What makes big speakers sound "big"and smaller ones sound "small"?

[RobL]

Both yes and no. I think it's a bit of a cheat to high pass the speakers when comparing size vs. sound differences. Surely I can make my Infinity Kappas sound tiny if I high pass them as well.

Maybe, I guess by hobbling the Genelec I take away the advantage it’s physical size creates. Do you mean to say that LFX is what creates the “big” speaker impression? Some here state that bookshelves w/sub still sound “small”, should a hobbled larger speaker still sound larger?

If you were to compare them directly I would go about it by EQ'ing them to the exact same response curve at the listening pos. As this is most certainly also a flawed test because of different speaker designs and different directivity it would perhaps reveal something new?

The low shelf was my half-hearted attempt to eq them to the same response I might play around a bit more with them but what I have heard from them so far kind of qualifies Erin’s opinion in his video about phase effects mostly being responsible for what some perceive as “bigger” sound.

 

[Pretorious]

When listening to classical music, I believe the recording has a lot to do with the perception of size. Classical recordings can be strange, in my opinion. I listen on a 2.1 bookshelf system so that's been my frame of reference for some time. Take what you will from this then.

At roughly 7-8 feet listening distance from the main speakers, generally speaking an orchestral recording will sound too small and chamber music tends to sound appropriate in size. By this I mean compared to an actual performance in a real venue. Things get very weird when pianos are involved, however. Recordings of solo piano are just plain odd to me. I can clearly hear the bass/left hand of a piano moving from the right channel to the left channel as the notes ascend into the treble/right hand. This gives a completely outsized perception of the instrument. Who ever hears a piano like this? This gives the impression of an incorrect size of the instrument, for lack of a better way of saying that.

This affect is egregious when mixed in with orchestra for a concerto piece, because the orchestra is miked accurately for placement but the piano is miked closely so that in general one hears the left-right separation between the octaves. To me, this immediately removes all expectations of accurate perception of size. Isn't this where the circle of confusion comes into play?

Conversely, I would have to think that if larger speakers do sound bigger, wouldn't that then mean that orchestral music would sound life-size but a string quartet would sound inaccurately enormous? The speakers don't know the size of what they are representing, they only play a signal, for better or worse.

If that's the case, trying to make sense of all this is hopeless because it would indeed fall into the circle of confusion. We have to then conclude to search for accuracy in the reproduction of the sound. Size would have no bearing on this.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Maybe, I guess by hobbling the Genelec I take away the advantage it’s physical size creates. Do you mean to say that LFX is what creates the “big” speaker impression? Some here state that bookshelves w/sub still sound “small”, should a hobbled larger speaker still sound larger?


The low shelf was my half-hearted attempt to eq them to the same response I might play around a bit more with them but what I have heard from them so far kind of qualifies Erin’s opinion in his video about phase effects mostly being responsible for what some perceive as “bigger” sound.

Well. Yes, I think it must play a large part of it. -To be able to play full range effortlessly and dynamically. Something smaller speakers struggle to do. At least up until a point. But there is more to it surely. As many posts indicate. I can't know for sure what it is so I appreciate people experimenting.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I directly test OPs question in my “work in-progress” 2 channel listening room. I can tell you that the bookshelf speakers pictured do not sound any smaller than the towers. If anything, the smaller speakers sound wider and not as pinpoint focused. I don’t know why this is though. I initially bought the towers expecting larger “scale” and “soundstage” but that is not what happened. I can say this with confidence though, the super tweeter has a large impact on my perceived soundstage width, height and depth. The super tweeters make an immediate and significant difference. However, there is a limit, if I keep turning them up, the effect increases, but integration worsens and fatigue quickly occurs.

But looking at your towers, they are actually small speakers sitting on top of some woofers. This is not unusual, most typical speakers designed for the residential market are like this.

When I talk about large speakers, I am talking about something that is substantially larger.

 

[DeepCuttaBeats]

But looking at your towers, they are actually small speakers sitting on top of some woofers. This is not unusual, most typical speakers designed for the residential market are like this.

When I talk about large speakers, I am talking about something that is substantially larger.

Ahhhhh. I was way off the mark. I’ve actually not yet had the opportunity to listen to anything larger than standard “floor standing” speakers. So, do these sound “bigger” than bookshelf speaker? I assume we are talking $5000+ price range per speaker.

 

[gnarly]

I previously gave my two personal definitions of 'big sound' back in #197.

1. Spatially.
2. Dynamic/SPL/Bass

Erin's vid strikes me as addressing the spatial viewpoint.
And I agree with his take on what happens when drivers get spaced too far apart in big speakers, such that multiple drivers playing the same frequency range out of time/phase with each other are going to sound spatially bigger.

I would also say, if that's the case, it's the hallmark of bad big-speaker design. This isn't a good source of "spatially big" imo.
Spatially big to is about increasing the reflected to direct ratio.
Acquired by purposely choosing a given radiation pattern, like a dipole or omni or etc. And is a speaker without multiple drivers misbehaving with each other.



Anyway, all that said I don't really like spatially big. Not into classical or recreating a big acoustic space.
My preferred "big sound" is #2. Dynamic/SPL/Bass. I wish you guys could hear how well I have this definition covered.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I previously gave my two personal definitions of 'big sound' back in #197.

1. Spatially.
2. Dynamic/SPL/Bass

Erin's vid strikes me as addressing the spatial viewpoint.
And I agree with his take on what happens when drivers get spaced too far apart in big speakers, such that multiple drivers playing the same frequency range out of time/phase with each other are going to sound spatially bigger.

I would also say, if that's the case, it's the hallmark of bad big-speaker design. This isn't a good source of "spatially big" imo.
Spatially big to is about increasing the reflected to direct ratio.
Acquired by purposely choosing a given radiation pattern, like a dipole or omni or etc. And is a speaker without multiple drivers misbehaving with each other.



Anyway, all that said I don't really like spatially big. Not into classical or recreating a big acoustic space.
My preferred "big sound" is #2. Dynamic/SPL/Bass. I wish you guys could hear how well I have this definition covered.

I think you summed it up well.

Personally I like spatially more focused (holographic imaging) as well as spatially less focused equally well... depends on the recording and mood more than anything.

Regarding #2, Dynamics/SPL/Bass it is hard to do that well with smaller speakers, and to me this area is one where I am not a fan of compromises.

Ahhhhh. I was way off the mark. I’ve actually not yet had the opportunity to listen to anything larger than standard “floor standing” speakers. So, do these sound “bigger” than bookshelf’s? I assume we are talking $5000+ price range per speaker.

Yes, well north of $5,000 each.

 

[DeepCuttaBeats]

Yes, well north of $5,000 each.

Well out of reach Can you speak to why my perceived sound stage is larger in every measure when I have my super tweeters incorporated?

 

[Duke]

I previously gave my two personal definitions of 'big sound' back in #197.

1. Spatially.
2. Dynamic/SPL/Bass

Erin's vid strikes me as addressing the spatial viewpoint

Yeah unfortunately we (or at least I) don't have a good vocabulary in this area. In the "spatial" category, I would say the "soundstage" sounds "big", and/or the images sound "big", rather than "these speakers sound big", so what Erin was talking about is different from what I normally take "these speakers sound big" to mean. I understand what he's describing, but I'd call it something else.

My amateur observation is that good "dynamics/SPL/bass" correlate well with "these speakers sound big", with "dynamic contrast" seemingly being the dominant factor.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Well out of reach Can you speak to why my perceived sound stage is larger in every measure when I have my super tweeters incorporated?

Not really, there are too many unknown variables.

 

[Duke]

why my perceived sound stage is larger in every measure when I have my super tweeters incorporated?

Just a guess: High frequencies, and in particular the leading edges of transients, play a large role in conveying the location of sound sources. My guess is that your supertweeters aren't expanding the soundstage beyond what's on the recording, but rather doing a better job of presenting the soundstage that's already on the recording.

 

[cavedriver]

Yeah unfortunately we (or at least I) don't have a good vocabulary in this area. In the "spatial" category, I would say the "soundstage" sounds "big", and/or the images sound "big", rather than "these speakers sound big", so what Erin was talking about is different from what I normally take "these speakers sound big" to mean. I understand what he's describing, but I'd call it something else.

My amateur observation is that good "dynamics/SPL/bass" correlate well with "these speakers sound big", with "dynamic contrast" seemingly being the dominant factor.

hehe, you made me realize there might be THREE versions of "big" speakers:

1) the sense that when you close your eyes that the speakers are bigger than they physically are,
2) speakers with large dynamic range capacity (can you make a symphony orchestra sound like a symphony orchestra is in the room?)
3) speakers with a very "wide source" sound

This third one is tricky- you might think of it if you've heard the bigger Klipschs or old 2-ways with 15-18" woofers, but the best version I've heard is a guy on here that built a multi-driver line area with increasing numbers of drivers as you go down in frequency. It was, coincidentally, wonderfully dynamic, but it also "stretched" point sources like a single guitar into something 5 feet tall that really seemed out of place.

I was thinking of the 1st, the 2nd is what I think Duke is talking about, and I think Erin might be talking about the 3rd? I didn't finish his video.

When you start talking about "soundstage", though, I think it becomes a blend of 2 or more of the above aspects.

 

[Shiva]

I assume quite a few people here have been to a movie theater or two, hopefully some with a very good sound systems. The audio presentation in the movie house often has a grand scale to it. Voices are larger than life, musical instruments, incredibly dynamic and impactful. Not to mention any and all sound effects, car crashes, explosions, going into warp drive. etc... One of the reasons for that is: there are large horns and big drivers behind those screens, creating a very large dynamic sound field, which I personally like. It was in the movie theater that my interest in horn speakers for the home first arose.

 

[RobL]

I assume quite a few people here have been to a movie theater or two, hopefully some with a very good sound systems. The audio presentation in the movie house often has a grand scale to it. Voices are larger than life, musical instruments, incredibly dynamic and impactful. Not to mention any and all sound effects, car crashes, explosions, going into warp drive. etc... One of the reasons for that is: there are large horns and big drivers behind those screens, creating a very large dynamic sound field, which I personally like. It was in the movie theater that my interest in horn speakers for the home first arose.

Maybe cinema’s have “big” sound because they have a few dozen high spl transducers around the room?

 

[audiofooled]

I don't mean to be rude (hardly anyone would put this in a small room), but this has a pretty good chance of sounding big:

 

[Shiva]

Always enjoy Danley demos.

 

[Purité Audio]

I always felt they had something in reserve,


Keith

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I don't mean to be rude (hardly anyone would put this in a small room), but this has a pretty good chance of sounding big:

That's pretty wild.

 

[Neuro]

Sorry for the stupid question but
Bigger speakers also sound bigger to me than smaller ones even at the same volume.
I've been told this is not correct and impossible but i still feel that way, and also other people do because I read the cliche of "these speaekrs sound much bigger than they are" Pretty much everywhere.
What is the cause of this phenomenon?

When listening to mono music on a Yamaha NS1000, boxspeaker, height of 0.65 m next to an Apogee Duetta, dipol, height of 1.5 m, the sound from the Yamaha speaker was perceived as clearly smaller despite the possibility of reproducing higher sound pressure, and more bass with lower distortion.
Another box array speaker with 22 Fountek FR88EX elements was placed next to the other two speakers—height 2.2 m.
I hypothesised that the reflexes of the Apogee speakers created a bigger sound perception.
To my surprise, the sound from the Fountek array speaker was perceived as clearly bigger/taller. The Fountek speaker had no sub-bass, higher distortion and did not reproduce high sound pressures.
The sound was perceived to come from a point at ear height from both the Apogee and Fountek speakers.
Explain this.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

When listening to mono music on a Yamaha NS1000, boxspeaker, height of 0.65 m next to an Apogee Duetta, dipol, height of 1.5 m, the sound from the Yamaha speaker was perceived as clearly smaller despite the possibility of reproducing higher sound pressure, and more bass with lower distortion.
Another box array speaker with 22 Fountek FR88EX elements was placed next to the other two speakers—height 2.2 m.
I hypothesised that the reflexes of the Apogee speakers created a bigger sound perception.
To my surprise, the sound from the Fountek array speaker was perceived as clearly bigger/taller. The Fountek speaker had no sub-bass, higher distortion and did not reproduce high sound pressures.
The sound was perceived to come from a point at ear height from both the Apogee and Fountek speakers.
Explain this.

The line-source speakers are cylindrical sources, they are, as such, actually larger in size, and it is how this radiation pattern interacts with surfaces in the room, that gives the perception of larger images.

As for why the Fountek, assuming line-source monopole front radiating, compared to the Apogee dipole, is perceived different from the Apogee, well, have to look more closely at you Fountek speaker to say anything useful about that.