This is kind of true but it is irrelevant to the operation of the speaker in the room. What determines how much air volume can get pushed out is actually the size of the cone multiplied by how far the cone can travel. So there are some fancy drivers out there that have a very long xmax and can move a lot of air from a small driver (those have other disadvantages although plenty of them are in use).

BUT.... to make this even more messy... that limits the total -level- that you can produce and not the low frequency corner. You can still build a speaker with small drivers that has a lot of low end extension... it just won't be able to be very loud without overloading. This isn't very common since most manufacturers want to sell speakers with plenty of headroom, but we do it for speakers intended for microphone testing, for instance.
--scott

In extremis you want a perfectly rigid massless cone Reality gets in the way here.

It's easy to mix high passed pop.

...and with that sweeping comment, I guess any cred you had left goes flying out the door...!

That statement is only true if the finished mixes don’t have to meet any competitive standards.
So yes, in a very basic sense, it’s easy to mix.
With very little help, kindergarteners can mix in any genre.

But only an infinitesimally small percentage of humans can do even one mix in any genre that sounds normal and good to listeners of that genre, and can also be brought to a reasonably competitive level.
I don’t claim to reach those goals often or consistently. Do you?
Let’s hear some snippets of your mixes…. Easy as Sunday morning, even on a Monday!

Or to put it another way, it's easy to do anything badly.

It's harder to do it to the point where you've mixed the entire Billboard Top 20...

Repeating myself but I think it might actually be as simple as getting the routing and crossover frequency settings correct on the back of the sub/speakers themselves. Is the OP absolutely sure they've gone from their converter outputs to the sub then to the speakers, etc. Hopefully we'll find out soon.

The unfortunate side effect of that is the overall sameness of today’s pop music - which could use a good hit of …. Just about anything new, or old.

Mmm, i'm not really going to go there, other than to say that not all the mixes sound the same!

But you went there … lol

Yep, it’s subjective - we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/

Lulz

Wash rinse repeat. Pretty much the same 5 people. Same songs.

Pop culture at its nadir.

Something will shift soon

Are you implying it has ever been better than this? More diverse, sure! But better?
--scott

Aside from Beyoncé (who's just released a new unexpected album and so there's 4 there), Future (who's got 2 songs) and SZA (who's also got 2) I think everyone else is unique in the Top 20?

Top 30 - more Beyoncé, more Future, everyone else unique.

Tope 40 - the same.

I don't know that Teddy Swims, Noah Kahn, Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo, Hozier etc all "sound the same"?

Mostly it's pretty non-live instruments of course (even with the "country" tunes). Maybe that's what you mean?

And that'll probably make a comeback too at some point...it's all cyclic!

that's the difference between physics and engineering

My high school physics teacher, Mr Singer, always would give us problems about levers, ramps, wheels etc. Invariably, he would specify that all the components of the lever were made out of Schlemielium. A perfectly rigid, massless, and frictionless material. Impossible to find in real life but universally employed in Physics problems.

Maybe not. I just remember the top pop charts being a bit more edgy and interesting.

Wasn’t there a time when Cher would “share” the space with Skid Row, The Cure and Bel Biv Devoe? I kinda remember this. Even Nirvana shared the space with CC Music Factory and Madonna no?

The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand with Britney, Christina Aguilera and Jay-Z.

To me this current roster looks like a scene from a dystopian sci-fi film.

As I said - guitar bands aren't really "in" at the moment, and the ones who are sort-of (your coldplays, Nothing but thieves, Maroon 5 (shudder) even heavier stuff like Bring me the Horizon) are essentially pop-packaged.

BUT - the beauty of streaming and worldwide reach is that anyone can have fans anywhere, so there's huge demographics who don't listen to the radio or any of this stuff, and instead find their own faves.

to some extent I agree with you, BUT thinking that the small bands have the exactly same chances (to have their content pushed through the algos) as the ones that are under Warner or Universal is a fantasy.. you know that better than me..

the nature of the contracts with majors and/or what the streaming services pay is also a point..

but this is a completely different topic..
back to the OP IF he's still here..



Cheu

Yeah I’m really comparing to what it was for bands/artists prior, not suggesting it’s the same as being signed!

Most people here and most pros don't even have accurate, flat monitoring under 500 Hz. It's common to see a dip between 20 Hz- 200 Hz or even multiple dips. Valentine had to put a million tube traps in his room to get his low end right and the rooms pretty big.

If you can mix just sub 100 Hz they you are a god tier mixer.

This is silly exaggeration, but it is also part of a “shiny answer” that does not actually answer anything or provide anything relevant to the discussion.
Yes or no, do you have any snippets of your mixes that you could share? If your writing and spelling indicate anything about you, you may be too slapdash to address a simple request in a coherent manner.
Like this nonsense:
“mix just sub 100 Hz”
Are there mixes that are JUST “sub 100 Hz”?
If you are a bot, you are an embarrassment to AI.

Treating your room is never money poorly spent

That's literally why people do checks in phones, in cars, with things like VSX, and then send to mastering who hopefully do have that type of room.

Mixing rooms are always a compromise. you either have a screen in front of you, or even worse a great big desk.

None of that is relevant to your original point of "you can't hear bass in a small room because the wavelength is too big" point, which you still haven't retracted as nonsense, you've just tried to deflect.

We agree that's completely incorrect, yes?

https://www.acousticfields.com/wavel...-in-our-rooms/

Room Modes
If we do not have at least half wavelength distances within our rooms to accommodate especially low-frequency waves, we will have the waves telling us that they are not happy with the accommodations we have given them. They will do this by producing resonances that tell us they think their quarters are too cramped. They will produce resonances between each of our room boundary surfaces. If the resonances they produce occur between two parallel surfaces, they are termed axial resonances. Resonances produced between four surfaces are termed tangential resonances and resonances from six surfaces are termed oblique. The issues these resonances produce are called room modes and modes are produced by what is termed standing waves. Standing waves are produced because the length of sound waves does not fit within the room dimensions.

oh well...

yet another (albeit somewhat more friendly) bot?!

Yep, I hear that

That's for you as a professional to figure out on your own. If people here were confident in their own abilities they wouldn't get upset.

I'm not going to give out free lessons.

Again, another “answer” without specific connection to the content of the “answered” post, but with a dash of sauce and insult. I see a pattern to your answers.
I think you are a C student project bot. In a top university, maybe a D.

some people are overly "confident in their own abilities". Your confidence for example, is all out of proportion to your 'expertise' in acoustics.

Kruger and Dunning first described this effect in 1999, so it is unlikely they ever encountered you. If they had, it might be named the veronicaaaaaaaa Effect


Most people here think you are an idiot or a bot. Nearly all of them think you are incorrect. Why would anybody want lessons - even free ones - from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?

I think everyone (including you) knows that you are not being "asked" for information! You are being challenged to back up your BS assertions. You clearly can't, so you pretend that we are trying to steal "knowledge" from you for free. This is a transparent lame deflection.

You were not in the least bit hesitant to regale us with post after post of confidently incorrect pronouncements and no one was ever asked for 'money'. The only explanation for your sudden silence is that were asked to put up or shut up - and you haven't got what it takes.

Given your almost complete ignorance on display here, that’s a good thing!

So if removing reflections is the most important thing, why not just mix in LCD-Xs?

If you mix in headphones, then you remove almost all reflections from the environment. People here should be advocating mixing in headphones.