Does a speaker need to have many drivers or a large driver area to sound big and fill the room? I am asking this question because I have a pair of tekton design double impact and would like to replace them with smaller speakers and a pair of subwoofer's to better integrate the bass into my room. I just borrowed a set of B&W 702S. The are good but the just don't make that floor to ceiling sound that I like. Maybe I have already answered my own question (: But again I have not heard all the speakers out there. My room measure 15x19' and the ceiling goes from 7.5 to 12.8'
Two of the DIRECT causes of image-size and scale are 1) Volume and 2) the Recording itself.
You forgot the most important one...
The only one that matter and which is under your control save the volume control trivial remark:
Controls of " timing" of early and late " reflected" wavefronts, and controls of the speakers characteristics by driving them through the pressure zones of your room with the addition of new pressure zones : Hemholtz resonators ORIENTED grid...
There is more than trivial volume control here...
And for sure if the recording engineer of the live event was a bad one, you will not replace the cd quality with acoustic... But this is trivial...
This thread keeps going...So here's another thought, not specific to the speakers the OP mentions.
(Again, the real answer is undistorted, real full range loudspeakers/subs. Size does not matter, but actually achieving the above sentence IS certainly easier with physically larger speakers. At least at lower cost.)
However, nobody SHOULD want big sounding speakers. I'll even go further. No one should want speakers to CREATE scale and sound big. A speaker reproducing stereo (almost by definition) should simply disappear!
Yes, room reflections, speaker style, on and on are important, but none exclusively provide or control auditory image-size and scale.
Let's back up. What is the recording? A piccolo solo? A floor to ceiling piccolo would be undesirable, even comical. A bumble bee buzzing around? Small, precise image flying around.
Two of the DIRECT causes of image-size and scale are 1) Volume and 2) the Recording itself.
If your speakers are making, "small things" big, you have a problem. Wiring a driver out-of phase and increasing the level (to that driver) could create an artificially huge image. Phil Specter's Wall of sound and many, many recording use the concept to successfully creat big, enveloping sound. Echo, reverb, phase are the tools engineers use daily to give your music scale! So the bottom line is: image size should be proportional to the recording. Your volume knob is your one real control--the louder, the larger things should sound. Magical recordings do it all: huge performance space, big scale, precise imaging, dynamic--the engineer gives you the majestic illusion of large sound. Thank him or her. Now go play with your knob.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have this fast8 arriving in 2 weeks, I just surveyed several LII 10's and 8's on YT vids, ,,seems a tad warm in the critical mids,,But we'll see after i build the cabinets, Will uploada YT vid, Now to answer the OP, The answer he is looking for is ~~Sensitivity~~~ The Thors with 87db sound like a wet blanket 's been thrown over the speaker, LITERALLY!!!! Vs a relatively high sens at 91db FR Diatone 6.5 wide band. The Diatone 91db sounds bigger vs the MTM Thors, Go figure, db sens is everything in a speaker, Lower the db more ouny sounding speaker, higher the db la mas grande the image. Its that simple.
I had my custom moderate size listening room designed to accommodate 6-12" woofers at high efficiency, 98db. Now I get 25 Hz down just a few db. Bass is not an issue. This is very superior to my prior room which was 25' X 20' X 11.5' where I only got 35 Hz and bass response sounded heavy and uneven. The quality of the sound is 100% more satisfying/dense/rich with the same equipment. I also use acoustic tweaks including a double pair of Hallographs and a slew of SR HFTs, some ECTs and GCTs. I don't claim to get the best sound I ever heard but sound that one has difficulty leaving the room or running to the room to get to the music. I've heard 100s of systems over the years. The $1 million VAC/Von Schweikert system sounded the most life like. That system was large in a very large room but provided whatever the character of the recording, close or distant with all the ambiance that was recorded (or reverbed). It also provides a bubble of sound that emanates so that it spreads throughout the room, unlike most box speakers and many stats I've had. Advanced box speaker technology can rival any other tech design. It can be costly. I can make do for now with a great room and very good speakers that bring me to the music as it was recorded, near, far, in-between. Music can literally pop out at me, at all frequencies, just like live music at all levels of dynamics. Only orchestral music sounds compressed to some extent, often the recordings' fault as well.
One factor no one has mentioned is the quality of the music coming from your source. Better quality source components can make the same music (whether from vinyl or digital) sound fuller and with more presence.
Amplifiers can also make the same speaker sound fuller in sound.
