@audition__audio --
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. .
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. .