Vote

I went from Celestion SL700 to Thiel 3.6 and never regreted it, Now , I think of similar size or bigger when i dream of new speakers.

To: Christopher LIM/MOM/SINGOV@SINGOV cc: Subject: Re: Stereophile CDs Dear Chistopher. I don't know what to say. I can't believe that we have just not sent your CDs. I received a copy of your fax but it really is out of my hands. You should address all corresondence to backissues@stereophile.com I have sent everything you have sent me over the past months to the back issues/CDs department. It is up to them to send your CDs or the refund. In case you haven't already, please send a copy of your refund request to 505 989 8791 Thanks, Regards, Nick

I want 'em huge.

However, I'm really moving to more complex technology: e.g., Cone to Horn to Transmission Line and now to Electrostatic (the ultimate)

Smaller is better

What matters most to me is the sound---I've heard big speakers that sound great and others that sound awful. The same goes for small speakers. It seems to me that it is harder to get it right with large speaker systems---more chances to get it wrong..

Well ... I went from monitor sized speakers to floor standing PSB Golds.

Floor standing speakers are best because you don't have to worry about proper height. Newer ones have no larger a footprint than small speakers on stands. Sounstaging and imaging are just as good as small speakers with the same bass response. Low bass is best provided by a subwoofer anyway.

I'm looking for speakers that will work best with my room first, so size doesn't really matter to me. My room will accomodate minimonitors better than it will accomodate larger floorstanding models. I do prefer the larger models as a rule.

I have always felt that a larger full-range speaker produces the ultimate soundstage that's as large as the performers.

People think I'm crazy just because my speakers seem to be growing faster than my apartments. I always buy the largest speakers I can fit in my living room. Each pair has sounded better than the last. I could probably find smaller speakers that cost the same as my current towers and have better imaging, but they wouldn't be able to roar like my system does now. Bjork's voice just wouldn't sound quite right, and the only people that would please are my neighbors. Besides, as I recall, HI-FI '98's Best Sound at Show came from those monolithic Martin-Logans. And does anyone remember the Genesis 1 system? It weighs in at more than a TON. I can't wait to hear "Army of Me" or "It's Oh So Quiet" coming from a veritable WALL of sound. Of course, these are the top of the high-end market. But I can dream, can't I?

FROM YAMAHA NS 386 BOOKSHELF TO PSB STRATUS BRONZE

Given that it's tough to reproduce bass tones without substantial size, I'll cast my vote for "bigger is better." A speaker that doesn't reproduce 32-60 Hz tones cannot produce what the composer wrote. How can such a speaker be termed "accurate"?

Didn't you see Godzilla?

Providing everything else is equal, the capability of moving more air with greater ease is the true aim of great speaker design.

Sound matters. Size doesn't.

The reason I say this is because I am soon going to replace my Bose 301 series with a high-end speaker system. Needless to say, any size high end speaker will give me much greater satisfaction than my curent system.

I am running a pair of ReQuests and a Velodyne FSR18 sub, and am looking hard at the Gallo Micros for home-theater back and center channels. I guess that would indicate a mixture. I would really prefer smaller speakers just for the sake of convenience, but sound comes first.

I moved from the Vandersteen 2Ces, which were great, to the smaller Avalon Monitors. I get enough bass to satisfy me, but the Monitors are superb in the mids and highs. I am also able to drive them with the incredible Pass Aleph 3 amp at 30Wpc. So much depends on the room, the electronics, and your musical tastes.

Size has nothing to do with it, finding the one that works best in your listening room is what matters most.

Can get full scale orchestra from a small box

There's no substitute for cubic inches; Chrysler knew it and created the 426 Hemi. Wilson, JMlab, and Dunlavy all know it. (Unless you're Bob Carver and build a 2400W amp/tire-sidewall driver combo. That puppy KNOWS how to move some air.)

It's the only way to recreate true musical fidelity, dynamics, and tonality.

Size does matter(not Godzilla). You can't get deep bass und a great image out of 2way soapbox

Small with a subwoofer (ProAC Response One SC)

After some dissipointments with these new so called "sattelite-sub-woffer systems,I returned to standard full size speakers;what a pleasant return;B&W P-5's awesome clarity

It seems that you get more quality in a small speaker vs. a larger one at the same price point. Deep bass may not be there, but definition and imaging are usually better.

In the past year or two I have gone from NHT floorstanders to Celestion A1s to my present Avalon Monitors. I really prefer the flexibility of smaller speakers. However, real sound quality and acceptable levels of bottom end in a small package come at a pretty high price when compared to "full-size" speakers.

---- Vote ---- Got married -- room integration is the key. Mini-monitors with high quality subwoofer became the norm in home theater as well as stereo.

reason: my new house has a bigger living room, so bigger speakers are a more synergistic match for the room. I don't think the size of the speakers matter, what matters is the interaction of the speakers and the room. I have heard huge expensive speakers sound worse than cheap and smaller speakers in rooms that are too small for the bigger speakers.