I wouldn't really. In fact, I advocate full range speakers without any subwoofers, but sometimes it is not practical in terms of cost, space, aesthetics. So yes, big speakers, big high current amps, big turntables, and the right cables. Then it will sound big. Oh, and good recordings and wall current.
The final answer which on these threads is always, sub woofers. Sub woofers are like 400 watt amplifiers...why would you want more watts if the first watt sounds like crap. Why would you want to add subs to a system that sounds like crap..
In the car business there's a saying "there's no replacement for displacement" and while there are lots of technologically advanced turbo-4 engines these days that feel much closer to a bigger engine than their 2-liter displacements, a big engine still feels like a big engine. Similarly you can kind of predict how "big" a speaker sounds by the amount of driver surface area it has and thus the amount of air it is able to move. That being said, as others mentioned, for a given displacement some speakers will do a much better job of sounding big and full than others. I'm not sure I agree that it is about tweeter technology or dispersion pattern as much as it is about how the mid-bass response is tuned. That to me is the part of the spectrum that has the lion's share of the visceral musical material and can give a sense of ease and fullness to the presentation. So the choices the designer has made with regard to driver, crossover, enclosure, bass alignment etc. will factor in heavily. Often there is a tradeoff between damping and fullness that you have to balance carefully.
Some examples of smaller speakers that play big in my experience are the Sonus Faber Electa Amator, Silverline SR17 Supreme and Dynaudio Special Forty. They all have a slightly warmer mid-bass tuning and bass alignment that that isn't overdamped (in the case of the Dynaudio, I'd say quite a bit underdamped) that helps give a fullness and resonance that suggests a larger speaker. The Sonus Faber alone blew me away at RMAF 2018; add on a subwoofer (in that case a SF Gravis) and you have a huge, enveloping sound. I also recommend REL subwoofers as a good avenue to explore with a smaller speaker.
Big sound..... - Big speakers like the double impact (say no to bookshelf dinkies) - Concentrics if set up right since they can produce deep immersive holographic soundstages - dual subwoofers - Lots of wood diffusion panels on front and back walls - If you are not a 2 channel purist, set up a atmos/dts 5.2.2 system with front heights or 5.2.4 system (front and rear height speakers). Front heights should be atleast 2 to 3 ft above your fronts and 2 to 3 ft outside of front speakers. The big giant orchestra and humongous immersive 3D soundstages will show up in your lil room. Some very smart guys declared a while ago that 2 speakers (stereo) are not sufficient to replicate the acoustics of large venues and they were absolutely right. Science will give you big sound!!
Much wisdom spread throughout the thread here and elsewhere online.
My 2 cents...
For a great condensed reference that touches on all this and much more, you may want to get a copy of Jim Smith's "Get Better Sound" https://www.getbettersound.com/store
Jim is one of the best in the audio / music biz and there are many things within its pages that may help solve your issue or at least improve the quality of what you hear. It is likely to help with other considerations and improvements as well.
Although his in-person, in-home consultations are pricey, he offers very reasonable 30 minute phone consultations. The book and the chat might be the best investments you can make (or will ever make) in your system and setup.
some good mid bass is also helpful; again the speaker driver surface in the mid bass needs to be matched to the volume of the room so it can propagate. the whole room needs to be energized.
is there a formula one could follow in order to size the speaker system to the room?
Image density? That is a new one. I suppose if you put the speakers closer together you get a "denser" image, farther apart less dense but larger. Yes, the distance between the speakers can change the image size as long as the listening position stays the same.
Had you experienced larger horn-loaded speaker set-ups you'd be familiar, I can only assume, with how the term 'density' applies to the perceived sound here, although variations with regard to how to explain sound can be a factor. Technically it relates to a larger part of the sound from the point sources here being emitted directly vs what's reflected, in conjunction with prodigious air radiation area. This (i.e.: density of sound) doesn't apply equally with a line source being a line source, from my recollection, even though it shares the traits of less reflected sound and large radiation area.
However phusis I will repeat this again and having installed and set up numerous very expensive systems, volume has nothing to do with image size. They are two separate issues.
I may have expressed myself incorrectly; by "volume" I meant sheer radiation are.
A set of dipole line sources going at 90 dB is going to have a much bigger image than any floor standing dynamic speaker going at 90 dB. You can crank that floor stander to 110 dB and it still will not have the image size of the dipoles. As a matter of fact the image size will not change at all.
I'm a fiend for sound that mimics a live event, and the planar and electrostats I've heard - for all their qualities - never left me convinced about a presentation reminiscent of live music, certainly not as much as high efficiency horn-based speakers or even some select, less efficient, direct radiating alternatives. That's line source vs. point source(s) for you, and in this particular context lower vs. high efficiency as well. We can argue all day about "the biggest sound there is" (I don't agree with you here either), but it's all for nothing unless there's some purpose to link image size with what sounds believable overall to both you and I. It seems we're simply not in tune here..
Many would not know this because they have not experienced it. Perfect line source dipoles are rare beasts and hardly ever set up in stores or at shows. It would seem you are talking from instinct and not experience or you would know this for sure. Everyone who has listened to even an imperfect line source knows this. Just ask any Maggie owner.
What exactly am I supposed to know having listened to line source dipoles, a "perfect" one not least? I've only listened to one terminated-at-floor-and-ceiling line source, the Dali Megaline (coupled to the Dali Gravity class A amps), and it was an impressive experience as I recall, now over 20 years ago. Or else I've listened to a variety of Martin Logan's, Acoustat's and Magnepan's over the years, and none of them swayed my into their direction as anything I'd consider to own.
A bit of harmonics can add up to a big sound. I don't call it harmonic distortion, but some do. Mt people like it. B&W aficionados try to hate added harmonics. I add some to bad recordings by switching out my sub-woofer crossover. The sound is much bigger when I do that, but loses some pin point accuracy. Many non-audiophile friends prefer this plump sound.
dsnyder0cnn's comment about closing your eyes is quite correct. Visual ques distort our sense of hearing. If it looks big it must sound big which is in reality totally false. You can make an LS 50 sound just as big as a big Wilson. Both have a single tweeter which usually sets the volume limit. If the tweeter in the Big Wilson and the LS 50 have the same power handling and efficiency they will go to the same max volume. Both radiate the same way. The only thing missing in the LS 50 is bass. Add a sub woofer and you can get remarkably close. Close your eyes when evaluating any speaker seriously to keep your visual cortex from screwing around with your audio cortex. Some people interpret volume as size. That is just not true. @phusis , Image density? That is a new one. I suppose if you put the speakers closer together you get a "denser" image, farther apart less dense but larger. Yes, the distance between the speakers can change the image size as long as the listening position stays the same. However phusis I will repeat this again and having installed and set up numerous very expensive systems, volume has nothing to do with image size. They are two separate issues. A set of dipole line sources going at 90 dB is going to have a much bigger image than any floor standing dynamic speaker going at 90 dB. You can crank that floor stander to 110 dB and it still will not have the image size of the dipoles. As a matter of fact the image size will not change at all. Many would not know this because they have not experienced it. Perfect line source dipoles are rare beasts and hardly ever set up in stores or at shows. It would seem you are talking from instinct and not experience or you would know this for sure. Everyone who has listened to even an imperfect line source knows this. Just ask any Maggie owner.
... Image size has nothing to do with volume but, a big image at high volume is very impressive when distortion is low. Unfortunately, the distortion of all speakers increases logarithmically with volume. Getting low distortion at high volumes is not easy.
Image size and density(!) has everything to do with volume and coverage pattern, in addition of course to acoustics and overall implementation. Such a main speaker - certainly one that combines large air radiation area with high sensitivity and prodigious power handling - will maintain (for a speaker) low distortion at high volumes, in a domestic environment not least. Somewhat easier to achieve with dynamic drivers than planar speakers and electrostatic dittos, btw.
Wide dispersion can make a speaker sound bigger and louder but at the expense of detail and focus.
Controlled or constant directivity offered by horns doesn’t strike me as leading to lack of detail and focus, even with a large sweet spot. If anything I find it sounds rather natural.
The best use of subwoofers is to lower distortion in the main speakers particularly at volume when large cone excursions put the suspension in a non linear position in it’s range and a lot of doppler distortion is produced. That fact that most subwoofer users do not take advantage of this by using a high pass filter on the main speakers boggles the mind.
Agreed, and using actively configured speakers makes the choice of high-passing the mains the more natural decision. However, if you had ample, effective cone area to begin with, in addition to high sensitivity, cone movement would be the lesser issue - even less so when high-passing such main speakers.
Do they [i.e.: subs] make a system sound larger? I suppose if you equate low bass with size. I don’t as the image size stays the same whether or not my subwoofers are on and I use four of them.
