Big TVs good! Big speakers bad?

Yeah, I get it, big displays garner oohs and aahs; but why are big speakers always portrayed as hideous things only an audiophile could love?

Thing is, tiny speakers cheat you out of more than half the experience. On a return-on-investment basis, home audio is more accurate than video. A 50-inch display may be sharp and clear, but it can't approach the majestic scale of a movie theater screen. A decent home theater sound system will blow away most movie theater systems.

The KEF iQ50, a $900-per-pair tower that'll eat your micro speakers for breakfast.

(Credit: KEF)

How large is a large speaker? For the purpose of this blog, 20-inch high bookshelf speakers with 6-inch (or larger) woofers would be a good place to start. Of course, floor standing speakers that are 36 inches high or more are even better. Wee satellite speakers with 3-inch "woofers" never come remotely close to belting out a sound that could be mistaken for a large speaker (even the best of the wee ones never hold up in direct comparisons with larger speakers). The little ones sound like the puny, anemic things they really are. Subwoofers can only do so much.

Sound, schmound--most speaker manufacturers go with the flow and give the people what they want. And they want to believe little speakers sound just as good as big speakers. The manufacturers know most folks buy with their eyes, not their ears, so they don't know what they're missing. It's way more important to look good than sound good.

I covered some of this same ground in my very first Audiophiliac blog, "My speakers can beat up your TV." Point being, money spent on quality speakers, compared to video, is a better investment. With display prices reaching record lows you'd be wise to spend more for quality speakers. Pick up a nice big display for $1,000 ($1,200 to 1,500 less than what you would have paid a couple of years ago); invest the video savings on audio and you'll wind up with a way more satisfying home theater.

[paul613]

I am married to the only woman in the world who holds that a Mitsubishi 65-inch widescreen deserves no better sound than the built-in 10W speakers. It's not just that she doesn't wish to see large speakers: She actually prefers the sound of small speakers. Did I mention that she also insists on watching movies with the lights on?

[carnevja]

no you're not. I said "I do" to one too.....

[pubmat]

must be why I'm still single. Every man alive feels your pain.

[Arnav]

You say bigger and more expensive speakers are good. While I have no doubts about it ,the question is can my uncouth ears make out the difference. I am not saying it has to be loud(in fact I hate stuff extra loud) but just good enough to know the difference? I have no clue about angles and surround etc. etc. so how can I justify paying the price that I must pay for those speakers if I cannot make out the difference.
Same goes for my TV, I have a Vizio because in all honesty I cannot make out the difference.
While I agree TV speakers are horrible, the prime complaint in my case is that the only way to hear dialogue in films is to turn the volume up and then when the inevitable explosion occurs , I can not hear anything, for a good period of time.
Are decent speakers audibly different enough to know the difference?

[adlieb]

Almost any speaker that you purchase will be a huge upgrade to the "Integrated audio" of your display. Now without proper amplification that speaker will not do much for you.

A "Decent" speaker, with a "decent" receiver (stereo or surround) will sound significantly better than your TV. If for some reason you just cannot/will not put an A/V or stereo receiver into your setup, go check out the BOSE Cinemate ($500 MSRP) or a Boston Accoustic's sound bar ( ~$300 starting) with wireless Subwoofer. These devices are not intended as a comparable solution to a set of speakers and a receiver, but will still yield a much better audio experience than your TV speakers.

[iamwho]

You really can. I used to work for a specialty audio/video store that offered home auditions. We took a pair of KEFs to a customer's home and compared it to his existing B&Ws... it was no contest. The KEFs just blew away the B&Ws --and I don't have trained ears either. You could hear the difference in clarity, richness, everything... of course, these KEFs were pricey ($2k at the time). He wrote the check right away.

[soundman45]

Steve is right. Audio is alot cheaper than video. The cost of a Sony HDTV broadcast monitor like they use in video editing is unbelievable.
We're talking 50k plus for like a 22"screen.

[ematcion]

The readers at this generally think MP3s sound good, therefore, big speakers are bad.

[jlt0x]

I get the author's point. But some people don't want to sacrifice living/TV room space for floor standing speakers.

