Login / Register
 
Thoughts about big vs. small guitar speakers for recording
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #31
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 216

rolandjuno6 is offline
I like having a variety of amplifiers for recording. I have a Tone King Meteor II tube amplifier with a 12" speaker, an Alessandro tube amplifier with two 10" speakers, and three five watt tube amplifiers with single 8" speakers- a ValveTrain 205 "clone" of a tweed Princeton, a Gretsch Compact Tremolo, and an Alamo Capri.

When I want a sparkly clean lush rich guitar sound that doesn't sound mushy in the lower frequencies I use the Tone King or Alessandro. For clean rhythm sounds or for some clean country or R&B lead sounds the Tone King and Alessandro work equally well depending on how I set them and which guitars I use. When I want more of a "surf" guitar sound I use the Tone King because it has a particularly nice reverb and tremolo. Though lots of times I just use the Tone King because it is usually plugged in and ready to go. The Tone King or Alessandro work really well for lots of things. But they also can take up lots of sonic space. And sometimes I don't want that, especially if I am recording something with lots of tracks. Then I might record more tracks with the single 8" combos.

I use the 8" combos when I want a more overdriven sound without having to use an outboard overdrive unit. I also use them, especially the Gretsch Compact Tremolo, when I want a particularly old school raunchy sound. The Gretsch also has a choppier tremolo than the Tone King does. I play lots of lead guitar parts with the Gretsch. The Alamo sounds very similar to the Gretsch but doesn't have tremolo. The ValveTrain 205 has a much cleaner richer sound than the Alamo or Gretsch but sounds thinner than the Tone King. Sometimes when recording something with a lot of tracks I will record every guitar part with the ValveTrain.

Every now and then I want either a very nasty or very plunky tone for a track or two. For those tracks I might use the amplifier built into my Silvertone 1448 case with a 5" speaker or a lantern battery powered solid state amplifier with about a 3" speaker.
#32
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #32
Lives for gear
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Telefunkenland
Posts: 1,560

beingmf is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzop View Post
Hey where can I hear Brian Mays 6.5" speaker?
Does the name "Queen" ring a bell?
#33
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Winny Pooh's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: London
Posts: 762

Winny Pooh is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Don't you see the smiley cop laughing?
Yes, but bringing up one exception in 100,000 does not cancel out the rule. The guy quoted said he never found one to work for him which I can well believe.
Lorenzop
Thread Starter
#34
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 590

Thread Starter
Lorenzop is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Does the name "Queen" ring a bell?
Doh....but WHAT tracks / parts are recorded with a 6"?
Or are you assuming he recorded everything on any given Queen cd album with a 6,5" ? Cm'on
__________________
"The difference between Digital and Analogue is Inspiration"
#35
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #35
Lives for gear
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Telefunkenland
Posts: 1,560

beingmf is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzop View Post
Doh....but WHAT tracks / parts are recorded with a 6"?
Or are you assuming he recorded everything on any given Queen cd album with a 6,5" ? Cm'on
If I was cruel (which I'm not) I could say "if you can't hear it on those albums, then you should try it ASAP!"

Honestly: like so often on Gearslutz, all those replies, suggestions and opinions are totally out of context. I sometimes have the impression that the only genre context here is metal and "rawk".
I happily mic small amps/cabs all the time, and to reply to the OP once more, they easily sit in the mix without much tweaking. Admittedly (!) my genres are always somehow retro or "adult" indie pop...
Lorenzop
Thread Starter
#36
24th April 2013
Old 24th April 2013
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 590

Thread Starter
Lorenzop is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
I happily mic small amps/cabs all the time, and to reply to the OP once more, they easily sit in the mix without much tweaking. Admittedly (!) my genres are always somehow retro or "adult" indie pop...
Precisely this sort of idea is what I'm intrigued about. I'm gonna give it a try....
#37
25th April 2013
Old 25th April 2013
  #37
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Sound View Post
Now, having said that, I can't say I've heard a guitar speaker smaller than 10" that made a sound worth recording. I know it's possible to make one, and I'm sure someone out there has. But on most amps with smaller speakers, I find their tone can be greatly improved just by hooking up a different speaker or cab. And that's usually really easy and quick to do.
Well, it kinda depends - there have been quite a few records made with old Fender Champs with 8" speakers, it all depends on the tone you need for the given song. (Didn't Clapton use a Champ on Derek and the Dominos?)

I usually prefer the larger speaker but not always. A smaller speaker has less moving mass and is frequently more compliant so it can be more sensitive and have better transient response. Depending on the design of course - there are poorly designed, sluggish 8s, but all other things being equal, the smaller speaker will be faster.

I'll tell you this - a Champ type amp with an 8" recorded flat often sounds a hell of a lot better than the same amp into a 12 with the low cut filter engaged on the mic or console because somebody thinks "that's the way it's done" or "that's what the switch is there for" - because it isn't.

It also depends on your mic technique. Too many people just stick a 57 in the middle of the speaker as a matter of course. That is, definitely, the easiest way to mic a guitar speaker but most of the time it's not the best way, either in terms of position or mic choice.

So many variables, so little time...
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.

************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
#38
25th April 2013
Old 25th April 2013
  #38
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
One other thing that should not be overlooked - many, if not most of the small amps used for classic recordings have small speakers with ALNICO magnets, which have a lot better tone than similar speakers with ceramic. The ALNICO speakers also tend to be lower power/higher sensitivity.
Lorenzop
Thread Starter
#39
25th April 2013
Old 25th April 2013
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 590

Thread Starter
Lorenzop is offline
Yes Alnico!

Btw I throw this in - anybody have any info about the following 10" Celestion speakers:

1984 Rola Celestion G10-60
1991 Egnator Elite 10-65

I can't find anything on google...?
#40
25th April 2013
Old 25th April 2013
  #40
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1

Thesolidsnake is offline
Well the point is to record a good sounding guitar and it really doesn't matter what kind of amp you use to record whether it be small or big, because if you think about it, using amp plug-ins on computer isn't really that different, you kind of get the same sound from a regular amp and I'm not saying it's exactly the same but you can get the same sound. but I do like recording an amp and you can get a great sounding sound if you mic it up just right whether it be small or big.
#41
26th April 2013
Old 26th April 2013
  #41
Gear addict
 
Classic's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 303

Classic is offline
My ear has always been drawn towards small-watt tube amps (around 15-watt), and my Dr. Z Carmen Ghia sounds like heaven recorded. SM57, 3 inches off the grill, center of the cone.

And the little VOX Pathfinder records shockingly well. One of the more memorable recorded tones I've experienced, too.
__________________
Prime Cut Studio
Record+Mix+Master+Design+Print

Prime Cut Studio BLOG
#42
5th May 2013
Old 5th May 2013
  #42
Lives for gear
 
darkhorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,296

darkhorse is offline
Sort of fits in a narrow thin range of tone, might be novel for something, I've seen Satriani use one those cheesy mini stacks and record it. And it was a joke.
Recording is an illusion, seems like you go in one direction or another, recording on crappy cheesy things can be a art and an expression, for the most part I think it's a joke.
I just hate when a performance cannot get close to what the recording sounded like.

Just record the full range of guitar tone and EQ it thin, cannot make much difference as that little speaker is not producing anything but a very narrow range of frequencies.
That is one reason I am not into recording these days, I cannot stand using small amps and stuff I would not play through to get cheese tones.

I worked a long time to build my rig and collect my gear if I cannot capture it and the cool range of tones it produces, nothing makes much sense to me. Like the expensive array of overdrives and such I have at hand are not good enough to record through my main amps, what is the point? Want the amp to distort without a pedal, how is that really the same and how is the pedal drive not a good tone?
Small speakers simply due to the laws of physics cannot reproduce any low end, so the sound is very narrow midrange, thin and tinny, maybe that suits your slot but recording on tiny little things, no thanks. Capture my sound and doctor it to suit if that has to take place. Personally the guitar has such narrow range and is basically a midrange instrument anyway, do we need to exponentially compound on the thin sounding guitar? Does that really sound so extraordinary?

If I listen to something I can sort of tell if it was a little amp thing or a cheese whiz joke, can't say I like it nor can I say it could not have been done better.

I realize recording is an illusion but need it be completely ridiculous and phony? Sorry but that does not resound to engineering skill to me. Someone needs to play into a piece of crap to sound good? Something is not right at all with that line of thought.

Being a player of a great many years, it would seem the great player sounds good in spite of the crappy amp not because of it. I give you the Brian May equation.
__________________
"Funny thing about VINTAGE, when those old cats played that gear and got those legendary tones the gear was NEW, and it did not cost all that much."
#43
5th May 2013
Old 5th May 2013
  #43
Gear Head
 
tonejunkee's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Denver

tonejunkee is offline
Talking

well, those early ZZ Top hits was litereally a 15 watt supra amp, like the Zep stuff. Having a nice small tube amp miked with a ribbon or U47 is something I'd like to be doing right now
#44
5th May 2013
Old 5th May 2013
  #44
Lives for gear
 
darkhorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,296

darkhorse is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonejunkee View Post
well, those early ZZ Top hits was litereally a 15 watt supra amp, like the Zep stuff. Having a nice small tube amp miked with a ribbon or U47 is something I'd like to be doing right now
Simply does not mean it is the say all end all of recording. One would think in 40 years or more someone might be inventive enough to move into the 21st century. One might consider back in those days we did not have the millions of pedals and rack units we have now. Same mics, same amps, hardly seems like anyone is inventive these days just rehashing the old, that takes no talent whatsoever.
#45
6th May 2013
Old 6th May 2013
  #45
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post

Despite what people tell you about small speakers in studios, Marshall 4x12 cabs are miced all the time with great results. You just need to know how to do it correctly.
The thing about recording a larger cabinet such as a 4x12 is that you have to have a large enough room to get it to record properly. If you're in a studio with a nice large live room a 4x12 can be fantastic, however if the room is too small the speaker can sound choked due to a lack of a sufficient volume of air to move. I've seen cases where a 4x12 was recorded in a large iso booth and the engineer ended up leaving the door open to avoid choking the speaker.

A large cabinet also must be used at a much higher volume than a small one in order to sound "loud" on the recording.

OTOH if you're going for really clean tones this stuff isn't so much of a problem.
#46
6th May 2013
Old 6th May 2013
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Silent Sound's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Del City, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,555

Silent Sound is offline
Heh! It's funny how many people took my personal experience to be some kind of "rule".

I'm just saying I've never personally played or heard an amp live in the room that I thought sounded great that had a small speaker. I've played a few Champs and the like over the years, but to me, they never sounded as good with the stock speaker as they did with a larger cabs. I could see how they might sit in the mix really well, as you don't have to cut out all that mud. I almost relate it to playing with a parked wah technique. Some people may prefer to work that way. I'd rather have a more familiar tone to start with and EQ stuff out that I find out I don't need later than wish that I could EQ something in that I didn't capture in the first place.

The only rule is if it sounds good, hit the red button! Other than that, all I can relay is personal experiences, which are almost guaranteed not to translate 100%.
#47
7th May 2013
Old 7th May 2013
  #47
Lives for gear
 
darkhorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,296

darkhorse is offline
Wood vibrating. Is anyone an actual sound engineer?
Hollow speaker cabs, really. I guess no one has gone through classes on anything. It just seems to be recording in a toilet bowl has great reverb.

Simple frequency analysis on speaker sizes indicates rather predictably that larger speakers like 15" can produce more low end than a small 10". The bass might seem tighter and more defined simply because there is less of it.

Anyone know the difference in printing a track at a low level and turning it up or recording at a high level and keeping it lower? Is there a difference in recording at high levels verses low volume?
Lorenzop
Thread Starter
#48
7th May 2013
Old 7th May 2013
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 590

Thread Starter
Lorenzop is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse;

Anyone know the difference in printing a track at a low level and turning it up or recording at a high level and keeping it lower? Is there a difference in recording at high levels verses low volume?
Hmm actually a good point. I don't know. Could you please expand on the differences and their real world applications?

Thanxs
#49
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #49
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
Wood vibrating. Is anyone an actual sound engineer?
Hollow speaker cabs, really. I guess no one has gone through classes on anything. It just seems to be recording in a toilet bowl has great reverb.

Simple frequency analysis on speaker sizes indicates rather predictably that larger speakers like 15" can produce more low end than a small 10". The bass might seem tighter and more defined simply because there is less of it.

Anyone know the difference in printing a track at a low level and turning it up or recording at a high level and keeping it lower? Is there a difference in recording at high levels verses low volume?
Guitar speakers are functionally different from other speakers, in that guitars speakers are designed to function primarily in the range in which the cone is breaking up. Since in break-up different parts of the cone are moving quasi-independently of other parts, the same frequency response calculations that hold with normal speakers operating in piston mode do not entirely apply. There was a great article on this by an engineer at Celestion that was posted in another thread here a couple or so weeks back.

Also, you should be aware that 4 10" speakers have approximately the same cone area as 1 15.

Another thing to be aware of is excursion, especially in PA and Hifi type speakers. Low frequency cutoff is determined not only by cone size, but also by excursion - a smaller driver can go lower (move more air) if the excursion is increased. This is somewhat dependent on enclosure design, as the diuaphragm (cone) must couple to the air correctly.
#50
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #50
Lives for gear
 
darkhorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,296

darkhorse is offline
Always a hoot.
I always find shaking the tree makes gets the apples angry.

The question of recording or printing a track loud or quiet was a question of introspection and thought as to why, is there a difference, not for me to claim either is better or what I like. Why is the question? Does it make no difference at all, it does, does anyone know why?
I just wanted to know how many got it or pondered what they are doing or why they are doing it.

A real engineer is schooled and has been through physics study of frequency laws and effect. Certainly that does not preclude everyone coming out with a degree is a member of mensa. Anyone can be an idiot and there are actually quite a few more of them than Einstein's in the human equation. It takes a special person to come out of college and refuse to accept what they learned or the facts of science they were presented.
If anyone really thinks a big hollow box with speakers is tone and recording magic then maybe they missed a chapter or a few days. Or perhaps elephant farts if using a proper mic can replace horns.


Hope some of the guys are looking to create something new or different ways than just rehashing the old that is fun I guess. Inventiveness and creation is talent, copy is what it is. Just doing the same thing over and over only produces the same result. Things sort of need to progress and improve or there is no motion to the future.

Having the background I have I really do not make saints out of what took place in the past, so someone lucked out and got a nice tone or a hit record it is what it is, does not make them a genius or infallible.
Some legends can be complete dufus persons.
So and so flushes his toilet with a ribbon mix and hollow box. So what?

Like a hollow box does not manifest many sonic problems regarding frequency physics, and recording that collage of boominess, phase distortion and resonance peaks is great tone, let's do that forever on every tune !!! Yea. verily Hallelujah

I am always thankful science physics is not subject to opinions which do not hold against measurements and reality. Some get it, some never will, and the beauty of that is that it never registers how wrong their paradigm is constructed. Given a simple statement they add variables to try and show the primary premise is not true, when it is the variant summation that is flawed.
A 15" speaker produces more low end than a smaller one, same conditions, just measure the frequency response analysis. 2 10"s do not make more than one 15 that is just not how the measurement standard works.

We should give equal weight to all opinions, in the same manner everyone's wife is pretty and their kids intelligent.
#51
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #51
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
A real engineer is schooled and has been through physics study of frequency laws and effect.
What a crock!

If you talk to them, most REAL RECORDING ENGINEERS - i.e. guys who have spent lifetimes making hit records - generally got no closer to a university than perhaps to teach at one in their old age.

The "schools" they went to are the major recording studios where real records are made. If you talk to guy like Ken Scott and Bob Ohlsson you'll find that they started in the studios in their teens, no time for college. And those successful engineers and producers who DO have a college education generally studied music, not engineering.

Of course most good engineers do make a point of reading the leading texts on the subject, but not to the degree that you're suggesting.

Quote:

I am always thankful science physics is not subject to opinions which do not hold against measurements and reality.
No, but the APPLICATION of science to Art is definitely subject to opinion - that's what art is all about.

And the design of guitar speakers is all about art. A ""properly designed" speaker designed " by the rules" generally sounds pretty crappy for guitar.

I'd suggest you get your head out of your ivory tower and learn a bit about GUITAR SPEAKERS before talking about subjects beyond your expertise.

Quote:
Some get it, some never will,
How true.

Quote:
and the beauty of that is that it never registers how wrong their paradigm is constructed. Given a simple statement they add variables to try and show the primary premise is not true, when it is the variant summation that is flawed.
A little bit of inadequate and incomplete knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Quote:
A 15" speaker produces more low end than a smaller one, same conditions, just measure the frequency response analysis.
Not necessarily. Look at the design of the small diameter LF drivers used in the current crop of line array speaker systems. These are drivers with diameters between 5 and 10 inches doing the work of 12 and 15 inch drivers in older designs.

Quote:
2 10"s do not make more than one 15 that is just not how the measurement standard works.
You don't read very well, do you? I said FOUR 10s equal approximately the same cone area as one 15*. Do the math. Plus, the 4 10s will have FOUR TIMES THE MOTOR POWER PUSHING THEM and significantly better transient response due to the lower moving mass per unit of applied force. This also results in much better control of overshoot and ringing at low frequencies.

