"The secret of big speakers"

[Cosmik]

The angle seems to be "let's appeal to people who wouldn't buy Kii Threes because they're prejudiced against small speakers. What can we say to convince them?"

Shocking!! Marketing people doing what they're supposed to, and not lying or even exaggerating!! The only thing they've done is to relate their mega-advance to a lesser phenomenon that potential customers may be familiar with. They've credited conventional bigger speakers with a sonic advantage that, really, only their new type of speaker provides.

The only disappointed person will be the person who doesn't buy a Kii, but does buy a bigger conventional speaker on the basis of this blurb and then finds that its bass control isn't much better than what they had before. However, it will still sound better because of the lower baffle step frequency and improved dispersion characteristics anyway...

 

[andreasmaaan]

Shocking!! Marketing people doing what they're supposed to, and not lying or even exaggerating!! The only thing they've done is to relate their mega-advance to a lesser phenomenon that potential customers may be familiar with. They've credited conventional bigger speakers with a sonic advantage that, really, only their new type of speaker provides.

The only disappointed person will be the person who doesn't buy a Kii, but does buy a bigger conventional speaker on the basis of this blurb and then finds that its bass control isn't much better than what they had before. However, it will still sound better because of the lower baffle step frequency and improved dispersion characteristics anyway...

Not lying or exaggerating!? You mean not pretending that "big speakers" are directive in the bass frequencies? Not attributing "precise timing and detail" solely to a speaker's polar response?

Ok, so they are merely misleading and exaggerating.

Sorry, this document would actually turn me off getting a pair. It's fortunate for them that it is demonstrably such a good speaker despite the marketing

 

[Blumlein 88]

A couple years back I moved into a larger listening room. As a temporary measure I put up a pair of LSR305 monitors on stands just to have music. I was surprised they didn't sound smaller, but they didn't sound big. I added a subwoofer which made for a large subjective improvement. It allowed them to sound like large speakers. You no longer had the nagging feeling the room was too much for the speakers. This of course relieved the small speakers of everything below 80 hz which meant they were less strained in volume above that. Added bass that was capable of higher SPL as well as adding another 15 hz extension and with placement flexibility a more even response in the bass region.

In time the 305s were replaced with moderate sized floor standers. By themselves they didn't sound any bigger than the LSR305+subwoofer. Floorstanders with the same subwoofer sounded a bit better than floorstanders alone. This might sound a little bigger than only floorstanders, but I'm not sure. The floorstanders sound a bit better than the 305s anyway, and even they seem to gain something not having to play below 80 hz. It would be a more even response below 100 hz when the sub is in use for an unsubstantiated guess.

The point is I think the obvious reasons are the primary differences in sounding big vs not. Big speakers go lower in frequency at useful levels and can play louder without strain than smaller speakers. The larger the space the more important this is. Any big vs small sound related to directionality would be a secondary effect at best. If a small speaker can somehow reach lower frequencies and play loud enough in a large room it won't sound small. There is probably a tertiary effect on our perception in seeing a big old speaker on each channel vs a couple little boxes.

If one has large speakers in a large listening room you could experiment with this informally. A simple first step would be to apply a high pass filter at 80 hz and see if the big speakers sound smaller. I would imagine there might be some secondary effects of small speakers seeming more point source vs larger speakers being less point source, and a perhaps subliminal perception of diffraction effects of a small cabinet vs a larger one. All being clues about the speaker being a big one or a small one. I believe most of those however would be a negative for what big speakers do. The positive aspects I think are good low end and high SPL without strain that you get with a big speaker.

 

[oivavoi]

A couple years back I moved into a larger listening room. As a temporary measure I put up a pair of LSR305 monitors on stands just to have music. I was surprised they didn't sound smaller, but they didn't sound big. I added a subwoofer which made for a large subjective improvement. It allowed them to sound like large speakers. You no longer had the nagging feeling the room was too much for the speakers. This of course relieved the small speakers of everything below 80 hz which meant they were less strained in volume above that. Added bass that was capable of higher SPL as well as adding another 15 hz extension and with placement flexibility a more even response in the bass region.

In time the 305s were replaced with moderate sized floor standers. By themselves they didn't sound any bigger than the LSR305+subwoofer. Floorstanders with the same subwoofer sounded a bit better than floorstanders alone. This might sound a little bigger than only floorstanders, but I'm not sure. The floorstanders sound a bit better than the 305s anyway, and even they seem to gain something not having to play below 80 hz. It would be a more even response below 100 hz when the sub is in use for an unsubstantiated guess.

The point is I think the obvious reasons are the primary differences in sounding big vs not. Big speakers go lower in frequency at useful levels and can play louder without strain than smaller speakers. The larger the space the more important this is. Any big vs small sound related to directionality would be a secondary effect at best. If a small speaker can somehow reach lower frequencies and play loud enough in a large room it won't sound small. There is probably a tertiary effect on our perception in seeing a big old speaker on each channel vs a couple little boxes.

If one has large speakers in a large listening room you could experiment with this informally. A simple first step would be to apply a high pass filter at 80 hz and see if the big speakers sound smaller. I would imagine there might be some secondary effects of small speakers seeming more point source vs larger speakers being less point source, and a perhaps subliminal perception of diffraction effects of a small cabinet vs a larger one. All being clues about the speaker being a big one or a small one. I believe most of those however would be a negative for what big speakers do. The positive aspects I think are good low end and high SPL without strain that you get with a big speaker.

As always, you’re a voice of reason. Ockham’s razor is a good principle to live by (not that I always do it myself).

 

[DonH56]

"Occam" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

For me, rarely having a large room, the issue has mostly been small speakers do not reach deep enough to produce a proper image in the upper bass, and small speakers "pushed" to produce deeper bass suffer from low sensitivity and limited dynamics. I prefer a low'ish crossover, but even at 80~100 Hz the few small speakers I have had in my system over the years (Mirage, LS3/5a, various "bookshelf" speakers through the 80's) just didn't quite manage to provide a believable sound to me. That said I have not heard a small speaker for any more than a few minutes in a long time so have no experience with things like Kii's.

 

[watchnerd]

If one has large speakers in a large listening room you could experiment with this informally. A simple first step would be to apply a high pass filter at 80 hz and see if the big speakers sound smaller. I would imagine there might be some secondary effects of small speakers seeming more point source vs larger speakers being less point source, and a perhaps subliminal perception of diffraction effects of a small cabinet vs a larger one. All being clues about the speaker being a big one or a small one. I believe most of those however would be a negative for what big speakers do. The positive aspects I think are good low end and high SPL without strain that you get with a big speaker.

Perhaps counterintuitively, I find the converse to definitely be true: rolling off small speakers at 80 Hz and adding a sub makes them sound bigger, i.e. less point source.

And I don't think it's just a matter of dynamic range being improved, or more low end. I think there are some kind spatial cues affected by phasing that seem to play out differently, especially when the small speakers are ported.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think there are some kind spatial cues affected by phasing that seem to play out differently, especially when the small speakers are ported.

Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Sounds interesting but not sure what it means exactly.

 

[watchnerd]

Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Sounds interesting but not sure what it means exactly.

Rather than me trying to write it up, I'll just link to the video from the Dynaudio subwoofer engineer who talks about it at a layman's level (he glosses over a lot in an attempt to speak to a general audience):

 

[DonH56]

Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Sounds interesting but not sure what it means exactly.

Phase and amplitude change rapidly around and below the port tuning frequency and in a manner very different from a sealed design. That makes it difficult to integrate ported and sealed designs or even a ported sub with a ported main since the main is rolling off below its port frequency while the subwoofer is operating well above its port tuning at the crossover point. You need a specifically-designed asymmetric crossover or DSP if you are crossing over anywhere close (say within an octave or so) of the main speaker's port frequency for the main and sub to properly integrate.

Remember using a common 12 dB/octave AVR crossover at 80 Hz, the sub is about half as loud as the mains at 160 Hz, and the mains are about half as loud as the sub at 40 Hz (assuming the mains reach that low). Half as loud is still significant, i.e. there is still significant interaction between mains and subs an octave or so either side of the crossover, so you really need to get it right. That is one reason I prefer higher-order crossovers (like Linkwitz-Riley, 24 dB/octave) between mains and sub(s).

Obviously this is a bigger problem with smaller speakers since the port tuning frequency is higher. My Salon2's are ported, but with a 60~80 Hz crossover and 23 Hz -3 dB point, I am well away from the port tuning frequency.

FWIWFM - Don

Edit: I did not view the Dynaudio video. One of the other advantages of adding subs is that, without the large bass signals, distortion in the mains is greatly reduced.

 

[watchnerd]

Phase and amplitude change rapidly around and below the port tuning frequency and in a manner very different from a sealed design. That makes it difficult to integrate ported and sealed designs or even a ported sub with a ported main since the main is rolling off below its port frequency while the subwoofer is operating well above its port tuning at the crossover point. You need a specifically-designed asymmetric crossover or DSP if you are crossing over anywhere close (say within an octave or so) of the main speaker's port frequency for the main and sub to properly integrate.

Remember using a common 12 dB/octave AVR crossover at 80 Hz, the sub is about half as loud as the mains at 160 Hz, and the mains are about half as loud as the sub at 40 Hz (assuming the mains reach that low). Half as loud is still significant, i.e. there is still significant interaction between mains and subs an octave or so either side of the crossover, so you really need to get it right. That is one reason I prefer higher-order crossovers (like Linkwitz-Riley, 24 dB/octave) between mains and sub(s).

Obviously this is a bigger problem with smaller speakers since the port tuning frequency is higher. My Salon2's are ported, but with a 60~80 Hz crossover and 23 Hz -3 dB point, I am well away from the port tuning frequency.

FWIWFM - Don

Edit: I did not view the Dynaudio video. One of the other advantages of adding subs is that, without the large bass signals, distortion in the mains is greatly reduced.

The Dynaudio video doesn't get into the ported issue explicity, so thank you for explaining it. But he does get into the pyschoacoustics of how bass effects spatial perception.

The Dynaudio subs actually have DSP crossovers that have specific settings for use with particular Dynaudio models. I haven't measured it, but my anecdotal evidence is that they're doing some kind of DSP above and beyond simple crossover implementation to make the integration work better.

As for ports:

My Dynaudio Contour 20s came with port plugs that allow for wide open, half plugged, or fully plugged.

On top of that, the Devialet 400 has "SAM" for the Dynaudio, which I think is some kind of extended bass shelf EQ and/or damping factor trickery (they're not really transparent about what it does). It also has separate settings for the Contour 20s being fully open, half plugged, or fully plugged.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Phase and amplitude change rapidly around and below the port tuning frequency and in a manner very different from a sealed design. That makes it difficult to integrate ported and sealed designs or even a ported sub with a ported main since the main is rolling off below its port frequency while the subwoofer is operating well above its port tuning at the crossover point. You need a specifically-designed asymmetric crossover or DSP if you are crossing over anywhere close (say within an octave or so) of the main speaker's port frequency for the main and sub to properly integrate.

Remember using a common 12 dB/octave AVR crossover at 80 Hz, the sub is about half as loud as the mains at 160 Hz, and the mains are about half as loud as the sub at 40 Hz (assuming the mains reach that low). Half as loud is still significant, i.e. there is still significant interaction between mains and subs an octave or so either side of the crossover, so you really need to get it right. That is one reason I prefer higher-order crossovers (like Linkwitz-Riley, 24 dB/octave) between mains and sub(s).

Obviously this is a bigger problem with smaller speakers since the port tuning frequency is higher. My Salon2's are ported, but with a 60~80 Hz crossover and 23 Hz -3 dB point, I am well away from the port tuning frequency.

FWIWFM - Don

Edit: I did not view the Dynaudio video. One of the other advantages of adding subs is that, without the large bass signals, distortion in the mains is greatly reduced.

Ok, totally agree

I thought @watchnerd was saying that questions concerning "phasing" had something to do with the size of the box, independent of whether it had a port or what the tuning frequency was.

I take it you were just talking about the stuff Don mentioned then Watchnerd to do with ports and tuning, and nothing to do with speaker size per se?

 

[watchnerd]

Ok, totally agree

I thought @watchnerd was saying that questions concerning "phasing" had something to do with the size of the box, independent of whether it had a port or what the tuning frequency was.

I take it you were just talking about the stuff Don mentioned then Watchnerd to do with ports and tuning, and nothing to do with speaker size per se?

Nothing to do with speaker size per se, correct, except that I seem to notice it much more on little boxes, probably because the port tuning is higher and closer to the subwoofer Xover frequency and closer to musical content.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Perhaps counterintuitively, I find the converse to definitely be true: rolling off small speakers at 80 Hz and adding a sub makes them sound bigger, i.e. less point source.

And I don't think it's just a matter of dynamic range being improved, or more low end. I think there are some kind spatial cues affected by phasing that seem to play out differently, especially when the small speakers are ported.

The smaller speakers are closer to a point source. As for sounding point source, I've in mind how some large speakers vary imaging with height of the speaker vs ears more noticeably than small monitors do. Though all of this depends upon many things like crossover orders and more. I certainly agree rolling off small speakers makes them sound room filling large with a subwoofer, but I wouldn't have called that less point source. A good point source would fill the room with a stereophonic soundfield with no attribute of size of the source sound.

