This would make for a good new thread, large format vs. small format loudspeakers and why. I know JA likes mini monitors but I never asked him exactly why. My MBLs look small compared to X2s or Mike's MM7s but they sound huge (when called to do so). The Quintessence Stealths under review are large but do the X2 thang, (sound big and also sound right size).
Alexandria three-dimensionality?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
No, it's not all about the recording, but if the 3D of which we speak is that sense of depth, front to back, that feeling of of the drums being behind the singer, but the singer's guitar being on the same plane with him, it is certainly very much about the recording. And if it's not in the recording, no speaker, at any price, is going to add it in after the fact.
Tim
Very true. A bookshelf is going to have a hard time sounding large, which is not to say it can't have good timbre and musicality.
So am I. Most small speakers sound small, although s few manage to do a good job sounding powerful and large. I think a big part of that is due to their low frequency extension which is relatively unlocalizable, making the sound seem large.
Good one Myles!
SOME parts of the playback are all about the recording. As Tim said [paraphrased] you should be able to tell the setting of the performers on the stage--who is in front of whom and where their instruments are located. If the master recording doesn't have them in the right place, you'll never get it right in playback. You may have a 3-D effect, but if the drums are in front of the singer or the tympani are in front of the violins, you immediately know something is wrong. On the other side of the coin, it is obvious that the speaker must be able to recreate what's on the master recording to hear the proper 3-D effect if it is there.
Don't quite agree with you. In my system my small speakers can go BIG when the music calls for it....Yes, they need the sub to aide in that, BUT IF you have never heard what a small/smaller monitor can do
when set up with a good sub, you would be in for a surprise. I'm beginning to think that most BIG speakers cannot do the precise imaging and real intimacy that a smaller monitor can bring to the party and they typically take up too much real estate in the listening room to truly disappear. Not in all rooms, BUT in most rooms.
I don't know what you mean by "real intimacy?" Do you have to sit close to the speakers to have "intimacy?" I'm not sure if "intimacy" is what I want. I'm never close to performers when I am at a live event unless I have something like a string quartet or three strings and a piano playing chamber music in my living room, and believe me, two violins, a viola and a cello in my house is LOUD!
I normally sit about 22 feet from my speakers, with the rear wall about 9-10 feet behind my chair. That's much farther from the speakers than most people seem to sit. Am I missing something?
Let me assure you, my IRS-V completely sonically disappears in the room.
And so do I. Small speakers (as in small monitors) are limited in many ways with regards to how much air they can move and how much realism they can achieve in decent sized rooms. If you have a small room and you have to sit in the nearfield, they make sense. If you have a good sized room and you don't want to sit in the nearfield, they make much less sense-at least to me.
IMO, speaker positioning is extremely critical to address "visibility", especially when the speakers are larger and the room is smaller.
Lee
Lee
I would agree with that Lee, which I think applies to probably the majority of a'phile listening rooms. Too small to comfortably accommodate a very large floor stander.
Gary, you seem to be sitting way far back from the speakers, have you tried a more nearfield positioning? Although, I must admit with a speaker as large as the IRS, that may not be preferable
Like I said before, IF you have the real estate in your room....BUT remember, IMO most of us don't, perhaps you are one of the exceptions.
sSmply put , a mini monitor usually does a better job of acting like a true point source than a large multi driver speaker. The addition of properly integrated subs can augment it with additional air movement and low frequency extension, which provides many of the spatial cues that allow us to hear "size". In my opinion, large mutli driver "full range" speakers have lots going against them - they usually never have truly liner and extended bass response in the room, and getting all the drivers to work together is difficult, plus the large enclosure sizes have a negative effect on imaging and sound staging due to diffraction created from the cabinets.
Regarding a 22 foot listening distance with the IRS's, Line source speakers, although physically large, do not require a listener to sit far back from them,and don't have nearly as many driver related integration issues - in general. Nearfield listening is very appropriate for them, even though they appear physically very large.
Regarding a 22 foot listening distance with the IRS's, Line source speakers, although physically large, do not require a listener to sit far back from them,and don't have nearly as many driver related integration issues - in general. Nearfield listening is very appropriate for them, even though they appear physically very large.
trponhunter
You may need to listen to some of today's large speakers. The Wilson Alexandria image as well as or better than the best mini-monitors I have experienced plus the images have a "body" that you will never find in small speakers. THis is not about low bass reproduction only, small speakers even when helped by adequate subwoofers .. Do continue to sound small ....We may have to open a thread on the subject .. Don't you think people?
