Why aren't there more ways to reproduce bass than just the standard 'speaker cone'?

Treble reproduction can use ribbons, horns, electrostat, domes, cloth, etc...

Mid-range reproduction can also use some of these.

But bass... I know of only one way that bass is reproduced in the subwoofer range(below 80hz):

Good old-fashioned speaker cones(with or without port).

Why is this?

I would think there would, by now, be a better way to cause the shaking than that design, albeit it would probably be more expensive.

I know some electrostats can reach way down, but they also cost $25K.

Given our love for good bass, I find this to be puzzling.

Update:

bbt9999, I appreciate the effort, but I know how sound works. My question is:

Why haven't there been solutions other than the usual subwoofer/bass woofer cone with or without port for doing really low bass? Aren't there other ways to do it? Considering how many ways there are to do a tweeter, I find this fascinating!

Update 2:

bbt9999, I appreciate the effort, but I know how sound works. My question is:

Why haven't there been solutions other than the usual subwoofer/bass woofer cone with or without port for doing really low bass? Aren't there other ways to do it? Considering how many ways there are to do a tweeter, I find this fascinating!

Update 3:

Grumpy, a lot of treble solutions are more expensive than a dome, but they are purchased anyway because if it costs more and it's better, it is going to sell to people who want the quality.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    The link below underscores the points I am about to mention to you. Research and development has scores of solutions the patent office in the US is atrocious in timely responses to inventions. They are the bottle neck in the US to rapid discovery. So what happens the proverbial rock and the hard place; time is money, of which an inventor does not have much of either. So many things sit on the shelf caught up in the bureaucracy of the system, which is a necessary step if a person wants to own intellectual property and monetize the solution for the market. Secondly, their has to be a perceived need. Third who will pay for it? Fourth who wants it? Fifth where is the pent up demand? And of course, who are the investors? I am certain other forms of producing a more efficient sound is in use somewhere but the market does not have access, or its priced sky high like the example you gave for electrostatic speakers.

    It is more cost efficient to mass produce evolution as opposed to ground breaking. If you think about it, one needs to have Apple's trillions to do ground breaking and a Steve Jobs. Your point about tweeters is true, but musical fidelity is perceived in the higher octave range. A tight bass sales, but the human brain says clarity is in the higher ranges. The consumer will live with a boomy bass, just as long as they can understand what is being said on the high end. Therefore the money towards research and development is going to lean towards tweeters, mind you these budgets are small and getting smaller. The general public has no idea, nor do we seem to care about such details, which ultimately harms the purists who loves the art and science of accurate musical tonal quality. Few know about the importance of the role of an anechoic chamber as part of the process in making sure a quality signature sound is worthy of the badge, name and legacy of a particular brand.

    The Space Shuttle which started during the Carter Administration capitalized on solar power in the second phase of the US mission to space more so then than at any time previously. This is the 1970s. My point here is that we still use filament bulbs more than any other form of light. The same light form in the days of Edison. When it comes to bass, different forms of sound produced in a more efficient manner, the political will, the energy and the system doesn't have the sense of urgency to do better. As a result the Nikola Tesla's of the world become a foot note it is the Edisons and the Westinghouses that all things must come through. Tesla being the father of the speaker and wireless communications in the early 1900s who proved that AC is the future. To the contrary Edison and Westinghouse and the US government sabotaged Tesla's work on sound and the government confiscated his notes upon his death. Direct current became the way of doing things, only now is Tesla's work realized, but this Serbian born American is but a distant memory. In this regard the US is lazy and to comfortable. As long as we can get light from a filament bulb we don't care much. As long as we can get good tight bass from the same old cone then whats the fuss? Dr. Amar Bose has experimented in doing things different with sound waves but no new speaker cone or apparatus and with limited success, he comes closest to a paradigm shift, but he is out of time and out of gas. The link below is from Boston's MIT. It is in institutions like this one we might get what you ask to come to market. The other place would be Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute out of New York.

    Great question.

    Regards.

  • 8 years ago

    For bass think "Big Movement of Air".

    Traditional cone-shaped drivers are mainly - the cone. It is fairly cheap to increase the size of the cone because it is mainly cloth or paper. So 'better' has to rival the inexpensive material costs of the cone as you move from an 8" to 10" to 12" driver and can charge $300, and $600 for the larger sizes.

    Yes - I am glossing over all the other design & box material increases going to larger drivers. But you see that 'better' must include manufacturing costs.

  • 8 years ago

    Sound is created by sound wave. The lower frequency requires allot of air bing move. So the cone is need to create movement to the sound. Even in the highest end of the audio you will notice large speakers for the reproduction of the bass. Hope this will help you out.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.