# Speaker Settings..Large Or Small...The Great Debate



## Prof.

Over the years there has been a lot of debate over which speaker settings should be used with MCACC on Pioneer Receivers..
Pioneer (and some Audiophiles) have always recommended setting ALL speakers to SMALL..Crossover to 80Hz. and Subwoofer to YES..Of course there can be variations in the xover setting, which is dependent on the room and speaker requirements.

If one selects THX in the speaker settings, then the xover is automatically set to 80Hz..

For the most part..these are the settings that most people use..myself included..

The SMALL setting for the speakers is not determined by the physical size of the speakers, but relates to the frequency range that is handled by the front and surround speakers..
When the SMALL setting is selected, frequencies below 80Hz.(if that's the xover point used) are directed to the SW to ease the bass load on the front speakers..thereby improving the quality of reproduction from the front speakers.
This is their reasoning for using these settings...and it sounds quite logical..

The other side of the debate is that you don't need to use the SMALL setting, particularly if you have floor-standers for your fronts, because the bass drivers are quite capable of handling the lower frequencies at high volume levels and peaks without stress...There are even a number of small speakers these days, that are quite capable of handling low bass frequencies without difficulty..

My feeling is that the reason Pioneer in making their recommendations, are trying to cover all aspects of speaker performance within a wide range of speaker quality..

Individual owners of Pionneer AVR's who have used settings other than those recommended, have said that they prefer the sound performance of the settings they have made..Namely, changing the speaker setting from SMALL to LARGE..
Changing the SW setting from YES to PLUS allows lower bass frequencies ( below the xover cut off point) to be handled by both the fronts and the sub,,In some ways, it's actually providing more emphasis to the bass, particularly upper bass which is generally produced more by the LCR speakers than the sub..

One thing that I've found annoying at times is the lack of power and dynamics of orchestral theme music, played during the movie in both DVD's and Blu-rays..
This is certainly not the case with some movies..In particular the opening Star Wars theme and some other well known movies.
.
I watch a lot of Sci-Fi and Action/ Adventure type movies, where there's always dramatic theme music and similar dynamic music played through the movie..
On occasions, that music sounds a bit "thin"..lacking body and oomph! when it is obvious that the movie at that point requires full bodied dynamic sound..
I've always put it down to post-production control variations between different studio's, but of late I started to question whether my audio system was performing at it's best..Namely my MCACC settings..

I have always been an advocate of following the recommended settings..ALL SMALL..Xover 80Hz. SW..YES..So I decided to bite the bullet and try some other settings..

I set the fronts to LARGE..Surrounds I left at SMALL and left xover at 80Hz..and set the SW to PLUS..I left the calibration for that pre-set as it was previously done..

I first switched on HDTV and immediately noticed that male voices sounded "fuller".. for want of a better word..I certainly couldn't tell if there were any other improvements because of their highly compressed audio signal..

I then put in a Blu-ray movie to get a better idea of any further improvements..I played "The Prince of Persia"..This is one movie where I felt that the orchestral theme was a bit thin..and was the type of music and movie that really needed some power and dynamics..I mean it sounded alright, but just lacked something..
Well, the opening theme blew me away this time!! It was full and enveloping for the first time..just like I expected it should sound.. with very clear drum beats and the individual instruments coming through strongly..What you might call full bodied!..and all through the movie the music sounded richer..

I then decided to play a Star Wars movie, wondering if that theme music would show any improvement..It did!!
Again..that music had even more body to it than I had ever heard before!

I've now played a number of my movies and have noticed significant improvements in some, while others just seem slightly better..for what ever reason..

I'm sure there are some audio systems which may perform better on the recommended settings, but if you feel that there is something lacking with your current MCACC settings, then I strongly urge you to try some other settings..You may be surprised at the results..


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

The audible perception you’re talking about is highly dependent on the particular speakers (small vs. large) and the room (ditto). 

For instance, I see your Behringer speakers advertise bass extension down to only 75 Hz. So I can see how running them full-range might help things sound fuller, as stacking a 24 dB/octave filter on top of, and at roughly the same frequency as, their natural acoustic roll-out could indeed make them sound “thin” and insubstantial.

However, the same speakers in a smaller room would generate greater perceived bass response and might sound “full” even with a “small” setting.

Conversely, if instead of the Behringers you had speakers with more prodigious bass output and/or extension, they would likely sound “full” enough even set to “small.” The crossover frequency and slope is merely an electrical signal. The _functioning_ frequency and slope can easily be acoustically modified or skewed by the speakers capabilities, the room, or both.

So when people weigh in on the MCACC debate, it would be good to get an idea of the capability of their speakers compared to the size of their room (cubic ft., including any areas that the listening room opens up to). I’m going to hazard an educated guess that the fans of “mains set to large” are mostly folks with smaller speakers and/or larger rooms, and more-or-less the reverse for the fans of “mains set to small” position. This is similar to the full-range house curve I discussed in my house curve article, if not essentially the same thing.

The point is, it’s nice that you’ve found that setting your mains to large got you an improvement, but if you ever change your speakers, or move the system to a different room, you’ll probably need to re-evaluate things. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## hgoed

I agree that it likely has to do more with the combination of room and speaker natural rolloff vs. any ideal crossover frequency. Even THX certifies differently for different rooms. Have you tried actually raising the crossover point? If the additional attenuation beginning around 80Hz thins the sound (which is already combined from the sub and mains meaning that is also the low pass point for your sub) the improvement might work in the opposite direction--letting the sub carry more bass/mid-bass frequencies--as well and theoretically ease the burden on the 6.5" driver enough to clarify the mids.


----------



## Dale Rasco

It's important to remember that the receiver's amps play a large part in this as well. By having the crossover at 80Hz or the speakers set to 'small' you are reducing the load that the amps have to carry on those channels. This will give more overhead to the 81Hz and above range while the amp on the sub carries 80Hz and below. Most low end and mid-range receivers will struggle pushing the power to larger speakers or 4 ohm loads like my Axiom M80's and VP180. Even the new SC-57 that I reviewed earlier this month struggled when compared to the stand alone power amps.


----------



## Prof.

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> For instance, I see your Behringer speakers advertise bass extension down to only 75 Hz. So I can see how running them full-range might help things sound fuller, as stacking a 24 dB/octave filter on top of, and at roughly the same frequency as, their natural acoustic roll-out could indeed make them sound “thin” and insubstantial.


I have been under the impression that those speakers went down to 55Hz..I checked the specs. last night and they do indeed only extend to 75Hz..It's the 2031p speakers that go down to 55Hz..the ones I had originally intended to buy..
So what you say may well be right..
After seeing that they only went down to 75Hz..I realised that an 80Hz. xover to the sub, would be to low..so I raised the xover to 100Hz..The result of this seemed to produce a smoother transition between fronts and sub..


> However, the same speakers in a smaller room would generate greater perceived bass response and might sound “full” even with a “small” setting.


I would classify my room as small..
The Behringers have always sounded "good"..but not excellent..so in my case the SMALL setting was not the best.. 



> So when people weigh in on the MCACC debate, it would be good to get an idea of the capability of their speakers compared to the size of their room (cubic ft., including any areas that the listening room opens up to). I’m going to hazard an educated guess that the fans of “mains set to large” are mostly folks with smaller speakers and/or larger rooms, and more-or-less the reverse for the fans of “mains set to small” position. This is similar to the full-range house curve I discussed in my house curve article, if not essentially the same thing.


That may very well be the case..I can't recall off hand whether advocates of the LARGE setting were mainly using small speakers, but quite possibly..I do know of at least one who was using floorstanders, but again that doesn't always mean they have good bass extension..


----------



## Prof.

hgoed said:


> Have you tried actually raising the crossover point?


\
When I first bought AVR..I did have the crossover set at 100Hz..At that time I preferred the sound when set to 80Hz.but it was in early days of understanding how MCACC worked..
After reading that the recommendation for the xover point was 80Hz. I left it at that!

As mentioned in the post above..I've now set the xover to 100Hz. with further improvement..
Thinking about it..I should now probably try that xover with the speakers set to SMALL and compare the two..particularly now that I have MCACC much more finely tuned than when I first set it up!


