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

[AdamG]

Their size

Size matters, there is no replacement for displacement, it’s about tactile energy produced. Larger drivers produce more and as a consequence your body feels/sense that.

 

[richard12511]

When I'm listening to orchestral music, I tend to imagine I'm in the front of the balcony, not the floor seating, and it sorts things out for me. In fact, it's aligned behind the suspended microphones in major concert halls.

That's another way to do it . I tried that for awhile, but for some reason my brain struggled with it. I'm also enjoying pop/rock music a little more now I think. Tweeter is closer to mouth level(maybe like Danny Devito singing to me).

All that being said, the tweeter is at ear level as that's optimal from a vertical dispersion point of view. I suppose you could raise them and angle down, but then who knows what the floor might bring?

Indeed, and that's why I initially took such care to make sure the tweeters were right at ear height. Also why I was hesitant to try(had to make some wooden lifts). I spent an hour or so yesterday going back and forth, and I honestly couldn't hear any negatives of the raised tweeter. I even did a few mono tests to listen for specifically tonal degradations. There were none, or if there were some, my untrained ears couldn't hear them .

 

[Pearljam5000]

That's another way to do it . I tried that for awhile, but for some reason my brain struggled with it. I'm also enjoying pop/rock music a little more now I think. Tweeter is closer to mouth level(maybe like Danny Devito singing to me).




Indeed, and that's why I initially took such care to make sure the tweeters were right at ear height. Also why I was hesitant to try(had to make some wooden lifts). I spent an hour or so yesterday going back and forth, and I honestly couldn't hear any negatives of the raised tweeter. I even did a few mono tests to listen for specifically tonal degradations. There were none, or if there were some, my untrained ears couldn't hear them .

I think that ear level tweeter rule only applies to normal non coaxial design.

 

[richard12511]

I think that ear level tweeter rule only applies to normal non coaxial design.

That's true too. I guess I should really try with one of my non coaxials to see if the trick still works.

 

[amper42]

While some may think SPL is the only factor between a bookshelf vs Towers sound, it's really more than that.

I have AB'd a top quality bookshelf with a flat freq response down to 38Hz and compared it to a Tower with a bass response drop off after 80Hz. Both have RAAL tweeters. In my small room of 12' x 13' the bookshelf sounds best. But when I move them both into the 22' x 28' home theatre and match volumes the tower sounds more relaxed and fuller even though it doesn't have the bass this particular bookshelf offers.

More speaker area to move the air makes a difference in a big room AND a sub playing notes below 80Hz doesn't make up for the dynamic range and lower distortion of a system with 2-5x more speaker area in the mid and upper bass regions. From my experience, Towers can sound noticeably better in a large room than bookshelves. More and larger drivers can make a big difference in a 5000+ cubic foot room.

That's why I find the answer to whether a tower will sound better than a bookshelf is mostly determined by the size of the room the speakers are tested in.

 

[Sancus]

Not sure if this will apply to everyone, but yesterday I discovered that tweeter height is a big factor in the "big speaker sound" for me. I was getting that small speaker sound with my 8351b, and it was most noticeable with orchestral music. Having the tweeters at ear level made it hard to imagine the performance as being real, as that's rarely how you hear live music. Raising the tweeters up 4" or so has gone a long way towards making them sound bigger.

If you have height channels, some types of surround mixing will pull the front image upwards as well. DTS Neural X and Auro3D(to a lesser extent) both do this in my experience. Dolby Surround doesn't seem to, however.

 

[napilopez]

I am very much not convinced that bigger speakers necessarily sound bigger at typical listening volumes in a typical room. I'm also not so convinced it has all that much to do with the usual distortion metrics or even SPL capability.

However, I do think directivity in the lower midrange could have ave something to do with it. I wrote about this a bit in another thread. In Toole's book (chapter 6.3), this image is used to summarize different frequency regions and their relationship to 'spaciousness'

While this section of the book actually deals with perceptions of spaciousness in rooms rather than speakers specifically, I think it applies to the speakers themselves too.

The 'envelopment' region specifically, Toole defines as:

"Envelopment and the sense of space. Also called listener envelopment (LEV), this is the impression of being in a specific acoustical space. It is perhaps the single most important perceived element distinguishing truly good concert halls. It is the one thing I hear at my regular live concert hall experiences that simply is not replicated at home without multichannel audio delivering independent greatly delayed sounds from different directions."

This 100-700 Hz ish 'envelopment' region is what tends to differ the most among small and big speakers, or perhaps more specifically, narrow and wide baffle speakers.

While a speaker of any size can have 'wide' or 'narrow' directivity in the traditional sense at upper frequencies (the image/source broadening region), big speakers have a distinctly different response in the lower mids and upper bass.

They can control directivity far lower. Larger speakers tend to have narrower/flatter directivity at these lower frequencies and imo that contributes a lot to the 'bigness' of a speaker.

For example, the Dutch and Dutch 8C I thought didn't have a particularly 'wide' soundstage, but they still sounded 'big.' Even though the speakers themselves speakers aren't all that big, I believe the cardioid directivity, which does much of what a wide baffle does, helped them sound big.

Going a bit more into this theory, I increasingly feel like constant directivity behavior overall is something I prefer. In a smaller speaker, this can be achieved in a sense with wider directivity.

 

[73hadd]

Hello @mitchco ! I found your research on this topic very helpful. It helped me buy a pair of LS50 and I have no regrets

The question I have here: Is there a difference with the in-person experience? Wind from the ports flapping the sleeves on your shirt? More "thump" in the midrange? (assuming thump is not only from the subs)? Other perceptions in change of room pressure?

I think I understand that sound is sound, and when listening through headphones or computer speakers, the eardrum is small, so it makes sense how the LS50 could sound bigger perhaps as you say, as a result of room sound. This is referring to listening to recordings of speakers rather than being in front of them.

The thread title does say "sound" so maybe I have to leave it at that. If air movement or visible cues change the input so that your brain translates that into bigger sound, it would be more accurate to say it's a bigger experience (not measurable) instead of bigger sound (measurable)?

This is ASR after all so if there is really nothing to bigger speakers, I would like to know.

For example, I could see a movie theater using JBL M2 but not Salon2 (ignore the cost for a moment). Even with the Salon2 "preferred" and the 3-8" woofers roughly equal to a single 15" Maybe it is an issue of SPL at that point?

How accurate would it be to say, at a given SPL (80) there is no difference in the sound OR the experience? Bigger drivers simply can get louder, with lower relative distortion, than smaller drivers, and this is only useful or needed at high SPL (stage, auditorium, etc.)?

 

[Duke]

Not sure if this will apply to everyone, but yesterday I discovered that tweeter height is a big factor in the "big speaker sound" for me... Having the tweeters at ear level made it hard to imagine the performance as being real, as that's rarely how you hear live music. Raising the tweeters up 4" or so has gone a long way towards making them sound bigger.

My beta-testers came to the same conclusion.

I was afraid the unavoidably greater tweeter height of a new design I had in mind would be detrimental relative to the "tweeter at ear height" which was my normal. I asked my beta testers to raise up speakers they already had on hand by about four or five inches. They liked it so much they made the additional height permanent in their system.

Size matters, there is no replacement for displacement, it’s about tactical energy produced.

So says the guy whose avatar is an Iowa-class battleship firing a broadside from its 16-inch guns.

Not that I disagree! But your appreciation for "tactical energy" comes as no surprise.

 

[amper42]

My beta-testers came to the same conclusion.

I was afraid the unavoidably greater tweeter height of a new design I had in mind would be detrimental relative to the "tweeter at ear height" which was my normal. I asked my beta testers to raise up speakers they already had on hand by about four or five inches. They liked it so much they made the additional height permanent in their system.

