Lets start with the woofers. How can you get as much bass out of a 6 inch vs a 12 inch or can you?

Good question, but I don't know the answer, it will be interesting to see what others think.

Jim

I'm not a physics major, but my theory has always been bass is all about the amount of air you move, and a 12-inch cone can theoretically move more air than a 6-inch cone. I'd say twice as much, but I bet it also depends on the depth of speaker -- among other factors the nonmathchallenged among us can explain.

I'm sure the tech advances of recent decades can overcome some of the limitations of smaller drivers, but not all. Haven't really checked, but I'd suspect my newest speakers are at least a decade old, so I'll be interested in hearing from some of you guys who have state-of-the-science systems.

I'd also like to hear about how planar systems generate bass, and if it's ever as good as a good, standard 12- or 15-inch cone.

Great question, also not a sound engineer. A smaller woofer would have to move that much faster AND have a longer stroke to get the same amount of air displacement as a larger woofer which means the cone will be accelerating and stopping much faster. My feeling is this higher rate of change for smaller woofers would make accurate reproduction more difficult. Of course, I am not considering bass boosting strategies like porting and resonating chambers which IMO also hurt accuracy.

IMO they can't. I've got older speakers at home and new ones at the store. I think my 6 inchers do a good job at reproduction but they can't give you the feeling nor sound of a 12 inch.

The increase in radiating area between a 6" and 12" driver is very large. You need four 6" drivers to get the same radiating surface as a single 12"

A=Пr2, so a 6" driver has a radiating area of 28.274 sq inches while a single 12" woofer has a radiating area of 113.1 square inches. So all other things being equal (loading, efficiency, Vmax, etc) that 12" can move a lot more air.

Now, its true that its perfectly possible to coax good bass from a small driver (by sacrificing efficiency, mostly) but I think the move to smaller woofers was driven more by the need to create domestically acceptable speaker cabinets than high quality bass. And IMHO any woofer smaller than 10” never seems to sound effortless and natural.

And with regard to the new speaker vs. old speaker theme of this thread, the big bonus with a lot of older drivers is their paper cones. Hardly fashionable, paper has its problems (most obviously a tendency to 'shout' if its pushed too hard) but nothing for sensible money can create the impact, delicacy and sense of reality created by a well-designed paper woofer and squawker. Paper can work in tweeters as well, provided they are not pushed too far up the frequency range. I guess that’s one area where modern materials have genuinely improved the breed!

which tweeter do you prefer? aluminum dome or a softer silk dome? why?

When it comes to tweeters I would use the Heil AMT by choice, but more generally I prefer soft domes over hard. To my ears most hard domes seem to 'ring' - maybe that's why so many of them have phase plates?

I don't doubt that it can be done. Years ago (late 70s) before I bought my Sansui setup, I was in a high-end stereo shop looking at what they had to offer. The salesman took me into their speaker room and previewed a few of their speakers. He then flipped a switch and the room came alive! He then pointed to some 5"X5"X8" speakers that were on the top shelf in the corners. I don't remember what they were, but they sounded fantastic. He then showed me the power supply that powered them, and told me the cost. I think it was something like $1500 for the pair, which was way out of my league.

I'm sure that with the technology and exotic materials we now have at our disposal, that a 6" woofer could be built that would kick butt over our current selection of 12", but at what cost?

They can "manufacture" gold in a lab, but it costs more than you can buy mother nature's version for.

Another great question. In general, I prefer dome tweeters over paper tweeters because IMO, paper tweeters tend to shout and are fatiguing. I prefer dome tweeters and dome material makes a difference. Silks and coated fabric domes (ADS) are fine but do not extend. Aluminum domes don't sound natural to me maybe because of the ringing effect Zaidstone noted. Titanium and Beryllium domes are exceptionally detailed and neutral and are my choice.

elaborate enclosure design and a very good modern woofer can do some wonderful things but big woofers are hard to beat. The smallish KEF "racetrack" woofer is one that can, in the right enclosure (like in a huge IMF transmission line) kill at bass reproduction. Implementation is very important.

As for tweets I prefer soft domes as well. My favorite are ribbons / electrostatic and even planar though.

so much fun stuff with speakers.

Oh, If you ever want to hear a very good paper cone tweeter listen to a set of 50 some year old Super 3 Wharfedales. Love those tweeters, so smooth and inviting. They do not measure particularly well but sound very good (although do not extent real high / rolled off a bit) in my 50+ year old W90's which BTW also have some of the best bass response I have heard up to a limited volume.

5 pounds of alnico getting so little paper swinging...

were subs developed to help the smaller woofers? this may be a dumb question. how do they make tweeters to be so fast today? my morels are so fast.

The idea of using Subwoofers to flesh out the final couple of octaves has been around a lot longer than most people realise.

Very early cinema sound systems from Westrex (Western Electric) and BTH (British Theatre Horns) used modular speaker systems with a separate low frequency array (although it didn't really go that low by modern standards).

Although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if earlier implementations exist, the first true domestic ‘sub’ design I have found was produced by BTH in the early 1950’s. Mind you, the 'satellites' in that system were larger than many modern stand mounts! BTH had introduced the British public to the idea of Stereo sound with demo’s at The Festival of Britain in 1951 and were a premium UK professional & domestic brand at the time. I guess it was quite surprising back then to see a speaker system with genuine 30Hz bass that wasn’t the size of a large wardrobe!

In the 70’s I was selling the Rogers LS3/5A and AudioPro sub combination and the JR149/JR Sub Woofer – both sounded great but were not big sellers, probably because the British hifi press of the time pushed the idea of ‘source first’ and once you had used 95% of your budget on a turntable there wasn’t much cash left for any speaker, let alone a subwoofer.

Then the concept seemed to fade away until it was ‘re-invented’ by Bose as the ‘Acoustimess’ (sorry, acoustimass) and made even more popular by the Home Theatre crowd. Nowadays you seem to find subs everywhere, from powered PC speakers to the most expensive domestic rigs. And the funny thing is, 99.5% of the time they are badly installed or adjusted and simply grumble along like a drunken Granddad at Christmas. And we call this progress!

As to ‘fast’ tweeters, IMHO its all down to the implementation. Any tweeter (even a modest paper cone) can sound pretty ‘fast’ if it’s running a few dB hot or the crossover is introducing some weird phase effects.

I like to call small speakers 'fake bass', just something about the ported and accented bass that comes from small speakers that just isn't natural, or if designed to be natural there just isn't enough bass period.

Ever see a bass players rig with 6" or 8" speakers?, maybe a practise rig mic'd.

Now for the other side of the coin, large bass speakers introduce there own problem and that is they tend to distort typically above 400hz and since they don't distort equally tend to make a mess of the fundamental frequency of notes, when used in a stereo apllication. Most intial note frequencies lie in the 200 to 700 hz range, with middle C being 440 hz. To get rid of higher frequencies from a large woofer requires a high order crossover which can cause more phase related problems at the initial fundamental frequency. The next problem of large woofers is you need a large room for the bass to actually develope, too small of a room and the bass will actually cancel itself out.

This is why many prefer smaller woofers when they are after the magic of imaging and soundstaging, you get decent bass response with great imaging, etc. To have great imaging and soundstaging with large woofers requires a proper room.

Of course there are exceptions to everything and I'd take a pair of Klipsch Horns in a walk-in closet any day

I grew up as a child listening to my dad's 15" full ranger Jensen in a great cabinet, run by a quad tube amp. It was awesome to listen to. IT WAS MONO.

Ian

Agreed in principle, but lets not forget that woofer cones can be designed to improve their performance at higher frequencies (for example, corrugations on the cone encourage it to 'break up' in a predictable manner, so less of the cone surface responds as the frequency rises) and a big bass driver doesn't necessarily have to mean sphincter-loosening infra-bass.

The 12" woofers on my Diatones don't really dig up much below 60Hz but they still blow away any 6" or 8" driver for genuine impact and speed, lending Rock and Jazz recordings a sense of 'sonic reality'.

I have not come across any problems with imaging or sound staging with big woofers. I accept that any given room has a given frequency below which bass waves will not properly propagate - but find that bass cancellation, standing waves, etc can be minimised with sensible room treatments. In fact, I find it amazing that many enthusiasts will spend ridiculous amounts of money on cables and other dubious 'improvements' when a fraction of the money spent on the room acoustics would reap much greater rewards.

Fully agree on the Klipsch Horns/Closet paradigm, but I guess I would have Tannoy Westminster’s by preference!