Loudspeaker and Room size?

Posted by: Reto D on 19 January 2004

My listening room measures about 25 m2 (height: a little more than 2m). My system consists of CDX (aiming for CDS3), XPS, NAC252, NAP 250 (aiming for a 300) and a Proac Response 2.5.

Though I'm expecting that above system (at least the one I'm aiming for) can drive more or less every loudspeaker available (I'm especially thinking of one of the bigger ProAcs, I'm not sure about possible room restrictions).

Did anybody of you experience that room size can be the limitation factor (something like the weakest link)? Maybe I could be using different damping material to optimise...

Or is the ability of playing larger loudspeakers more a question of the amplifier one is using rather than room size?

Cheers

Reto

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Reto D

quote:
Originally posted by Reto D:
My listening room measures about 25 m2 (height: a little more than 2m). My system consists of CDX (aiming for CDS3), XPS, NAC252, NAP 250 (aiming for a 300) and a Proac Response 2.5.

Though I'm expecting that above system (at least the one I'm aiming for) can drive more or less every loudspeaker available (I'm especially thinking of one of the bigger ProAcs, I'm not sure about possible room restrictions).

Did anybody of you experience that room size can be the limitation factor (something like the weakest link)? Maybe I could be using different damping material to optimise...

Or is the ability of playing large loudspeakers more a question of the amplifier one is using, than a room size problem?

Cheers

Reto

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Reto D

Sorry for repeating myself.....

Reto

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by NB

Reto,

You seem to be having a conversation all to yourself!

As far as speakers are concearned, go for the biggets best speakers you can afford and ignore the room size. When it comes to speakers there is no substitute for size.

I could point you in the direction of Neat speakers which would suit your intended sistem extremely well.

Regards

NB

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Nime

"As far as speakers are concerned, go for the biggest, best speakers you can afford and ignore the room size. When it comes to speakers there is no substitute for size."
NB

Or:
"As far as rooms are concerned, go for the biggest & best you can afford and ignore the speaker size. When it comes to rooms there is no substitute for size."

(Sorry NB)

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by NB

Quote:-

Or:
"As far as rooms are concerned, go for the biggest & best you can afford and ignore the speaker size. When it comes to rooms there is no substitute for size."

(Sorry NB)
Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.
________________________________________________________________

No problems Nime, everyones entitled to their own opinion, but I would rather go for a large pai of speakers in a small room rather than a small pair of speakers in a large room.
But then perhaps I am just a bass freek who has no taste in music!

Regards

NB

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by NB

Ps I think the "Jaw" thread sums up the size and scale debate!

Regards

NB

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by okyknot

With all due respect, room size is VERY important in relation to speaker size. A large speaker in a small room is going to sound overpowering with flabby base. In a small room you need a stand mount or small floorstander. I second the Neat Acoustics recommendation, they should have several models to fit your nrrds.

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Emil F

Reto

Be careful! Room size is very important! I have a similar room and found that very big speakers can't breathe in it. I had speakers with 2 x 10" bass drivers each with bad results. They worked with a 250, which is not the perfect match for big speakers.

Now I have 300 with Mezzo Utopia and I'm happy with them. I know they will work better in a bigger room, but not many full size speakers will sound good in my room.

Try Alto Utopia Be, if you can, und you will not be disappointed.

Emil

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Reto D

Thanks for your replies,
I own a pair of ProAc Response 2.5 and love their sound very much. My intentions are to finally land with one of the bigger Proacs (D38 or even D80).

What really interests me is the control aspect.
I've heard a Response 4 (top of the line) and a D80 several times during demo sessions at my dealer's demo room. (about 30 m2). To my surprise they sounded both very controlled and could also do the "smaller" stuff small and not bigger than in reality. I must say I was fairly impressed!

Looks like I have to demo them at home.....

Reto

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by NB

and don't forget to dem those Neats!