I am setting up the Revel F328Be. I'm sitting 12 feet away and the Be tweeter is 47" high, while my ears are 41" high. At first, I tried raising the speaker rear feet to aim the tweeter slightly lower. After listening in that arrangement for an hour I removed the elevation of the rear speaker feet. With the tweeter level and above ear level by 5 to 6 inches, the highs seem a little smoother and less direct. It's not a huge difference but detectable.

In this case, I agree having the tweeter a few inches above ear level is not a bad way to fly. Diana Krall, Sinne Eeg and my other favorite female vocalists sound a bit more realistic with the tweeter a little above ear level.

 

[AdamG]

My beta-testers came to the same conclusion.

I was afraid the unavoidably greater tweeter height of a new design I had in mind would be detrimental relative to the "tweeter at ear height" which was my normal. I asked my beta testers to raise up speakers they already had on hand by about four or five inches. They liked it so much they made the additional height permanent in their system.




So says the guy whose avatar is an Iowa-class battleship firing a broadside from its 16-inch guns.

Not that I disagree! But your appreciation for "tactical energy" comes as no surprise.

Correction. Autocorrect just keeps getting me! I typed “Tactile” energy. Autocorrect changed it to Tactical and I just noticed that. However, your point is absolutely correct.

 

[Duke]

Correction. Autocorrect just keeps getting me! I typed “Tactile” energy. Autocorrect changed it to Tactical and I just noticed that. However, your point is absolutely correct.

I figured you meant "Tactile", but somehow the word "Tactical" just hit harder...

 

[mitchco]

Hello @mitchco ! I found your research on this topic very helpful. It helped me buy a pair of LS50 and I have no regrets

The question I have here: Is there a difference with the in-person experience? Wind from the ports flapping the sleeves on your shirt? More "thump" in the midrange? (assuming thump is not only from the subs)? Other perceptions in change of room pressure?

I think I understand that sound is sound, and when listening through headphones or computer speakers, the eardrum is small, so it makes sense how the LS50 could sound bigger perhaps as you say, as a result of room sound. This is referring to listening to recordings of speakers rather than being in front of them.

The thread title does say "sound" so maybe I have to leave it at that. If air movement or visible cues change the input so that your brain translates that into bigger sound, it would be more accurate to say it's a bigger experience (not measurable) instead of bigger sound (measurable)?

This is ASR after all so if there is really nothing to bigger speakers, I would like to know.

For example, I could see a movie theater using JBL M2 but not Salon2 (ignore the cost for a moment). Even with the Salon2 "preferred" and the 3-8" woofers roughly equal to a single 15" Maybe it is an issue of SPL at that point?

How accurate would it be to say, at a given SPL (80) there is no difference in the sound OR the experience? Bigger drivers simply can get louder, with lower relative distortion, than smaller drivers, and this is only useful or needed at high SPL (stage, auditorium, etc.)?

Given everything is equal (i.e. SPL that both speakers can reproduce without audible distortion and the frequency response is more or less the same - using the same subs on both the large and small loudspeaker) it all comes down to the speakers directivity pattern as to which one sounds "bigger." Given the same listening distance in a typical living room, it is likely the wider directivity speaker will sound bigger, regardless of "size" of speaker. Again, the caveat being both speakers frequency response and listening level are the same.

Speaking of caveats, listening distance is a factor. The KEF LS50 versus the JBL 4722 were at 9ft. So for the LS50's were getting close to their maximum "throw" for pattern control. Whereas the 4722 are very narrow directivity speakers designed to throw their 90 degree x 50 degree pattern up to 300 ft.

In combination with directivity is how much reflected sound versus direct sound one is hearing at the listening position. As mentioned, the LS50's in that binaural recording are really illuminating the reflections in the room with their wide directivity. Both combined make them sound bigger than they look (especially compared to the 4722's . The coax design also helps with a more uniform horizontal and vertical pattern. But as others have already mentioned, listening below the 0 degree vertical on axis vertical directivity also helps, but maybe speaker dependent. That's why Amir's polars and comments about listening above or below vertical axis are important notes on his speaker reviews.