The best sound I ever heard from a speaker system was Bose midrange (w/tweeters) on stands and a Bose subwoofer in the corner. If you watch Discovery Channel's thunderstorms, you'll feel like you're there getting wet awaiting a passing tornado (which does sound like a mile-long freight train). Of course the speakers are not "directly" plugged into the TV....they are connected to Bose's system that processes all the sounds and such.

In suggesting expensive speakers, it would be wise to suggest an A/V component system to handle all that possible great sound.

[pubmat]

Bose was the best sound you've ever heard???? You haven't lived much my friend if you think Bose is the gold standard for audio. No offense, but your post is exactly what Guttenberg is referring to when he talks about crappy sounding mini speakers.

[John72953]

To soundman45:

If Steve is right, then you're both wrong. Audio is NOT cheaper than video, if you do it right. The audio portion of my HT setup is worth more than 3 times as much as my Panny 720p Plasma.

And although space limitations (or your other half) prevent you from incorporating Floorstanding speakers, there is no question they provide a much better sound experience than smaller bookshelfs.

[pubmat]

Steve never once said that audio is cheaper than video. in fact he says just the opposite. VIDEO is so cheap right now, that you should put the saved money into a better audio system. I totally agree with him. thats where the bulk of my money is as well.

[one_flat_monkey]

with speakers, it's all about what you like, sonically. if you think Bose speakers sound better than Martin-Logan speakers, then they're better. many years ago, i went to a hi-end store and the proprietor hooked up some Vandersteen 2ce speakers and he played a CD that i was familiar with, Julia Fordham singing "Happy Ever After". the bass was so bloated and flabby that i could hardly stand to listen. he mentioned how good the bass response was. i quickly exited the store.

if he wasn't kidding, i just got a glimpse into the world of audiophile hell, where numbers mean more than what a system sounds like.

bass response is the one part of the sonic spectrum least important to me, but i also know that tight bass is an fair indication of how good the electronics are.

finally, there is a ceiling or threshold on how loud a system can play and still provide an enjoyable listening experience. for me, it's different from what my wife enjoys. now we've gone full circle.

[hturner1949]

Video without good audio is nothing but surveillance. If you gave me a blank check to put together a Home Theater system, 80% would go into the audio portion. That's how important sound is to me. Thank God I'm married to a woman to gave me my own room and doesn't care what I spend on electronics; as long as she can equal value in jewelry.

I realize that I am lucky in that I have a wife that doesn't care if there are big speakers in the corner or not. I fact, I have had a "Home Theater" system since about 1987, or the year I purchased my first VHS HiFi VCR and hooked it into my 2 channel audio system and set my 25" Monitor TV next to it. It is only now that I have upgraded to a 50" Samsung 1080p Plasma that I feel that the video portion of my HT system has finally started to catch up to the audio portion I have been enjoying for better than 20 years. So yes, I agree that audio is at least as inportant, and in my case more important, than video for my HT experience.

[DaveOCP]

Tiny "lifestyle" speakers are pretty much universally garbage, although the little Gallo speakers aren't that terrible. The idea that 36"+ floorstanders always beat so called "bookshelfs" (anything that costs more than $300/pr or so deserves the more proper term "monitor" is a misconception.

Well engineered monitors will destroy mediocre floorstanders, especially in smaller rooms. Usher's Be-718 Tiny Dancer is one of the best sounding monitors in the world, and costs a little over 2 grand. You'd have to spend at least double that to get a floorstander that truly outperforms the Be-718.

[chris4aker]

I will put the Wilson Duette's against any floor standing speaker and I guarentee that it will have better clarity, sound stage, and an overal more enjoyable experience. Plus it has the Wilson custom paint finish :)

[suitsme]

"ill put the Wilson Duette's against any floor standing speaker and I guarentee that it will have better clarity, sound stage, and an overal more enjoyable experience." Wilson makes floorstanding speakers. All of them cost way, way more than the Duettes. Sorry to hear you think the Wlison floorstanders are such a waste of money. Not to mention lots of other floorstanding speakers I could name which would compete okay against the Wilson floorstanders. Why do I get the feeling people don't know how to make the first bit of sense?