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

Nope, full range plus subs.

Hey there black WRX guy. Are you a subaru fan? It seems to be your handle “blkwrxwgn”I think Miller Carbon is a Tekton fan. He uses them for his basis of comparison. I use my speakers as a basis of comparison as well. If your sensitive and don’t like hearing about certain speaker companies may I suggest closing your eyes. Do this and MC will never bother you again.

The question for consideration has an undefined variable.... space.  I have moved locations and away from a large dedicated listening room to a home with a much smaller listening room...being just over 12'L x 11+'W with a trayed ceiling nearly 11' H.
My floor-standing speakers went to our HT room.  I ordered W-B Vertex that are 2-way on integrated stand mounted loudspeakers which are -2dB at 44Hz.  The mid/base driver is direct coupled to the amplifier with a 2nd order crossover to the tweeter at 5K Hz.  Imaging, soundstage, dynamics and details are quite amazing.  I've been augmenting the bass with a JL Audio f112.  I play both vinyl and digital music files.
I just took delivery of the W-B Torus system last evening and will unpack them today.  This should solve any integration issues and improve an already overachieving system.
So, the short answer is definitely yes, moving to a 2-way speaker system with subs can be much more desirable.  It just depends on the acoustic space and the way you execute it.

Proac Tablettes (choose your edition) and and REL sub or 2 will make you very happy without bloated bass. 

This question started being asked as far back as 1948, re: subs+satellites.

LOTS of articles in the 1950s. Subs+satellites are very efficient for room sizing/placement. They don’t require impossible “best placement” that large boxes/baffles get you into. And they don’t cause you to erect a “my shrine to the Audio Gods” in your house/listening room.

I have Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grand SE speakers (4ohm) which are towers with a relatively small footprint (8.5” x 13.5" x 38.25”).    

Originally I was driving them with  Simaudio Moon Neo 220i (80 wpc) and no subwoofer.   

I recently switched to a Musical Fidelity M6si (400 wpc) and a 4 subwoofer distributed bass array.   

The improvement in overall sound quality was orgasmic.     

As stated by many, the room is the key. For mine, Magico A5's and a B&W DB3D placed behind the rack with each driver pointed at the side walls provide the best sound. Power is tube pre and amp. Sourced with VPI Aries and the experience continues to delight.

Hey there black WRX guy. Are you a subaru fan? It seems to be your handle “blkwrxwgn”I think Miller Carbon is a Tekton fan. He uses them for his basis of comparison. I use my speakers as a basis of comparison as well. If your sensitive and don’t like hearing about certain speaker companies may I suggest closing your eyes. Do this and MC will never bother you again.

I was 20 years ago when I first started with audiogon. Now it would be red991cab or something stupid like that I guess.

Not new to the whole thing and the "personalities" of the keyboard audiophile. I at times stand up for the Tekton owners, I am one myself actually (DI) but MC does get old really really quickly. The problem is he thrives off this stuff, "people are talking about me!!!!!" so it does get out of hand at times, like this thread so far.

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. 

I drift between different configurations. I’ve got a large stock of full range and stand mounted and one massive combo pair where two sections are bolted together. They all have their strengths. For a video setup, in wall or stand mount with subs are more than adequate. I still do a lot of two channel listening. I like my big full range speakers for this. 

All a matter of taste and budget. 

QUESTION:   I have the Tekton Pendragons and love them....Why does Tekton push the 4 ohm option when ordering.. I would not buy them in 4 ohm...Mine are 8 ohm for easier amp matching...Is 4 ohm cheaper than 8 ohm to produce. Eric also make them in 2 ohm...Whats up with that....

QUESTION:  I have the Tekton Pendragons and love them....Why does Tekton push the 4 ohm option when ordering.. I would not buy them in 4 ohm...Mine are 8 ohm for easier amp matching...Is 4 ohm cheaper than 8 ohm to produce. Eric also make them in 2 ohm...Whats up with that....

Ask Eric, not here.  You'll get mostly negative reactions to the question.  I think one of the things that bother me the most about his speakers is the obvious notion that he wants to make a speaker for every single situation and type of stereo setup.  You can't truly master what you are doing by spreading yourself that thin.  Have 6-8 speakers that you have put your heart and soul into, not FOURTY (I just went to the site to count) different speakers/subwoofers. 