Of course it is easy to confuse "big" with "loud" which are two different aspects. The LS50's have no chance of keeping up with the JBL4722's above reference level in my room. But my use case is that I have a drum set, electric bass and guitars in the same room and its fun to play along with music or tracks on the 4722's. If I did not have that, I would be fine with the LS50's and subs, even though I prefer a more narrow directivity speaker. Old habits from years gone by on the road as a live sound guy for bands. Directivity is key between vocals that sound washed out versus crystal clear and can be heard for example.

Hope that helps.

 

[RayDunzl]

Do headphones sound "big" or "small" or "it depends"?

 

[richard12511]

Do headphones sound "big" or "small" or "it depends"?

Very enveloping, I would say.

 

[Jim85IROC]

For me, it's a combination of things. Generally, most large speakers deal with baffle step compensation differently than smaller speakers because of their driver configuration. A 3 way or a 2.5 way design can provide a full 6db of baffle step and can add it right where it needs it. 2 way designs typically either just implement a sloping design that "kind of" addresses it but leaves a bit of a null in the area right around the 2-pi to 4-pi transition region, or they don't employ a full 6db of compensation. This, deep bass extension and low distortion in the bass frequencies are what make a speaker sound "big" to me. Not many small 2 way designs can provide strong output with low distortion at lower frequencies.

I just finished a 2 way kit that uses a 5" Scan Speak revelator woofer and it amazes me at how big it sounds. It accomplishes 2/3 of the issues I mentioned above. It's f3 is 32hz, and has low enough distortion that it really does sound "big". My only real complaint with it is that there's that telltale dip in output just below the baffle step transition range that makes male vocals sound just a little too thin.

 

[richard12511]

If you have height channels, some types of surround mixing will pull the front image upwards as well. DTS Neural X and Auro3D(to a lesser extent) both do this in my experience. Dolby Surround doesn't seem to, however.

I use Auro3D now for basically all my music. It's rare now that I prefer something in stereo.

 

[rdenney]

All this is reminding me of the discussions of tuba shapes and how that affects their sound “out front”. Two schools of design have attracted interest over the many decades. One is the German “Kaiser” design which is very tall, and the other is the American Orchestra Grand design, which is very fat.

(Note that American companies haven’t made the American design—or anything else—in ages. The American designs are now made in Germany, Switzerland, Japan, or China, just as are the German designs.

Here is a B-flat contrabass Kaiser, a Hirsbrunner HBS-193, made in Switzerland. It is 1120mm tall with an 480mm bell.

And the instrument on the right in the pic below is a B-flat contrabass Holton BB-345, made in Wisconsin. It is 1000mm tall with a 500mm bell.

Both have the same nominal 18-foot bugle length, which is what makes them B-flat instruments.

Though tuba sizing defies any standard description, these are large, and the Holton is one of a few that has earned the moniker B.A.T., which I leave to your imagination.

Tuba players use these when they want to rule the waves. The tuba player may have to balance three trombones, four trumpets, and four horns in an orchestra’s brass section, plus six basses and 8 or 10 ‘cellos. So, these tubas are designed to vibrate a lot of air as a single instrument in a large ensemble.

But they are profoundly horn-loaded. The input sound is lips vibrating together in a mouthpiece volume of about a cubic inch, feeding through an opening about 8mm in diameter. The sound has a fundamental frequency but the spectral characteristics of a bad case of flatulence. The horn therefore has several functions: amplification, filtration, and dispersal. The parts of the fart sound that resonate in the tubing are resonated and amplified, and others are damped and attenuated—that’s the first two of those duties. There is some coloration difference in these two big-tuba designs. But the dispersal is where these two designs really differ.

The tall German tuba typically has a very long bell section that tapers aggressively to a large throat and a relatively quick bell flare. The American style has a shorter bell stack that starts bigger and tapers perhaps a bit more slowly, but to a wider bell flare.