You may need to listen to some of today's large speakers. The Wilson Alexandria image as well as or better than the best mini-monitors I have experienced plus the images have a "body" that you will never find in small speakers. THis is not about low bass reproduction only, small speakers even when helped by adequate subwoofers .. Do continue to sound small ....We may have to open a thread on the subject .. Don't you think people?
Regarding my seating distance from my speakers, I don't want to sit in the front row at a concert either. I don't want to hear the orchestra as close up as the conductor, whose job it is to make it sound good for the audience--not him. I like to sit back 20-25 rows at Avery Fisher Hall and try to do essentially the same thing on a smaller scale at home. Avery Fisher has about 42 rows in the orchestra seating and more going back in the tiers of the upper levels and a volume well over 700,000 cubic feet.
Just as an aside, if you want to know the technical specs on the hall and audio equipment they use, they are here:
https://new.lincolncenter.org/live/pdfs/concerthalls/venues/afh/10-AFH_Tech_Specs.pdf
Just as an aside, if you want to know the technical specs on the hall and audio equipment they use, they are here:
https://new.lincolncenter.org/live/pdfs/concerthalls/venues/afh/10-AFH_Tech_Specs.pdf
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
With all due respect, I've had my hand on a few large speakers systems over the years. I stand by my statements. Regarding Gary Proteins seating distance, I am in know way suggesting to him to change anything. He sits where he likes and is comfortable. My point was simply that if you wish, a large line source behaves very well for nearfield listening, if you desire.
That is my experience also. There are a few exceptions to the rule, the Alex 2's being one of them...however, I think they are in a minority.
The only large multi driver full range speaker , in my experience, that images as well as a small mini is the Rockport Arrakis. It's large, sweeping, curved enclosure was designed with particular attention to diffraction. You cannot have large, multiple box enclosures, extending out past some drivers, or square or very small radiuses edges on enclosures and not have it have an effect on diffraction, and ultimately on imaging.
Last edited:
This has been my experience as well. The Arrakis seems to be very adept at presenting a scale which is commensurate with the original performance and recording. I've simply never heard anything like it from a speaker that large. I always thought that my Aquilas were good in this regard, and in comparison to the other speakers in their class, and above, that I've heard they are. The Arrakis are on a completely different level.
Play a small jazz ensemble and they behave just like the best mini monitors. Play a full orchestra and they throw a stage that you can mentally walk through. Simply amazing.
I thought I was done with speakers once I got the Aquilas, but after hearing the Arrakis (and knowing that I'll likely never be able to house them) I'm seriously considering the Altairs.
I understand you like Rockport, but I submit you loose credibility when you continually imply Rockport's are the "only" speakers that are perfect. One thing I appreciate about a really good friend/audio dealer I've known for 20 years is he has recommended and said good things about products he doesn't carry. He reminds me all the time that no component is perfect.
Correct, nothing is perfect even the mighty Arrakis!!.
However, most all of my comments regarding the Arrakis have to do with its ability to disappear as a sound source, which I find totally unique among large dynamic speaker systems. There are other good speakers, but in terms of large multi driver speakers, most all of the others have serious issues with diffraction, and usually never vanish like a small speaker can. It is true, I think the Arrakis is unique in this regard, and I also think many large systems are inferior to smaller systems in many ways. Try taking a small, tightly focused recording and going through a manufactures line, back to back, from smaller systems to larger. I doubt you will find the larger systems float the image in space as tightly and and as focused as the smaller system. The added complexity, room interaction and diffraction effects mean that you pay a price for the increased dynamic range, and each listener must decide for themselves whether the tradeoff is worth it.. I guess, overall, I am not really a fan of most large multi driver speakers, although they get the dynamics, they give away too much in terms of ability to disappear. Like was said earlier - nothings perfect - just choose your own personal poison. And, I'll say it again, I have done the exact comparison from smaller to larger in the Rockport line, back to back, and the Arrakis is the only large multi driver speaker I have heard where the imaging does not degrade relative to the smaller systems.
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |