Speaker size and soundstage


Question: for floor standing speakers, how does speaker size affect sound stage, bass response, and the depth of music?

I’m searching for a new speaker, and just tested Dynaudio Contour 30 against Tekton Electrons (16x18 room with cathedral ceiling). Tekton’s are bigger (48 vs 45 high, and 10 vs 8.5 wide, about the same depth) and had a much larger sound stage and greater dynamics and depth. Tekton’s as a rule are much bigger than most other brands, which can be imposing in a room, but the size must equate to a greater sound stage. 
But can a smaller tower be designed to achieve the same sound stage and bass depth of a bigger speaker? If so, what what speakers pull this off?
w123ale

Showing 4 responses by rixthetrick

+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)
+ 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.
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.