Quote:
We should give equal weight to all opinions, in the same manner everyone's wife is pretty and their kids intelligent.
Exactly.

Some people have spent (relatively long) lifetimes studying this stuff. Others take a few rudimentary courses and think they know everything.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Voice Coil magazine? It's pretty interesting sometimes.


* - 2 10s equal approximately 1-12.
Quote
1
#52
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #52
Gear addict
 
Gretschman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 428

Gretschman is offline
I'm am not interested in anything but the final result .
The studio is not the same as live so I get to do way more in the studio environment . Mic placement can vary and so I have choices .
Speaker cabinets vary along with types of speakers and cabinet designs , such as ported and closed .

I like to use several mic's placed differently depending on the result I'm trying to get . I also use different patterns such as omni , figure eight, and so on .
I have choices.
I have different rooms that all sound differently .
I have choices in mic's, pre's , and gear .
I never put my mic's up against the speaker unless that it my choice for that setup . It detracts from the detail in many cases due to high sound pressure on the diaphragm .
I don't own any $100 dollar mic's either . Nothing like a player with a 10k setup and using a cheap mic to record it !
The monitors help me to decide if the recording is spot on . Everything else is useless , pointless , and not what I'm there to do .
#53
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #53
Lives for gear
 
darkhorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,296

darkhorse is offline
Yeah right college, books, education who needs all that, one can just surmise everything from their own nonsense or copy something from someone else who wrote something or recorded badly. Like when you hear that recording stated above you really hear that wood vibration makes the whole tone and basis of the sound, yada. Sounds like something you tell someone when you are having them on. Gullibility is a greater facet of the uneducated.

Who needs measuring tools and bench mark tests. Hell gravity is just an opinion as well. Psssstt, it's the size of the speaker which manifests the frequency wave accordingly. Yeah putting a 20 lb magnet on a horn tweeter that will power a bass guitar low end, just really really wrong and baseless. Whatever, I am sure there must be some of you out there that have a clue but for the most part not so much. In matters of sound creation run pink noise through various speakers, and chart the frequency spectrum, there is little doubt the larger speaker produces more low end and a tweeter small speaker is limited but can produce more high range, size, simple physics. Why does one imagine PA systems use larger woofers for low end and horns for high end. Just simple physics. Why do we use large PA cabs and sub woofer systems to create a broad spectrum range of sound with a lot of wattage? Why not just tiny speakers with big magnets???

Now you'll say but headphones have a 20h-20kh dynamic range and a Wave radio has great low end, and so we ask again what is the difference in recording loud or quiet? What is the purpose of wattage, large speakers and small ones? Any realize yet various mics just completely change the sound of everything and one is never really capturing what is really there, one just hunts for a combination that sounds good. Recording a hollow box cab on the back side for vibration, must be some great smoke.

Gessssshhhhh. Hundreds of hours of crap no one is ever going to hear anyway. This board has been most helpful in making me realize I do not want to start getting into buying massive expensive recording studio gear. It gets so ridiculous almost like a sci-fi convention.
Lorenzop
Thread Starter
#54
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 590

Thread Starter
Lorenzop is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
Gessssshhhhh. Hundreds of hours of crap no one is ever going to hear anyway. This board has been most helpful in making me realize I do not want to start getting into buying massive expensive recording studio gear. It gets so ridiculous almost like a sci-fi convention.
Well this I kind of an beginning to see myself!

On the other hand Im not sure I understand your take (cryptic English?): in a nutshell, are you saying one should be firmly grounded in physical facts, but/and use that with the greatest creative freedom?

Rather than "learning from tradition" ie copying what has worked before?

I kind of agree. On the other hand the best schooling is that of experience, if you learn from the experience of others, you avoid many of the same pitfalls. As long as you then apply creatively, and understand on what presuppositions that experience is based (facts/physics or it's interpretation of) then you surely are on a good way of independent creative journey.
#55
8th May 2013
Old 8th May 2013
  #55
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024

kennybro is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
Hope some of the guys are looking to create something new or different ways than just rehashing the old that is fun I guess. Inventiveness and creation is talent, copy is what it is. Just doing the same thing over and over only produces the same result. Things sort of need to progress and improve or there is no motion to the future.
I haven't heard what I would describe as a truly fresh and new guitar sound, electric or acoustic, in decades. The genre's been played out in 50 directions over three quarters of a century. Every once in a while, someone does generate fresh melody, chord structure, composition and content. But a truly fresh guitar sound that hasn't been heard? Where? When? You got one in ya? If so, post it! I might even suggest it's not even needed any more than a painter needs to invent a color we haven't seen.

