A large mass (big cone) just can't move fast enough to be a
good tweeter. When large speakers try to reproduce high frequencies
the response gets peaky and the dispersion gets narrower and narrower
as the frequency goes up. I hear this as a nasty little "beam of
death" right out in front of the speaker, and then a very different
sound off to the sides a bit. The bigger the speaker, the more
pronounced the effect. To my ears, the 10's suffer much less from
this.
Anyway, that's why the 4x10 Super is my bread-and-butter amp--- it
works for everything but I'll admit it definitely isn't that Dick
Dale surf sound. The alternate rig is the same old Showman but with
a 2x12 Celestion Vintage 30 cab... definitely not neutral, but a
better kind of coloration for my purposes, which I guess is more edgy
rock 'n roll than big deep classic surf.
Rob Woolsey
Detonators
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Kristena Hernandez (freakytiki2001) - 26 Nov 2004 01:50:06: Hey, Marty--
that's pretty good.
When I was in high school, I didn't do too well in science figuring
sound, light, electricity, etc., but straight math I usually get. Gavin
put a lot of effort into that analysis e-mail, but you did a great job
coming up with a tangible formula. If you had more specifics, you could
probably get an approximation. If you take the cutout of the top of the
cone, the -(Pi)(r)(s), then you would know the diameter from one side of
the cutout to the other. Then, if you knew the depth of the dome, then
can't you find the surface area? I know the circle is easier, but is
there a formula for that? I can't recall right now.
Are there any science buffs here that are good explaining sound waves?
That would be an interesting perspective.
Thanks a lot,
Kristena
For Marty (off the topic, but somewhat related)-
When I was tutoring a 7th grader recently, the child used a formula for
the surface area of a cylinder that I had never seen before. I had
always found the area of the two ends, (2)(Pi)(r^2), the surface area of
the outside, (Pi)(d)(h), then added the two results. I don't remember
the formula the student gave me, but if you happen to know it, could you
please send it to me? I should have wrote it down!
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:02:43 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
writes:
>
> That's good analysis, Gavin.
> The surface area formula for a cone, ( I just looked it up) is not
> too bad. It's (Pi)(r)(s) where s is the slant height of the cone,
> i.e. it can figured without the depth of the cone. But it does get
> more complicated when ya consider that the speaker isn't a complete
> the cone. It has that dome in the middle. If that dome is of large
> sperical radius, then I figure we can approximate it as flat. So
> heres what I'm figuring as a more complete form for the surface
> area:
>
> [(Pi)(R)(S) - (Pi)(r)(s)] + (Pi) r^2
>
> where R is the radius of the speaker, r is the 2d radius of the dome
> (not the spherical radius), S is the slant height of the speaker, s
> is the slant height of the section of the cone that got removed.
>
> -Marty

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 26 Nov 2004 03:31:51: Hi Kristena,
The formulas you are looking for concerning the surface area of a dome can be
found at .
The student may have used (2)(Pi)(r)(r+h). If you expand that formula, it is the
same as yours.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristena Hernandez
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [SurfGuitar101] 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
Hey, Marty--
that's pretty good.
When I was in high school, I didn't do too well in science figuring
sound, light, electricity, etc., but straight math I usually get. Gavin
put a lot of effort into that analysis e-mail, but you did a great job
coming up with a tangible formula. If you had more specifics, you could
probably get an approximation. If you take the cutout of the top of the
cone, the -(Pi)(r)(s), then you would know the diameter from one side of
the cutout to the other. Then, if you knew the depth of the dome, then
can't you find the surface area? I know the circle is easier, but is
there a formula for that? I can't recall right now.
Are there any science buffs here that are good explaining sound waves?
That would be an interesting perspective.
Thanks a lot,
Kristena
For Marty (off the topic, but somewhat related)-
When I was tutoring a 7th grader recently, the child used a formula for
the surface area of a cylinder that I had never seen before. I had
always found the area of the two ends, (2)(Pi)(r^2), the surface area of
the outside, (Pi)(d)(h), then added the two results. I don't remember
the formula the student gave me, but if you happen to know it, could you
please send it to me? I should have wrote it down!
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:02:43 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
writes:
>
> That's good analysis, Gavin.
> The surface area formula for a cone, ( I just looked it up) is not
> too bad. It's (Pi)(r)(s) where s is the slant height of the cone,
> i.e. it can figured without the depth of the cone. But it does get
> more complicated when ya consider that the speaker isn't a complete
> the cone. It has that dome in the middle. If that dome is of large
> sperical radius, then I figure we can approximate it as flat. So
> heres what I'm figuring as a more complete form for the surface
> area:
>
> [(Pi)(R)(S) - (Pi)(r)(s)] + (Pi) r^2
>
> where R is the radius of the speaker, r is the 2d radius of the dome
> (not the spherical radius), S is the slant height of the speaker, s
> is the slant height of the section of the cone that got removed.
>
> -Marty
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Kristena Hernandez (freakytiki2001) - 26 Nov 2004 03:56:51: Marty--
> The formulas you are looking for concerning the surface area of a
> dome can be found at
> .
Thanks for that link. It will be useful for tutoring.
>
> The student may have used (2)(Pi)(r)(r+h). If you expand that
> formula, it is the same as yours.
No, it was some formula that contained a fraction. Like I said, I had
never seen it before. When the student showed the formula to me, I
thought it was wrong, but I tried it out on a couple of problems and it
worked! I'll ask around my school. I just forget about it until
something like this comes up. (and hopefully it was for the S.A. of a
cylinder! I'm pretty sure it was)

Top
Gavin Ehringer (windanseabeachboy) - 26 Nov 2004 10:04:20: If you want to calculate stuff, there are several good geometry calculators
on-line. Here's
one that will do the surface area and volume of cones - and so much more!
Just for fun, I calculated the surface area for some speakers (these do not
account for the
domes). These are, of course, only approximations due to variations in depth
from one
speaker model to another).
10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 26 Nov 2004 12:24:55: I'm surprised to hear that a student would rather use a formula that involves a
fraction than one that doesn't. The only thing I can think of for the surface
area of a cylinder would involve a fraction approximating Pi.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristena Hernandez
To:
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [SurfGuitar101] 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
Marty--
> The formulas you are looking for concerning the surface area of a
> dome can be found at
> .
Thanks for that link. It will be useful for tutoring.
>
> The student may have used (2)(Pi)(r)(r+h). If you expand that
> formula, it is the same as yours.
No, it was some formula that contained a fraction. Like I said, I had
never seen it before. When the student showed the formula to me, I
thought it was wrong, but I tried it out on a couple of problems and it
worked! I'll ask around my school. I just forget about it until
something like this comes up. (and hopefully it was for the S.A. of a
cylinder! I'm pretty sure it was)
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Kristena Hernandez (freakytiki2001) - 26 Nov 2004 19:22:45: very cool. Thanks!
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
<> writes:
>
>
> If you want to calculate stuff, there are several good geometry
> calculators on-line. Here's
> one that will do the surface area and volume of cones - and so much
> more!
>
>
>
> Just for fun, I calculated the surface area for some speakers (these
> do not account for the
> domes). These are, of course, only approximations due to variations
> in depth from one
> speaker model to another).
>
> 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.

Top
Kristena Hernandez (freakytiki2001) - 26 Nov 2004 19:35:04: good point. Most people see fractions and freak out. I like to multiply
equations with fractions to create a numerical coefficient of 1 whereas
most people like to divide (I feel there's more room for error there). I
still didn't get a chance to check out your link yet, but will soon.
Thanks again.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:24:55 -0800 "Marty Tippens"
<> writes:
>
> I'm surprised to hear that a student would rather use a formula that
> involves a fraction than one that doesn't. The only thing I can
> think of for the surface area of a cylinder would involve a fraction
> approximating Pi.
> -Marty

Top
pwrose1 - 27 Nov 2004 06:58:46: On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
<> writes:
> SNIP<
> 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gavin,
sq. what?
can't be inches.
Bill