There’s a lot of spatial information - and in effect: image size - that can be retrieved from low frequencies, classical music material in particular. Spaciousness to some, bass-iousness to others ;) Preferably this requires of subs (that is: more than one, and preferably two, four or six) to be placed symmetrically to the mains and hooked up in stereo. The stereo coupling, for it to have effect, would need to be done with a cross-over no lower than 70-ish Hz, from where (on up) high-passing will have the most advantage in relieving the mains anyway.
Sounding big and going loud are two separate issues.
Sure, but that’s not to say the two can’t go hand in hand.
This single most important characteristic determining image size is the speakers pattern of radiation, point vs line source. Other characteristics are relatively minor.
Optimal coverage pattern as a determining factor of image size isn’t exclusive to a line source. You’re trying to monopolize a line source as the sole game player here - hardly the big picture, if you would.
Any speaker can go loud with enough power. The problem is doing it without distortion.
That’s the beauty of high sensitivity; the wattages available - not least by-passing a passive cross-over when actively configured - being all the more effectively used. More power produces more heat, no way around it, and there’s only so much of it that can be dissipated before thermal issues will arise. So, any lower sensitivity speaker can’t simply "go loud [enough]," for named reason.
Line source dipoles have a beautifully detailed image because they limit room interaction by limiting dispersion.
Indeed, among other reasons as well.
Horns can do the same thing for people who prefer the smaller image of a point source.
My pro cinema horn hybrid speakers can fill a medium sized auditorium (a large auditorium with bigger horns on top) rather effortlessly. You think they sound small-ish?
This is what happens , Some expert will say,,, ,,Ribbons and AMTs that spread around sound will sound bigger than a single dome tweeter. The top two the Professional talks about need to be a way from the wall behind the Speakers. start at 40 in out then move around the 3rd tweeter is the one you might be interested (example) Merlin VSM BM but again never sure good luck
well sir , you have good hearing selling the speakers i was happy to read that. Then you said B&W. Keep looking about. Speaker wire , Amp, Pre, all work to fix the problem. i don't know how far from the wall the speakers can be so i won't comment
the answer is yes, you need a big speaker for big sound, while you can produce a reasonable sound stage out of a smaller speaker there will be no impact or force from a mini speaker. Mini or small speakers will always sound mini or small, its just physics and anything else is just a illusion or delusion or whatever you want to call it. A big planar speaker with a big surface area will sound bigger, an array of dynamic speakers emulating a planar speaker will sound bigger. If you combine a big sub woofer with tiny speakers you will get impact from the subwoofer but the rest of the musical spectrum will still sound small - like the small speaker where the sound comes from. Same like the other poster said: a big block engine will always sound bigger than a tiny 4 cylinder engine, even blown up to deliver hundreds of horses, if you want big than go big - and yes again bigger is better as long you have room!
Hello Martin. I've always had big speakers as my listening room is rather large. I've just changed to smaller ProAc speakers on sturdy heavy stands and added two 15" sub-woofers. One on each sides. The sound is pretty big and it will fill the room quite easily. I think the only draw backs will be the SPL your small speakers will deliver. If your trying to have a rather large and loud party, this set up will probably not do as usually, the power is limited with smaller woofers. The good part is that the small footprint your bookshelf speakers will have, is going to give you a better musical stage definition. The previous speakers where OBs. The thing I miss the most is how quickly they reacted to the music. But I do not miss the added space they took in my listening room (living room). I will have to put them up for sale as I rather like the added space that I get with the small speakers. You can't win them all.
Hello Martin, I just read your post and haven’t gone through the responses. Excuse me if I may repeat something already mentioned. I’ve been in this hobby for 25-30yrs. So one of the things I offer is experience. The design of the speaker is what makes it sound big. Components and cables can significantly affect the size of the sound but the largest factor is the speaker. For the most part, larger drivers do produce larger sound but there are exceptions to this rule. At times, a well designed small driver in a well designed speaker can sound very big along with a larger driver in a poor designed speaker can sound small. My advice, if you really, really like your speakers, try higher level cabling to hear if the speakers open up. If not, try upgrading your components to items that are much more “open” sounding. If these basic attempts don’t work, then I don’t think the speakers you have are really meant to be open, big sounding.
This is a not so well defined criteria. Some call the soundstage size an expression of BIG sound and some consider bass extension the criteria for BIG sound. A truly big soundstage comes from speakers with very low distortion artifacts and minimal diffraction effects. Diffraction and distortion effects are non consonant and detract from the soundstage scale. Low distortion bass extension is well understood.