Anyway, this is about whether or not a guitar can sound good, powerful, fit a mix, whatever, through a small speaker and low watts. That's been asked and answered in at least dozens, probably hundereds of commercial releases for the past 50 years. Of course it can.
#56
9th May 2013
Old 9th May 2013
  #56
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
Yeah right college, books, education who needs all that, one can just surmise everything from their own nonsense or copy something from someone else who wrote something or recorded badly. Like when you hear that recording stated above you really hear that wood vibration makes the whole tone and basis of the sound, yada. Sounds like something you tell someone when you are having them on. Gullibility is a greater facet of the uneducated.

Who needs measuring tools and bench mark tests. Hell gravity is just an opinion as well. Psssstt, it's the size of the speaker which manifests the frequency wave accordingly. Yeah putting a 20 lb magnet on a horn tweeter that will power a bass guitar low end, just really really wrong and baseless. Whatever, I am sure there must be some of you out there that have a clue but for the most part not so much. In matters of sound creation run pink noise through various speakers, and chart the frequency spectrum, there is little doubt the larger speaker produces more low end and a tweeter small speaker is limited but can produce more high range, size, simple physics. Why does one imagine PA systems use larger woofers for low end and horns for high end. Just simple physics. Why do we use large PA cabs and sub woofer systems to create a broad spectrum range of sound with a lot of wattage? Why not just tiny speakers with big magnets???

Now you'll say but headphones have a 20h-20kh dynamic range and a Wave radio has great low end, and so we ask again what is the difference in recording loud or quiet? What is the purpose of wattage, large speakers and small ones? Any realize yet various mics just completely change the sound of everything and one is never really capturing what is really there, one just hunts for a combination that sounds good. Recording a hollow box cab on the back side for vibration, must be some great smoke.

Gessssshhhhh. Hundreds of hours of crap no one is ever going to hear anyway. This board has been most helpful in making me realize I do not want to start getting into buying massive expensive recording studio gear. It gets so ridiculous almost like a sci-fi convention.
Bla-bla-bla......

What's you're will fully failing to understand is that the art and science on speaker design has progressed far beyond the point of the rudimentary textbooks of the '50s and '60s.

This really isn't the place top get into a full blown discussion of the various parameters governing speaker design - it's the GUITAR FORUM, fer chrissake!

But - As I've pointed out several times already, EVEN BY THE 1960S STANDARDS you're stuck in, you're wrong. It's cone diameter AND excursion, plus compliance and air load that determine low frequency cutoff and efficiency - but that really only holds completely true for speakers operating in the conventional operating rage with the diaphragm acting as a piston.

Traditional speaker design theory does not really apply when the driver is operating in cone break-up mode because in traditional design that was always regarded as being outside the operating parameters of the driver and was considered undesirable.

So the texts didn't even consider it.

Another reason it wasn't covered back then is that it's a LOT harder to analyze, as the operation of the driver is no longer anything resembling linear. Most of the analysis of break up in guitar speaker cones has been by real world scientific experimentation and observation, much of it employing high speed stroboscopic photography to observe what the cones are actually doing. It turns out that the formulation of the paper is crucial - things like fiber length and diameter which cause the cone to break up in different ways, emphasizing different harmonic ranges. Cone geometry is also important - curvilinear or straight sides, ribbed or smooth, etc. Also the taper of the cone thickness.

I can show you a 15 inch guitar speaker with much better top end and a higher LF cutoff than 5 inch woofers used in some modern line array cabinets that have a very low cutoff and virtually no top.

Now it is true that if all other parameters of the driver design are exactly the same you will tend to get a bit more low end out of a larger driver, especially if that driver functions primarily in piston mode, you can't extrapolate that to say that big speakers always have more bottom and less top than small speakers.

The design of small woofers has progressed a HUGE amount in the last 25 years.

What is true, however, is that in guitar speakers the diameter of the cone does tend to affect the balance of the harmonic spectrum generated by cone breakup. But comparisons of that are really only valid between drivers of similar design. A 15 inch JBL D130F is still gonna be brighter than a 10" speaker out of an SWR bass amp.


