Do Bigger Speakers Mean a Bigger Window?

If one can't afford the good big stuff, one buys the cheap dinky stuff. 

Yes, but is it a fair analogy to compare recordings to images? For example, if you attempt to enlarge a low resolution image beyond a certain point it only becomes pixelated and distorted, doesn't the same apply to recordings?

This is often an argument used by high-end salesmen when your favourite recordings sound worse through their speakers. I can still recall how bad 'You Are the Quarry' sounded through Quad 2905's. I know they're great speakers but are they really too good for most recordings? Too much resolution?

Or perhaps they just weren't mastered through a pair of Quads!



 

You may be interested in the current trend (past 20 years or so) of manufacturers designing speakers that are @ 6' tall or taller.

I always wonder where they got this idea...and why.

Neither PC desktop speakers or automobile can be considered Hi Fidelity. Most here probably consider your post a troll and hence the lack of typical blatherskite response.

An ideal source would is a point as it would have no coloration from cabinets, crossovers / driver displacement interactions.

Speakers have become taller because they fit beside TVs. Multiple woofers in a column have a time delay.

Big does not mean better. There are a 1001 things to get right and size is no guarantor that any are correct.

Small speakers on stands do not interact with the floor. Small boxes can be very strong and more rigid. Small drivers can be very fast without the need for massive power. They will not play as loud but they can as play better.

Recall Amercian cars of the 50's & 60's? They were huge because that's what people wanted. Great on the newly constructed freeways but hopeless in the twisties.

@ieales   "An ideal source would is a point as it would have no coloration from cabinets, crossovers / driver displacement interactions."  Please edit.

"Speakers have become taller because they fit beside TVs. Multiple woofers in a column have a time delay."  Please supply the data that supports this assertion.

"Small speakers on stands do not interact with the floor. Small boxes can be very strong and more rigid. Small drivers can be very fast without the need for massive power. They will not play as loud but they can as play better."  Please edit.  Please explain how the laws of physics have been defeated by speaker stands.

Small speakers (in a car or on a desktop) can be wonderful on voices. I actually heard the best imaging on a car stereo (an Alfasud in Wembley). There was an uncanny spread of image across the front two seats. Sure there was little real bandwidth but the image was astonishing, I never forgot.

Isn't it the case that with small speakers you hear more of the speaker because of the greater direct sound compared to reflection ratio?  If so then I guess with larger speakers you hear more of the room because of the way the speaker drives the room and the reflected sound.

Of course there's also volume, seating distance, loudspeaker dispersion characteristics, people's hearing characteristics etc to also consider. In fact the science of acoustics seems so complicated that I'm wondering if anyone understands it completely.

Right now listening to a BBC podcast via the Logitech's (Dell branded) the voices do sound pretty life-like. On larger speakers they might sound exaggerated and larger than life.

@cd318   In my experience you don't need big speakers for a large size image.  My Treo CTs are modest in size compared to many floorstanders but they can envelop the front of my listening room in sound.  Many "experiments" have been done where a small group of listeners will listen to what they think is a big floorstander in the room only to find out that they are empty boxes and that they've been listening to the stand mounted minis in the room!  Quite the ear-opening experience.  You correctly mention that there are many factors at play in any listening space.  If there is a science of acoustics it is subject to many, many variables.😮

Multiple woofers in a column have a time delay.

Assume 3 woofers spaced 12" apart at 1, 2 & 3 feet from floor, a 15 foot listening distance and a 4 foot ear height. Relative to the direct wave from w1, @ 350Hz w2 ≈11° and w3 ≈30° of phase shift.

From the floor, w1 ≈177°, w2 ≈106° and w3 ≈47° phase shift for the 45° wave from the woofer.

Please explain how the laws of physics have been defeated by speaker stands.

When a speaker is on a stand, it is closer to a point source than is a large box.

@hifiman5  yes you are correct about small speakers. Me and a couple of friends were at a London show where the new B&W 601s (at least I remember it being the 601s, it would be surreal if they were the 301s). They were being played on the back of an Arcam amp and Digital tuner.

The three of us just could not get over how big they sounded for bookshelves mounted on chrome stands! The image was simply huge and although its possible that the bandwidth wasn't all that great but for the size of them we were left open mouthed.