I asked the DIY audio community here in UK about room filing, all absorbing sound and the consensus was basically “big boxes, and the biggest box is your room so use it”. Hence the 6 foot high backloaded horns that now grace the end of my living room. In my son’s smaller space his 9x2 line arrays plus subs sound great - and sound great if you are sat on the futon, or bopping about.
Hello . Horn loaded speakers. Very sensitive doesn't take a lot of wattage to get them singing. I don't work for jbl but they have quite a few speakers with compression drivers and decent woofers that not only fill your room up but will have strong deep BASS. or you can do some research and build your own set of speskers
The way a speaker radiates and it's interaction with the room will determine it's image size (not the size of the loudspeaker) along with it's ability to cast a holographic image. Relating this to a live performance is difficult. It all depends where you are sitting and what type of venue you are in along with the sound system being used. Image size has nothing to do with volume but, a big image at high volume is very impressive when distortion is low. Unfortunately, the distortion of all speakers increases logarithmically with volume. Getting low distortion at high volumes is not easy.
There seems to be some confusion between bi poles and di poles. Bipolar speakers radiate from both sides in phase. Dipolar loudspeakers radiate from both sides out of phase.
@audio2design, I think what you meant to say was that dipolar loudspeaker's off axis response falls off sharply which it certainly does. You are right. Most "line source" loudspeakers are not perfect because they act as line sources only at certain frequencies. In order to act as a line source a speaker has to be taller (or wider) than the wavelength of the lowest frequency it is to reproduce. There is one exception to this rule. If the speaker is composed of a stack of multiple drivers the drivers have to be closer to one another than the wavelength of the highest frequency they are to reproduce. This is why you always see tweeters jammed close together and woofers farther apart. The reason low bass is lost from Magniplanar speakers is because they are too short! At about 6 feet tall, corresponding to a wavelength of around 200 Hz, they act as a line source only down to 200 Hz. Under 200 Hz they do not radiate as efficiently so as you move away from the speaker the bass falls off much more rapidly than higher frequencies. Well, you might say, if the average room is 8 feet tall that means you can only get a line source down to 150 Hz. That would be wrong. It turns out that if a line source terminates both ends with a solid barrier (floor and ceiling) then it acts as a line source down to 0 Hz. If it is a continuous driver like a ribbon or ESL then it is a line source up to infinity. This is the logic behind floor to ceiling continuous drivers. Magneplaner's big mistake was not making the 20.7 8 feet tall (because their marketers told them it would not sell.) A continuous driver speaker ending at barriers is a perfect line source. A perfect dipolar line source has numerous advantages, aside from the large image size they limit room interaction as they do not radiate up, down or to the sides. The result is a very well defined image. Speakers that radiate omnidirectionally will produce higher volumes at a given power (depending on efficiency) due to all the added reflections but this plays havoc with image definition and frequency response. Then people wind up spending a lot of money on room treatment. Wide dispersion can make a speaker sound bigger and louder but at the expense of detail and focus. The best use of subwoofers is to lower distortion in the main speakers particularly at volume when large cone excursions put the suspension in a non linear position in it's range and a lot of doppler distortion is produced. That fact that most subwoofer users do not take advantage of this by using a high pass filter on the main speakers boggles the mind. Do they make a system sound larger? I suppose if you equate low bass with size. I don't as the image size stays the same whether or not my subwoofers are on and I use four of them. Sounding big and going loud are two separate issues. This single most important characteristic determining image size is the speakers pattern of radiation, point vs line source. Other characteristics are relatively minor. Any speaker can go loud with enough power. The problem is doing it without distortion. Isolating the main speaker from bass is a great way to limit distortion at volume. Line source dipoles have a beautifully detailed image because they limit room interaction by limiting dispersion. Horns can do the same thing for people who prefer the smaller image of a point source. I also see a lot of tweeters and midrange drivers mounted in dispersion limiting baffles but have not listened to any of them under circumstances where I can tell if this approach works. Don't see why it would not.
I own 7 inches speakers box 2 way, and the Brass orchestra filled my entire 13 feet square room with soundstage OUT of the speakers at the left and at the right and imaging 3-d with clear tuba notes and Horns...The brass orchestra is in my room....Not between the speakers in reduction.... The results is less related to my speakers themselves than to acoustic controls...
13 feet sq. room - so 13 ft. per wall? I don’t doubt speakers of the size you have fits the bill in providing such an acoustically well treated space with a big, immersive sound, but I’d claim that well-implemented subs would only add to that sensation. In the quoted part above I did emphasize a more authentic sense of sonic size, and for that I maintain a fairly large (acoustically well-treated) listening room and main speakers + subs is necessitated. Moreover, while the size of sound is typically associated with soundstage presentation, for good reason, it’s not the only parameter as that which fills the listening space with a more palpable, effortless sensation of sound. For that more displacement and headroom is needed - at least in my book, and depending again on the size of the listening room.
ACOUSTIC controls is way more important than speakers size in a small room and most of the times in a moderate bigger room...It is my experience only but.....
It is not raw power of the gear or mostly the size of the drivers mostly that makes event livelier but acoustic control of the room....
Audiophilia in general is very much focused on soundstage presentation, the virtues/characteristics of which you point out above, but I’m more interested in the particular type of presentation as this homogenous, large sweet-spot sphere of sound that’s visceral, full, present, effortless and less pinpoint sharp imaging-wise. To me at least it’s more reminiscent of a live event, and in that regard makes for a very effective association, or certainly one more complementing at that as something that has actual, believable size sonically.
That is to say: proper, not over-damped acoustics (and care with speaker placement) no doubt aids soundstage presentation and size in particular and as such fits many an audiophile’s "craving" here, but the fundamentals of sound with dynamics, presence, girth and ease, to my mind equally important as a constitutive measure with regard to the size and believability of sound, needs for physics to be accommodated. I’m not saying the latter should trump (no pun intended) the former, but that some coexistence is necessary here.
A smaller listening space will be less demanding with regard to speaker size/displacement area, but the more authentic sense of real, sonic size and girth as anything reminiscent of a live event requires a moderate to large listening room and not sitting too close to the speakers, and this in turn will place more demand on speaker capacity and displacement area. I know, big speakers aren’t popular (typically not in the eyes of the missus), but there’s no way around blunt physics - again, all in relation to the listening space needed to be covered. Report t
Not necessarily completely true...
I own 7 inches speakers box 2 way, and the Brass orchestra filled my entire 13 feet square room with soundstage OUT of the speakers at the left and at the right and imaging 3-d with clear tuba notes and Horns...The brass orchestra is in my room....Not between the speakers in reduction.... The results is less related to my speakers themselves than to acoustic controls...
ACOUSTIC controls is way more important than speakers size in a small room and most of the times in a moderate bigger room...It is my experience only but.....
It is not raw power of the gear or mostly the size of the drivers mostly that makes event livelier but acoustic control of the room....
There’s a lot of talk around the hot porridge, as they say (i.e.: to beat around the bush). That is, important parameters (not least acoustics and general implementation, that needn’t be expensive) have been covered already as a basis to achieve "big sound" in some form or another, but depending on the size of the listening space true room fill and effortless physicality will not occur without the addition of ample, effective air radiation area down into the sub octaves. Spatial size and overall coverage can be had from a fairly small speaker package - surprisingly small, even - but compared to subs augmented much bigger speakers with full range bandwidth it’s mostly just puff air; true big sound has that alluring quality of immersive presence and inherent, effortless power to it, even at lower volumes. A smaller listening space will be less demanding with regard to speaker size/displacement area, but the more authentic sense of real, sonic size and girth as anything reminiscent of a live event requires a moderate to large listening room and not sitting too close to the speakers, and this in turn will place more demand on speaker capacity and displacement area. I know, big speakers aren’t popular (typically not in the eyes of the missus), but there’s no way around blunt physics - again, all in relation to the listening space needed to be covered.
I had the double and packs with the 410 subs, two of them and it’s filled the room nicely. Then I got rid of the double impacts and got the moabs speaker and that really fill the room. It shakes the furniture it makes you feel like you’re there. I think you need lots of drivers to get that affect. You just can’t have a three-way speaker with a single subwoofer and get that same feeling as you can with the Tekton s
Accurate frequency response AND coherent phase from 17hz to 30khz and listen at reference volume.
Result: BIG SOUND.
One does not need large speakers to achieve big sound and throw an immense, deep soundstage that goes on forever. But the room size matters, distance to the speakers, room treatments as well as the specific drivers for spl potential. That's why to get the above, larger speakers are often needed for large rooms.
Can you ditch the DDs and get that in your room? If your room is fairly lively, undamped and you can sit close, yep. Obviously, not without subs and expensive speakers.
I thank you for your post that will remind all readers that NO upggrade can replace the powerful controls in the three working embeddings dimensions of any audio system... Especially the acoustical one...
By the way it is possible to replicate what you listen to at no cost.... It takes only time for listenings experiments.... It is way better than to boast about a 100,000 bucks amplifier like some reviews did.... 😊
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
