Great Accidents Lead to Greatness!

[EdwardGein]

Just made a great discovery by accident which some other people might want to try as well- in this case for all I know my accident might have been the correct setting anyway for my speakers. Too make a long story short, I have 5 Orb Audio single satellite speakers (not the Mod 2 which is double these). I had been setting them up on my system as "Small" speakers instead of "Large" ones. Well I discovered yesterday that for the past few weeks somehow my speaker settings had been changed to Large instead of Small in one of my rooms where the sound was great. Well, today out of curiosity I hooked everything up in the large setting & the (CD) sound was about 25% better. For all I know maybe "Large" was the correct setting & had nothing to do with a speakers size. Anyone with some free time might want to try to change the size on their system as well & see if it improves audio quality.

[Wireworm5]

Since acquiring power amps I have all my speakers set to large as they are all capable of playing low freq. to 80 hz where I have xover set for the sub. Before that my Yamaha receiver was handling the full load of speakers and it was quite a strain for it to power all the speakers at full range. In this case I only had the fronts set to large as this seem to improve mid range performance of my speakers.
So whether to set speakers to small or large I think comes down to whether or not your receiver/amp can handle the extra power needed to drive speaker at full range. This strain can be eliminated by setting speakers to small and directing bass to a sub which usually has its own power amp.

[EdwardGein]

Thanks for the info

[JeffKnob]

Just made a great discovery by accident which some other people might want to try as well- in this case for all I know my accident might have been the correct setting anyway for my speakers. Too make a long story short, I have 5 Orb Audio single satellite speakers (not the Mod 2 which is double these). I had been setting them up on my system as "Small" speakers instead of "Large" ones. Well I discovered yesterday that for the past few weeks somehow my speaker settings had been changed to Large instead of Small in one of my rooms where the sound was great. Well, today out of curiosity I hooked everything up in the large setting & the (CD) sound was about 25% better. For all I know maybe "Large" was the correct setting & had nothing to do with a speakers size. Anyone with some free time might want to try to change the size on their system as well & see if it improves audio quality.

That is great that they sound better. Your speakers are taking on more of a load because they are being asked to play lower. When watching a movie be careful that you are not overloading them. If they seem that they can handle it at the levels you listen to them, then good for you. My speakers are actually bigger than yours and I am nervous to set them on Large but maybe I should just go for it.

[L.J.]

That's one of the great thing about this hobby. Minor tweaks, as simple as speaker placement or changing the setting can give improvements in performance. I usually have all my speakers set to small and 80 xover, but I still tweak and play with the setting all the time. Currently my front 2 are set to large with rest at small. Tweak away.........

[kexodusc]

I really hate the "small" and "large" nomenclature receiver manufacturers use. It truly has nothing to do with size of the speaker. I've seen 4" woofers have lower bass than 15" woofers. These size setting just direct the receiver to employ a LFE cutoff, at a fixed or variable point, or to run the speakers full range. When set to small, they're crossed over, when set to "Large", the speakers get a full range signal.

"Small" is often recommended for HT to better integrate with a subwoofer. At some point, a sub will continue to deliver bass below the main speakers (unless they extend into the 20Hz region). When running speakers full range with a sub, you are adding volume in the bass region compared to the midrange and highs. You are then left with a comproming choice. Set the subs output to such a level that the bass transitions smoothly at the point the sub's bass kicks in. This means the subs output + speaker bass output is set at whatever desired bass level (for best results it should be flat with the midrange, etc, but plenty of people like exaggerated bass). Problem is once the speakers reach their bass limit (usually 30-50 Hz) the sub keeps going, but because it's so low in output as a result of being combined with main speakers, the last octave is relatively low. Not good. You're forced to either have too much, or not enough bass at some region. Some room conditions will of course come into play and may call for setting speakers to large, or small, which I'm sure accounts for many people's decisions.

I have 7 speakers that have bass response at a -3 dB point well below 50 hz before rolling off quickly. These speakers do provide excellent bass for me when I run them full-range. But I cross them over at 80 Hz (for a few years it was 40 Hz, then 60 Hz, but I know believe 80 to be the best). This allows me to customize my bass response in a way that it remains essentially flat with the rest of the frequencies, as I desire.

One of the benefits to this is that I remove the power burden off my separate amps and receiver. Another benefit is that excursion requirements of the woofers is greatly reduced, meaning more maximum volume and power input is possible now. A speaker sounds better when it's being asked to produce fewer frequencies simultaneously. I can notice a small improvement in the midrange especially this way. This is a general rule though, not all speakers benefit, but I'd say most would.

Best of all, my subwoofer produces tighter, better sounding, more authoritative bass than my speakers do below 40 hz, with no detriment in quality up to 80 Hz. I get the best of both worlds this way.

In a lot of smaller speaker systems (satellites, micro-speakers, etc) the receiver's cutoff in the small setting affects the acoustic roll-off and can introduce a gap in frequency response between the speakers and sub (or you see the manufacturer recommend a ridiculously high crossover of 180 Hz or something). In these cases, better sound can be achieved by running the as "large" speakers full-range. Just watch the woofer excursion and input levels.

There's always exception to the rule though, which is why many people prefer the sound they get when the speakers remain at the "large" setting.

I think we'd all be better off if receivers stopped associating speaker size with bass-crossover frequency, at least people would have a better understanding of what's going on and what questions to ask.

Glad you're happy.

[EdwardGein]

To oversimplify what I've read here, if a speaker is set to "Large" then its performing at its maximum performance level & you will get the maximum audio quality out of them but the danger is if it's a "Small One", you may be wearing it out in the process, like asking a person who can run a 100 yard dash in 10 seconds to run a marathon at the same speed. Is that correct?

[JeffKnob]

To oversimplify what I've read here, if a speaker is set to "Large" then its performing at its maximum performance level & you will get the maximum audio quality out of them but the danger is if it's a "Small One", you may be wearing it out in the process, like asking a person who can run a 100 yard dash in 10 seconds to run a marathon at the same speed. Is that correct?

It is not necessarily about wearing it out. The speaker is asked to play lower bass on the large setting so the a small speaker is more likely to move past it's limitations. When on the small setting the receiver uses a crossover at a point set by you to stop some of the bass from going to your regular speakers and send it to your subwoofer instead. The speaker then doesn't have to work as hard to create the low bass and therefore won't have to move as much.

[L.J.]

And to go along with what Jeff said, you're not losing anything. It should improve the performance of your system. As Kex brought out, your taking a load off your AVR by letting the powereed sub handle everything after the xover. I see no reason to send a full signal to my surrounds or center. I sometimes set my mains to large, but this is for music listening. I've found that all speakers set to small with an 80 xover to work best for my HT needs.

here's an article on the subject
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/loudspeakers/bassmanagementbasics.php

[kexodusc]

To oversimplify what I've read here, if a speaker is set to "Large" then its performing at its maximum performance level & you will get the maximum audio quality out of them but the danger is if it's a "Small One", you may be wearing it out in the process, like asking a person who can run a 100 yard dash in 10 seconds to run a marathon at the same speed. Is that correct?

No, not at all. In fact, an argument could be made performance is maximized with the speakers set to "small". But it's not that simple. "Wear" has nothing to do with. Think of your speaker as a machine...it has to move to do work. The more work it has to do, the more it has to move. The more stress its under, the more sound quality deteriorates (though it's not always immediately noticeable).

[GMichael]

Kex man. You're sneaking up on 4000 posts there I see. By the end of the day I'd say.

[kexodusc]

Kex man. You're sneaking up on 4000 posts there I see. By the end of the day I'd say.
Cool...
I heard Ericl programmed balloons to drop, from the ceiling, confetti, fireworks, the whole enchilada, all just for me.
I am the baddest muther %&@#$> ar.com has ever seen...
Or...I have waaaaayyyy too much free time. Thank goodness for WiFi at Logan.

[GMichael]

Cool...
I heard Ericl programmed balloons to drop, from the ceiling, confetti, fireworks, the whole enchilada, all just for me.
I am the baddest muther %&@#$> ar.com has ever seen...
Or...I have waaaaayyyy too much free time. Thank goodness for WiFi at Logan.

You da' man, man.

Anyone know who has the most posts?

[kexodusc]

You da' man, man.

Anyone know who has the most posts?

Dunno...Wooch, Sir T, Work, Smokey??? Maybe even Geoffcin? markw's been around on a few sites for a long time too...The site lost count a few years back during the last upgrade.
I posted a bit under 3 or 4 other names sporadically from time to time, but it wasn't until I finally got internet access in home that I took this name and posted with any regularity.

If I ever switch jobs and get grounded at home base I wonder how much my count would slow down? No big deal I guess.

[cam]

I do believe you have the most post here at AR. But only because Mtrycrafts left with his tail between his legs. Mtry has 4116 post at AA since Aug 2004. Add that to his post count here at AR and we can see that Mtry is a posting whore.

[L.J.]

posting whore.

Now that's funny :lol: