Big speakers, are they really the best way to get great sound?

@daveyf 

None of the megabuck systems I have heard were anywhere near worth the money. The size of speakers can be misleading. From LS3 5As to monster Wilson's or Magicos it all comes down to one tweeter. It is mostly the visual overload of these large speakers that impresses. My opinion is jaded by the fact that I will only listen to Dipole, Line Source ESLs and the very best of them cost $45,000.00. My subwoofers technically cost more. The system in total costs about $100,000 and that is chump change compared to other systems and IMHO are far more convincing. On the downside, they (the ESLs) are rather plain looking. The new subs will spruce things up a bit.

The best dynamic loudspeakers I have heard in a long time are the Franco Serblin Ketemas and they are a relatively inexpensive at $40,000. Only the lowest octave is missing. They are also handsome, beautifully made devices. 

@daveyf  Great post. I thought it was just me. I have enjoyed some big rooms at AXPONA but doubt that it translates to my space. My tendency when I buy is to want the top of the particular line. I need to change that attitude. 

@bubba12 

I think that depends on the line. Many manufacturers save their best work for their top offering. Franco Serblin has passed on. For those who do not know who he was, he was Sonus Faber's chief designer. His Ketema is his assault on SOTA and he could only get the price up to $40K. Where exactly does that leave companies like Wilson and Magico? Their top of the line speakers are stupid expensive and IMHO definitely not worth it.

@daveyf wrote:

While the speakers I had the pleasure of hearing definitely seemed to not portray what I felt were the same level of specific detail and intimacy that other smaller systems I have heard can; I do agree that a generalization cannot be made. I do not believe I was trying to say that ALL large speakers fall down in this way, although most that i have heard certainly do.

As you've indicated already this may be down to a near field listening preference with smaller, 2-way speakers vs. a far field, or certainly further away presentation from larger, likely multi-way dittos - with all that involves in regards to added room interaction, more complex speaker topology, added LF energy, heavier amp load, etc. 

My own setup context with high efficiency, actively configured and large main speakers + subs aren't representative of a larger scale, home segment for sure; the mains sport 2x15" woofers and a large format horn + compression driver per channel, so a 2-way system with a fairly narrow, controlled and uniform dispersion pattern over a single crossover point placed between 600 and 650Hz, and a sound that sums smoothly and coherently at ~11ft. listening distance. Add a pair of horn-based subs and everything dialed in actively as a single speaker system per channel. There's no lack of presence or intimacy at the LP, I can tell you that, nor the lack of a vast sense of scale when called for. 

What would be point of disclosing the speaker in question, besides to feed your curiosity? It is a model that has- and is receiving the highest in hype and praise (as it should for its asking price!) To many on this forum, I suspect they would consider it to be SOTA, which just goes to show the variety in tastes.

Knowing which speakers you're referring may give me/us a better idea of what we're dealing with - certainly I'm simply trying to hone in more precisely on your specific listening context. 

As to what I hear live, I am an ex-pro studio musician, so i have had some exposure to the ’live’ unamplified sound... mostly fairly close up, although also many times in large halls. This is where I come from as a 'frame of reference'. What is your 'frame of reference'?

Maybe this is at least part of an explanation for your near field preference in music reproduction. My own frame of reference is hardly only one, but it can be seated among an audience, typically between row 7 to 10 and listening to what you people are playing for us in a live symphony orchestra. I'm also inspired by cinema sound, with a preference in particular for Meyer Sound EXP-fitted auditoriums, as well as aspects of IMAX sound. There's also another, "unto itself" element of what forms my preference that's more of a synthesized, unknown ingredient; something that more overtly just makes me feel the sound is "right" or intriguing. I'm not trying to be elusive here, but rather that I can't, in earnest, but sure of what that's really about. Do you know of that exhaustively with regard to yourself, and what forms your preference in sound reproduction? 

@phusis what you stated about your listening and sound preferences is very helpful. Thank you. It gives us an idea as to where you are coming from as to what your system expectations are. I think all of us could benefit from having this discussion, as it is pretty accurate to say that most of us listen for different things in our systems…and what we hope to achieve with these systems.

Personally, I am trying to get as close to what I hear from an acoustic instrument or instruments in the settings that I have experienced.As such, I occasionally use my Taylor acoustic guitar to listen as a guide to what the system can portray of this type of instrument. I have an excellent memory of what this instrument sounds like in various settings. If a system can produce the sound of an acoustic guitar in my room, with a close to representative of this sound, I believe I am on the right track.What I truly like about Franco Serblin’s work, was that I believe he had a similar goal.The speakers he produced were attempting to sound as close as possible to a real instrument, not in the sense of being a playable instrument, but in the sense of what said instrument sounded like in a live and acoustic environment.