Small drivers vs big drivers


Hi,
I have a question that is always in my mind recently. I see some speakers with small  drivers (5-9 inches) that is reviewed to be able to throw out big sound stage and go down to 18hz-20hz. Some other speakers with big drivers (10-15 inches) though are commented to have 'big sound stage' but can only go as low as 30-35hz. 

To make the situation more complicated, some speakers have small drivers but there are many of them. Can many small drivers be compensate for the size limitation?

I don't know which specs determine a wide sound stage and the ability to reach low frequencies.  What is the pros and cons of each design?

Thank you!

Huy.
Ag insider logo xs@2xquanghuy147

Kosst: "I hate to break it to you, but you’re wrong about radiation patterns."

That’s possible. I’m not infallible.

Would you mind pointing out exactly what I said wrong about radiation patterns? I think it’s fair for me to ask that so I can take another look at whatever it was, especially given your tone of condescending certainty.

Thanks.

Duke

You weren't exactly specific about radiation patterns, but it sounded like you're suggesting a large driver has a superior radiation pattern to a smaller one. I'm not sure how that makes any difference unless you're trying to drive something like a 12" driver up over 1000Hz. That seems high in a 3 way speaker. 500Hz seems on the high side of reasonable and at that point a 12" driver isn't coupling to the air that much better than a 6.5" driver. 

In my bedroom I have an old pair of ESS AMT1s with 10" drivers. The area of that cone is pretty close to the area of the 3 6.5" drivers in my Focal 936"s. The bass from the ESS is substantially inferior to the Focal. Likewise, when I bought my 936's I listened only to the 926 and 948 in the same room right next to each other. If the presumptions made about large drivers and large radiating areas being that much better we're true, I can't think of a better circumstance in which to observe it. Naturally the 928 kinda fell apart below 40Hz, but north of that there wasn't any lack of dynamics or power aside from the 948 being a little more sensitive. Beyond that, the 2 6.5" woofers in the Kanta 2 didn't pan out to sound or measure significantly inferior to speakers with larger drivers.

If my understanding of line array theory is right, the stack of 3 drivers in the Focals has the vertical directivity of a 20" woofer because of how they mechanically couple. Not that it's really significant since the start rolling off at 150Hz and are crossed over to the mid at 260Hz making their pass band wavelength much larger than 20". Even at 500Hz the wavelength would be a good bit larger than the cone of a 20" driver rendering it primarily omnidirectional. 

I'm certainly not saying an array of drivers is cheaper than one big one, but some people out there are suggesting that. In my opinion it's a question of which technical challenges one wishes to take on. Making really stiff, light, well damped, large cones is a real challenge of one sort. Effectively integrating multiple drivers into a cabinet and keeping it price competitive is another kind of challenge. I don't find that dispersion or thermal effects to be real issues unless we're going to make the lopsided comparison of oranges to watermelons. In terms of area of cone moved, 3 smaller drivers will shed more heat and be more accurate than a 10" driver. It's the more expensive solution to the problem.

As for specific drivers, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I could only guess at what each of the 6.5" F cones in these Focals would cost if they sold them. $150-200 each? They sell the 10" F cone for $350 each. That kind of thing would blow your budget fast. 


Kosst, thank you for your reply. You are absolutely correct that I was not clear about what I meant by "good radiation pattern control".

First, I like for the pattern to be uniform over as much of the spectrum as is reasonably feasible, at least in the horizontal plane. Second, I would like for the pattern to be fairly narrow - say, 90 degrees wide (45 degrees on either side of the centerline) over as much of the spectrum as is reasonably feasible, at least in the horizontal plane. These characteristics tend to do two things: Give us a spectrally-correct reverberant field, and minimize detrimental early reflections. They also give us a very wide sweet spot with proper set up.

The midwoofer diameter usually sets the lower limit on radiation pattern control in the horizontal plane. Ideally we’d like to have the above-described "good pattern control" down to about 700 Hz, but that’s usually not practical. With a 12" midwoofer we can get down to about 1.4 kHz, which is definitely low enough to be a worthwhile improvement in my experience.

The idea behind all of this is to minimize detrimental room interactions by not causing them in the first place, and then to encourage beneficial room interactions. I happen to think this is something that matters a lot, and obviously most designers give higher priority to other considerations.

There are plenty of prosound drivers in the 10-15 inch range that perform well at these higher crossover points, but in turn they usually do not go down as low as most home audio woofers. So there is some compromise involved (in addition to the large enclosures required).

Some of these prosound woofers have well-behaved cone breakup, and then their accordion surrounds are generally superior to half-roll rubber surrounds from a damping standpoint. The downside is the stiffer accordion surrounds impose a higher resonant frequency.

The detriment from cone breakup is twofold: Peaks in the frequency response, and a slight smearing of arrival times from the surface of the cone. In many cases the frequency response peaks can be tamed via the crossover, leaving only a small arrival-time smear. A single small ultra-rigid cone is theoretically superior in this regard, of course. But TWO or more small ultra-rigid cones will often have WORSE arrival-time smear than a single large cone! So in this area an array of very expensive small cones is not necessarily superior to one big cone.

Instinctively people expect big woofers to be "slow". The 12" woofer I mentioned a couple of posts up has a motor-strength-to-moving-mass ratio almost TWICE that of the famously "fast" 5" Scan-Speak Revelator. So these prosound woofers give up nothing in that regard.

As a ballpark rule of thumb, a driver often has around 1 dB of thermal compression (or more precisely thermal modulation) at about 1/10th its RMS rated power. I like to have enough thermal headroom that the peaks are never going to be rounded off. The 12" woofer in my example above has about 1 dB of thermal compression at 112 dB (at 1 meter), which translates to somewhere around 100 dB peaks at the listening position once we factor in the other speaker + room reflections. This is 10 dB more thermal headroom than three 7" Scan-Speak Revelators. But the three 7" Revelators will go over half an octave deeper, so that’s something we trade off with the prosound woofers.

I guess it boils down to what problems one thinks are most in need of solving. I readily admit to being in the minority among speaker designers in that area.

Duke

Forgot to include this: One area in which a vertical array of multiple small woofers has superior room interaction relative to a single large woofer is in the floor-bounce dip. The multiple small woofers will have their floor-bounce dips at different frequencies and so they will tend to fill in for one another. The single large woofer won’t get that benefit, though its dip will be smeared out a bit compared to a single small woofer, and therefore will be slightly less deep. The ear/brain system is fairly forgiving of the floor bounce dip because it occurs naturally all the time, but minimizing it is still beneficial.

Duke

+1 Audiokinesis 

I can’t think of anything to add as Duke knows a lot more than I ever will!!

We are lucky to have such knowledgeable contributions!

Agree 100% everything Duke said!