Have you moved away from full range to standmount speakers + subs?

audition__audio
In a perfect world all you want to hear is the driver itself and I would like for someone to explain to me how it could be any other way.

That’s like saying in a perfect world we would only hear the sound of a vocalist’s larynx - and discount their diaphragm, chest cavity and breath control. Nonsense.

The chest cavity/rib cage is a box. The diaphragm helps to force air through that box.

The tone of a violin, cello, acoustic guitar - and piano - is determined by the wooden box - upon which the strings are mounted. A Stradivarius is a very expensive wooden box. A very pretty one might add.

The tone of a flute, trumpet or saxophone is determined by the shape of their metal tubes. Air is forced through these metal tubes.

And let’s not forget drums.

In each instance, the enclosure affects the sound of the instrument.

@audition__audio --

Speakers are not limited by cabinet size! If you give the proper amount of enclosure for a driver, an increase in cabinet size is always a negative. Unless of course you want to listen to the baffle and cabinet specific distortions. Some of the nonsense written on this site from so called experts is astonishing. In a perfect world all you want to hear is the driver itself and I would like for someone to explain to me how it could be any other way.

We're not living in a "perfect world," so obviously it's a matter of weighing out compromises to aid the end result. Per your logic a larger box speaker (i.e.: bigger drivers and therefore bigger enclosures,) is less desirable because the practical scenario dictates that a larger enclosure resonates more, unless of course it's so heavily damped that its total mass equates several hundred kg's or even upwards a ton. There's some merit to this observation, but my counter reply would be: how much matters, to whom and not least relative to other design factors? It seems you pay little to no attention to the gains of going large (and more efficient), and instead place all your efforts on striving for total enclosure inertness and thus smaller size and lower efficiency - certainly if you plan on maintaining LF-extension and avoiding the hassle of tackling super heavy speakers. As an example: direct radiating drivers of subs of limited size and numbers will readily and quite easily reveal mechanical noises produced by the driver, which is distortion. How's that even if placed in a cab weighing close to a grand piano? There's loads of energy in the lower frequencies, and what you don't want is hearing the driver working or making an effort; this, by far, is the predominant issue in (U)LF reproduction, if you ask me, and not (large) enclosure resonances. The thing is though you have to hear the difference to appreciate what headroom is about, but I suppose it's a comforting tale to the audiophile that what's large is, by default, inconvenient - even undesirable - as a masking for what comes down to spousal demands, family obligations, prejudice, and the wants for interior decoration. It's HiFi in a nutshell, really: not seeing the forest for the trees. . 

I dont disagree. But you dont want additional coloration added by the cabinet. Tones change from the original instruments/recording by adding cabinet colorations. The sound of all speakers should come from the drivers, ribbons, panels or horns/comp. drivers only. Any additional interaction is not desirable and I question all designs that rely upon tuning cabinets by type of wood, lossy thin walled cabinets, etc. I have never heard anyone argue that the larger the cabinet surfaces the harder it is to control these colorations. 

You completely misunderstood my meaning of "perfect world". Admittedly not the best term in this instance. 

I mean if you like cabinet colorations then this is the best sound for you, but I object to a statement that smaller speakers are constrained by their cabinets provided that the basic/ideal needs of each driver is met. If you put the exact drivers, crossover network and the same volume of air for each driver (per manufacturers rec.) in a larger and smaller cabinet and the larger cabinet sound bigger or less constrained then it must be the influence of the cabinet and the intrinsic coloration that every cabinet imparts on the sound.

Explain to me how I am wrong. 

@audition__audio --

Will get back with a reply tomorrow. 

phusis,

Very well said. Certainly efficiency and also impedance are very important, but these are issues worthy of separate threads. I am trying to limit myself to addressing the notion of why larger cabinets sound larger and if this is a good thing. Even more importantly if this larger sense of scale, assuming it is the influence of the cabinet exclusively, can possibly be a good thing. Put ports, wide front baffles, lossy cabinets and parallel surfaces inside cabinets in the same boat. Have I heard good sounding speakers with some of these design particulars yes just as I have heard lousy speakers whose designers share my opinions.