The room was also huge (width, length and height) and open so the sounds were even more impressive. There is definitely a visual factor at work regarding his we perceive sound.

By bigger window,  I assume that you mean soundstage?  If that is the case, no,  bigger speakers can do a lot, but typically the soundstage is a function of how the speakers are set in the room. Spacing apart, distance from ear etc.  If a smaller speaker and a larger speaker both have similar time alignment and phasing in the speakers array, then both will produce a similar soundstage.  How well they can do many other things is a different story, but for merely soundstage, that comes from proper placement. 

@timlub  Yes soundstage, but also a better view into the recording - bandwidth wise. Once you can hear the highest and lowest sounds off a recording you have effectively top and tailed it. Until then something important may well be missing.

Very few speakers have much meaningful output below 35Hz and this can hurt both Classical and Jazz. Classic 60s Pop on the other doesn't seem to need much below 60Hz.

@cd318 
The bandwidth attribute that you are describing now comes from low frequency extension, other than that, a smaller speaker should be able to reproduce a frequency curve as well as a large speaker.  There is something to be said for larger drivers. They flat out move more air and that can affect the overall illusion with more authority than smaller drivers   . The rest of what you are eluding to is more a result of Drivers used, design of crossover and quality of parts etc. or even a single source driver, they often see into a recording quite well.  The speakers that I have in my system this minute are on a stand and are 3db down at 28hz, just not sure what you trying to get to or if I have even touched on it, but I hope this helps,  Tim 

…
So, if you are after high fidelity sound, why would you buy small speakers?

I never would, never again. Moreover, the "small(er) listening room small(er) speakers" mantra has no real bearing or justification - to me, at least. Smaller rooms mayn't need speakers as large, but there are benefits to be had not converging to this tendency, that I'll get back to. Some larger speakers, certainly horn variants, need space, not least listening distance, and so naturally requires a larger listening environment, but otherwise I wouldn't shy from implementing speakers with an imposing physical stature w/large drive units/horns into more moderately sized rooms. 

It's not only about big speakers/air displacement area, but about (high) sensitivity/efficiency as well - all to add up for one important feature: headroom. Some may find it ludicrous to ask for 20dB's or even more headroom on top of the loudest SPL you'd normally be able to muster with your playback system, but to others it's the ingredient that makes it all come together; when a stereo setup with large, very efficient speakers that operates within the confines of +20dB's to spare at the highest output levels you would typically require, there's an ease, sense of scale and capacity to handle complex musical material that's very beguiling and animating for one's listening pleasure. Music simply happens differently and more convincingly, unrestrained, and it's a vital element in letting go of music as something that is re-produced. Larger speakers of that kind, all things being equal, also tend to more readily succeed in eliciting an emotional response through sheer girth and force, often understated, that has smaller and less efficient speakers sounding malnourished and strained by comparison.

Also important here is bandwidth, preferably to 20Hz with full output, but that's an aspect too late at this local hour to begin unwinding. 

All this being said: small speakers may have qualities to be floored by in some areas, but on the whole and to my needs simply don't cut it.  

Just my $0.02. 

Do Bigger Speakers Mean a Bigger Window?

Short answer is NO!

Try to have a listen to a pair of early thumbnail size minuscule 198*? Proac Tablets with decent amplification, you will shake your head in disbelief and start looking around the room for the "real" speakers.
http://www.vintageaudioworld.com/wp-content/uploads/Proac-Super-Tablettes.jpg

Also another stand mount, bigger and very expensive if you can find a used pair, is the Sonus Faber Extrema these are an end game speaker, even in the bass. 
http://shop.textalk.se/shop/1785/art85/h6759/4146759-origpic-4ffba5.jpg


Cheers George

Looks like there have been various interpretations of the OP’s question.
One thing I’ve noticed is that, yes, in generally bigger speakers sound bigger. Not just the size of the soundstage, but the size of the sonic images and the sense of actual presence.

I have had (and still own) many smaller speakers that image like demons - from my MBL 121 omnis (still have them), spendor, waveform, and others. Though mostly I’ve used a variety of floor standing speakers.
I’ve continually noticed that even when a smaller speaker is rated close to the same frequency response, the speaker with the bigger cabinet/bigger drivers just sounds bigger.

For instance right now I have the Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 speakers. The 3.7 was the last Thiel flagship floor stander, and the 2.7 is just a tiny bit smaller version. Both use the same midrange/tweeter, the difference is the 2.7 uses an 8" woofer vs the 10" woofer of the 3.7, and the 2.7’s cabinet is a bit smaller.They are rated within about 2dB difference in bandwidth in the bass. And the 2.7 rarely sounds like it isn’t going as low as the 3.7. But the 3.7 just produces BIGGER sound.  A more vast soundstage, bigger more life-sized images, more authority.
And then some smaller floor standers - e.g. a model employing two 6" woofers and tweeter I’ve used, which actually went as low or a bit lower in the bass than the Thiel 2.7s, still sounded "smaller." Acoustic guitars, for instance, where just that more miniaturized.

One sort of exception to the smaller speaker = smaller sound/image size are speakers with wider baffles. The Harbeth super HL5plus monitors I had weren’t as big as my 2.7 Thiels, but the image sizes had a similar heft, which I attribute somewhat to the wider baffle/lively cabinet, bigger midrange woofer design. (Though the Thiels still threw the bigger soundstage). Similarly the Devore Orangutan speakers that I’ve been auditioning - smaller somewhat than the Thiels but much wider baffle and larger woofer - have huge image sizes with lots of heft. (Though, neither of the Devore O speakers cast quite as large a soundstage as the Thiel 3.7s).
Anyway....just musing from my own experience.

@phusis  Yes! It just struck me after reading your post, something so obvious  yet didn't consciously occur to me til now. For me at least, a major difference is that when I listen via large speakers I can more easily forget that I am listening to reproduced sound and fall under the illusion that I listening to reality.

Right now its very warm here in the UK and I have the window open. I can hear the traffic outside, someone speaking downstairs, plus someone vacuuming the landing. These are the kind of sounds (full bandwidth/ large images) I think bigger loudspeaker are more able to reproduce in a life-like fashion.

It is difficult sometimes to describe semi conscious processes taking place in your head, and they won't be the same for everyone of course, but for me that's it - bigger speakers help me forget that I am listening to a recording / reproduced sound.

That doesn't mean that bigger is better, sometimes you might want to listen into the recording, or have other priorities such as transient speed, detail etc.

But for the sheer illusion of reality large loudspeakers are hard to beat.

I have a pair of Klipsch Heresy IIIs that, in their positions of about 7 feet apart and 9 feet from my earballs, create a large and satisfying soundstage...I thought the horns might beam somewhat but they go amazingly wide...short, fat speakers...who knew?

@wolf_garcia  wide, short, fat but definitely not small.

I wonder whether efficiency (or should I also say ease of drive?) is a key factor in creating the illusion of reality. Ease of drive has been a Klipsch hallmark since the beginning of audio history as we know it.

Ease of driving only makes a difference if your amp is too gutless to drive a more demanding load. Some very difficult to drive speakers cast massive soundstages, but you need an amp that doesn't go flacid into a 2 ohm load or less. Casting huge images is what speakers like Wilson W/P's do very well. 

@kosst_amojan, yes I can remember reading Ken Kessler writing about how the fabulous Apogee Scintilla's with their 1 ohm load only came to life spectacularly with Krell amps.

Unfortunately reading about them is as far as I will ever get with such audio exotica. There's no denying that power is important especially if you enjoy a wide range of musical genres, and it never hurts to have too much as long as you're careful with that volume control!

Really, it's a lot of much more nuanced factors than sensitivity/efficiency, size of speaker, types of driver, or amplifier power. Amplifier bandwidth, damping factor, feedback and how it's implemented, the reactivity of the speakers, how well they're damped, and a whole bunch of other factors. The room is also a big factor. I've got Focal 936's. I'm driving them with a modified Pass F5 making about 32 watts. Those are kinda small, tough speakers to drive, and that's not a monster amp. They have no problem casting a towering, enveloping, deep soundstage with plenty of muscular bass. 
If there were simple, easy rules of thumb to get this quality or that, then all of audio would be just those things. But for every claim that you need this amp or that speaker to get this quality or that, there's some glaring exception to that "rule". Much of the secret is in the technicalities of how the amp, speakers, and room jive. 

