Vote

As long as my criteria for good sound are satisfied, the size of the speaker is relatively immaterial, except for aesthetic or practical considerations.

A good big 'un beats a good small 'un. ---JA (& I agree)

I built 2 sub of 32 cu. in. with 2 JBL 2235 each.

Price and pressure from other areas

I think personal taste in room size and the amount of bass desired are much greater factors than just saying "bigger is better."

I'VE GONE FROM THEIL 3.5 TO MAGNAPLANARS TO NHT 3.3 TO CURRENT AERIAL 5 W/ SUNFIRE SUBS. THEY'RE GREAT

Funny you should mention this. I just sold my Aerial 5s and bought Totem Manis, and boy, what a differece. These are big speakers in a small box. My ProAc Tablettes are wonderful, but for God's sake, where are the bass and the needed pace & rhythm? And running the speakers full-range keeps the tune and tone better, as opposed to inserting some passive Xover. I run the Vandersteen 2W in this fashion and it makes a difference. Music and HT both benefit when the LCR speakers are closer to full-range.

I still have not found a cone speaker that can match the sound of a good electrostatic (at a reasonable price!). And stats don't come any smaller than medium!

I recently sold my Martin-Logans, and I kick myself daily. There are some wonderful small/smaller speakers, but larger speakers provide me with something that smaller speakers, at least the ones I can afford, cannot match.

I love bass that rattles the bones, but if your speakers are too big for your room and placement is problematic, why bother? My Gershman Avant Garde RX20s give me the advantages of smaller speakers, with response down in the 20s. I would love to have the impact that only large drivers can provide, but only if my room size increases. Next time you're at an audio show, take notice that larger speakers often sound worse than smaller speakers in the same size room. Everything in proportion.

Big speakers can have big errors!

I gave up on size the first time I heard LS3/5A's purchased one month laterthat are still in use in my video system. Right now I am listening to Met 7's in a setup of used equipment in the computer room. My main system utilizes Thiel CS 2's. They will move in as the main video when I upgrade the main speakers next year.

It's about the sound stupid!

The idea of finding small mid-to-high-frequency boxes that "image like bastards" (guess which speakers I have) to go alongside a kick-ass sub makes for a perfect space-conscious option. I've had the Mirage M-3s of the world, and they are too big. Next!

In some areas (we all know which ones), size does matter. WIth loudspeakers and electronic equipment in general, it's a whole other ballgame. A given speaker may sound huge in one room with one amp, or skinny and pathetic in another room with another amp. Putting together a good system is a process of identifying bottlenecks and getting good synergy, not seeing who can get the biggest.

LARGE PLANER FULL RANGE ELECTROSTATIC SPEAKERS.BIGGER IN THE SENSE THAT TO GENERATE TRUE FULL RANGE RESPONSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LARGE RADIATING AREA TO ACHIEVE DEEP BASE.

It's been getting bigger for the last three years or so. But I have peaked; I find I am starting to revert to smaller bookshelves. My next purchase will probably be a decent mini like the B&W CDM1SE or the KEF RDM 2. No reason . . . loud volumes don't mean much anymore, that's all.

Bigger is better, considering that a true audiophile loudspeaker consists of 6" of solid concrete on each side to avoid speakerbox "coloration."

From Dynaco A25 to Dahlquist DQ10 to Vandersteen 3A to SoundLab Pristines . . . Freud did say something about the male ego's pre-occupation with size . . . didn't he? Heh-heh-heh.

Size doesn't matter to me as long as they sound good. well I do like about eight foot tall Magnepan Mg. 20's

I find that smaller speakers image better than larger ones.

I like horns, so it's a must for bigger is better, and truly enormous is best!

Size isn't the entire equation (unless we're talking about the bloody awful Bose systems that so many people consider to be "hi-fi"!!) . . . I'm just about to install my third pair of Quads (over 26 years), and they are MUCH better than the monster Accustats I had 6 or 7 years ago. However, my recent Hales Signature IIs were MUCH better than the smaller Spendors I had. This is all subjective, of course; each had, and has, its own allure at the time of purchase . . .

fullrange is better. That translates to bigger speakers and higher prices, however.

All else being the same, I would prefer the same sound from smaller speakers. However, there is something about my electronics dwarfing my speakers that disturbs me. Therefore, a visual and sonic compromise in proportion seems best. I don't like to see large electronics driving itty-bitty speakers.

Bigger is better if a realistic soundstage is what you are looking for. I have been a Maggie owner for 16 years. Once you hear a speaker with no box, you can never go back.

I have put together my first surround-sound system and needed to replace my fairly large front speakers with a smaller system in order to make things work in our family room.

Started out with Thiel CS 1 then CS 1.2 now CS 2 2 next want big Martin Logan.

Moved from minimonitors (Harbeth HL-P3s) to large floorstanders (Von Schweikert VR4.5s). Now moving to large active system (Audio Artistry Beethovens).

I like the idea of a satellite/sub speaker system. It takes up less floor space and some of them actually sound decent like some from NHT and Polk Audio. But the bigger speakers give you the 'you are there' realism that smaller systems just can't unless you have a decent sub like a Velodyne.