What's the absolutely most SQ speaker size selection?

[Holmz]

It was more of a wiseass comment, to inject further confusion.
(But some of those ribbons n such have good transient response, so there is some basis for goodness.)

If suppose if the OP had access to a spec sheets, then it could be easier?
i think they may just want a jump at the frogs statement.10" MB is better than 6.5"

[geolemon]

If suppose if the OP had access to a spec sheets, then it could be easier?
i think they may just want a jump at the frogs statement.10" MB is better than 6.5"

You make another great point that I think would make a great discussion topic.

There's a reason that the "ideal" SQL driver is a mass-less single point-source driver that eminates in a realistic 360 degree pattern, where huge cones and high mass penalize performance.
There's a reason that the "best" subwoofer driver is a huge cone, high-excursion beast, where small cones and low excursion and even low mass penalize performance.

These things change as you move down the frequency spectrum.
It's why most high-end tweeters are 1" domes.
It's why most high-end midrange drivers are between 3" and 5".
It's why most high-end midbass drivers are between 6" and 8".
It's why most high-end subwoofer drivers are between 10" and 15"

Sometimes these numbers skew a bit smaller for high-end home audio.
Sometimes those numbers skew a bit larger for high-end pro-audio.
In both cases that makes sense for the venues and noise floors and audiences.

Audio engineering is all about having the right balance of specs-
We'll start with a tweeter because that's the one that ideally is closest to being able to have zero mass and a point-source size, to replicate the absolute fastest frequencies precisely.

As you go lower in frequency, the cycles per second slow - which makes the cone reach further excursion levels. It's very proportional to frequency - for every octave lower you ask any given speaker to play, it needs to double it's excursion - and that's to play the exact same volume. The same decibel level.
Of course, there's physical limitations to the suspension, the leads, the motor... so it can only play so low before excursion limits are reached. And what really matters with volume is not excursion, but displacement. The same loudness can be achieved by a small cone reaching a high excursion, or a large cone reaching a fraction of that excursion.

So when you reach the lower limit of a tweeter... you hand off to midrange. Because of the frequency range and excursion and volume needs you have for that next lower set of octaves - a larger (than the tweeter), heavier (than the tweeter, since you want a lower Fs), higher excursion driver makes sense. But you still want it to be as small and light as possible, to match the detail and precision that the tweeter can play at. But you need it to be large enough and have enough excursion so that it can play at the same loudness level that the tweeter can reach at higher frequencies.
So... 4", 5", 6". The 4" driver either won't play as low or as loud as an otherwise identical 6" driver, and the 6" driver either won't be as precise or might have too much inductance to play as high as the 4" driver. And again - as you go lower in the frequency spectrum, eventually again you reach the excursion limits of the midrange. And again, we're not asking it to play any louder than the tweeter, that's just naturally what happens to play the same volume level.

So when you reach the lower limit of a midrange... you hand off to midbass. Because of the frequency range and excursion and volume needs you have for that next lower set of octaves - a larger (than the midrange), heavier (than the midrange, since you want a lower Fs), higher excursion driver makes sense. But you still want it to be as small and light as possible, to match the detail and precision that the midrange can play at.
...starting to sound familiar?
And again - as you go lower in the frequency spectrum, eventually again you reach the excursion limits of the midbass, and have to hand off to a subwoofer.

Same really for a subwoofer... you want it to play the frequency range and excursion and volume needs you have for that next lower set of octaves - a larger (than the midbass), heavier (than the midbass, since you want a lower Fs), higher excursion driver makes sense. But you still want it to be as small and light as possible, to match the detail and precision that the midbass is playing at.
It's really all the same deal.

Smaller and lighter and high precision is better up high in the frequency spectrum.
Bigger and heavier and high excursion is better down low in the frequency spectrum.
And in between, when you are in between in the frequency spectrum.
There is no generalization.

[geolemon]

(But some of those ribbons n such have good transient response, so there is some basis for goodness.)

That's true and there's trade-offs with those as well - and maybe a good example to bring in the quality dimension...
Because for any given speaker size, you also can't generalize about quality, right?

Seems like that's even more true for these... there's some cheapies that really sound just... bad.
And there's some AMTs that sound amazing... and you'll definitely pay for it!

Do you have any AMTs, home or ...car? Curious what you have. Still have only ever seen one pic of an AMT in a car, and the owner ended up not satisfied, but it had more to do with some installation choices that were made. I only know of a long discontinued Hertz midrange that was far from cheap, for an AMT for car audio.

[Holmz]

...
Do you have any AMTs, home or ...car? Curious what you have. Still have only ever seen one pic of an AMT in a car, and the owner ended up not satisfied, but it had more to do with some installation choices that were made. I only know of a long discontinued Hertz midrange that was far from cheap, for an AMT for car audio.

I got a pair of Fonteks but sort of pushed them in a cabinet straight away... (when I found someone selling a set of 12Ms, and a set of beryllium SS tweeters.)
The connectors were nice on the Fondteks.

So I have never heard any, but fondled a pair of Fondteks, which is the set I own.

"Sorta kinda" it is a "yes", in the specific wording of your question.
But I think you also meant... "how did they sound", which is more honestly a "No" and "I dunno".

i suppose I could pull out a digit?

[geolemon]

Hell yeah!
Pull them out!
I always like knocking up a stupid simple bookshelf cabinet with a $20ish-but-good midrange and you could extend that front baffle up for a simple AMT dipole...
Use a simple crossover. Fun leftover parts projects.
Scraps of MDF and a jigsaw. Why not pull them out and give them a listen?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

[Holmz]

Hell yeah!
Pull them out!
I always like knocking up a stupid simple bookshelf cabinet with a $20ish-but-good midrange and you could extend that front baffle up for a simple AMT dipole...
Use a simple crossover. Fun leftover parts projects.
Scraps of MDF and a jigsaw. Why not pull them out and give them a listen?

I would like to be able to say it is because I no tools or skills, but basically I am lazy.

I did put varnish on 4 boards yesterday.
The neighbour shot a cow, so I borrowed a dehydrator and am making load #2 of jerky today before I hit the tools.
Lastly I want to do a sub box first, before yet another set of book shelf speakers.

[geolemon]

I'm not going to criticize your priorities, or your claim of "lazy"

I personally have a storage unit of a lifetime of audio gear that's mostly just collecting dust... At least it's a climate controlled facility, like a room in a building, so it's not collecting humidity or damage.
The storage unit was the best compromise I had for avoiding domestic strife, but I do have some notables in there, like my absolute favorite tweeters, Focal Aramids... so you'd think I've have used them in something over the past 14 years, right?
Or my compression horns that a buddy of mine personally talked me into picking up...
Oh, sometimes it's sad to go over there.

[Holmz]

I'm not going to criticize your priorities, or your claim of "lazy"

...

I guess you are leaning it to me to present both sides of the argument then?

I think that the claim of lazy is misplaced based upon this:

[geolemon]

For sure - that looks beautiful.

That same finish would look stunning on a set of bookshelves... Just saying


Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

[Holmz]

It could also look good for a subwoofer box...

A bit of work bicuiting on wood around the outsides, but it, and then the varnish, help to keep it sealed up and prevent water damage... which is a bathroom is a real concern.

The cooper feet on the otherhand will receiver a patina.

All good practice for sub boxes.