----------



## Mark Techer

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> For instance, I see your Behringer speakers advertise bass extension down to only 75 Hz. So I can see how running them full-range might help things sound fuller, as stacking a 24 dB/octave filter on top of, and at roughly the same frequency as, their natural acoustic roll-out could indeed make them sound “thin” and insubstantial.




Please correct me if I am wrong. Is the THX HPF (80Hz and up) not a 12dB/oct slope? Is the design not to work with the acoustic roll-off of THX speakers at 80Hz (typically 12dB/oct for sealed box) to become a 24dB slope?



> However, the same speakers in a smaller room would generate greater perceived bass response and might sound “full” even with a “small” setting.


Prof's room (like my own) is small. I am not sure how the difference between 80Hz (HPF'd) and a natural acoustic roll off is so night and day. I wonder if Prof experimented with lowering the crossover from the THX 80Hz default back to 50Hz, rather than bi-pass HPF'ing altogether?

The idea of running full range + sub is OK if the LCRs can actually run "full range" (though even a friend's $7K flag ship VAF Research speakers can not run flat to 20Hz and why he uses HPF'ing). If they did, you would get a 6dB acoustic gain. In this case (no I've heard the actual system) Prof could not be getting that gain because his speakers roll off at 75Hz. That means 20~75 is not being heard from the LCRs. Wasted energy IMO. Tom Holman added subwoofers to the THX audio system so that the sound mixers could actually hear the low bass when mixing film sound. The natural rolloff of a cinema system in a baffle wall is about 40Hz. And the question of how important is that octave 20~40Hz became a concern because he could hear that on his own system at home and not in the dubbing stage. And we are talking almost 2 octaves here :scratch: 

The way I see this is no difference to bi-amping a tower speaker without the use of an active crossover and relying on the internal passive filtering of the speakers.

Bi-amping with passive filters and you have - 
1. Amp 1 sends 20~20K and the passive LPF uses 20~3K with everything above 3K being wasted.
2. Amp 2 send 20~ 20K and the passive HPF uses 3K~20K with everything below 3K being wasted.

Add an active crossover and you knnow have - 
1. Amp 1 sends 20~3K powering the woofer.
2. Amp 2 send 3K~ 20K powering the tweeter. 

There is possibly some in-band gain and no power wastage. 

In Prof's case, the AVR is sending 20~20K, but the speaker only plays 75~20K. The SW gets 20~80 + LFE, so there is a slight double at at 75~80Hz, but no real gain. 

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## tonyvdb

I know for myself Ive re run Audyssey several times as I have made changes and every time it sets all my speakers to full range. Ive always re adjusted them to 40Hz and find that is the magic number that makes everything sound good. All of my speakers can do 40Hz (except my centre) with ease and as I am running my mains off an external amp this never seems to cause issues.
Ive also tried the 80Hz settings and also find it "thin" sounding.


----------



## Prof.

Dale Rasco said:


> It's important to remember that the receiver's amps play a large part in this as well. By having the crossover at 80Hz or the speakers set to 'small' you are reducing the load that the amps have to carry on those channels. This will give more overhead to the 81Hz and above range while the amp on the sub carries 80Hz and below. Most low end and mid-range receivers will struggle pushing the power to larger speakers or 4 ohm loads like my Axiom M80's and VP180. Even the new SC-57 that I reviewed earlier this month struggled when compared to the stand alone power amps.


That's a good point Dale..Giving more overhead to the receiver would certainly help with high levels and peaks..
But I have to say that I've never experienced any overload conditions or excessive distortions, regardless of the xover point..and I play my movies pretty loud!
In fact my room is quite "dead" acoustically speaking.. so much so that all my speaker levels are in the +dB. range (Fronts at +4.0dB and surrounds at +6.0dB!) when set at 75dB..Admittedly my surrounds are very inefficient speakers! :R..


----------



## Mark Techer

tonyvdb said:


> Ive also tried the 80Hz settings and also find it "thin" sounding.


Then might suggest that there is a level mismatch. The idea of adding a Sub-woofer is to extend the frequency response of the main woofer. As a result, it takes the load of the main woofer and allows it to play cleaner - less distortion, greater dynamic range and with a wider frequency response. If you measure your LCR levels to +75dB, what level are you setting the SW to?


----------



## tonyvdb

I set my PB13u to 85db, I like it a bit hotter.


----------



## Prof.

Wow Tony..that is hot!! :hsd:
I thought I was bad at 79dB! :rofl:


----------



## tonyvdb

lol, I like my bass  Thats probably why my sub bottomed out during transformers DOTM :whistling:


----------



## Prof.

I'm not surprised that it bottomed out!! :yikes:


----------



## Mark Techer

tonyvdb said:


> lol, I like my bass  Thats probably why my sub bottomed out during transformers DOTM :whistling:


Go play WAR OF THE WORLDS and see if you launch it. I can't believe all those guys on A that claimed they blew up their SVS subs with that film.


----------



## vann_d

Mark Techer said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong. Is the THX HPF (80Hz and up) not a 12dB/oct slope? Is the design not to work with the acoustic roll-off of THX speakers at 80Hz (typically 12dB/oct for sealed box) to become a 24dB slope?


I agree with you. While I don't have a Pioneer or even a THX receiver, mine was clearly built with a 24db/oct low pass on the sub but a 12db/oct high pass on the rest of the SMALL speakers that were designed to go with the receiver. I also believe this is the intent with THX settings.

I now have Klipsch RF-82 mains that I've measured response to 40 Hz (-6db or so) in my large room. I'm setting the speakers to small because, when set to large, it's difficult to eq a smooth LF response in room. (I only have eq on sub channel).

Because the speakers extend lower than intended with this receiver, I still get quite a bit of extension out of the mains on a 12dB/oct crossover. 

If you have speakers with less low end extension, I could see how you might prefer the lower effective crossover slope with mains set to Large and natural speaker roll-off. A little effective eq bump in mid bass perhaps...

-V


----------



## vann_d

Mark Techer said:


> The idea of running full range + sub is OK if the LCRs can actually run "full range" (though even a friend's $7K flag ship VAF Research speakers can not run flat to 20Hz and why he uses HPF'ing). If they did, you would get a 6dB acoustic gain. In this case (no I've heard the actual system) Prof could not be getting that gain because his speakers roll off at 75Hz. That means 20~75 is not being heard from the LCRs. Wasted energy IMO.


I disagree with you here. 12dB/Oct roll off at 75Hz does not mean that 20-75 Hz is not being heard from the mains. There is still appreciable energy below 75Hz that will be played through these speakers. I've measured it myself on my own speakers.


----------



## Mark Techer

vann_d said:


> A little effective eq bump in mid bass perhaps...


EQ is one way and custom enclosure design is another.


----------



## ISLAND1000

My Pioneer VSX23TXH has additional frequency shaping capability which I use depending on the mains that I use. I make changes to the EQ while in the MCACC setup particularly in the area of the SW crossover. In addition after MCACC has been completed I make pluses and minuses using the "tone" controls ie: bass treble + plus or - minus 6, settings. The frequency adjustments with the Pioneer receiver are almost limitless . . . . below 63Hz.


----------



## tonyvdb

Mark Techer said:


> Go play WAR OF THE WORLDS and see if you launch it. I can't believe all those guys on A that claimed they blew up their SVS subs with that film.


Hmmm, Ive watched it twice and it did not bottom out. Super 8 is another film that got very close.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Hey Mark,




Mark Techer said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong. Is the THX HPF (80Hz and up) not a 12dB/oct slope? Is the design not to work with the acoustic roll-off of THX speakers at 80Hz (typically 12dB/oct for sealed box) to become a 24dB slope?


Don’t know much about THX myself, but according to this site it’s 24 dB. Not saying that’s gospel; it’s just the first thing I hit when I Googled “thx high pass.”




> Prof's room (like my own) is small. I am not sure how the difference between 80Hz (HPF'd) and a natural acoustic roll off is so night and day.


I think it probably would be at audible. Anytime you cascade two filters on top of each other, the roll-out slopes combine for a steeper slope. I don’t see how it could be any different if one of the “filters” is acoustic. After all, the speaker can’t “ignore” the effect of the electronic filter. 