 

[watchnerd]

The smaller speakers are closer to a point source. As for sounding point source, I've in mind how some large speakers vary imaging with height of the speaker vs ears more noticeably than small monitors do. Though all of this depends upon many things like crossover orders and more. I certainly agree rolling off small speakers makes them sound room filling large with a subwoofer, but I wouldn't have called that less point source. A good point source would fill the room with a stereophonic soundfield with no attribute of size of the source sound.

Ah, okay....this gets into a theoretical point source vs a single driver speaker (e.g. LS50, Lowther).

Obviously, I've never experienced a theoretical point source with an infinitely small surface area. So when I have to relate "point source" to things I have experienced, I think of concentrics.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ah, okay....this gets into a theoretical point source vs a single driver speaker (e.g. LS50, Lowther).

Obviously, I've never experienced a theoretical point source with an infinitely small surface area. So when I have to relate "point source" to things I have experienced, I think of concentrics.

I've owned Quad ESL63s which were quasi point source. I've heard some custom ribbons which were quasi-line source. A whole different set of trade offs beyond what kind of source involved in those however.

 

[watchnerd]

I've owned Quad ESL63s which were quasi point source. I've heard some custom ribbons which were quasi-line source. A whole different set of trade offs beyond what kind of source involved in those however.

I used to own Martin Logans, which would I guess qualify as a line source?

At least until you hit the crossover frequency with the bass driver, at which point everything changes.

 

[Cosmik]

Not lying or exaggerating!? You mean not pretending that "big speakers" are directive in the bass frequencies? Not attributing "precise timing and detail" solely to a speaker's polar response?

Ok, so they are merely misleading and exaggerating.

Sorry, this document would actually turn me off getting a pair. It's fortunate for them that it is demonstrably such a good speaker despite the marketing

I am genuinely nonplussed by your hostility to the Kii marketing here. They haven't claimed anything that isn't true about their own product.

The Kii is small but sounds like a big speaker because of one reason: it maintains uniform dispersion to a lower frequency than a small speaker. The 'problem' is that it simulates a conventional speaker that is so big it doesn't actually exist. How do you explain this to potential customers?

You seem fixated on the idea that they are misleadingly claiming that a conventional larger speaker controls the bass better than a small speaker but all this means is that they have credited a conventional speaker with an advantage that is unwarranted to any great extent - a large conventional speaker does control the bass better than a small speaker, just not by very much.

Consider: you have created a small speaker that does two things:
(a) it improves dispersion in the mid range to match that of a large conventional speaker
(b) it improves control of the bass to match that of a huge conventional speaker
How are you going to explain this to potential customers? In two separate stages, or a single unified message?

I don't mind the Kii approach - and I actually feel as though I learned something from it with their little animation.

As an aside, I find something else fascinating. The Kii actually does something real that has not been done before, that is objectively measurable. The marketing doesn't use the flowery language of standard audiophilia, nor does it concentrate on the 'easy stuff' that, say, Magico would go on about - a chassis made of aluminium designed with CAD (yawn) - or Wilson and their speaker whose time alignment is achieved by sliding boxes forward and backwards and tightening wing nuts. But what is it that you find outrageous? A company that has a slight difficulty in explaining to their customers just how advanced their technology is, and conflates 'humongous' with 'big'. In doing so, they don't disadvantage any other company (D&D aren't disadvantaged by it) and in fact it could be argued that they flatter the sellers of conventional big speakers.

 

[KSTR]

The 'problem' is that it simulates a conventional speaker that is so big it doesn't actually exist. How do you explain this to potential customers?

Telling them it interacts less with the room than conventional speakers, even very big ones, would suffice. Even a layman will understand polar plots, that is, a set of three for low, mids and high where Kii Three looks the same at all frequencies whereas many conventional speakers, especially smaller ones, do much less so.

 

[Cosmik]

Telling them it interacts less with the room than conventional speakers, even very big ones, would suffice. Even a layman will understand polar plots, that is, a set of three for low, mids and high where Kii Three looks the same at all frequencies whereas many conventional speakers, especially smaller ones, do much less so.

Remind me not to employ you in marketing!
Those plots may well be factual, but they don't tell you about how the speaker does it (which I, personally, find interesting) and nor do they tell you how it sounds.

 

[KSTR]

Less room interaction and, more importandly, less erratic radiation pattern must always sounds better (and it actually does), me thinks that's obivous logic even to a layman.