Speaker size and soundstage

Nowhere near that simple.

I remember a few decades back at a Chicago show, HSU had a pair of bookshelf speakers and a powered sub (or 2) in a very large room. It was pretty impressive. I came home and bought a pair of Reference 3As and tried 2 different Sunfire subs, but did not find them a good match for 2 channel HiFi. I sold both and bought several pairs of 3 ways and Maggie 3.5Rs.


Fast Forward to the present, I have a pair of Emerald Physics 3.4s (2 way with 12" concentric driver with 1" polyester tweeter) + a 10+ year old pair of SVS powered subs (the volume controls in their BASH plate amps are the weak link), BUT, is very enjoyable

hth

Speaker size has a lot to do with bass response.  It has very little to do with imaging.  Many times a simple two way monitor will offer a superior and huge image when set up correctly.  One of the things that amazed me with Tekton DI's and the Electron SE was how well Eric designed these to image so well in spite of their size and multiplicity of drivers.  Quite a feat.  

I think people have different definitions of soundstage.  IMO, it means a speaker's ability to portray the musicians in the places they were put in the recording so instruments can be identified by location.  Just know that few recordings have natural instrument placement and most are placed by the engineer through the use of panpots, or however it's done now.  But I think many people use soundstage to mean the physical size of the instruments.  I've never liked the Wilson Watt/Puppy because it always sounded like it made everything sound unnaturally big.  But their success in the market place certainly proves Wilson knew their target audience. But in the end, as with all things in audio, everything matters - the speakers, the rest of the equipment, the room, the recording and - most of all, your personal preference.  As far as bass response goes, IMO it depends on the room/speaker interface.  I'm getting better bass response with little Harbeth P3s in my room than I did with the much larger M30s.  Just the way the speaker works with the room.  

Thanks for the input all! Such an interesting journey to find the perfect speaker match with my room (can’t change), my gear, and listening preferences.

I just moved the Dyns further away from the wall, reduced toe in, and moved closer to the listening position. Definitely improved the sound stage. 
I guess for me, I look for a wide sound stage that fills the room and makes the speakers disappear. When the Dyns were further back the sound stage was definitely narrower and felt cut off at vertically—like the music just stopped at a certain height. I felt the need to keep increasing the volume to fill the room. The Tektons on the other hand fill the room and disappear at moderate volume.

Makes me think the Dyns are just not matched with the room and the listening configuration and electronics because they sounded brilliant in the store.

In my many years of audio, I have found that in a domestic living environment, the speaker/room interface is a total crapshoot.  I'm talking about rooms where you have limited placement options, seating options and furniture-moving options.  I have never found a correlation between speaker size and how they worked in my room.  Some did and some didn't. But you should experiment within the parameters you have.  Moving a speaker a few inches closer or further from the back wall can have a big effect on the sound.  

Electronics also play a part. I found that my Revel speakers had a wider sounstage with an Arcam amp, than with a comparable Cambridge Audio amp. 

Overall size of the soundstage, specificity/precision of the soundstage, dimensionality of the soundstage, scale of the soundstage are, in my experience, distinct and dependent on multiple variables including electronics, isolation, noise, room, speakers, etc.  The only one I’ve found to correlate with size of the speakers/drivers is soundstage scale (eg. musicians and instruments sounding larger or smaller).

Baffle size and cubic inches make all the difference when it comes to dynamic full range sound in a large room and you will especially hear it when you get a true full size full range speaker that has a baffle three times the height and twice the width of the woofer you will not believe the foundation and depth of sound when you hear a big speaker loaf along in even a very large room. Small narrow baffle speakers with small drivers will not do this or any semblance of this type of sound at all in any size room.

There are a couple of items for comment.  

First is room acoustics.  It's probably the most critical component in soundstage.  A well-tuned room is both the starting point and the finishing effort in any listening environment from the basement cave to the symphony hall.  Without the room, it will not be possible to set up a fully satisfying system.

A very easy and inexpensive room tuning solution is using 5" artificial ficus trees available at most home decor stores.  "At Home" stores sell them for $40 each.  I ended up with about 15 scattered around the room, mostly behind and next to the speakers.  They act as diffusers and work great.  It's probably the cheapest and most effective room tweak available.

Next is optimizing speaker setup.  Much as been written about speaker set up.  Most is total crep.  But do try to keep the speakers away from the back wall and the side walls.  Place an artificial ficus between the side wall and the speaker a little forward of the speaker to break up the sound heading for the side wall.  You don't want those side wall echoes.  

What is a "bigger speaker?" What is a "smaller speaker?"  

The Dynaudio Contour 30 is a VERY good speaker.  I haven't heard the Tekton.    

Soundstage and imaging can be somewhat controlled with the speaker setup and room acoustics.  Artificial ficus trees are the 

I have gotten spectacular soundstage and imaging using a speaker with a single 5" driver in a mass-loaded transmission line enclosure.  It was a nearfield setup in a larger room that the OP describes.  Wonderful system, punchy, tight and fun, but a little lacking in macro dynamic range and sub-80hz bass.  And nearfield listening helps to remove room interaction.

I get spectacular soundstage and imaging with my current 3.5 way four driver speakers with 12" and 10" woofers, 6" mid and 1" tweeter drivers in the same large room --- obviously NOT a nearfield listening setup.  But it does provide a very wide range of dynamics and sub-40hz bass at maybe 20 times or more the size of the 5" MLTL system.  

But the MOST satisfying listening comes ONLY in a room that is properly acoustically tuned.  

I got a fairly holographic presentation and deep bass with a standard version of the Salk Songtowers with at least half my LPs in my old 18' x 26' room. In my new place, they sound pretty good with better bass balance but not so magical.

It's about total system synergy and there's no way to tell until you get them into your room.

The size of the cabinet has more to do with efficiency than anything else. Given the same bass extension, a larger cabinet will require less power than a smaller one. That’s the trade off for low end - really big or really inefficient speakers. The size of the soundstage has more to do with dispersion and baffle effects and setup. Maybe someone has a link they can post to a useful video or paper by an actual expert. 

Forget either, and go out and buy some big azz Tannoys...you will get what you are looking for. My choice for you, the Ardens. Thank me later....although, I will point out that the cheap diamond 225's are a bit of a miracle little speaker...they produce an incredibly wide sound stage and produce copious amounts of bass for their size and price. I still own mine, despite now having tannoys....read about them in stereophile, $449 and a crazy good little speaker if on a budget. 

Sound stage has more to do with phasing, crossover points, driver dispersion, driver placement, and the shape and size of the front baffle than actual cabinet size. It’s also heavily influenced by placement, and the rest of the system.

Such fantastic input; greatly appreciated! 
I changed the setup yesterday by swapping out entry level cables with higher end cables. The dynamics in both speaker changed dramatically with both opening way up. 
The Tektons now have much greater extension, but are a little sibilant (may mellow as the wire burns in). The Dyns  soundstage is expanded substantially and they now fill the room and feel, perhaps, more balanced than the Tektons—more listening needed!

So to confirm other comments, the system and electronics do of course make a difference here, and in my case the speaker wire seemed to be an earlier limiting factor.

+1 knotscott - yes, drivers that play well together in an inert enclosure,  crossovers with a deep symmetrical anti-phase at correct crossover points that reduce to the point of elimination of breakout from drivers. The baffle design and driver basket interactions with the baffle, correct cabinet size for the drivers not the room.

Yes, knotscott same page here.

w123ale - shhhh keep that on the low low bro, speaker wires can't possibly make a difference **wink** (sarcasm intended)

I think people have different definitions of soundstage. IMO, it means a speaker's ability to portray the musicians in the places they were put in the recording so instruments can be identified by location.

That sounds more like what I'd call "imaging", namely, the precision and accuracy of the musicians' apparent placement relative to each other ... and within the soundstage.  I think of "soundstage" as the 3D space bounding this placement.  Presumably, most audiophiles want a soundstage with the greatest apparent breadth, depth, and height achievable for playback of any given recording. But presumably they also want sharply defined images, along with the illusion that the speakers disappear within the soundstage. 

The Bose direct-reflecting design can achieve a big apparent soundstage even from very small satellite speakers along with a single subwoofer. That may sound impressive and pleasant at first listen, but I wouldn't expect very precise, accurate imaging (or frequency response) from that approach.  Admittedly I have not listened to Bose speakers for many years or in a wide variety of settings.  

On the other hand, I had a pair of Totem Arros, which are small floor standers with a reputation for excellent imaging.  I found they did indeed consistently produce a sharp center image and the speakers did indeed seem to disappear within the soundstage. However, the soundstage was not especially wide, deep, or high (at least not in my set-up).  Furthermore, the skinny boxes could only accommodate 4.5" woofers, which limited the bass impact.

Lots of factors and trade-offs. 

The monitor audio gold generation 5 and platinum generation 2 both have incredibly huge three-dimensional sound stages.

Think about it are manufacturers' top models smaller than their entry levels? If small was the best way wouldn't loudspeakers get smaller as their cost and performance increased? Wouldn't the end goal of loudspeaker design be to get as small as possible? 

I don't know if there is an agreed "package" that delivers the goods you speak of.

Too many variables.

I say this because of a past experience. I heard the Soundsmith Strain Gauge cartridge thru Peters  small, average looking bookshelves which  made  HUGE music coming out of them. They didn't sound like wimpy little bookshelves. 

Never experienced that ever again.

This was achieved with one of my "stampers" played on a VPI HRX. Really a "pedestrian" setup by audiophool standards.

Recording will play a major part of getting that immersive experience.

I noticed a significant change when moving my towers away from the wall.  However, the biggest charge came after adding a pair of Rel S2 Sho subs.  The key is to dial the subs in with the correct crossover and to dial in the volume.  I think the mid’s on my towers sounded better.

Many times a simple two way monitor will offer a superior and huge image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Size again does not matter. 
Huge speakers always, always lose out vs a  high quality 2 way,. Take a  Seas W22 Graphene with Mundorf;'s SESGO caps + a  massive Gertz copper coil and add a  Voxativ  8 inch model. maybe add a  tweeter horn or a  AMT Neo tweeter and you havea  speaker that weighs less than 50 lbs and  blows away any speaker 10X;s its size.
Size  of speaker  has absoluetly  nothing whatsoever to do with huge massive gigantic sound stage, Sensitivity makes sound stage. 