Regards

NB

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Arthur Bye

Reto:

I had a set of ProAc 3.8's for about a year. While the ProAc sound is very compelling, especially with the larger versions, you do have to be careful with room size. My listening room is about 14' X 28' X 8'. I was unable to get the bass under control with the ProAc's and ended up selling them. The bass was overpowering and needed more control. I had room modes of +10db at 60 hz and another at 120. Never could figure out how to get rid of it so I ended up selling them.

I've had sealed box speakers since then.

I suggest a home demo.

Arthur Bye

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Arthur Bye

Jean-Christophe wrote:

quote:
arthur, can you tell us which ones?

Yes. I have NBL's, which I find to be a tad bass light as I have to have them out from the wall a bit.

Better to have an error of omission that an error of commission. No bass is preferable to bad bass.

I tend to agress with Art Dudley's viewpoint about kit. You want stuff that screws up the sound as little as possible.

Arthur Bye

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by graphoman

"As far as rooms are concerned, go for the biggest & best you can afford and ignore the speaker size.”

After all, source comes first(?). I’ve been living in 25m2 for 30 years and I’m allways sad when visiting friends in bigger rooms. Sometime ridiculously inexpensive systems can grow big.

graphoman

Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Nime

My play on NB's words, though meant to be amusing, was also quite serious. I'd rather listen to Kans in a dance hall than a DBLs in a telephone box. Unless you are extraordinarily lucky there will be closely overlapping room resonances (and their harmonics) that will reinforce each other when driven by speakers too large for your listening space.
You won't even have the freedom to move the speakers out of the corners. Because the corners are closer together in a small room. Do a home demo and be strict with yourself. Remember: You won't even be able to do a demo for the next buyer of your big speakers if they sound like crap in your own room. Catch 22!
Much as you'd like to, you can't argue with physics. If the speakers are too large they will excite the room in ways that are not attractive to anybody's ears. Least of all yours.
Buying a better CD player, magic speaker stands and bigger amps will not alter the physics of your room. It will merely prolong the agony until you finally let the big boxes go to a more suitable home. Probably at considerable financial loss.

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Nime

"I think it's overly simplistic to assume large loudspeakers fail in small room. I've heard DBLs sound just right in a room that made Royd Doublets sound like bass freaks".

Which only further helps to confirm that the Home Demo Theory (normally) supports the physics.

"I'd also suggest that Kans in a dance-hall sized room will sound worse than the tinniest transistor radio".

But you're forgetting wall/corner loading James! Nobody said I'd be sitting in the middle of the dance floor.

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders

To echo james` point:

quote:
I think it's overly simplistic to assume large loudspeakers fail in small room. I don't have the math to prove it, but once you get beyond a certain size/room volume ratio, the loudspeakers control the room's air mass very effectively. I've heard DBLs sound just right in a room that made Royd Doublets sound like bass freaks

I bought my Isobariks from a guy who was using them in a room c. 25 feet x 15 feet x 12 feet high

In my much smaller room(12feet x 14 feet x 8.5 feet high) they sound absolutely superb..great fast, clean bass that hits you in the chest like a hammer blow...... much much better than in the room of the previousm owner..the guy that sold me them told me he always believed that the bigger the room the better...until he heard them in my room

The key is to avoid large ported speakers in small rooms

Laurie S

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders

Arthur.....I have a similar setup to you and have a pair of ProAc 3.5s...the predecessor to the 3.8s

I agree with you over the attractive qualities of ProAcs......the 3.5s seem to work well in my smaller-than - your room.....do the 3.8`s have a rear-firing port?

And what sort of construction is the room?

Laurie S

PS which sealed box speakers did you replace them with and how do they compare?

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by graphoman

“Unless you are extraordinarily lucky there will be closely overlapping room resonances (and their harmonics) that will reinforce each other when driven by speakers too large for your listening space.”

I don’t think it’s possible througout the frequency range but there can be such advantegous overlapping. My SBLs stand near the corner (15 cm from the rear wall) in the not too large room overdamped with bookcases so the treble range is far from Naim Audio’s expectations. On the other hand, the 60 Hz main resonance meats well the lean upper bass of the SBLs. Some of my visitors even say room and speaker work in perfect synergy. (Not for pop fans, though.)

graphoman

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Arthur Bye

Laurie Saunders wrote:

quote:
I agree with you over the attractive qualities of ProAcs......the 3.5s seem to work well in my smaller-than - your room.....do the 3.8`s have a rear-firing port?

Laurie:

I initially replaced the 3.8's with ProAc 1sc's and a Linn sub. It worked pretty good actually as the 1sc's make pretty good music. They have been relegated to a basement system and I now have NBL's which offer better dynamics and a flatter overall response. The NBL's are not a perfect solution though. I have them out from the back wall (bookcase in the way) so the bass doesn't go as low as i'd like. I much prefer the sound of an unported woofer on the NBL's too. I also find the treble a little dry. That may be a result of the speaker being out from the wall though.

My room is plaster board construction with lots of windows so it does get a bit bright at times.

I really wanted to stick with the ProAc 3.8's. The midrange and treble were really well suited for my room and my personal tastes. The rear ported woofer along with the room (mode) interaction were ultimately unresolvable problems.

If I could've fixed the bass problems I would've kept them.

Arthur Bye

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Nime

Interestingly all three rooms (where the dimensions were listed) offer absence of resonance overlap in the bass up to the 4th harmonic. Probably by sheer chance these rooms are perfect for hifi and should avoid normal bass problems.

5.8m x 4.5m x 2.4m
25ft x 15ft x 12ft
14ft x 12ft x 8.5ft

see: http://www.mhsoft.nl/Helmholtzabsorber.asp

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Reto D

Arthur,

Maybe ProAcs new D-series might just solve your bass problems. As far as I know you are not the only ProAc user with this specific problem. ProAc has realised this and offers now a complete different construction in their new D-series. Positioning should now be less critical!

Reto

[This message was edited by Reto D on WEDNESDAY 21 January 2004 at 08:55.]

[This message was edited by Reto D on WEDNESDAY 21 January 2004 at 08:56.]

Posted on: 21 January 2004 by Nime

quote:
Probably by sheer chance these rooms are perfect for hifi and should avoid normal bass problems.

Not chance, but the luxury of being the first owner and being able to specify dimensions and construction. I just wished I had learnt about dedicated spurs before the house was completed.
James[/QUOTE]

Well done James! I wonder why architects aren't force-fed suitable room dimension ratios by now? Hifi has been around for at least 50 years. Are they such a conservative bunch? I suppose anybody who repeatedly puts flat roofs on houses needs some serious re-education.

So there's not much chance of a decent hifi room is there? Will things change when subwoofers become as normal as a TV? Doubtful. BTW:You're not an architect are you?

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Posted on: 21 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders

James.....ahhhh..I see you are a closet dedicated spur enthusiast!

So we share enthusiasm for closed boxes, dedicated spurs, 135s, non-multi(passive) amping.........

Arthur

My house is 1935 construction, all walls being of solid brick. Also, the 3.5s do not have a rear firing port, allowing placement relatively close(about 1 metre) from the rear wall.

As has been alluded to above, simply relating room volume to speaker size (whatever that is) does not tell the whole story

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on WEDNESDAY 21 January 2004 at 09:12.]

Posted on: 21 January 2004 by graphoman

I see you like “non-multi(passive) amping...”

Surprise from an owner of Isobariks. Would you make some more comment on it?

graphoman

Posted on: 21 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders

graphoman

easy.....in PASSIVE (ie using a passive crossover, rather than active) in my experience, multi-amping is more or less a waste of time. To echo one of James` earlier remarks, if you need more power, get a bigger amp.

In active mode, of course, multiple pwer amps are an intrinsic part of the whole setup

Why are you surprised (as an isobarik owner) with my comments?

My isobariks have an onboard passive crossover...going active would require major surgery

Laurie S