Your loudspeakers are too small!

[Duke]

I always thought it was technically defined as what you hear through the plankton.

I'm kinda disappointed to see a moderator piling on with the mockery. You guys set the tone.

 

[Robin L]

Nobody, as far I can remember, has talked about whether speakers sound big or small.

I did, several times. In particular, I pointed out a small speaker [Spica TC-50] known for throwing an image much larger than the speakers. The Ohm F speakers throw the biggest sonic image I've heard so far, though they are not the biggest speakers I've heard. The Bose 901s throw a big image, are not particularly large. Similarly, the LS3/5a is small and sounds miniaturized.

In any case "Your speakers are too small" sounds like a subjective judgement. Speakers can be appropriate for a given room, size is not the first or the most important consideration. Saying "Your speakers are too small" is a subjective judgement without evidence for proof. You can say the LS3/5a is too small, but that speaker still has a following, so the marketplace does not agree with you. I suspect there could be a DBT for this sort of thing, but it won't happen because the process is just too cumbersome. My speakers are small. However, they are totally appropriate for the 10' x 10' room they're in, the sub takes over around 100hz anyway. Different horses for different courses, right?

 

[Shazb0t]

I'm kinda disappointed to see a moderator piling on with the mockery. You guys set the tone.

Plankton deserves to be mocked.

 

[killdozzer]

I did, several times. In particular, I pointed out a small speaker [Spica TC-50] known for throwing an image much larger than the speakers. The Ohm F speakers throw the biggest sonic image I've heard so far, though they are not the biggest speakers I've heard. The Bose 901s throw a big image, are not particularly large. Similarly, the LS3/5a is small and sounds miniaturized.

In any case "Your speakers are too small" sounds like a subjective judgement. Speakers can be appropriate for a given room, size is not the first or the most important consideration. Saying "Your speakers are too small" is a subjective judgement without evidence for proof. You can say the LS3/5a is too small, but that speaker still has a following, so the marketplace does not agree with you. I suspect there could be a DBT for this sort of thing, but it won't happen because the process is just too cumbersome. My speakers are small. However, they are totally appropriate for the 10' x 10' room they're in, the sub takes over around 100hz anyway. Different horses for different courses, right?

Uh... 10x10?! Not an easy task to set them right.

 

[Robin L]

Uh... 10x10?! Not an easy task to set them right.

It's a desktop stereo. The speakers are a/d/s 400e, 11.75" x 7.5" x 7.75". I can watch movies on the laptop, the speakers reproduce mono as a hard center image, as if the sound is coming off the screen. Very useful for watching videos/movies. These speakers are as big as I can fit on this desk.

 

[Digby]

Different horses for different courses, right?

Right, I'm sure it has been said a few times.

Is that your main system?

 

[Robin L]

Right, I'm sure it has been said a few times.

Is that your main system?

It's my only system right now. Don't have the space for anything else.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

It's my only system right now. Don't have the space for anything else.

Believe it or not for a while I had my Altec A7-500's and the 4 18 subwoofers in a bedroom 10 ft by 12 ft before my dedicated room was built. It actually didn't sound terrible.

 

[krabapple]

I am serious.

Why don’t you show me a paper written about it? Or do you expect us to accept that just because people on audio forums talk about it, it is a term?

If you can’t measure it, if it doesn’t have a unit, if there is no mathematical model of it, then it has no place in science.

We know what 'dynamic range' is in audio. So we know what 'dynamics' are. They ultimately are changes in level.

We know that 'micro' as a prefix tends to mean: very minute, normally requiring instrumentation/magnification to be perceptible.

'Micro dynamics' if it had any serious definition, would be level changes below some more or less arbitrarily set level of normal audibility. One would expect 'microdynamics' to require a volume boost, to be perceptible.

As it is used, it means nothing, or whatever audiophools want it to mean. It's really a claim about the smallest level change they can hear, but they don't even realize that.

 

[krabapple]

Plankton deserves to be mocked.

Earth without it wouldn't be funny at all.

 

[Robin L]

Believe it or not for a while I had my Altec A7-500's and the 4 18 subwoofers in a bedroom 10 ft by 12 ft before my dedicated room was built. It actually didn't sound terrible.

I've had big speakers in small rooms. My first speakers were AR-3s, didn't do as well in my small room (49 years ago) as the a/d/s 400e speakers + sub I'm now using. Also had Big Infinity Bookshelf speakers, little [wimpy] Celestion, Infinity Primus towers, Vandersteens, Little Paradigms, little Klipschs. While I can imagine better and/or significantly different sound, what I have now works as well, and usually better, than any speakers I've had before.

 

[Digby]

We know that 'micro' as a prefix tends to mean: very minute, normally requiring instrumentation/magnification to be perceptible.

Under what definition does it normally need instrumentation or magnification to be perceptible?

As it is used, it means nothing, or whatever audiophools want it to mean. It's really a claim about the smallest level change they can hear, but they don't even realize that.

Look, you are clever, we recognize that, but how can we be sure you too aren't either a bog standard audiophool or just toeing the party line?

I've looked at your post history and I was surprised, it is mostly (overwhelmingly?) picking other peoples ideas apart, and not always in the most charitable of ways. Where are your ideas? Perhaps you could link us to all the papers you've published, and the new understanding contained within, so we can be sure of your right to an opinion on the matter.