If you place a pair of small speakers correctly (well away from the back wall and the side walls), you can achieve an amazingly large soundstage.  In that sense, they can sound "big".  That actually is the case with any sized speaker, proper placement gets you a big soundstage.  But, there is something about the weight, sense of ease and effortlessness that one gets with physically big speakers and drivers that is missing with most smaller speakers.  If one listens at reasonable levels, small speaker certainly don't sound like they are straining in their delivery, but there is something not quite as convincing about the size of the musicians and the stage with small speakers even when the positions of the instruments are the same.  If at all practical, I would take large speakers over most smaller ones.

@kosst_amojan, yes it can be a very complicated business getting good sound.

Some get lucky with their setup and room from the get-go. They seem to be easily pleased with modest equipment, whilst others suffer for years on the treadmill to audio nirvana, chasing their tails and swapping equipment on a regular basis.
I should know, I've been there. Might still be there?!

And then there are some who even enjoy being on the treadmill to audio nirvana!

@larryi as I've got to know myself better I've also come to the conclusion that I prefer larger loudspeakers for their ease of listening. I must admit though, I've no experience of using subs despite finding the idea of relegating the heavy work away from midrange units quite appealing.

I pulled out a few of my monitors this weekend morel ziv 2 and a pair of high end dynaudios. While they do sound fine why I keep them arround they do not even get close to the natural realistic sound of my much larger loudspeakers. Even when I used my sub bass systems they still sound small thin and not real when compared to the larger designs. If I had to I could live with the morels I ran them off a few nelson pass amps and my large VIVA a PP EL34  also a NAD. I have 2 rooms designed to house audio. 

@johnk, do you feel that your experience explains why audio history is littered with mainly classic large speaker designs such as JBL L100s, the Klipschorn, various Tannoys  including Westminsters /Golds and many many others?

Yet it's hard to recall many small speakers which attained classic legendary status apart from the BBC designed LS3/5A.

I got the impression after reading about Gilbert Briggs (Wharfedale) that it was mainly a question of economics and fashion behind the trend to downsize? 

I hardly think audio history is strictly littered with large speakers. Wilson W/P’s are certainly highly desired legends. Quads 57’s and 63’s aren’t large and very highly regarded. I don’t think JBL L100’s are particularly legendary beyond the fact they sold a lot of them. They’re bright, shouty, stereotypically "west coast" speakers that virtually defined the term.

There's good technical reasons to build a smaller speaker. Smaller drivers and baffles generally promote a better defined soundstage and contribute less coloration through diffraction. 

@timlub , Spendor SP1s are huge by modern day UK standards, but point taken. I think I’m kind of fixated with the idea that the 50s and 60s were ruled by loudspeakers often the size of wardrobes. Probably seen too many vintage ads where some attractive girl is dwarfed by the size of the loudspeakers.

I just remembered that the Linn Kan is another much loved (sometimes hated!?) miniature from the past. Whereas the Eclipse TD 712z is surely another small(ish) speaker destined for future legendary status.

I guess like so much in audio it boils down to personal taste. There are few certainties and the hardest one is often determining one’s own tastes.

I used to sometimes joke that relationships are the most complicated thing in the universe (everything in flux - nothing static), but I’m beginning to feel that understanding Hi-Fi cannot be too far behind!

Vintage items that become desired collectables usually still have some use. The most desirable loudspeakers of the past usually have no modern equivalents the desire to own has fueled a great amount of reproductions. What one considers collectable is relative but over all the big money and demand is for vintage horn based systems a few TT and tube gear. And that is mostly due to how good it sounds compared to modern equivalents and how well it responds to modification. I do have the opinion that modern loudspeaker design is hampered by profit margins shipping costs and the buyer themselfs. Humans do not like change and since loudspeakers share living space and have mostly had a box like shape it's hard to sell anything but that.

I still own a pair of KLH Nines. And a pair of Rogers LS3/5A's. The big and the small. Each can sound equally impressive! Would miss either if I had to sell!

I don't believe for a second penny pinching is why you don't see refrigerator sized speakers anymore. It's just not necessary because design tools and materials have advanced and the world isn't limited to ampliers that crap themselves at 50 watts. Gain, current, and low distortion is just cheap to achieve in an amp today. Nobody needs gigantic, highly efficient speakers anymore. JBL makes them. Few buy them. Nobody talks about them.