Measuring tools are great - if you know how to use 'em and you know what their limitations are.


Quote:
Who needs measuring tools and bench mark tests. Hell gravity is just an opinion as well. Psssstt, it's the size of the speaker which manifests the frequency wave accordingly. Yeah putting a 20 lb magnet on a horn tweeter that will power a bass guitar low end, just really really wrong and baseless.
Now you're just being silly.

Quote:
Whatever, I am sure there must be some of you out there that have a clue but for the most part not so much. In matters of sound creation run pink noise through various speakers, and chart the frequency spectrum, there is little doubt the larger speaker produces more low end and a tweeter small speaker is limited but can produce more high range, size, simple physics. Why does one imagine PA systems use larger woofers for low end and horns for high end. Just simple physics. Why do we use large PA cabs and sub woofer systems to create a broad spectrum range of sound with a lot of wattage? Why not just tiny speakers with big magnets???
Have you paid ANY attention AT ALL to the developments in drivers in modern line array systems over the past 15 years?

While the largest systems do use very large woofers for the lowest frequencies, most modern line arrays are using 8 to 10 inch drivers where traditional stacked systems used 12 and 15 inch (generally from 80 Hz up) and the new compact line arrays are using 4.5 to 6 inch drivers for the same band. In portable club systems it has become common to see 12 inch drivers taking the place of 18s in subwoofer enclosures.

Now these smaller low frequency units are by no means as EFFICIENT as traditional large coned drivers, but they certainly go as low, if not lower in frequency response. That's because it's all a trade-off. Efficiency vs. size. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to truck a few racks of amplifiers than a couple of semis full of cabinets.

(Personally, I prefer the traditional rigs with large, high efficiency drivers and enclosures - I think they sound better. But that's not the state of the industry now - it's all dictated by sight lines and trucking expense.)

BTW - ARE you familiar with Voice Coil Magazine? If you're not, I'd suggest it - you might learn something. If they'll allow you to subscribe, that is - you have to qualify.
#57
9th May 2013
Old 9th May 2013
  #57
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzop View Post
Well this I kind of an beginning to see myself!

On the other hand Im not sure I understand your take (cryptic English?): in a nutshell, are you saying one should be firmly grounded in physical facts, but/and use that with the greatest creative freedom?

Rather than "learning from tradition" ie copying what has worked before?

I kind of agree. On the other hand the best schooling is that of experience, if you learn from the experience of others, you avoid many of the same pitfalls. As long as you then apply creatively, and understand on what presuppositions that experience is based (facts/physics or it's interpretation of) then you surely are on a good way of independent creative journey.
What he's saying is that pedantic rote memorization out of somewhat outmoded textbooks trumps scientific experimentation (such as in the Celestion article I referred to) and practical experience of those who deal with a subject on a daily basis. Which is hogwash.
#58
9th May 2013
Old 9th May 2013
  #58
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
I haven't heard what I would describe as a truly fresh and new guitar sound, electric or acoustic, in decades. The genre's been played out in 50 directions over three quarters of a century. Every once in a while, someone does generate fresh melody, chord structure, composition and content. But a truly fresh guitar sound that hasn't been heard? Where? When? You got one in ya? If so, post it! I might even suggest it's not even needed any more than a painter needs to invent a color we haven't seen.

Anyway, this is about whether or not a guitar can sound good, powerful, fit a mix, whatever, through a small speaker and low watts. That's been asked and answered in at least dozens, probably hundereds of commercial releases for the past 50 years. Of course it can.
I'm not even sure why he's in this thread - he doesn't appear to be much interested in recording guitar sounds, just in talking about rudimentary '60s era speaker theory, which doesn't really have all that much to do with guitar sounds.
#59
9th May 2013
Old 9th May 2013
  #59
Gear addict
 
Gretschman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 428

Gretschman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I'm not even sure why he's in this thread - he doesn't appear to be much interested in recording guitar sounds, just in talking about rudimentary '60s era speaker theory, which doesn't really have all that much to do with guitar sounds.
True enough , but I'll bet he can kick my butt in a useless information contest !
#60
9th May 2013
Old 9th May 2013
  #60
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gretschman View Post
True enough , but I'll bet he can kick my butt in a useless information contest !
misinformation, maybe....
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.