2. speakers
  3. 170416-125864

Have you moved away from full range to standmount speakers + subs?

I want to know if you have been on a journey moving from a large full range speaker to a smaller one paired wit subs, maybe even four subs.


Maybe you moved away from the big speakers because you had too much bass or you got a better soundstage from the smaller speakers. Let me know what motivated you and if you think it’s better now.


My motivation for wanting to try smaller speakers.


I have the Tekton DI and until a month ago I was using a LM845P SET amp to drive them.

It only sounded good on simple jazz and vocals but on complex music everything was falling apart.

I am not playing loud but I think it was the low 2 ohm load in the midrange that made the LM break down.


I bought a used PS Audio BHK250 and pre and it was like getting new speakers. Never ever had it occurred to me that speaker and amp matching could have such a profound effect.


So I am enjoying my speakers now and listen to music I have avoided like the plague and enjoying it (:


But all of this got me thinking, what if I paired my LM845P with an easy to drive speaker and paired it with some subs?


Then the LM845 could do what it's best at, playing glorious midrange and the subs could play the bass.

So that's my motivation for trying smaller speakers.


I am also hoping that maybe I could get better and more even bass with 2 or 4 subs. Maybe a better soundstage because the small speakers have a very small baffle.

martin-andersen

Showing 12 responses by audition__audio

audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
I agree 100% with blkwrxwgn. These shameless shills do nothing but overshadow anything of merit which you have ever said. You using the words arrogant and obnoxious concerning another member is a laugh. Enough already!





audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
There are significant advantages to reducing cabinet size with almost all speaker designs. Narrow baffles, etc. Cabinets can do nothing but detract from your experience and the design of the cabinet itself is just an exercise in minimizing problems. Having separate subs, especially with bass arrays, gives you incredible flexibility that you will never have with larger speaker systems.

So you may get a larger sense of scale from large speakers, but you will lose a great deal of other equally important things from large "mirror image" designs like the PAP. It is very difficult to design an accurate, neutral large speaker using dynamic drivers in particular. 










audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Unless you just joined a few days ago, you need to understand that MC has been shilling Synergistic Research, Raven, Townshend and Tekton for months if not over a year. These shills go far beyond the casual acknowledgements of a satisfied customer. 
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Read wolf's earlier post. He raises a good point when he states that large speakers are nothing more than a collection of smaller ones in a larger box. For example take the same midrange driver, allow this driver the required cabinet space behind the driver and then place one is a small narrow box and the other in a larger box with a wider baffle. In the better design you will hear less of the cabinet and more of the driver itself. It can be no other way. Large cabinets are almost universally a detriment and this is especially true of large lossy thin walled cabinets. Generally speaking I believe that it is much easier to get a smaller speaker to image well than a larger one.

I think that dougshroeder is dead wrong when he speaks in absolutes about such things. He often leaves out the necessary caveats of different designs. Give his post on this issue no more credence than you would any other member!
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Big and full-range isnt wrong just has its own set of problems. Problems I might add that are difficult to solve properly and cheaply.
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Then why the blanket condemnation of tube amplification and dismissal out of hand? I dont think you do yourself any favors when you post nonsense like that paragraph on these forums. As if you have heard all the "pissy" 100W tube amps made. As phisus points out, the speaker/amp interaction is key. Just because the PAP speaker you discuss is higher efficiency doesnt mean that it is a tube friendly speaker. 
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Wow Ted! Damage control time. Are you and Noel Lee related? 









audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Well for my involvement in the denigration of this thread I apologize. The word shill used in regard to MC has been used many times by many members. I will point out the word "shill" has many different meanings to different people and the slang of this word was how it was intended. I never intended for it to be taken as a one hand washing the other scenario. If I believed this described the relationship between MC and the products he promotes ad nauseum I would have said this very thing. Never has my problem been with these manufacturers but with MC himself. I think that blkwrxgn has a pretty good handle on MC and the reason he does what he does on this forum. I should know better than to read and then respond. 
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
Speakers are not limited by cabinet size! If you give the proper amount of enclosure for a driver, an increase in cabinet size is always a negative. Unless of course you want to listen to the baffle and cabinet specific distortions. Some of the nonsense written on this site from so called experts is astonishing. In a perfect world all you want to hear is the driver itself and I would like for someone to explain to me how it could be any other way.
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
phusis,

Very well said. Certainly efficiency and also impedance are very important, but these are issues worthy of separate threads. I am trying to limit myself to addressing the notion of why larger cabinets sound larger and if this is a good thing. Even more importantly if this larger sense of scale, assuming it is the influence of the cabinet exclusively, can possibly be a good thing. Put ports, wide front baffles, lossy cabinets and parallel surfaces inside cabinets in the same boat. Have I heard good sounding speakers with some of these design particulars yes just as I have heard lousy speakers whose designers share my opinions. 
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
phusis,

I look forward to it. 
audition__audio
1,349 posts
 
I dont disagree. But you dont want additional coloration added by the cabinet. Tones change from the original instruments/recording by adding cabinet colorations. The sound of all speakers should come from the drivers, ribbons, panels or horns/comp. drivers only. Any additional interaction is not desirable and I question all designs that rely upon tuning cabinets by type of wood, lossy thin walled cabinets, etc. I have never heard anyone argue that the larger the cabinet surfaces the harder it is to control these colorations. 

You completely misunderstood my meaning of "perfect world". Admittedly not the best term in this instance. 

I mean if you like cabinet colorations then this is the best sound for you, but I object to a statement that smaller speakers are constrained by their cabinets provided that the basic/ideal needs of each driver is met. If you put the exact drivers, crossover network and the same volume of air for each driver (per manufacturers rec.) in a larger and smaller cabinet and the larger cabinet sound bigger or less constrained then it must be the influence of the cabinet and the intrinsic coloration that every cabinet imparts on the sound.

Explain to me how I am wrong. 





More to discover