stereophile: Past Votes

v class="headstory">Previous Vote Results


Have you been moving toward bigger or smaller speakers in recent years?

Submitted by Stereophile Staff, Aug 6 2006



The conventional wisdom that "bigger is better" doesn't always hold true in audio. High-end speaker systems, for example, have evolved in both directions—some designs have grown enormous while others have almost disappeared entirely. Which trend do you favor?

Bigger is better: 47%
Getting smaller: 32%
Size doesn't matter: 20%



If I'm moving towards smaller mains plus a larger suf-woofer, where does that fit into your questionaire?
—*Ayn Marx*

In most cases the full-size sound of a grownup speaker cannot be duplicated in a small cabinet.
—*-ns*

I prefer a slimmer cabinet due to room size restrictions. I currently had to downsize (unfortunately) from my Snell type E IV to a Spendor S6e. Spendor sounds better with voices and is a bit more detailed. Snell sound was bigger, deeper in the bass and more dynamic.
—*Louis Sclafani*

I have a pair of Tannoy Arden (15" dual concentric). Sweet sounding and very dynamic loudspeakers
—*Ola P.*

The real size of the music hall depends on the size of the speakers
—*carlos gallardo*

I don't favor any trend. Actually, I haven't purchased speakers since the '70s, but would like to soon. It's not a matter of size. For me it's a matter of finding a speaker that sounds good, and fits in my room. They'll have to sound good closer to the walls, the rear wall in particular, and fit in with the furniture. So, they'll probably not be that big, right? And they have to be affordable! Okay, so I'll have to say smaller in general, but not smaller than what I already own.
—*Mark G.*

Just got the Sonus Faber Cremonas. Bigger is definitely better.
—*Lee Bressler*

I recently bought my first pair of floorstanders. Compared to my old bookshelf speakers, the midbass integration with the subwoofer is much better. I lowered my crossover to 60 Hz and like it much better.
—*Daniel K.*

Used to have Avantgarde Unos (big) and then Audiostatic DCI Wings (6ft high), but I now have 3ft high Kharma speakers, and they're wonderful. I even had a brief fad for LS3/5As with subwoofers, and they were excellent too.... Like I keep telling my wife - size DOESN'T matter.
—*Jerry Jacobs.*

I just bought my Magnepan 3.6Rs and moved my Energy Veritas 2.3s to the rear cannels.
—*John L. Lee*

As my listening rooms have shrunk during the last two moves, due to WAF issues, I am finding smaller monitors that produce beautiful images, depth, detail and dynamics in these smaller rooms. The trade off (there's always at least one), however, is I do not have that deep, deep bass for certain instruments like bass pedals and bass synthesizers. Oh well...
—*Dave from Modesto*

As you've often written in many reviews, you can get great sound from small speakers, you just can't get a lot of great sound from small speakers. Big room, big speakers.
—*ACF*

I've got Dynaudio Audience 52 SEs in my smallish room. Except for the very, very bottom they have most of what I need for way less than much of the competition.
—*Travis Klersy*

I would love to move to smaller speakers. My pair of full-range towers dominate whatever room they are in. But, whenever I audition a really nice bookshelf or stand mounted unit, I think the sound is very nice, but it could be better. Then I listen to whatever full-size floor stander is in the same product line and think it sounds much better. There is only one way to go from here. When I have the room, I'll upgrade to an even bigger floorstanding loudspeaker.
—*Chris S.*

Shahinian Arc to Shahinian Obelisk.
—*Steen*

Smaller with a really great sub just sounds, and looks, better.
—*Dan*

You can get some great sound from upper bass/lower midrange through the treble range in smaller speakers. However, to get great sound from 20 cps on up you simply have to have some size to produce the sound with authority in medium to larger rooms. I may never get there because of financial constraints, a constant problem with this hobby, but without that limitation my next speakers and �associated equipment� would most likely be larger. I suspect that being honest, most others would agree.
—*Craig*

Advances in technology, materials, CAD/CAM design have begun to repeal the laws of physics that demand that larger speakers sound better than small ones. Plus, I don't have the room for big speakers!
—*OvenMaster*

The size of speaker system is ultimately dependant on space available, the decor and on how much one is willing to spend. If space, budget, and decor are not the constraints, the current trend is to go for the bigger speakers. Bigger speakers, everything being equal, generally have better overall sound. The bass is fuller. There is this intrinsic wholeness in the reproduced sound or music. On the other hand, smaller speakers have limited bass output and may therefore sound puny by comparison. A high-end speaker system that lacks bass is a anomaly and is an inherent contradiction to be classed as such. High-end mean at the top of the hi-fi spectrum. How can it be at the top when the speakers are compromised particularly in the mid and lower bass as it is in the case of smaller speaker systems ? To me bass is an important element in music. It is my personal view that without bass, music is without wholeness and warmth.
—*richtan*

Unless you're talking about an outdoor concert or filling a really enormous room, better is what you want not necessarily bigger or smaller. This may be the only situation in which size really doesn't matter.
—*Clay White*

Smaller speakers and a small subwoofer, unobtrusively out of the way
—*Gary*

I need full range speakers for realistic levels and ful size soundimage.
—*Johannes Turunen*

Totem Arros! (And why has Stereophile never reviewed these superb imaging, inexpensive, and small floorstanders?)
—UN

I prefer small floorstanders always.
—*Dr.S*

Each philosophy has strengths, but there's something about the way larger speakers drive the room, which I prefer. It just seems more solid, more "real" (for what that word's worth in hi-fi), more fun.
—*Daniel Emerson*

I've gone from Energy ESM2 monitors to Energy Reference Con. 22 minitowers to a pair of Hales Revelation Three sealed boxes, and finally, to a set of Hales Transcendence Eights. So obviously, I must believe that a bigger box is better. Sure, this approach has its shortcomings, but name me one approach to speaker design that doesn't.
—*Dave M.*

Gave up my Magnapans for the mini Harbeths last year. The living room/stereo room is rather small in our vintage 1929 house and the Magnapans were not a good fit. I do however really like the Harbeths and at some point would like to go to the next size up in the line.
—*Bill Bostancic*

My last three pairs of speakers, covering about 20 years, are/were medium-size floor standing models. If I had a small, dedicated listening room, I would definitely go small.
—*Louis P.*

Depends on the room you are going to listen in, the SPLs and headroom you want, and the kind of box—reflex, sealed, horn, etc. A good speaker sounds right if well selected and used, despite the size.
—*Santiago Fandi�o*

When I moved from Thiel CS3's to Wilson-Benesch Act Ones a few years ago, size was not a consideration. Having a robust speaker fill a large space with fast accurate reproduced sound was. That the two are about the same size was coincidence. When I put together a system for my office, the smaller Ruark Epilogue R speakers were sized to the task of filling a different space in a different way, driven by a Linn Classik. The loaded target stands make them as large and heavy as many floorstanders but, once again, that was not really a consideration. Both have been good choices.
—*macksman*

I used to have speakers that were huge. But as I've matured, so have my tastes in quality rather than quantity. I prefer the sound of smaller speakers, though the bass is lacking somewhat. Better electronics make up for some of the loss too allowing a cleaner sound to come through. Sounds weird I guess, but ain't all Stereophile readers?
—*djl*

By the time you set it on a stand, a small speaker takes up about the same amount of space as a big 'un. So, I see little utility in going small. Besdes, my Paradigm Reference Sudio 100s aren't goint to tip when a cat lands on top. And they enjoy 32' organ stops. Try that with your minis.
—*David L. Wyatt jr.*

While a large speaker can "bring on the bass" much easier than a smallish design, if soundstage and imaging are paramount for you, as they are for me, ain't nothin' like smaller two-way. In recent years, new designs from many small speaker manufacturers have managed 32 Hz quite nicely in an appropriate room. My Totem Forest speakers are ideal for my 2200-cubic-foot room. A big bonus is the extra elbow room now that I no longer have those big monsters.
—*Jim S. Place*

I'm going bigger just because I've moved and now have a bigger room.
—*Bonzo*

Sold my Alon Circes (big) and purchased a pair of Verity Parsifal Ovations (smaller). No my wife didn't make me do it. I just wanted better sound in a smaller, more elegant package. If I spend two hours listening to my system, I also spend two hours staring at some speakers. So I would like them to get out of the way of the music both sonically and visually.
—*Randy*

When it comes to bass, unless you know how to circumvent the laws of physics, bigger is definately better.
—*John Rau*

To paraphrase Duke Ellington, "You won't get the jump if you ain't got the pump."
—*RBG*

Like I always say. Just has to be big enough to satisfy me.
—*audio-sleuth@comcast.net*

We can't say size doesn't matter, no matter how much we wish it was so. And bigger is better, other things being equal and up to the task. Still, I have been considering smaller lately just because there does appear to be an "economy of scale" in terms of optimal highs and mids. The big one I currently covet costs 3x what the little one does. Realistically, and in light of my finite lifespan and the many other things that money can and must buy, the smaller ones have a much better chance of being realized.
—*Mike Agee*

I'm consciously not changing the speakers at all. I love the sound of the big Thiels and I'm using them as a baseline as I improve the electronics around them.
—*Roy E.*

Went from Avalon Monitors to Legacy Audio Victoria LEs. Bigger cabinet, larger woofer, but has wonderful ribbon tweeter, is 94dB efficient, and cost no more than the Avalon's did 5-10 years ago.
—*Mannie*

The Magneplanars in my main system produce a greater sense of scale, but a pair of B&W 602s in a secondary system do a remarkable job for small boxes. I love Mahler, Wagner and grand opera. Perhaps the size of the opera has something to do with it?
—*Andrew Maher*

No bigger than they need to be. Speakers are aesthetically challenged under the best of conditions. If you are going to build something ugly, don't make it anymore obvious than it has to be—and all speakers are ugly.
—*Monty*

Moved from a 4.0 Proac Response 4 system to 5.1 with Revel M20 as front and rears, Revel C30 as center and Revel B15a sub. It's so much easier to work with. I can carry them myself. Sounds better too, as it's easier to get a good match with my room. I move house every 3-4 years and need system flexibility. Great stuff.
—*Soren O Iversen*

Recently my speakers have been getting bigger, but I'm guessing that most people would still consider them small. I still prefer standmounters but now they have "real" 8" woofers instead of wimpy 4" or 6" drivers. Takes me back 15 years or so, when I really enjoyed my sytem, but now the speakers are much higher quality. Best of both worlds? I think so.
—*Dave Bennett*

Click Here For Previous Votes