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

[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.

 

[GXAlan]

In my opinion, I think speakers sound "big" when:

1. They can play full range (whether aided by subs or not)
2. The sound can't be obviously pinpointed because the directivity is broad and even without holes and the radiation patterns of all the drivers ends at the same angles
3. The sound quality is reasonably life-like, including use of EQ when necessary (especially to tackle the modal activity)
4. They can play loud with low distortion

When any of these are deficient, the illusion is broken and we detect the speaker.

One of the “biggest” speakers I have heard is the Meyer Sound MM4XP which is a 4” single driver (!). But it hits upon most of what you wrote.

1) Full range.
These aren’t full range for even James Earl Jones, but for other human voices, it does hit full range. Guitars like Rodrigo y Gabriela are incredibly realistic, again, because the range covered by the MM4XP is complete.

2) Wide directivity.
I would like to send these to Amir at some point. They are advertised as 100 x 100 degrees, but I am not sure how it does this across the entire spectrum.

3) reasonably life like
The MM4XP is pretty flat within its bandwidth

4) Loud with low distortion.
^^ This is probably the secret.

In my opinion, maybe big speakers are more efficient and there are benefits from that.

 

[Purité Audio]

The Danley HRE’s didn’t exactly sound large, imaging was incredibly precise, and I imagine their directivity was pretty narrow and I was sitting reasonably close.
I would like to try the Danley ILE3 paraline, that has a 140 degree horizontal dispersion perhaps more suitable for domestic reproduction?

ILE3 | Danley Sound Labs

Danley produces its first-ever loudspeakers for home & home theater use. Experience sound as it was intended.

www.danleysoundlabs.com

 

[Shiva]

Maybe cinema’s have “big” sound because they have a few dozen high spl transducers around the room?
View attachment 348564

 

[MattHooper]

This subject came to mind as I was able to listen some more to big Dali EpiKore 11 speakers compared to the same tracks on my much smaller Joseph Audio speakers.

The size difference is pretty enormous: the Dali Epicore are huge speakers with tweeter, super tweeter, 4 X 8" woofers, and a 6.5 inch mid driver. Grabbed this pic from the web:

Vs...my puny little Joseph Audio Perspective 2 speakers, at 36" tall, 8.5" wide, with two widdle 5.5" SEAS drivers and a tweeter:

Basically I listened to a bunch of familiar tracks on the Dali speakers, came home and listened to the same tracks on my Joseph speakers.

The Josephs have a reputation for sounding much bigger than they look, and that they do. Surprisingly rich sounding for a small, skinny floor stander, with massive soundstaging and imaging capabilities.

Interestingly, the two speakers are not far off in frequency specs - the Josephs are spec'd down to 35Hz, and the Dali speakers despite their massive size and woofer compliment advantage, just go down to a bit lower, 29Hz.

The differences I heard were:

First, the soundstaging in my system was significantly "bigger." My speakers are more spread out and closer to the listening position relative to how the Dalis were set up. So in this case the scale of the soundstage - size, width, depth - was actually bigger on the smaller speaker system. And it was surprising how well the Joseph speakers kept up in terms of the "size of the bass" - many of the centralized bass synths or bass guitars/drums sounded vary large and substantial on the Josephs even having just heard them on the Dalis.

But the real difference was the overall sense of scale, of image heft and size, on the Dali speakers compared to the Josephs. I've mentioned the "pear shape" sensation to imaging and image substantitiveness on most systems. That applies to mine too. The Dalis "hit harder" and more solid in the bass, with a bit more bass depth and so a bit more size, but not a really big difference in "bass image size" so a stand up bass sounded similar sized on the Josephs. HOWEVER as we go up the frequency range, like most speakers I hear, the Joseph sonic images loose a sense of size and acoustic power, so things get smaller and smaller until drum cymbals and high end synth bleeps and blips sound more teeny.

But on the Dali speakers, while still "pear shaped," there was more size and heft maintained from bottom to top, so drum snares sounded bigger, higher woodwinds sounded more life sized, acoustic guitar strings sounded bigger, fatter, and even in electronic music, some bleepy blippy stuff I love, even the high register notes, sounded thicker, bigger, more solid and dense. So the speakers maintained an overall sense of scale and acoustic presence and power from top to bottom that just made everything sound bigger and more substantial, not just the bass parts.

And this survived the "close my eyes test" very well. I've had a number of very large speakers "shrink" in sound when I close my eyes and just concentrate on the sound. But these didn't, it was Big Sound.

Why? I don't know. I leave that to the speculation of others more competent in this thread. Just thought I'd share that comparison....FWIW....

 

[DeepCuttaBeats]

This subject came to mind as I was able to listen some more to big Dali EpiKore 11 speakers compared to the same tracks on my much smaller Joseph Audio speakers.

The size difference is pretty enormous: the Dali Epicore are huge speakers with tweeter, super tweeter, 4 X 8" woofers, and a 6.5 inch mid driver. Grabbed this pic from the web:

Vs...my puny little Joseph Audio Perspective 2 speakers, at 36" tall, 8.5" wide, with two widdle 5.5" SEAS drivers and a tweeter:

Basically I listened to a bunch of familiar tracks on the Dali speakers, came home and listened to the same tracks on my Joseph speakers.

The Josephs have a reputation for sounding much bigger than they look, and that they do. Surprisingly rich sounding for a small, skinny floor stander, with massive soundstaging and imaging capabilities.

Interestingly, the two speakers are not far off in frequency specs - the Josephs are spec'd down to 35Hz, and the Dali speakers despite their massive size and woofer compliment advantage, just go down to a bit lower, 29Hz.

The differences I heard were:

First, the soundstaging in my system was significantly "bigger." My speakers are more spread out and closer to the listening position relative to how the Dalis were set up. So in this case the scale of the soundstage - size, width, depth - was actually bigger on the smaller speaker system. And it was surprising how well the Joseph speakers kept up in terms of the "size of the bass" - many of the centralized bass synths or bass guitars/drums sounded vary large and substantial on the Josephs even having just heard them on the Dalis.

But the real difference was the overall sense of scale, of image heft and size, on the Dali speakers compared to the Josephs. I've mentioned the "pear shape" sensation to imaging and image substantitiveness on most systems. That applies to mine too. The Dalis "hit harder" and more solid in the bass, with a bit more bass depth and so a bit more size, but not a really big difference in "bass image size" so a stand up bass sounded similar sized on the Josephs. HOWEVER as we go up the frequency range, like most speakers I hear, the Joseph sonic images loose a sense of size and acoustic power, so things get smaller and smaller until drum cymbals and high end synth bleeps and blips sound more teeny.

But on the Dali speakers, while still "pear shaped," there was more size and heft maintained from bottom to top, so drum snares sounded bigger, higher woodwinds sounded more life sized, acoustic guitar strings sounded bigger, fatter, and even in electronic music, some bleepy blippy stuff I love, even the high register notes, sounded thicker, bigger, more solid and dense. So the speakers maintained an overall sense of scale and acoustic presence and power from top to bottom that just made everything sound bigger and more substantial, not just the bass parts.

And this survived the "close my eyes test" very well. I've had a number of very large speakers "shrink" in sound when I close my eyes and just concentrate on the sound. But these didn't, it was Big Sound.

Why? I don't know. I leave that to the speculation of others more competent in this thread. Just thought I'd share that comparison....FWIW....

Those Dali speakers look like they have 2 tweeters. That may have something to do with it. Maybe you can add a pair of Aperion ribbon super tweeters on top of your towers and see if you get closer to what you heard with the Dalis.

 

[pogo]

First, the soundstaging in my system was significantly "bigger."

Interesting, I had the same experience with this setup including the Epikores, bridged or unbridged, vs. my setup:

What happens with this setup when you switch from the simple unbridged purifi amplification of the M33 to bridge mode with an additional M23 is quite impressive. The soundstage becomes bigger and the sound image sounds less strained.

For me, the bridge mode is definitely set. Whether I will realize it with an additional M23 or NAD will implement the second generation Purifis (the 1ET9040BA is already bridged), who knows.
The first new bridged Purifis seem to be available soon: Link

 

[Descartes]

I heard these at a Dealer in New York and they were phenomenal!

Grande Utopia Em Evo - 4-way floorstanding speaker | Focal

Grande Utopia Em Evo, 4-way floorstanding speaker : enjoy the beauty of sound in the comfort of your own home with our Focal high-fidelity speakers. They reproduce the essence of music to delight the most demanding music lovers.

www.focal.com

I just would have to sell all my possessions to afford a pair.

Grande Utopia Em Evo - 4-way floorstanding speaker | Focal

Grande Utopia Em Evo, 4-way floorstanding speaker : enjoy the beauty of sound in the comfort of your own home with our Focal high-fidelity speakers. They reproduce the essence of music to delight the most demanding music lovers.

www.focal.com

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Interesting, I had the same experience with this setup, bridged or unbridged:

What happens with this setup when you switch from the simple unbridged purifi amplification of the M33 to bridge mode with an additional M23 is quite impressive. The soundstage becomes bigger and the sound image sounds less strained.

That's highly unlikely.