Wouldn't the end goal of loudspeaker design be to get as small as possible?
~~~~~~~~~~

This is the new science, The New 21wst C speaker is a lotttt smaller , much less weight vs the old models and is far superior in soundstage/fidelity. 
My Seas W18E001  are housed in a  Thor cabinet,  weighing like 60 lbs, I could easily build a  cabinet from snaded plya from HD and build a  cabinet that weighs ,,ohh say, 25 lbs, sound is equal. 
The new speakers in the future will be much smaller in size, weight and price. 

knotscott90 posts06-06-2021 5:39amSound stage has more to do with phasing, crossover points, driver dispersion, driver placement, and the shape and size of t


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Soundstage is defined by the sensitivity of the speaker and quality of materials used in construction (= engineering) of the speaker.
These 2 factors will determine soundstage.

+ 1 mozartfan

Soundstage is defined by the sensitivity of the speaker and quality of materials used in construction (= engineering) of the speaker.
These 2 factors will determine soundstage.

And the prowess with which those quality parts are implemented.

I will assume that you have won the first battle involving floor standing speakers female approval. This is usually the first issue for most of us. Now onward and speaker size along is such a small part of this formula. Yes bigger can make a huge difference if you can cover an entire wall with drivers but it does have to fit the decor. Salk can produce some fantastic solution with moderate foot prints. Same with Vandersteen. I cant comment on others as they are the only two I know.

Soundstage is defined by the sensitivity of the speaker and quality of materials used in construction (= engineering) of the speaker.
These 2 factors will determine soundstage.

Quality of materials is certainly a factor that I agree with, and think few would dispute.

Sensitivity?  ...as it relates to efficiency? I’m going to need some help understanding that one as an influence on the soundstage.

Imaging is determined by the fidelity with which extremely fine and subtle details are reproduced. Sensitivity is by definition the response to an input. The lower the sensitivity the more power required for any given input, the less sensitive the speaker. Since the magic of imaging resides in low level fine detail it stands to reason the low sensitivity speaker is other things being equal at a disadvantage. Other things never are equal, but to the extent they are, there you go.

Sensitivity is by definition the response to an input. The lower the sensitivity the more power required for any given input, the less sensitive the speaker. Since the magic of imaging resides in low level fine detail it stands to reason the low sensitivity speaker is other things being equal at a disadvantage. Other things never are equal, but to the extent they are, there you go.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it. The theory makes sense. The old Spica TC-50 comes to mind as a possible exception. I think they had a sensitivity rating of like 83db, but were well known as sound stage titans.

I have a similar question, although rather than physical size it refers to setting the speaker “size” in the receiver. 
I’ve always read setting speakers to “small” regardless of their physical size helps the receiver integrate the subs more readily. 
Is this true — and how would that affect imaging?

Imaging (millercarbon) and soundstage (OP) are two completely different things.

Hello,
I am going to suggest Audio Physic 25 speakers. They are skinny towers but have an eight inch woofer inside the cabinet that is down ported. Due to the skinny design the midrange and tweeter can get around the cabinet. Due to the 8” driver you get great bass. The Tekton speakers that have the speaker array can do this also. The Audio Physics 25 speakers are semi cat proof due to the design. 

Since the magic of imaging resides in low level fine detail it stands to reason the low sensitivity speaker is other things being equal at a disadvantag

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Low level fine details**
Yes
The nunances and subtilities spread throughout most classical music, require a  high sensitivity speaker to voice these low level, quite often smothered over by blaring brass section. 
THe higher sensitivity you go, the superior the soundstage and imaging. 
These 2 are the same. 
Lets not split hairs,

Sensitivity is by definition the response to an input. The lower the sensitivity the more power required for any given input, the less sensitive the speaker. Since the magic of imaging resides in low level fine detail it stands to reason the low sensitivity speaker is other things being equal at a disadvantage. Other things never are equal, but to the extent they are, there you go.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it. The theory makes sense. The old Spica TC-50 comes to mind as a possible exception. I think they had a sensitivity rating of like 83db, but were well known as sound stage titans.

Not mentioning the room at all, just the loudspeakers, in regards to imaging.
Assuming that imaging and soundstage are both married to the degree to which the loudspeaker can recreate the information captured in the recording and editing?

** I cannot identify that the two are not the same, either??**

As I prefer the term spacial information, it is best conveyed when whatever type of speakers used, inject as little distortion and noise into the voicing of the music played. A presentation, that gets the speakers out of the way of the sound produced.
This would include and not limited to, frequency response, cabinet resonances, driver resonances, breakout response of drivers controlled by the crossover, the electrical noise introduced by the crossover, the noise introduced by the drivers and the materials in their composition. In the case of multi driver designs, crossover points, anti-phase and matching drivers that work harmoniously together. One design in particular is considered an imaging and soundstage champion....and it’s not efficient.

Case in point: Electrostatic panels.

According to J. Gordon Holt’s audio glossary, “imaging is the measure of a system’s ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage.” J. Gordon’s description of “soundstaging” further elaborates the concept, “The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.”

Source - https://audiophilereview.com/reference-speakers/on-imaging-and-loudspeakers/

And yes I am contradicting something I said earlier in this discussion, that may not have been entirely correct.

It has to do with spacial cues in the recording.  I can get a huge soundstage and imaging (placement) with 2 monitors and 2 subs with the right recording, with others not so much. Room treatment and DSP to control FR, phase and delay will help achieve it more than the size of the speakers. 

2 subs
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subs can not produce high fidelity, Subs are for HT effects,  useage ONLY, Not for music.

According to some comments it seems that Harry Potter was selling cables to some members of this forum ... I will never cease to be surprised by the capabilities that some people assign to a couple of cables.

Soundstage, breadth, depth? engineers and years of studies to understand and build systems that offer specific characteristics to the sound like those mentioned above (and the interaction with the listening room) but it turns out that all this does not really matter ... you just have to change the cables! Yes baby!!

w123ale, you have to close your eyes when you listen to remove visual ques from the equation. Tektons have a terrible image. Stay away.
There are only two sizes of sound stage, point source and line source. Line source speakers of which there are very few which are truly full range produce a large up front sound stage. Point source speakers, of which there are many produce a smaller "miniature" sound stage. 
You can adjust the situation somewhat with speaker spacing and listening position distance but if you like sitting in the first 10 rows you need to search for a line source speaker or partial line source speaker like Magnapans or any number of ESLs. The only full range line source that I know of on the market right now is the Sound Labs 845 or 945. 
Point source speakers are a dime a dozen, you have to chose your own poison.

If you have the space to pull the speakers out from the wall at least 3 or 4 ft, you might want to take a look at open baffle speakers such as this from Spatial. 

You have gotten very good obervations;

Flat repsonse speakers, on and off axis
speaker repositioning. The record mixer was likely mixingat a nearfield, classical 30/30 deg traingle position
room character upsetting that flat speaker
head position aligned with the tweeter and/or mid intersection
first wall reflections along that same ear level blur the original image
near field = more direct orignally recorded clues and information versus more reflections from your room

I have had 7' 6" line arrays and stand mounted two ways. The points above make the image, not the speaker size. Who listens 6" from your ceiling?

And we aren't in control of the recording Mixer's sound field positioning. Sometimes they try to make that flute stretch 8 feet between your speakers??? 

Happy hunting.

Magnepan 1.7's would do very well in your room. Soundstage,  Dynamics, all there. 

Check out Tannoy's. After a year of moving things around and learning more about speaker setup, I finally found the magical position for the Turnberry's. Since then, it's been heaven. Nice wide and tall soundstage and I have depth. Imaging is excellent. 15x20 room with not a whole lot of room treatment. My listening area is open and no clutter near the speakers or in front of the listening position. Gear is also down low and horizontal. It makes a difference. More room treatment and solid doors are next on the to-do list.

I agree with those who have pointed to adding a pair of Subs to increase your Soundstage, for your situation. Getting another brand of speaker in the same price point is more of a lateral move than an investment in achieving your goals.

I have speakers that perform very well within a frequency response between 30/28Hz - 40KHz. That said, after a few years I found myself wanting a more dynamic soundstage without breaking the bank. By adding a pair of REL subwoofers, I was able to extract deeper, cleaner bass,  fleshed out detail in the midrange and greater sense of spatial separation. I would guess that the low frequency is about 20/22Hz.

Good Luck

Lyndonbell. You are asking about “Crossover settings” on your AVR. YouTube had excellent vids on this subject.   This forum is full of nitwits who won’t give a straight answer.    

As to speaker size, large floor standers xylene to have a rich full sound especially for large rooms.  That is my wife’s preference.   But nothing to do with soundstage and imaging.  Personally I think Sonus faber make some of the best.  https://www.sonusfaber.com/en/products/olympica-nova-i/

Tektons have a terrible image. Stay away.

Those who have actually heard them beg to differ:

The imaging was so good that I felt like the vocalist was performing right in front of me and that I could reach out and touch them.   

I enjoyed hearing everything but was most shocked at Fleetwood Macs "Landslide". Hearing it so many times in the past and then not recognizing the intro because of the detailed soundstage. Then Chuck let Stevie Nicks sneak into the room and begin the vocals dead center right in front of me and the recognition set in.   

The soundstage starts a few feet behind the speakers, and extends well out into the room, seemingly surrounding you. I've never (in a true two speaker setup) felt so enveloped by the music as I was last night.

...a near religious experience.

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367

Tektons, at least the ones I have heard image poorly. But so do a lot of speakers. This is political incorrectness at it's best but, most people have never heard a system that images at the level the source is capable of and that includes those that would characterize themselves as audiophiles. They parrot the terminology used in the literature which is frequently stupid like "pace" and "timing" and think that echo is the third dimension. It is not. Some speakers like the Tektons are incapable of the best image by design. But, many are capable if managed correctly. What is correctly? The speakers have to be set up in a symmetrical situation.
All first reflections need to be dampened with sound absorption. The speakers have to be within 1 dB of each other from 100 Hz to 10 kHz.
If they are not all is not lost. You will have to apply digital EQ to make it so. This also allows you to adjust the overall frequency response to produce the sound you like. Doing all of this does not insure you will get the best image. That depends on the speaker's design particularly the crossover. How do you know if you have the best image or not? You have to have heard a system that images at this level. Once you do you will never forget it. If you do not have it now it is all about the speaker and the room. If you are sure you have the room treated correctly then you need to change speakers. I can count the speakers on one hand that I have heard make the magic. Most of the speakers that I have owned did not and only two have really had it. 

You have to have heard a system that images at this level.

Indeed. You should try it some time. Redmond, WA.

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367

Tektons, at least the ones I have heard image poorly. But so do a lot of speakers. This is political incorrectness at it's best but, most people have never heard a system that images at the level the source is capable of and that includes those that would characterize themselves as audiophiles. They parrot the terminology used in the literature which is frequently stupid like "pace" and "timing" and think that echo is the third dimension. It is not. Some speakers like the Tektons are incapable of the best image by design. But, many are capable if managed correctly. What is correctly? The speakers have to be set up in a symmetrical situation.All first reflections need to be dampened with sound absorption. The speakers have to be within 1 dB of each other from 100 Hz to 10 kHz.If they are not all is not lost. You will have to apply digital EQ to make it so. This also allows you to adjust the overall frequency response to produce the sound you like. Doing all of this does not insure you will get the best image. That depends on the speaker's design particularly the crossover. How do you know if you have the best image or not? You have to have heard a system that images at this level. Once you do you will never forget it. If you do not have it now it is all about the speaker and the room. If you are sure you have the room treated correctly then you need to change speakers. I can count the speakers on one hand that I have heard make the magic. Most of the speakers that I have owned did not and only two have really had it.

 I dont know Tektons...

 But i know what is acoustic control....


You prove yourself  to be an ignorant because you judge all people with ONE experience : yours...

 This is  your sentence:
«They parrot the terminology used in the literature which is frequently stupid like "pace" and "timing" and think that echo is the third dimension.»

 You apply this judgement AGAINST all people indiscriminately, even if  each of their experience is different...

What arrogance ! And  arrogance could be colorful and egotistical, but arrogance could be also  grey and boring like  stupidity is.,..

 And  what do you say after these are your words :

«
Some speakers like the Tektons are incapable of the best image by design. But, many are capable if managed correctly. What is correctly? The speakers have to be set up in a symmetrical situation.
All first reflections need to be dampened with sound absorption. The speakers have to be within 1 dB of each other from 100 Hz to 10 kHz.»

 First you dont have experience with Tekton and claiming that they are "by design" unable to image correctly  is  a claim so stupid that anybody reading that need no argument to judge you like you are ... I will not use any word... 

Almost ALL relatively correctly designed speakers are able to image correctly...

 You affirmation that first reflections must be "dampened with sound absorption" in ALL circonstance and for all room reflect your TOTAL ignorance of acoustic .....


 I am surprize by your stupidity because in some other post you reveal that your own  speakers electronically  equalized image ONLY  with a sound between the speakers....

 This is very poor experience....

 Imaging and soundstage, and source width and listener envelopment are all acoustical factors linked together when any room is under control....mine is and my experience is not a distorted echo, but an orchestra in my room or a piano completely out of the speakers... And my speakers are average good speakers....

 NO electronical equalization can do this.... Awake yourself....