In any event, actual extension with the speakers set for small vs. large would be easy enough to check with a sine wave at something like 80 Hz or perhaps a bit lower, and an SPL meter. If there is no change in a small vs. large reading, then the filter is having no audible effect.




> I wonder if Prof experimented with lowering the crossover from the THX 80Hz default back to 50Hz, rather than bi-pass HPF'ing altogether?


 Theoretically, if move the crossover point far enough beyond the speaker’s actual bass output, the effect should be inaudible.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Prof.

> I wonder if Prof experimented with lowering the crossover from the THX 80Hz default back to 50Hz, rather than bi-pass HPF'ing altogether?


Mark..I haven't tried dropping the xover down to 50Hz. but I don't understand the reasoning for that..
The front speaker roll-off starts around 75dB..so output is diminishing below that frequency..On the other hand the subs xover setting of 80Hz. leaves a gap between the two..
For a smooth transition of frequencies around the xover point..does there not need to be a reasonable overlap of frequencies between the two speakers like any speaker design?
I realise that the xover is not a brick wall and frequencies from fronts and sub are still within those xover points..
but obviously will have an effect on voices and instruments which fall within that gap..

If the sub xover is lowered further to 50Hz. then surely that gap is further increased..for frequencies in that range..:scratch:


----------



## Prof.

ISLAND1000 said:


> My Pioneer VSX23TXH has additional frequency shaping capability which I use depending on the mains that I use. I make changes to the EQ while in the MCACC setup particularly in the area of the SW crossover. In addition after MCACC has been completed I make pluses and minuses using the "tone" controls ie: bass treble + plus or - minus 6, settings. The frequency adjustments with the Pioneer receiver are almost limitless . . . . below 63Hz.


I presume you mean above 63Hz., because the 63Hz. adjustment is only operational if you have your speakers set to LARGE..


----------



## ISLAND1000

Yes!


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> Mark..I haven't tried dropping the xover down to 50Hz. but I don't understand the reasoning for that..


If you think that running a band limited satellite sounds better full range than HPF at 80Hz, then lowering that crossover means that your not feeding the 20Hz ~ 50Hz into a an LCRs that is clearly not designed to play full range signals. This way you should get the 'benefit' you believe your getting with risking overload to the drivers. All you will be doing is filtering frequencies to the LCR that you can't hear (because the speaker doesn't play them loud enough) anyway. 



> The front speaker roll-off starts around 75dB..so output is diminishing below that frequency..On the other hand the subs xover setting of 80Hz. leaves a gap between the two..


Not quite. SUB = 20~80. LCRs = 50(75)~20K. If anything, you have a slight overlap, not a hole. The result should be the same as the full range sound without the risk of feeding excessive deep bass to the LCRs. 



> For a smooth transition of frequencies around the xover point..does there not need to be a reasonable overlap of frequencies between the two speakers like any speaker design?


Not according to THX whose LCRs F3 point is 80Hz at 12dB/oct which is then combined with the 12dB active crossover providing a total 24dB slope. The fact that your speakers extend that bit below is trivial because there are some THX certified speakers that go to 50Hz. 


> I realise that the xover is not a brick wall and frequencies from fronts and sub are still within those xover points..
> but obviously will have an effect on voices and instruments which fall within that gap..


It is not a gap, it a slight overlap, so if anything, it should behave as if the mid bass was pushed slightly. 



> If the sub xover is lowered further to 50Hz. then surely that gap is further increased..for frequencies in that range..:scratch:


If you lowered the SW LPF to 50Hz, then yes, you could create a "hole" because of the lower limit of the LCRs. 

Question is, can you even select different frequencies?


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Not quite. SUB = 20~80. LCRs = 50(75)~20K. If anything, you have a slight overlap, not a hole. The result should be the same as the full range sound without the risk of feeding excessive deep bass to the LCRs.


Doh!..that was my stupid mistake..I was looking at it from the wrong direction..of course there is a slight overlap..:whistling: 



> It is not a gap, it a slight overlap, so if anything, it should behave as if the mid bass was pushed slightly.


And that push is further enhanced when I raise the xover to 100Hz.. 