I think the German design is more like a long-throw speaker, designed to project a central image aggressively with relatively less dispersion. The impression I get from the back of the hall (assuming a great performer, which is possible if I’m at the back of the hall) is an awesomely commanding tone that comes from “over there”. Clarity is high, but the sense of coming from afar is there. It blends well with the trombones, which also give that sense.

The American design, I think, disperses the sound more widely given the bell geometry. The sound is just as loud, just as deep, and just as awesome. But it is more enveloping and gives a sense of being next to the listener at the back of the hall. There is much less “over there” effect. It comes across as friendlier and less commanding, depending on the hall. It blends better with the basses.

The difference is not subtle, at least not to a tuba player.

But that lack of central projection can make the American design diffuse and woofy, even fuzzy. We use mouthpieces and technique that help us tame that tendency. It also depends on the hall—a large, overly live space enjoys the clarity, a dead space needs the projection, but in between those extremes, the fat design can really work.

Summarizing: the difference seems to me to be about directivity. Big tubas vibrate enough air to make a big sound, but the impression depends on how it’s pointed. Smaller tubas can be just as loud over a narrow directivity, and in some cases more penetratingly loud, but without the breadth and depth of sound—less awesomeness if tightly directed and less envelopment if widely directed.

I think that tells me that speaker size isn’t about SPL, or even about directivity. Maybe size is about how much air is vibrating, not about how energetically it’s vibrating. More vibrating air can be louder if focused or more enveloping if dispersed.

This is all arm-waving, of course, that I’ve been thinking about for a couple of decades. Testing isn’t easy. But the language of the last dozen posts has brought all this to my mind.

Rick “B.A.T. operator” Denney

 

[changer]

This 100-700 Hz ish 'envelopment' region is what tends to differ the most among small and big speakers, or perhaps more specifically, narrow and wide baffle speakers.

While a speaker of any size can have 'wide' or 'narrow' directivity in the traditional sense at upper frequencies (the image/source broadening region), big speakers have a distinctly different response in the lower mids and upper bass.

They can control directivity far lower. Larger speakers tend to have narrower/flatter directivity at these lower frequencies and imo that contributes a lot to the 'bigness' of a speaker.

Maybe I missed something: What I read about most conventional, non-cardiod/non lossy side-ported w/ dipole boxes is that they can only from around 500 Hz upwards establish constant directivity. It is is in the upper part of the frequency region you described as being crucial to the ominous big speaker sound and they behave comparable to any other box below, transitioning into 4 pi radiation in the low mids/bass. The D&D 8c is not to be compared with these 'conventional' speakers with wide baffles, a CD horn and a big woofer. A D&D engineer introduced their concept when back when the 8c was not a reality, at another forum: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...vity-low-200hz-using-drivers-post4595604.html

 

[napilopez]

Maybe I missed something: What I read about most conventional, non-cardiod/non lossy side-ported w/ dipole boxes is that they can only from around 500 Hz upwards establish constant directivity. It is is in the upper part of the frequency region you described as being crucial to the ominous big speaker sound and they behave comparable to any other box below, transitioning into 4 pi radiation in the low mids/bass. The D&D 8c is not to be compared with these 'conventional' speakers with wide baffles, a CD horn and a big woofer. A D&D engineer introduced their concept when back when the 8c was not a reality, at another forum: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...vity-low-200hz-using-drivers-post4595604.html

Well, I didn't mean for it to be so cut and dry and 500Hz isn't a strict number. But perhaps the range of frequencies I described should be adjusted a bit more upwards.

I gave the D&D as an example that I personally felt sounded 'big' without sounding 'wide.' While large woofer, wide-baffle speakers won't control directivity quite as low as a cardioid design, they can control it significantly lower than the usual narrow bookshelf.

For example, here is the JBL L100 Classic out to 75 degrees down to 154 Hz.

The Neumann KH80:

It may seem subtle as the difference is only a few dB, but I believe it is audible, and probably more audible than distortion differences in many scenarios.