That isn't counting the variations of each of those speakers with different upgrades to tweeters, crossovers, ohm ratings. At times it seems like he's taken just a few designs and then said "screw it, let's add 10 more drivers to it and give it a new name".

I do like my DI's though, not gonna lie.

My experience has been that you have to give the room what it wants for best results. With bigger rooms that offer listening distances ~10 ft. or more from ear to tweeter, the best fit is usually full-range towers or designs of similar scale. In smaller rooms, with listening distances significantly under 10 ft., it's difficult to get proper integration of the drivers in a big multi-way loudspeaker, giving smaller speakers the advantage on integration…and some of that may translate to improved imaging. Perhaps, this is where the "myth" comes from…

Cabinet resonances are easier (less expensive) to tame in small speakers, so that can be a factor when comparing monitors and towers in the same line, especially at lower price-points. With proper attention, resonances can be adequately addressed regardless of speaker size.

I do think proper subwoofer integration is beneficial regardless of the main loudspeaker's bandwidth because the best placement for soundstage and imaging is rarely also the best place for low and sub bass wave launch. The ability to optimize these concerns independently is advantageous to achieving the best setup.

Personally, I had a pair of Legacy Audio FOCUS SE towers in a 19 x 21 ft room with a 10 ft ceiling. They worked very well there, but when I moved from the east to west coast (USA), I could not afford a listening room of that size. Cramming them into the new 15.5 x 10.1 ft room with 8 ft ceiling simply did not work, no matter what I did with room treatments. I could not get my ears far enough away from those six drivers for them to seamlessly integrate. Wonderful speakers, but they sounded like stadium speakers in my small room compared to a good 2-way monitor, like the Fritz Carrera 7 BE.

Again, lesson learned…give the room what it wants, and it will treat you right.

Years ago I had very large floorstanders w/strong integrated subwoofers (Vandersteen 4s). In an average size living room, this was a heavenly sound. I'm not sure I would mess w/standmounted 2-ways + subs in a living room of reasonable size. In my experience, that's a job for floorstanders + subs.

But in a 13' x 13' home office, where my audio gear is now--that's another matter altogether. Floorstanders couldn't fit here, but 2-ways can fit on the desktop. Currently they're vintage KEF 103.2s supplemented by one sub (JL Audio e110). Within the space limits of this environment, the sound is very satisfying--though 2-ways, even sealed/acoustic suspensions like the KEFs, trade off air & soundstage when situated on a desktop near the front wall.

Blkwrxwagn....Thanks for not helping...You can't answer it because your a neophite and don't know the answer....I pity your SO....way to much hatred and negativity to be on here.

QUESTION: I have the Tekton Pendragons and love them....Why does Tekton push the 4 ohm option when ordering.. I would not buy them in 4 ohm...Mine are 8 ohm for easier amp matching...Is 4 ohm cheaper than 8 ohm to produce. Eric also make them in 2 ohm...Whats up with that....

Eric Alexander explains 4 ohm vs 8 ohm speaker decision.

(15 second web search.)

Thank you tvad for helping...That's more than the complainers can do.

Of course there may be an explanation of why standmounts have a better soundstage than floor mounts, one is dollars, the other is how they are used. Invariably we listen to speakers at a price point, thus standmounts at x$ will probably sound better, across the board, if you discount bass response, than floor mounts at the same price. Better soundstage, imaging, mid and high frequencies etc. That is to be expected. However if you try the same brand speaker with the same drivers in bookshelf up to floor standers then you usually hear the taller boys are better. Many 2 way speakers employ the same drivers in several models. In my system I use small narrow floor standers and 2 subwoofers, this gives you 4 sources of bass to better balance bass in your room. I also listen very close at 2m with speakers close together, less than 2m. So a lot depends upon your room, small speakers placed in small rooms display good response just because you are closer to them.

I agree with the inmates, bigger speakers have the potential to give a much more realistic sound stage than smaller speakers, which create the "porcelain muppet show". (Sorry, I did not coin that term but it's just so accurate!) The misnomer comes from the fact that at a budget price point it's easier to make a small speaker image sharper / crisper, but in general terms, it's quite misleading.

I think the main reasons are:1. much lower cost2. much better WAF
3. amplifiers have more and more power nowdays, so slap in high excursion drivers and advertise as same spl capacity. (With greater excursion comes greater distortion - if you see the cone move it's not high fidelity anymore... sure, it can be made to sound good, but slammer cone movement will sound better give same attention to design details...)
Some useful info on speakers size / imaging correlation:Small speakers do a fine job of imaging small, intimate, simple events.Really large scale performances need big cabinets.

