Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Do large speakers sound worse at low volume? (Read 28955 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

I recently posted that I was considering the Martin Logan XT60s.  I got great advice from the good folks here on the forum ... and went to buy them ... and in the last minute was seduced by the smaller size of the XT35's, the much smaller bookshelf model of the same line.

So I've got the bookshelf speakers in and while they are absolutely fantastic as speakers go, I'm not happy with the lack of low-end.  I need to take them back and most likely get the speakers I originally intended to get, the XT60's.

I have this belief, I don't know where it comes from, that the larger and more powerful a speaker is, the louder it needs to be played to perform at it's best.

ie, If I want to listen to soft jazz late at night after everyone else has gone to sleep, it would sound better on the 35's than it would on the 60's.

Is there any basis to this idea?  If I did a late-night A/B test of the two speakers side by side in my house and played soft music quietly enough not to disturb my wife sleeping in the next room ... would I feel like the big 60's sound "restricted" by not being able to pump out the volume?  ... lagging like a Lamborghini tooling along at 20mpg ... and that the much smaller bookshelf 35's actually sound better at that volume?  Or is this idea just some nonsense I picked up somewhere?

Photo of the 35 and the 60 side by side...

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
I have this belief, I don't know where it comes from, that the larger and more powerful a speaker is, the louder it needs to be played to perform at it's best.

...

Is there any basis to this idea?


No.

How well a speaker performs at low levels doesn't correlate to size. Bigger speakers are also generally more efficient than smaller designs, and because they have more and bigger drivers, they'll also produce more bass, even at low levels.

However, what is true for any speaker is that music sounds better overall when played at higher volumes. This is because of the characteristic frequency sensitivity of the ear shown by Fletcher-Munson curves. The ear is less sensitive to high and low frequencies, so at low volume everything tends to sound midrange-heavy with no real top or bottom, because those frequencies are below the threshold of hearing. When you increase the volume, you bring these frequencies above this threshold and the sound becomes 'fuller'.

This is what the "loudness" button on most stereos is for. It boosts the high and low frequencies, which can be helpful for low-level playback.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
I'm not happy with the lack of low-end.  I need to take them back and most likely get the speakers I originally intended to get, the XT60's.


Or for much less money you could add one or more good quality subs, which allows markedly greater room placement flexibility to optimize uniformity of bass output, per listening location, and with smoother, more easily tweaked  smoothness of response, plus you get a nice rotary knob to set the bass level to taste rather than having to keep your fingers crossed.

Quote
I have this belief, I don't know where it comes from, that the larger and more powerful a speaker is, the louder it needs to be played to perform at it's best.  ie, If I want to listen to soft jazz late at night after everyone else has gone to sleep, it would sound better on the 35's than it would on the 60's.  Is there any basis to this idea?
NO. Speakers differ in their sensitivity though. Some will take slightly more power to reach the same level output than others. ML claims a 2 dB difference between the two we are talking about, with the larger ones actually needing the lower power to reach the same level, but third party analysis of their claimed specs may (or may not) prove their data to be in error.

Humans perceptually misinterpret small volume differences of a dB or two as differences in "quality" even though it is just quantity, which could be replicated by a slight change to your master volume knob. Only blind, level match testing [using instrumentation],  can eliminate the various possible biases.

A larger speaker's deeper bass capability more faithfully reproduces a pleasing equal loudness curve, especially useful at lower volumes, and that also can trip up our perception of "sounds betters".

Ideally comparisons of speakers must be done blindly at carefully level matched conditions, and with identical placement in the room. This is pretty much impossible for average consumers to pull off so instead they re-write science and say either "These things mzil mentions don't actually matter that much" or "Well other people may be thrown off by their biases based on price, size, volume level, etc. however I'm not so easily fooled!"

The truth isn't always convenient.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #3 –
I'm going to hazard a guess that if you ask about subs your dealer will suggest "REL". [Test me out by giving them a ring on the phone.] They are overpriced, mediocre, junk, don't buy them. [I once was a REL dealer, BTW.]

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #4 –
Awright.  Two sharp guys are in perfect agreement.  That's all the argument I need.

Thanks Mzil and Kozmonaut for assuring me the larger speakers will sound as good at very low volume as the small ones.

Mzil, you opened a can of worms with that suggestion about a sub.  Here's the deal.  This is my first venture into quality audio.  It's been $200 boomboxes all my life until now.  I get that ultimately it's my tastes that need to be pleased, and not specs and marketing as to what makes a "best" speaker.  However, I also know that my listening skills aren't that seasoned yet and that I'll probably be hearing high-end gear a lot differently after a year of living with the MartinLogans.

That said, I have the small 35s here in my house now, and I hooked up a cheap Onkyo sub, the kind that comes with a complete 5.1 kit - receiver and all - for about $400.  For movies, I was completely happy with it.  Never even noticed there was a sub in the room.

But last night I hooked up the sub and played some jazz CDs and it sounded like garbage.  It sounded like some guys stereo in the apartment downstairs vibrating through the floor, all mushy. 

BUT ... I was at Magnolia Best Buy checking out the 35's and 60's ... and the sales guy hooked up their $1000 MartinLogan sub, and it too sounded like garbage to me.  I could instantly tell where in the room it was and my ear separated the bass from the rest of the music which made it awful because sub bass is never clean by itself.  It's a range a low sound - so if you heard a sub all by itself without the rest of the speakers, no sub sounds pleasing.  And I could clearly separate the sound of the sub from the speakers and my focus just zeroed in on that broad low end. 

The salesman tweaked with the knob on the sub to turn it down, but by the time it was "pleasing", it was almost completely turned off - no longer at all a $1000 value above and beyond the speakers themselves.

It seems like you and every other experienced audio fan feels strongly about good subs ... but I have not heard a setup yet that sounds as cohesive as the 60's by themselves.  (And of course, if I buy the 60's, ain't nobody around here buying a $1000 sub for a long after that.  Those 60's will clean out the bank.) 

Note that the 60's have two eight inch woofers on them (two on each speaker) - which I believe is the size of my one little toy Onkyo sub.

What do you suggest I do when all the seasoned advice and popular setups (ie, with a sub) goes against the way my amateurish ears seem to want to hear music right now?


(Anyone, please feel free to respond ... not just Mzil.)

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #5 –
Subs that come with all-in-one 5.1 systems usually aren't designed for the flexibility of use with alternate speakers other than what they come with, although if that's all you have to work with for now I'm not suggesting you shouldn't [necessarily] use it. "Too much bass" or "too little bass" subs, with very little in between, or with only "one (boomy) note" often indicate poor integration usually due to poor adjustments and placement.

What receiver or amp setup are you using with the speakers and is that set in stone? Virtually all modern AVRs come with self calibration systems, even if you don't care about surround sound, which can help optimize the sub output based on automated, computer controlled mic readings. My experience is such that I find even the cheapest versions on introductory name brand receivers outperform what most consumers can do by ear, and all in a matter of minutes instead of hours of manually adjusting by ear.

Dealers who carry McIntosh, ML, and other high end brands will often poo-poo these auto calibration systems often dismissing them as being for "pedestrian video use, mostly, not for people who expect quality 2ch music reproduction, such as yourself, sir" however this is nonsense. It does not sit well with their sales agenda. In truth they work amazingly well for many, but not all rooms. [and they always have manual override should you not want to use them for some reason].

P.S. Did you end up putting the speakers against the wall, BTW, which was suggested by some to be bad, and did you find it to be acceptable? I've heard many good systems with wall mounted speakers.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #6 –
What the others said about the Fletcher-Munson is correct. Our ears are less sensitive to lows (and highs) at low volumes is correct.  Add a bit of volume and it pretty much balances out.

"You should now read about 70 dB on the vertical axis. In essence, this states that in order for a 50 Hz tone to be perceived as loud as a 1 kHz tone is at 40 dB, it needs to be played at 70 dB. That’s 30 dB difference!"

Above snippet is from this source :  http://www.surfacedstudio.com/blog/louder-...r-munson-curves

As for subs, a well integrated sub will generally not be noticeable unless unless it's playing notes/frequencies below the range of your main speakers.

If it "bleeds" too much into your main speakers range, then it's not set up properly.

The way you can tell when a well integrated sub is in action is when playing "sub worthy" material and you turn it off.  The lowest notes should simply disappear and the rest of the music should go on as if nothing has happened.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
I recently posted that I was considering the Martin Logan XT60s.  I got great advice from the good folks here on the forum ... and went to buy them ... and in the last minute was seduced by the smaller size of the XT35's, the much smaller bookshelf model of the same line.

So I've got the bookshelf speakers in and while they are absolutely fantastic as speakers go, I'm not happy with the lack of low-end.  I need to take them back and most likely get the speakers I originally intended to get, the XT60's.

I have this belief, I don't know where it comes from, that the larger and more powerful a speaker is, the louder it needs to be played to perform at it's best.

ie, If I want to listen to soft jazz late at night after everyone else has gone to sleep, it would sound better on the 35's than it would on the 60's.

Is there any basis to this idea?


The problem is, that as stated this is a question about personal preference, not objective performance.

I have no idea what you prefer or why.



Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #8 –
Okay .... Mzil introduced the idea of getting a sub instead of buying two Martin Logan XT60's.

I'm asking myself from the hypothetical perspective of "what if both options, adding a sub to my 35's or taking them back and buying two 60's, cost exactly the same thing" ... which of the two would give me better sound?

My sales guy knows I play a digital church organ at home in addition to listening to classical and jazz - so he's thinking I would be happy to have serious low-end to accommodate the organ bass pedals.  Then he turns around and says that since I take listening to fine music seriously, I would be happy to get all the "additional mid-range" from the 60's.

That's like asking me if I want a car that has a motor ... or would I prefer a car that has a transmission.

Getting both XT60's and a sub is not feasible right now, but I could (barely) afford to take back the 35's, pay the extra, and get the 60's.

And of course I could easily afford the much cheaper option of buying a sub.


I do plan to demo both scenarios - but Magnolia Best Buy is a considerable distance from my house, so it would take a while.  And I also don't trust my amateur listening skills well enough to make a decision that I'll still be living with in five or ten years.  I have a hunch I'm going to be a much better listener in even just a few months of living with these speakers ...

... so no idea at all right this minute what to do with these two options.

And the clock is ticking on the return period.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #9 –
A good sub will go lower than the 60's and, when properly dialed in, will blend in quite well with the 30's.  Your salesman just wants to make a bigger sale.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #10 –
Early exposure (~3-6 years old) to music and training makes you a good listener; good speakers don't.

Also, take things you hear from a salesman with a grain of salt. Their job is to sell you stuff.

Personally, I would shop around for something well within your budget rather than gravitate towards a designer brand and allow myself to be up-sold or succumb to upgrade-itis. Hopefully "break-in" won't be a term that begins to cross your mind in the coming weeks.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
My sales guy knows I play a digital church organ at home in addition to listening to classical and jazz - so he's thinking I would be happy to have serious low-end to accommodate the organ bass pedals.  Then he turns around and says that since I take listening to fine music seriously...
[underlined by me for emphasis]

I called it! [The sales pitch angle which would be used to dismiss roads they don't want you to take]: 

Quote from: mzil on
Dealers who carry McIntosh, ML, and other high end brands will often poo-poo these auto calibration systems [or subs, etc.] often dismissing them as being for "pedestrian video use, mostly, not for people who expect quality 2ch music reproduction, such as yourself, sir" however this is nonsense. It does not sit well with their sales agenda.


Besides the fact that speakers like the 60's are big ticket items, they have markedly higher profit margins than any other electronics he sells, with the exception of accessories (e.g. speaker wire). I would suggest you fire your salesperson.

Quote
I'm asking myself from the hypothetical perspective of "what if both options, adding a sub to my 35's or taking them back and buying two 60's, cost exactly the same thing"
But it doesn't! Unless you consider buying outrageously overpriced subs. The cheaper 35's plus sub option outperforms the 60's (alone, with no sub) and costs less. It is a no brainer.


We still don't know what your receiver or amplifier is. Don't be shy. Here at HA we don't look down on inexpensive or older amps/receivers, in fact we embrace them.

P.S. Nobody here understands what he meant by  "additional mid-range" from the 60's " It makes no sense.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: mzil on
We still don't know what your receiver or amplifier is. Don't be shy. Here at HA we don't look down on inexpensive or older amps/receivers, in fact we embrace them.

P.S. Nobody here understands what he meant by  "additional mid-range" from the 60's " It makes no sense.


Receiver is an Onkyo HT-R390.  It's the unit that came with the $400 5.1 kit ... the same kit that I'm now using the subwoofer from.

Not having a sharp ear for better gear yet, I'm not completely sure what "additional mid-range" means.  I know additional bass when I hear it.  I know additional treble when I hear it.  I'm not sure how to hear "additional mid-range", but that's what the man said.

I do plan to visit Magnolia again and A/B the 35's with their big dollar sub right up against the 60's without a sub.  And of course, until I do, I'll be learning how to adjust the cheapie sub I already have to try to make it work with the 35's.

The biggest downside of this Onkyo is endless embedded menus that you need the manual and lots of patience to get through.  This amp was made for 5.1 and an HD TV.  I got rid of my TV and no longer watch anything, so I don't have the TV to use as the Onkyo's monitor.  So, curse these fussy little buttons and the buried menus to adjust things like sub.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
Okay .... Mzil introduced the idea of getting a sub instead of buying two Martin Logan XT60's.

I'm asking myself from the hypothetical perspective of "what if both options, adding a sub to my 35's or taking them back and buying two 60's, cost exactly the same thing" ... which of the two would give me better sound?


The sub + satellite approach has the best probability of providing the best sound quality because it allows optimizing the bass speakers for the bass and the upper range speakers for the upper range.

Large floor standing speakers that claim to incorporate both functions tie them together in one box and eliminate the possibility of optimizing them separately.

The fact of the matter is that rooms have two separate acoustical domains, two different frequency ranges wherein the rules for placing speakers are different. The normal frequency dividing line between subs and satellites is generally pretty close to this splitting point frequency.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The sub + satellite approach has the best probability of providing the best sound quality because it allows optimizing the bass speakers for the bass and the upper range speakers for the upper range.

Large floor standing speakers that claim to incorporate both functions tie them together in one box and eliminate the possibility of optimizing them separately.

The fact of the matter is that rooms have two separate acoustical domains, two different frequency ranges wherein the rules for placing speakers are different. The normal frequency dividing line between subs and satellites is generally pretty close to this splitting point frequency.



Very helpful insight.  Thanks.

Can I ask your thought why people - especially audio-savvy folks, not the naive suckers - would spend the extra $1000 for the two large floorstanding speakers?

Two MartinLogan XT35 Bookshelf speakers ($1200) + quality subwoofer (say, $800) = $2000

Two MartinLogan XT60 Floorstanding speakers = $3000


Your post makes good sense.  I'm just thinking there has to be some other payoff not discussed yet for why expensive floorstanding speakers like these exist when the consensus here is that, for a thousand dollars less, the bookshelf+sub combination yields superior results.

The sales guy went on about clearer mid-range and more separation, but that's just sales talk.  I won't know if there is anything to that until I get back to the store to A/B the setups. 

Still, I would like to hear someone share at least one believable benefit to having floorstanding speakers like these over two bookshelves and a sub - before just trusting the consensus here and going with the sub.


(Let me say thank you again to everyone who responded to my questions.  I have a small number of days to make a decision to keep or return these speakers, and you're really helping me get a solid understanding of how this stuff works very quickly.  Very appreciative.)

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #17 –
Generally, all things being equal, larger speakers with larger cone area can play louder before distorting. That's about it. This is important for a dance club, etc. or kids in college having stereo wars, but generally not for average folks playing living room music. That's the only valid reason for larger floor standers in most cases. [Floor standers have subtle other advantages too like "built in stands to get the speakers to the correct ear height", so you need not buy any, and they excite the bass into the room from two locations instead of one for better uniformity [of minor value in my experience, but some others here swear by it and think more specifically using no fewer than two differently placed subs, to do the same, is worth doubling their sub expense so they buy two].


Also remember that many people, especial young males in my experience, buy speakers for prestige, just like they do cars. It is a machismo thing and conspicuous consumption driven. "Mine's bigger than yours" attitude.

Before subwoofers became popular the only way to get good, deep bass was from large, boxy speakers, but as subs became more mainstream in the 90's and better more smoothly integrated to the mains [with only the cheap ones sounding just like a single note of added muddy boom, which hardly helped the main speakers; it even made them worse] the need for big box floor standing speakers [to get deep clean bass] declined for average folks. Their subwoofers now handle the deep bass and with greater control and flexibility of placement to optimize the interaction with the particular room.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #18 –
You've got some speakers which you already like and aren't taking up any floor space. Adding a sub would address your need for deep bass and be easier to optimise performance in your room. I think it is a much better solution than getting the bigger speakers. Cheaper, too.

BTW, I'm an owner of large-ish floorstanders. They're excellent and I love 'em, but if I was in the market for replacements/an upgrade, I'd probably go for the smaller speakers + subwoofer option.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #19 –
Some people have two subs. Some people put their one sub midway between their stereo speakers.

Both approaches can make it impossible to hear the sub's bass separately from the main speaker's audio.

Whether you can hear the sub separately depends on the cut off frequency, unwanted distortion (on a bad sub), and the interaction between the sub and the room. Plus your ears of course!

Ideally you'd audition both possibilities in your room.

btw, with some acoustic music, it might be that the volume setting that leaves the sub doing very little is the correct setting.

People buy floor standing speakers because they can work well enough in many rooms, avoid the need to adjust a sub, and give you two neat boxes with two sets of wires. Plus if you don't like the result, it's obvious what to change.

Cheers,
David.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: mzil on
Floor standers have subtle other advantages too like "built in stands to get the speakers to the correct ear height", so you need not buy any, and they excite the bass into the room from two locations instead of one for better uniformity [of minor value in my experience, but some others here swear by it and think more specifically using no fewer than two differently placed subs, to do the same, is worth doubling their sub expense so they buy two


I certainly noticed a difference by buying a second subwoofer. With one sub, the sound was great at my primary listening position, but if I walked around the room, there were noticeable peaks and dips in the bass. By getting a second identical sub and placing it where there was a dip in the sound from the first sub, the sound at my chair didn't change much (if at all), but the overall bass quality in the room improved.

Now the subs just 'disappear' soundwise, creating the illusion that my small 5" woofer bookshelf speakers are producing a lot more bass than they should be able to.

Not too bad for $200/each, second-hand.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #21 –
It is worth noting that the effect of multiple woofers/subs would be expected to vary depending on architecture. In houses of lightweight construction and rather significant losses in the bass (often typical of American homes) the Q of room modes would be a fair bit lower when compared to rigid concrete or brick construction. So what you think of the matter may very well be a question of where you live!

In a very lossy building your primary concern may well turn out to be achievable levels (assuming tolerant neighbors, if any), while a listening space in a concrete basement is likely to be be a mess of room modes with way overblown bass unless comprehensively acoustically treated. My parents' home would definitely be in the latter camp. There used to be a mini stereo in the basement (B speakers using whopping 4" woofers) - bass was waaay boomy. The living room has a tiled floor and speakers squeezed into the corners for space reasons, and you can probably imagine what that means - thank goodness for room correction features. You bet I would not trade in my carpet flooring for anything substantially different. Bass levels still vary a fair bit if you walk about the room, as you'd expect, but I only do nearfield listening anyway.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: John 31415926 on
(I'm sitting about 14-16 feet away, centered up. Room is 10x20. Bookshelf is on the short wall.)

I recently posted that I was considering the Martin Logan XT60s.  I got great advice from the good folks here on the forum ... and went to buy them

The last 2 statements are irreconcilable. "Great advice" and "ML XT60s" for your room are unrelated. I can't think of a worse design for such a scenario, unless your room resembles an isolation ward. Desk get jettisoned too?
They sure do look shiny and blingy though. If that's what really counts.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
"Great advice" and "ML XT60s" for your room are unrelated. I can't think of a worse design for such a scenario, unless your room resembles an isolation ward. Desk get jettisoned too?
They sure do look shiny and blingy though. If that's what really counts.

cheers, AJ


Smugness aside, I am open to hearing what specifically you object to about the 60s and the 10x20 room I described.  I'm not looking to persuade or impress anyone.  The absolute best listening room for both recorded audio and my digital organ are all I'm interested in. 

I'm just asking all the questions I can think of so that in five years I'll still believe my choice was the right one.

Yes, I did remove the desk.

Do large speakers sound worse at low volume?

Reply #24 –
I don't recall seeing much glowing appraisal for your choice in speakers from the discussions I read.  Did you get HA mixed up with some other forum?