Do you need LARGE drivers to have the sense of WEIGHT or PRESENCE?

[Ultralight]

Almost 2 months ago, I walked into a hifi store by chance and experienced something wonderful via some McIntosh & Sonus Faber combo. There's something very warm, huge, musical and real about the whole experience that just amazed me. Very emotional. If I had to summarize it into a single word, was the the music had so much 'weight' or 'presence' even at low volume. Its this weight at all volumes that surprised me as I thought one had to play music at high volume to get the sense of weight.

 

So now I'm trying to duplicate a sense of that presence in a much smaller environment. Not sure if it is possible.

 

My question:

 

If I had two sets of speakers.

Speaker A is a full floor stander with large drivers.

Speaker B is a 2.1 system with small bookshelf coupled with a top quality subwoofer.

 

If both have the same frequency response and decibel, would the larger drivers still somehow deliver more 'weight'? (Apologies but I'm not sure how to describe it.) Or would a great 2.1 system deliver a similar sense?

 

Thanks,

UL

 

 

 

[ciamara]

Good questions. It is complicated. Driver compliance, excursion, frequency response etc. all matter. How the speaker cabinet is designed has a huge impact as well (sealed cabinet vs. bass reflex vs. transmission line).

 

We happen to believe that if you have the space, larger drivers deliver a more realistic representation of the intended sound, and yes deliver more weight -- if the drivers are good, of course. Large 18" sub-bass drivers, 15" mid-bass drivers 12" mid drivers etc. move more air.

 

If you want to do a comparison, try a pair of 2 way bookshelf speakers with a good sub and compare them to full range speakers with large drivers. I won't suggest brands or models, since there are so many to choose from!

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

There's something to be said for a big driver. Delicacy might not be one of those things, but hell, that's for pansies anyway. LOL. More seriously, I'll admit that my Merlins, which are wizards (ahem!) with the mid-range, can be a tad thin in the low-end, especially in larger rooms.

 

By contrast, subwoofers deliver power and slam. You'll get a ton of whomp with one, two or even more subs. It's a hoot. The problem is that the integration. And the mid-bass (and not just SPLs, but tonally too) is going to be problematic (IMO) if the bass drivers on the bookshelves are too small. Mid-bass (again, IMO) is where the real "weightiness" (aka, "big speaker sound") lives and breathes, so any full-range speaker (even if it's not exactly full range, and only extends to say 30Hz flat, instead of all the way down to 20Hz) will likely sound "weightier" (not to mention, more seamless) than any monitor/sub combo. There will be exceptions, sure, but (again, IMO and IME) they're just that -- exceptions.

 

To wit, I have a pair of marvelous F12G subs from Rythmik that I run with my Merlin VSM-MXRs (which really are just monitors with integrated stands). The Rythmiks are super-fast and ultra-tight. With them in the chain, the bass response is more than enough to draw complaints from the neighbors. But, for all that, to really make the Merlins "room-filling" (aka, "weighty"), I seem to benefit from more high bass/low mid-bass (mid-bass is 100-300Hz), which means I have to run the subs all the way up to 120Hz. Interestingly, this is what I also have to do in order to get a smooth in-room response. This is definitely not what Merlin recommends for subs. But while the subs aren't outputting all that much at those higher frequencies, they do really seem to "fill in" a bit of the body that a bigger speaker w/ bigger drivers seems to get you naturally.

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks to you both for kindly sharing your time. Appreciate the response.

 

So what I hear is that: Yes, larger drivers that move more air gives more sense of weight, even at the same decibel. I realize that I do not understand why this is so as, technically, a decibel is a decibel. But I'll take your word for this.

 

So a follow-up up question. I asked my question because I'm trying to set up a near field system that is 3.5 feet listening distance which will give me that sense of weight. I'm assuming for coherence, I'll need to have a single full range drive so close to the speaker, plus a sub to fill in the bottom end. I had no idea that mid-bass is as high as 100-300 hz!

 

What speakers type should I be looking for? I listen primarily to acoustic from classical symphonies to vocals and solo instrumentals such as piano and guitar. No hard rock, metal and the likes. I'm planning to match them with tube amps for the non-fatiguing listen.

 

At this point, I'm wondering if I should look for floor standing speakers with the larger drivers - but they won't work, i don't think, for 3.5 feet listening distances with the speakers spaced 4 feet apart. Perhaps there's no solution for what i'm looking for....

 

Thanks,

UL

 

Originally I was looking at the John Blue JB3 full ranger plus a sub but its possible that they are too small a driver?

 

 

 

[wots]

The expert on McIntosh / Sonus Faber systems is . Google 'Youtube Alberto de Roma' and you will find a set of instructional videos on how to build the perfect McIntosh / Sonus Faber system. You can also find more information on his website at http://albertosaudioblog.blogspot.com/ .

 

 

[wgb113]

I had never heard of this brand so I popped over to check it out. Notice that in the room-setup pictures of his speakers that there are acoustic treatments in every one.

 

Your room is the final component of your audio system. It can severely impact the quality of sound that you hear, especially when you're talking bass. Bass frequencies need space and many rooms are simply too small to let it all unfold properly.

 

Based on your music choices and proposed near-field setup I would find a good pair of stand-mount speakers that can extend down to 40-50Hz. Experiment as much as you can with placement and listening position. Treat the room acoustically if you can. Then decide if you still feel the need for that weight and presence with the music that you love.

 

 

Bill

 

[4est]

IME, it is not just size, but cone weight and efficiency as well. Just no comparison to an low x-max(excursion) lightweight efficient cone vs a higher x-max heavier (required for high x max) smaller cone. Taken to extremes you have a planar with a very lightweight diaphragm even though the efficiency goes down due to the different motors.

 

[rancew]

There's really no trickery that will produce a really massive, weighty sound that doesn't involve large drivers.

 

I've experimented quite a bit with incorporating subs (two JL Audio f113's) into my system with less than full-range speakers having small to medium woofers (say 8 inches and less), both floorstanders and monitors. This includes using all types of crossovers/slopes (blending in sub from below with only built-in crossovers, using Velodyne digial, Bryston analog and a TacT 2.2 XP DSP device).

 

I've also had full-range speakers with big drivers (12" and 15") in my room, including presently.

 

My conclusions are this:

1. I don't care for the sound of subs crossed over any higher than the 50-60 Hz range -- to me it just doesn't sound right for the mid and upper bass to be coming from the subs as opposed to the main speakers. I've certianly heard about folks crossing their subs over at much higher frequencies and feeling like it worked, but I've never been satisfied with this.

 

2. In order to get that really weighty large-scale sound that fills a large listening area, all of the bass - not just the low bass - and maybe even up into the lower mids needs to be carried by large drivers. (The full rangers with large woofers usually have them crossing over from 120 to as high as 300 Hz).

 

Put another way, although you can have a truly full-range speaker system using small to medium mains and subs, but it's not the same as having large drivers pulling duty on most, if not all of the bass (as you could certainly still use subs for the extreme low bass with large driver mains) and even some of the midrange. I actually don't even think you need the extreme low bass - say 15-30 hz - to get this kind of weighty sound.

 

There's just no substitute for size...

 

 

 

 

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks everyone for your invaluable comments. I feel like I finally am getting answers for a question I've been asking for weeks. So sounds like volume and frequency chart can be exactly the same but the sensation of the music from a small driver with large excursion versus a large driver with small excursion is different. Very helpful.

 

Of course, if anyone reading this disagrees, I'm all ears too...

 

And in terms of crossover, I've always thought 80-100 hz sub and speaker crossover is low enough as the claim is that 80 hz and below is non-directional in terms of perception. Perhaps not so. I do wonder if a very fast transient sub would make a difference such as the Rythmik or RSL.

 

Again, thanks everyone. Back to the drawing board....

 

Thanks,

UL

 

 

 

[SteveChicago]

Hey Bill: Would you mind expanding on your comment? I'd be interested in making room "tweaks" if possible especially if I could squeak just a bit more bass out of my Harbeths. They are exceptional in the highs and mids, and provide sufficient bass ... but every so often I crave just a bit more on the low end.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

[wgb113]

A great place to start in researching the behaviors of speakers in rooms is the White Papers section of Harman's website.

 

There are also many different theories on speaker placement, many of which contradict each other when it comes to the where, but agree on the how (experimentation).

 

The guys at GIK Acoustics and ATS Acoustics are great in terms of helping you with what kind of treatment you need based on you room, it's setup, your system and listening preferences.

 

Something as simple as taming a nasty room mode can improve the quality of your bass greatly, but so can moving your sweet spot a foot or two so start with what's easiest and cheapest.

 

Bill

 

[SteveChicago]

Bill who is Harman?

 

[seta]

SteveChicago,

I think Bill meant Harman, the parent company that makes Revel, Mark Levinson, JBL, and Lexicon.

 

There are a number of aspects of speaker performance (room, ported or sealed cabinet, etc.), but when it comes to moving air volume, it's the excursion (displacement) x diaphragm area.

 

So let's say we compare 2 x 7inches to a 10inches we have to look at square of the radius (assuming excursion is the same).

Two 7" -> 3.5x3.5x2 = 24.5

One 10" -> 5x5 = 25

So basically a speaker with 2x7" moves about the same airwaves as a single 10".

 

[SteveChicago]

Thanks for the tips .. I'll check the Harman site. Anyway, I've experimented with placement and I believe I've found the right position. Sound stage is wide and full. I'm not into "thumping" bass, so these seem just about right. I'll keep "tweaking" though.

 

[dsnyder]

Hello,

 

Among audiophile speaker designers, Bill Dudleston is certainly in the large driver camp with some of his designs incorporating as many as four 15" drivers per channel! His "Engineer's Perspective" page goes into some detail about why this works:

 

Legacy Audio -> An Engineer's Perspective

 

While I do agree that a well designed small two-way can sound wonderfully engaging in a way that's difficult to match with a large floor-stander, I believe that effortlessly imparting a grand sense of scale and weight regardless of volume level requires larger transducers.

 

Subwoofer integration is pretty tough to get right. The crossover slopes on most setups are not steep enough to accommodate crossover points around 80Hz. Turn the power amp or monitors off and you'll probably be surprised how much vocal and other information is coming from the sub. Yikes! Even integration at 40Hz is only one octave lower.

 

Subs are great for rendering the dedicated LFE channel in movie soundtracks, but if your room and budget will support full range loudspeakers for your two-channel listening pleasure, I think you'll be happier going that route. Hope this helps.

 

-- David

 

 

 

[Quest]

I actually feel 'weight' or 'presence' is not directly related to generating low frequencies or large drivers. If properly setup, bookshelves (even small ones like from ALR running 2.0) can generate sufficient weight and presence, just that you obviously hear the cut-off at lower bass frequencies. IMO, presence and weight can be achieved from paying attention to isolation, as well as equipment and cabling.

 

What makes the difference of a floorstander is primarily scale and low end bass coherency.. comparing to bookshelf of same range, you can often feel it sounding more well balanced and more effortless.

 

I walked the path of bookshelf + subwoofer and imo it is very tough to get right mainly due to the high cut-off frequencies + speed required of the subwoofer. If your bookshelves are anywhere decent, the subwoofer usually can't catch up. Larger bookshelves can go down to 40hz or so and is usually quite ample but still not quite the same.

 

I then moved to floorstander + subwoofer for below 25-30hz.. but while it can come close if matched well, nothing beats putting more funds into a better floorstander for stereo reproduction imo. I could still tell the difference in speed even for such limited freq usage of the sub. A pair of subwoofers able to match your floorstanders will not come cheap.

 

I now own a speaker that has a 11 inch woofer (Focal Utopia Scala) and don't feel wanting of a subwoofer anymore.. At least for music anyway!

 

[Ultralight]

LOL! Focal Utopia Scala....I think most mere mortals would not want for a subwoofer either. My problem is that I'm trying to get a sense of that presense/weight while having a listening of only about 4 feet in an office system where the speakers will flank my 42" LCD screen. It's been along search trying to figure things out before purchasing.

 

Thanks!

UL

 

[Quest]

You might have got distracted from my mentioning of my speaker, but again would like to repeat that presence or weight does not come from large woofers. So don't get caught up with it. IMO just setting up your speakers (whichever they are) well will do good enough in this respect and a subwoofer may not be required except for movies.

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks! yes, I did read what you wrote. I'll test the idea out with two speakers when I get them. I do read in a number of places that there's no substitute for displacement - meaning woofer size. However, I think the more nearfield one is, the smaller the woofer can be and still communicate bass impact.

 

Thanks again.

UL

 

[Jud]

I think the more nearfield one is, the smaller the woofer can be and still communicate bass impact.

 

Well, it depends. Speaking strictly of frequency response, not unless by "nearfield" you mean headphones. ;-)

 

However - unless you listen to a lot of pipe organ music, most instruments won't get down toward the bottom of the audible frequency spectrum. So even smaller speakers can reproduce quite faithfully most of what they're given if they're well designed and built.

 

Then it's a question of how much air is being moved in order to give you the sense of presence. There, bigger speakers will be able to move more air, and yes, you can partly make up for smaller speakers moving less air by sitting closer to them.

 

Re subwoofers, I have never liked them. In real musical performance, the low notes of an instrument are never physically separated from the midrange and higher notes. While bass frequencies don't have the same directionality as higher ranges, what is destroyed by a separately located bass source are the phase/timing relationships of a real performance. Without those natural relationships, the sounds from a system with a subwoofer have always screamed to me, "Artificial!"

 

[Paul R]

They only go down into the 48hz range, but they will certainly give you all the presence you can imagine flanking a 42" television. They also make a dynamite setup like that, providing a rock solid "phantom" center channel when watching video.

 

Did you mean 4' side to side, with the listener viewer about 6' or more back from the television? If so, I would try them out, $599 direct from Magenpan with a 60 day money back return policy.

 

They are good enough to make it worthwhile to shift the room around a bit, or put some acoustic treatments up behind them, or both.

 

-Paul

 

 

[dsnyder]

Hello,

 

Quote: ...I'm trying to get a sense of that presense/weight while having a listening [position] of only about 4 feet [away] in an office system...

 

Hmmm, I'm having a little trouble parsing this sentence, so I've added some words. Let me know how I did vs. your original intent. :-)

 

Flanking a 42" LCD screen is going to result in some diffraction unless you can put some distance between the loudspeakers and the screen. If possible, I'd suggest positioning the loudspeakers at least a foot in front of the screen and a foot or two wider than the screen.

 

Will the speakers be on a bookshelf or in an entertainment center? That can have a large impact on smoothness of bass reproduction as well as imaging. You'll want to find loudspeakers that are specifically balanced for bookshelf placement if possible.

 

Some active monitors have switches on the back that can be used to tailor the bass response to accommodate different placement options. For example:

 

 

An active monitor might be a good way to go anyway. There are lots of interesting options available for not too much money. There are a few other threads on CA that discuss this in a lot more detail, so I won't start a new discussion here. :-)

 

-- David

 

 

[barrows]

of good information here. I would have to agree with Sanjay: it is complicated.

Considering your initial post, I believe there may be another factor here. You described hearing a system based on Sonus Faber speakers and McIntosh amplification. SF is well known to be a warm, and inviting sounding speaker, with a very beautiful sounding presentation-they are not necessarily "accurate" in the strictest sense (you will not find them in mixing or mastering rooms). McIntosh has a bit of a similar sound as well-so the combination would produce a quite warm and inviting sound. Most contemporary audio gear errs in the opposite direction: that of overdamped, tight, and bright sound. This approach can give impressive sense of detail retrieval (especially in short demos at dealerships) but may not impress in the long run.

I think speaker choice is going to be the biggest factor here, to get a warm inviting sound, you will want a warm inviting speaker, and you will want to drive it with a warm inviting amplifier. Many speakers and amps these days are over damped, you may find that seeking out less well damped speakers/amps may suit you. I would suggest tube, or pure class A amplification (an old PASS Aleph amp would be perfect) and a less damped speaker, perhaps a Zu, might be a good place to look. If you have a big room (in terms of cubic airspace) you do need bigger/more drivers to pressurize it, although listening in the nearfield will change things...

 

[Terry]

You need to look at your room and see what it can support as far as bottom. Your system will not sound good over driving your room. I think so much depends on your room, I own a JL 112 but there are says I do not even bother with it when I listen, Good luck in searching for your holy grail.