I have a fairly small listening room (13'x12'x8') with French doors behind my listening position that open into a kitchen (19'x9'). For a few years I was using floor standers, Raidho D2.1, and though they sounded great on most music I played there is a room mode at 43Hz that would rear its nasty head at times turning my room into a giant bass cabinet. I implemented the Bass Array system from James Romeyn along with placing a VH Audio capacitor between my preamp and mono blocs that created a roll off at 150Hz. With the help of JR from Wally Analog we used his room measuring software and strategically placed 4 passive subs in my room, dialing them in with external sub amps from Dayton Audio. This process afforded smooth, musical bass along with opening up more detail in the mid and high frequencies. JR was thinking that monitors would be a better fit given my room's size and since I really like the Raidho sound I went with their TD1.2's on Core Audio Design speaker stands. Lo and behold, he was right! They blend perfectly with the Bass Array delivering all the tonality and texture of the D2.1's but with more detail, better imaging and a deeper, wider soundstage. Couldn't be happier...for now!

blkwrxwgn - I guess if you own a particular brand of speaker you are in a better position to talk about them than another brand you are not familiar with. You do realise that MC is living rent free in your head, you got it bad.  Me personally, I mostly find MC to be rather witty (too subtle for some) and quite knowledgable. I have no problem with him being a bit out there and although I disagree with him at times I don't get abusive or rude. You and your ilk get very rude and personal and that has no place on this site. If I never see another post from you again I won't miss you.

The thing about subs. You can have small speakers which get voices and treble well but matching them with a sub can be tricky. I suggest audtioning with several.  Just throwing in any sub with any smaller speakers might not work well.  With larger speakers you can EQ the low end to get the job done without a sub. If your a bass head, then sub.  If not matched well it may sound unbalanced.  Just my opinion.  

I still have my 1974 Advents (3 pair) 2 Yamaha Amps (750) watts each, my turntable & 2 CD players with a mixer & cd recorder to make mix tapes.  I sweetened the Advents up with 4 JBL concert tweeters (with the blue plastic triangle in them).  It still sounds incredible.  Maybe $2,500 in the whole set up.  Up in the living room I did not want a hulking stereo.  So I built the house with ceiling 5 channel speakers and an AV amp (which none of them really have enough connections).  Trying to hook it up is a nightmare and then the sound does not blow me away.   Two years ago, I bought a Techniques CD player, ported bass speakers and each speaker is independently powered and equalized with a total of 500 to 700 Real watts. Then I really wanted a stern experience, so I got a NAIM Mu So and companion.  They are similar except it does not have a built in CD player.  These little guys produce truly great sound, yet they are  foot deep, 5"tall and 18" wide.  They are a bit pricy, but what isn't?  The only real problem is not one remote will work my set up, so I need 3.  Sometimes I long for the 3 or 4 dial buttons and channel changer days, you just turned it on and it will play.  Now, I'm watching a lot of music videos on YouTube (Premium) which seems to get better by the day.  Gosh,  I love both set ups. - Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis

Stereo experience

I feel my floor standing speakers do a great job...I don't need a sub.

Satellites and subs can work very well, they can also be a huge pita.

With a floor stander, a designer has created a type of basic, bass management circuitry in the cabinet. Most subs only have partial bass management capabilities, a very few will have complete bass management capabilities and none will have extensive bass management capabilities.

If I were to do a satellite plus sub system, (and I would) I would not put one together that did not have at least some type of complete bass management.

I am also hoping that maybe I could get better and more even bass with 2 or 4 subs.

 Multiple subs will absolutely give you smoother bass.

Sorry I missed this.  While I am an advocate of satellite/subs, the truth is less about multi-amping and amplifier power than it is about room integration.  
If you use a sub, it's easier to integrate a sub only EQ, place it correctly, etc.

good and extensive discussion here on this thread, with the usual range of perspectives being shared

i would add a few points, in general (noting that specifics always dictate, and can go against the generalities on occasion)

- smaller monitor type speakers with integrated subs usually do not produce the same soundscape as good larger speakers or floorstanders, reason being that properly integrated subs typically do not reach up into the middle bass frequencies, and it is those frequencies (and how they emanate from the speaker and interact with the room) that significantly help portray how ’full’ and ’large’ and ’effortlessly enveloping’ the music sounds

- as a corollary to the above point, floor standing speakers also provide an opportunity to couple the speakers’ upper and middle bass region output with the floor, something stand mounts do not do... this coupling is often important, again, in fleshing out the sound in room - this is related to, but imo, distinct from how true deep bass output from subs load’the listening room, giving one a sense of feeling as much as hearing the music

- while it is true that larger and floor standing speakers sometimes are just the same drivers from a smaller speaker mounted into a bigger cabinet, the larger volume of the enclosure can be transformative in how the speaker sounds in room, for all the reasons above -- while in other cases, the drivers are indeed different, and thus take advantage both of the larger cabinet volume, and the ability for different, larger drivers to move more air when needed

- given the above, i would personally agree, based on my own experience, that good larger speakers usually have a bigger sound, and more importantly, a more full, more dimensional, more fleshed out sound than ’equivalently good’ smaller speakers with subs -- with both playing at comfortable, unstressed volumes in each case -- (of course, it is too often seen that in sub/sat setups, the sats are overdriven, which leads to an extruded, artificial, stressed overall presentation)

- as an example of the above, i recently tried my beloved spendor sp1 speakers with a pair of rel subs, compared directly against the equally beloved sp100r2 speakers w/o subs (both are superb speakers with excellent driver and cabinet integration) - the sp1 is the iconic 2 cu ft bbc monitor with an 8 in bass driver, compared against the 12 in woofer (and dedicated midrange driver) of its sp100 big brother -- the 12 in woofer has 2.4x the surface area of its 8 in counterpart, and the sp100 has almost 2x the total cabinet volume of the sp1 -- the sound was indeed very very different in presentation... the sp1/rel setup was leaner through the midband and midbass, but with excellent, rock solid deep bass due to the subs... while the sp100’s sans subs was a little weaker in true deep bass, but much more full scale and utterly effortless and warm-bodied in its presentation -- now, bear in mind the sp1’s are actually pretty large ’standmount’ speakers, and i would venture to say that if you went to typically smaller ’satellite speakers’ (say totem 1’s, proac tablettes, buchardt s400, kef ls50s, etc etc) this vast difference in presentation would become even more stark...

all this said, smaller rooms are more suited for sat/sub setups, large/floorstanding speakers can often overload such rooms

@jjss49 --

Good insights. 

It seems to me though you're leaving out one scenario, namely that pairing the larger full-range speaker (in your case the Spendor SP100 R2's) with a pair of subs. Have you tried out that combination with the REL's of yours?

This is my own preference and actual speaker setup; large floor standing (semi-)full range main speakers coupled to a pair of large (20 cf. volume per cab) tapped horn subs. That's a total of four 15" drivers covering the range of roughly 85 to 600Hz, and two tapped horn-loaded 15" drivers (effectively adding up to the equivalence of four to five 15" drivers in air displacement area) reproducing ~20 to 85Hz. Whilst my main speakers are not full-range strictly speaking (35-40Hz is their lower, stand-alone limit) what matters is that four 15" (high efficiency) drivers are used in outlined region and what this means for the reproduction of this vital frequency spectrum. Important also is that they're high-passed below ~85Hz, meaning they are relieved of LF which cleans up their used range and adds further headroom. 

To my ears nothing beats large main speakers coupled to a pair of large subs. This combination alone leaves many variations to be explored though to fit many different needs and goals. 

Hi all, I'm starting to get real curious about subwoofer arrays.

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/tony1954 you mention that you have recently bought a sub array, may I ask which one?

Regarding distributed multi-subwoofer arrays (DBA), Duke LeJeune (@audiokinesis) is the resident Audiogon guru. He’s been promoting the benefits of a multi-sub DBA system on Audiogon for over 15 years, offering help and free advice to folks who DIY’d their own distributed bass arrays.

Duke designed and sells The Swarm distributed bass array (with permission from the originator of the idea, Dr. Earl Geddes). FYI...the cabinet is designed for the driver to face the wall.

I just changed from a 80 to a 300 watt per ch amp and with the same speakers the bass response is much better and cleaner.

the mid and hi end RTS and that’s fine since exaggerating the hi end irritates me!
all due to tinnitus, high frequency hearing loss and hypersensitive-in the hi frequencies!

hypersensivity-tinnitus- hearing loss

a trifecta!

The best soundstaging I have heard have been Carver Amazing Speakers (latest version for mids/highs) and Von Schweikert Ultra 11s.   I have noticed that soundstaging from small speakers maybe easier to obtain as placement is easier.  Also, the less bass, the less bloat possible and small drivers focus the sound easier.  I prefer not to own monitors and subs.   I like my big speakers and have had big speakers for over 40 years.  

NO NEVER!!

MC?  You were getting kinda boring so maybe it’s better for all of us you take a break (I have Tektons but they’re not as earth shattering as some would have you believe ).  But I haven’t spent innumerable hours tweaking them which maybe defeats the purpose.  Eric said they’d blow away my KEF LS50s paired with a decent sub but that’s just not the case.  I have an NAD M33 and the room correction EQ makes a Huge difference on any speaker I’ve tried - especially the Tektons.  Anyone who has had the LS50s knows that for what they are they are pretty special.. Despite the promise of the Tektons I can’t let my LS50s go.   I have the Tekton compact impact btw.  

Had floorstanders that worked well in a large listening space but not so good in a small one. My quasi-nearfield listening position just didn't allow enough distance for the drivers to blend properly. Problem was solved when I switched to standmounts with coincident/coaxial drivers and sub. Was able to position the monitors for best imaging/soundstage and sub for best bass. 

buddyboy143 posts11-05-2021 3:01pmBlkwrxwagn....Thanks for not helping...You can't answer it because your a neophite and don't know the answer....I pity your SO....way to much hatred and negativity to be on here.

Okay @buddyboy1 .....I actually was trying to help but you took that a bit far........not sure why anyone would want to help you now though, that was a bit much.

People here get really worked up when you bring up Tekton, so when you came into the middle of a conversation that had NOTHING to do with your question, I was trying to tell you to go ask Eric himself (or just google)

Eric makes 2ohm, 4ohm, 8ohm versions of speakers to match people's systems and the point I was making is that he also makes WAY TOO MANY speakers to match people's systems or rooms.  Jack of all trades, master of none?  That was the point but you took it personally for some reason.  I'll go back to listening to my Tekton DI's now. 

@phusis

@jjss49 --

Good insights.

It seems to me though you’re leaving out one scenario, namely that pairing the larger full-range speaker (in your case the Spendor SP100 R2’s) with a pair of subs. Have you tried out that combination with the REL’s of yours?

i have indeed and of course that is often the best of all worlds

i only wrote my comments to address the op’s specific query of comparing sat+subs vs full range (w/o subs)...

there was a thread a few years ago about matching towers with subs, with great input from Duke and Ralph K...I ended up with that setup, and with gracious help from Duke setup was surprisingly easy and effective...

Over the past week I used three different speaker systems:
1. Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 with Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs
2. King Sound King III electrostatic with same subs at same settings
3. Ohm Walsh Model F with same subs, same settings

All systems used same source, Small Green Computer sonicTransporter with SONORE Signature Rendu with systemOptique; same USB, Clarity Cable Supernatural 1m; same DAC, Exogal Comet with PLUS Power Supply, same amps, Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra, and same cables, Iconoclast Cables and BAV Power Cords. 

Ideally the sub would be dialed in for each, obviously, but my latest interest is hearing each for the imaging and soundstage characteristics pursuant to this discussion. If you wish to argue with me about the method employed, I'm not interested. Build your own systems and do your own direct comparisons to derive your conclusions.   :) 

Wharfedale setup: Quite lovely with the expected density of center image due to dynamic and 3" mid. Even with a very generously appointed midrange and bass driver, it becomes evident that bookshelf speakers are limited by their small cabinets. The driver selection is constrained and the performance level dragged toward the perhaps upper middle of the performance spectrum of HiFi versus the practically limitless drivers and designs of larger towers. There are very good reasons why most manufacturers do not opt for bookshelf systems as their ultimate expression of speaker building. 

King III: Instantly obvious grandiose soundstage which makes the bookshelf's sound stage seem diminished, and with much superior spatial location of performers. The depth of soundstage, the vastness of venue, becomes quite evident. Center image is stretched, obviously, due to the driver type and configuration, however more finesse, fine detail is heard in the center image. Far more consistency across the acoustic plane from L/C/R, versus the hot spot of bookshelf imaging.

Ohm Walsh Model F: It can be surprising to hear how muddled this driver is in comparison to the others. The promotion of these older drivers as having exquisite resolution in comparison to newer technology is simply wrong. Quite a muted mid relative to the others. It becomes obvious that this older driver has serious constraints. The upper end is clean, light, but the midrange on down is hindered, even when carefully double wiring it, as with the others. Here is an interesting point; the vaunted omni sound stage with this speaker is not all that; the King III throws a significantly larger, more voluminous sound stage and with much better cleanness top to bottom. The ohm character is the antithesis of the Wharfedale's immediacy, and the King III masters them both. I would not choose the Model F as a reference speaker. It's just a fun play around speaker for me. The King Sound King Tower omni has superior openness and cleanness. 

One outcome such comparisons is that the audiophile should not think to recreate the performance of a tower by swapping in bookshelf and sub even with a larger bookshelf speaker. Not going to happen unless the largely unproductive goal of recreating the precise set of drivers and crossovers of a tower speaker in two cabinets is pursued. At that point you have largely failed at advancing the system by splintering it. Genre of speaker is crucial to outcome and imo should color the discussion of tower vs. bookhself/sub as much as anything.   

There has been a fair bit of conversation about subs with tower speakers. Big towers do not necessarily need subs, but in terms of macrodynamics they almost always are a boon. However, you will pay a price for slapping additional big drivers into the rig. Coherence will suffer with subs added (No, I do not care about the opinion of those who flog the topic of distributed arrays; they have their own idiosyncrasies, and I am not interested in debating my discussion. BTW, I like Duke Lejune and his idea, and have heard the DBA prior, but see pro/con in all sub setups), so it's a trade off between presence and precision. Imo, not possible to get perfection on both spectrums simultaneously, and trust me, I've tried dozens of times with systems. 

I offer this as an example of what might be expected in direct comparisons between different genres of speaker systems, especially in terms of center image and sound stage. Obviously, particular characteristics will change based on selection of genres of speakers, but I would not expect the framework of the outcome to change. 

I like full range speakers and I have plenty of them.

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
Some of the nonsense written on this site from so called experts is astonishing.

Yours included.

@steakster 

+1

audition__audio
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.

That’s like saying in a perfect world we would only hear the sound of a vocalist’s larynx - and discount their diaphragm, chest cavity and breath control. Nonsense.

The chest cavity/rib cage is a box. The diaphragm helps to force air through that box.

The tone of a violin, cello, acoustic guitar - and piano - is determined by the wooden box - upon which the strings are mounted. A Stradivarius is a very expensive wooden box. A very pretty one might add.

The tone of a flute, trumpet or saxophone is determined by the shape of their metal tubes. Air is forced through these metal tubes.

And let’s not forget drums.

In each instance, the enclosure affects the sound of the instrument.

@audition__audio --

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.

We're not living in a "perfect world," so obviously it's a matter of weighing out compromises to aid the end result. Per your logic a larger box speaker (i.e.: bigger drivers and therefore bigger enclosures,) is less desirable because the practical scenario dictates that a larger enclosure resonates more, unless of course it's so heavily damped that its total mass equates several hundred kg's or even upwards a ton. There's some merit to this observation, but my counter reply would be: how much matters, to whom and not least relative to other design factors? It seems you pay little to no attention to the gains of going large (and more efficient), and instead place all your efforts on striving for total enclosure inertness and thus smaller size and lower efficiency - certainly if you plan on maintaining LF-extension and avoiding the hassle of tackling super heavy speakers. As an example: direct radiating drivers of subs of limited size and numbers will readily and quite easily reveal mechanical noises produced by the driver, which is distortion. How's that even if placed in a cab weighing close to a grand piano? There's loads of energy in the lower frequencies, and what you don't want is hearing the driver working or making an effort; this, by far, is the predominant issue in (U)LF reproduction, if you ask me, and not (large) enclosure resonances. The thing is though you have to hear the difference to appreciate what headroom is about, but I suppose it's a comforting tale to the audiophile that what's large is, by default, inconvenient - even undesirable - as a masking for what comes down to spousal demands, family obligations, prejudice, and the wants for interior decoration. It's HiFi in a nutshell, really: not seeing the forest for the trees. . 

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. 

@audition__audio --

Will get back with a reply tomorrow.