 

[mhardy6647]

Plankton deserves to be mocked.

I agree, but I believe that plankton is (are) plural -- if so, of course, the verb should be plural, too, i.e., deserve.
... although it may be that plankton could be both singular and plural... but, even if one had just one plankton (a monomer, as we might put it in my line of work), it'd be kind of hard to get too excited about it.

 

[Axo1989]

We know what 'dynamic range' is in audio. So we know what 'dynamics' are. They ultimately are changes in level.

We know that 'micro' as a prefix tends to mean: very minute, normally requiring instrumentation/magnification to be perceptible.

'Micro dynamics' if it had any serious definition, would be level changes below some more or less arbitrarily set level of normal audibility. One would expect 'microdynamics' to require a volume boost, to be perceptible.

As it is used, it means nothing, or whatever audiophools want it to mean. It's really a claim about the smallest level change they can hear, but they don't even realize that.

Macro- and micro- are general purpose modifiers. In general use they simply mean large and small (respectively). As specific measurement nomenclature, micro- means one millionth. For audio dynamics, we generally use dB scale, which as we all know is logarithmic. If we use 0 dB as reference, then one millionth of our reference is -60 dB. The term micro-dynamics as applied to audio is usually vernacular, but -60 dB is a reasonable starting point if we want to get more quantitative or specific.

Macro-dynamics are relatively well-covered by SPL, compression and distortion measurements when we are talking about loudspeakers. Micro-dynamics are more complex, because noise (ambient and system-generated) is going to interfere, and maybe some other things like linearity at the low end, but a speaker with good micro-dynamics is probably going to measure with very low distortion (as speakers go) in the midrange and treble. Few speakers manage 0.1% THD or less in that frequency range, at normal domestic listening levels. We probably should consider the harmonic distortion profile, higher orders are more likely to be audible (especially as the fundamental notes go lower). And good to look at IMD behaviour in addition to THD, I expect.

Edit to add: I left out the time domain stuff, but a "tight" spectrograph (with a nice straight/flat impulse line and short decay behaviour) may be usefully indicative as well, especially the range above Schroeder.

 

[Axo1989]

No, a poster did provide a relatively comprehensive answer some pages back about how "micro-dynamics" might relate to directivity, larger speakers being more directional at lower frequencies.

Nobody, as far I can remember, has talked about whether speakers sound big or small.

If you go back to my first post:


That was what I said. I also added something, perhaps unwisely about micro-dynamics, which may well be a thing, according to some posters, even if the term is incorrect. The argument seemed more that the term was incorrect - because once described, a number of people provided better terminology for what I had described.

Ultimately, the posts of sarumbear, rdenney, even SIY agree somewhat with what was said in the quote above. They may not agree wholly, but each of these posters have given reasons why smaller speakers will be limited in SPL compared to larger ones/ones with more cone area. SIY uses drivers on the smaller side, but in a 4-way configuration with the 6.5" driver crossed to larger woofers at 120hz, 4th order. So, quite different than typical 2 way satellites + sub crossed at 80hz.

I will make a summary post for the thread so far soon.

MattHooper did go to bat for micro-dynamics quite vigorously, but micro-dynamics is not the main point of the thread, so let's move the conversation on. Some of the jokes were funny at first, but like all jokes, tend to become rather stale after the 5th, 6th, 10th time of hearing.

On the main topic, I think macro-dynamics will be more of an indicator of "largeness" than the other end of the dynamic scale.

It would be interesting to line up an unequivocally large speaker (like Focal Grande Utopia) with something unequivocally small (many candidates). But we'd have to run them high-passed, as otherwise the difference would be obvious, sighted or blind.

I know the comparison is a bit silly on one level, as one main reason for getting bigger speakers is low end extension. But what if we used Focal Diablo Utopia as the small one? Same treble and midrange driver (or close enough) and similar voicing? High-pass wouldn't be too drastic. I think it would be interesting.

 

[Sal1950]

Believe it or not for a while I had my Altec A7-500's and the 4 18 subwoofers in a bedroom 10 ft by 12 ft before my dedicated room was built. It actually didn't sound terrible.

OMG, I believe you could kill somebody like that. LOL

 

[mhardy6647]

OMG, I believe you could kill somebody like that. LOL

True -- but, on the other hand, the Altecs also sound great at really (really) low volume, too.
The maintenance by classic Altec loudspeakers of well-balanced sound quality when playing fade-outs on album tracks so produced never fails to astonish me.

Maybe it's that microdynamics thing...

 

[mhardy6647]

On the other hand, Wendy Carlos did, famously, have four Klipsch Cornwalls in the corners of her studio space in NYC at one point.
I am not suggesting that might be why she used to be Walter Carlos... but... you've gotta wonder...

OK, I know that's not really funny. Walter became Wendy strictly by choice. But I could easily see four Cornies in a small area inflicting chromosomal damage.

source: http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos.html

 

[Sal1950]

OK, I know that's not really funny.

Yes, it is. LOL

 

[mhardy6647]

Yes, it is. LOL

In the abstract, yes -- applied to an actual person, rather less so.
That said, I still went there. I am not always my own best editor.