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 27 Nov 2004 10:53:27: It has to be square inches given that every other dimension is given in square
inches BUT they can't be for a single speaker. They look about right for pairs
of speakers at each given diameter. I don't see the rest of Gavin's details in
your edit of his post.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 4:58 AM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
<> writes:
> SNIP<
> 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gavin,
sq. what?
can't be inches.
Bill
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Jeff (bigtikidude) - 27 Nov 2004 13:06:02: That reminds me of this thing my Mom was watching on HGTV.
It was for some weird spacey round house. There were no flat walls
or anyhting that resembled a regular house stucture. i.e.
walls,floors,ceilings.
they asked how many square feet in the house.
The owner said,
There are no square feet measurments in this house.
Maybe comes of bad in print, but that floored me.
Jeff(bigtikidude)
--- In , "Marty Tippens"
<mctippens@e...> wrote:
> It has to be square inches given that every other dimension is
given in square inches BUT they can't be for a single speaker. They
look about right for pairs of speakers at each given diameter. I
don't see the rest of Gavin's details in your edit of his post.
>
> -Marty
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pwrose@j...
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 4:58 AM
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" -
some thoughts...
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
> <gavinehringer@e...> writes:
> > SNIP<
> > 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> > 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> > 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gavin,
>
> sq. what?
> can't be inches.
>
> Bill
>
>
> .
> Visit for archived
messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Gavin Ehringer (windanseabeachboy) - 27 Nov 2004 13:25:03: No, these are the correct calculations for surface area in square inches, based
on the
radius of each cone.
Run the calculations and you shall see!
Gavin
--- In , "Marty Tippens" <mctippens@e...> wrote:
> It has to be square inches given that every other dimension is given in square
inches
BUT they can't be for a single speaker. They look about right for pairs of
speakers at each
given diameter. I don't see the rest of Gavin's details in your edit of his
post.
>
> -Marty
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pwrose@j...
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 4:58 AM
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
> <gavinehringer@e...> writes:
> > SNIP<
> > 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> > 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> > 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gavin,
>
> sq. what?
> can't be inches.
>
> Bill
>
>
> .
> Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top
Marty Tippens (mctippens) - 27 Nov 2004 15:21:04: Gavin,
Are you assuming a radius of 10" or a diameter of 10"?
A 10" speaker has a radius of 5". Using the surface area formula for a cone,
(Pi)(r)(s), we have approximately (3.14)(5)(5.6) = 84.78 sq inches. I'm being
conservative and assuming that the depth to the dome is 2" and that if it were a
complete cone, the depth to the tip of the cone would be about 2.5". By the
Pythagorean theorem, s would be 5.6".
It's not going to be much different figuring with a 1" diameter dome. Using
[(Pi)(R)(S) - (Pi)(r)(s)] + (Pi) r^2 where R is the radius of the speaker, r is
the 2d radius of the dome (not the spherical radius), S is the slant height of
the speaker, s is the slant height of the section of the cone removed due to the
center dome.
[(3.14)(5)(5.6) - (3.14)(.5)(.707)] + (3.14)(.5)^2 = 87.59 square inches. This
is using approximated values but actual values aren't going to be different
enough to jump the surface area from 87 sq inches up to 163 sq inches.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: Gavin Ehringer
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
No, these are the correct calculations for surface area in square inches,
based on the
radius of each cone.
Run the calculations and you shall see!
Gavin
--- In , "Marty Tippens" <mctippens@e...> wrote:
> It has to be square inches given that every other dimension is given in
square inches
BUT they can't be for a single speaker. They look about right for pairs of
speakers at each
given diameter. I don't see the rest of Gavin's details in your edit of his
post.
>
> -Marty
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pwrose@j...
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 4:58 AM
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: 15" Speakers versus 12" versus 10" - some
thoughts...
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:20 -0000 "Gavin Ehringer"
> <gavinehringer@e...> writes:
> > SNIP<
> > 10" = 163 sq @ 2" depth.
> > 12" = 244.sq. @ 3" depth.
> > 15" = 382. sq @ 4.5" depth.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gavin,
>
> sq. what?
> can't be inches.
>
> Bill
>
>
> .
> Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Top