4 10"s vs 2 15"s

[Jybfan04 1]

Aside from the 2 15" subs having the cone area advantage...

Why would it be better to have 2 15"s over 4 10"s.....

[Mark LaFountain 1,054]

Aside from the 2 15" subs having the cone area advantage...

Why would it be better to have 2 15"s over 4 10"s.....

I would think that 4 tens would have the cone advantage being 40"s of cone vs. 30"s of cone??

[Jybfan04 1]

Aside from the 2 15" subs having the cone area advantage...

Why would it be better to have 2 15"s over 4 10"s.....

I would think that 4 tens would have the cone advantage being 40"s of cone vs. 30"s of cone??

Not quite the way you calculate the cone area...

Its more like pi(R*R)

so 4 10"s = 254.34

2 15"= 353.25

If I calculate things correctly..

[///M5 2,833]

4 10's

4 * 5 * 5 * 3.14 = 314

2 15's

2 * 7.5 * 7.5 * 3.15 = 353

[///M5 2,833]

Do the 4 10's...

[Jybfan04 1]

I was just about to come in and correct my calculations for the 10"s...

thanks for the help M5...

also why 4 10"s over the 2 15"s...

[zpeedyrosalez 0]

4 10s.... i have 6 12s

more subs badder ride

[o0)FuNkTrAiN(0o 0]

All things being equal the 10's are going to be quicker than the 15's and plenty capable of playing low and damn loud with that many going at once.

Edited October 11, 2007 by o0)FuNkTrAiN(0o

[JimJ 11]

All things being equal the 10's are going to be quicker than the 15's

"Quickness" has nothing to do with cone diameter...inductance is key

[Ga foo 88 0]

please explain that, if you can

[o0)FuNkTrAiN(0o 0]

All things being equal the 10's are going to be quicker than the 15's

"Quickness" has nothing to do with cone diameter...inductance is key

Well it's definetly part of it. The all things being equal part I was hoping would cover that. Momentum's a bitch.

[dem beats 1,223]

I see it like thise my man...

I really don't think that momentum will play much of a part in this.... Maybe durability, but with the stif matterials we use now.. You're gold I would say.

I see 4 tens of the same motor VC being able to take more juice than the 18's.. I think it could look cooler if you get all fancy with the enclosure.

If I was going to opt for a plain old box.. I would use 2 18's. You will hit lows better and move more air mayne.

Edited October 12, 2007 by dem beats

[Sameer 0]

im guessin the 4 10s will give a wider range of cone are since u can position them wherever, compared to 2 15s. even though the 4 10s have less cone area. it can be positioned differently.

[JimJ 11]

All things being equal the 10's are going to be quicker than the 15's

"Quickness" has nothing to do with cone diameter...inductance is key

Well it's definetly part of it. The all things being equal part I was hoping would cover that. Momentum's a bitch.

http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/WooferSpeed.pdf

[helotaxi 46]

Well it's definetly part of it. The all things being equal part I was hoping would cover that. Momentum's a bitch.

The enclosure does a lot to overcome the inertia of the moving mass of the sub. Consider also that for the same amount of power with the same motor assembly, the larger sub simply won't move as far as the smaller sub. The period of the stroke is determined by the frequency of the signal being reproduced and if the sub doesn't stroke as far, it is moving slower than the one moving farther in the same amount of time. Inertia is proportional to the square of the velocity and the mass in motion.

Just to run some numbers as an example:

We'll use a motor force of a constant of 1 (to keep it relatively simple) and a 60Hz tone. We'll also call the effect of the enclosure as a constant and equal for both drivers. I'm using the Mms of the iCON series of drivers because they are conveniently located on this site.

iCON 15

1=262*a; a=1/262

v=(1/262)*(1/120)

i=262*(1/31440)^2

i=2.65x10^-7

iCON 10

a=1/190

v=(1/190)*(1/120)

i=190*(1/22800)^2

i=3.65x10^-7

Based on the numbers above, for the same amount of power, the 10s actually have more inertia at the corner than the 15s.

[o0)FuNkTrAiN(0o 0]

Thank you both for the explanations and link. First off, I've been out of the game for awhile so I must apologize for my ignorance. I understand the physics side of what you both are saying. I haven't tested drivers in almost a decade so if today's well made drivers are actually good enough to pull off equal transient speeds amongst different sized drivers despite increases in moving mass that's freaking awesome actually. This was not the case when I was really into testing out stuff. Moving mass was king. The fastest bass driver I've ever heard was also the lightest by a large margin for it's size. Everything we listened to pretty much jumped right inline speed wise with their respective masses. To be honest I never even looked much beyond moving mass because of this. Very interesting Meester Bond.

Edited October 29, 2007 by o0)FuNkTrAiN(0o

[helotaxi 46]

Old subs had tiny motors and used tiny amounts of power in comparison to stuff today. Power handling and total motor force have gone up dramatically. As such, moving mass has gone up but motor force has increased proportionally more. The moving mass of modern subs is not a huge factor any more.