> Question is, can you even select different frequencies?


Only in MCACC..


----------



## Mark Techer

Is this thread name really correct? Should it not be "Setting Speakers Large Or Small - The Great Debate!" ? I am sure there would be many Audyssey owners out there that also argue the point. 

I am a fan of BM and always have been. What is funny to me now is the look on a guys face that believed his sales guy when he bought his system. He had an Onkyo THX certified AVR and Krix D'Appolitos for the L and R fronts. The sales guys had set it up for him with the main speakers as large (as the Krix were floor standing) and he wondered why he could only ever turn the volume up to about -10dB without audible cone strain. I suggested that he use his bass management and of course he questioned that because it conflicted with the advice of the sales guy. So I went into his set up menu and set his speakers to small, then played back the same piece of video he'd just showed me. With speakers set to small, I was able to push the volume to 00dB reference with no issue and his jaw hit the ground. And it is purely a case of preventing the drivers in the L and R from having to deal with the huge excursions required to reproduce deep bass. Sending those signals to a purpose built bass speaker (AKA Sub-woofer) did exactly what it was supposed to do - lower distortion and increase dynamic range.


----------



## vann_d

An interesting article by Secrets of Home Theater and Hi Fi

www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/feature-article-slope-troubles-6-2005.html

Copy and paste into browser. Sorry I'm posting from my phone and don't know how to create links...

Nevermind, the link worked!


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Is this thread name really correct? Should it not be "Setting Speakers Large Or Small - The Great Debate!" ? I am sure there would be many Audyssey owners out there that also argue the point.


That's a good point Mark..I hadn't considered Audyssey owners being in the same situation..and I guess there are a lot more owners of Audyssey systems on this forum than MCACC systems..
I will change the thread title..


----------



## Prof.

vann_d said:


> An interesting article by Secrets of Home Theater and Hi Fi
> 
> www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/feature-article-slope-troubles-6-2005.html
> 
> Copy and paste into browser. Sorry I'm posting from my phone and don't know how to create links...
> 
> Nevermind, the link worked!


Thanks for the article..That was a very interesting read..


----------



## Prof.

Thread title changed..


----------



## Mark Techer

Yeah that was an interesting read. 



> Conclusions
> 
> In the meantime, you can either buy speakers that fit the crossover in your processor, or in the case of separates, you can add a 2nd order filter between processor and amplifier to give a full-range speaker the roll-off needed to fall in line with the standard THX crossover.


Or you do as I have done and custom build speakers to suit.


----------



## atledreier

Are huge cineplex front speakers also crossed at 80Hz?


----------



## Mark Techer

atledreier said:


> Are huge cineplex front speakers also crossed at 80Hz?


In a THX certified cinema (or THX certified dubbing stage) yes. In a non certified cinema, usually not. The whole reason Tom Holman introduced the crossover in the Lucasfilm dubbing stages (now Skywalker Sound) when they were creating the standards was so the mixers could actually hear all of the low bass. The horn loaded speakers of a cinema in a baffle wall tend to roll off about 40Hz. So the question raised was then: How important is that first octave? The answer is very important. They discovered they could hear the low bass on a home HI FI system and not in the dubbing stage which film sound was mixed. Hence Bass management was born. 

The system in this photo is impressive at 11.4 which I got to hear last night. It is fully bass managed even though the main speakers are as large as they are.


----------



## atledreier

And by mass managed you mean 80Hz HPF?


----------



## Mark Techer

atledreier said:


> And by mass managed you mean 80Hz HPF?


I do believe he does use 80Hz and heavily equalizes the bass to be flat - something MCACC can't do. It is interesting that once you take out the 50~60 "boom" in a room, how much deep bass a sound track has. of course, at first, it seems that the 'slam' is missing because he has Eq'ed that out. Flat to 14 using REW apparently. It is physical. It has made his in chair 'shakers' redundant. I had actually assumed they were still connected but he told me after the first demo that they were no longer in service.


----------



## WilliamSmith

The amount of space available to you will determine the type of speakers you can set up within it. If you live in a tiny apartment, you’re not going to buy monstrous speakers that will take up the entire space. You’ll likely go with a much more conservatively sized set. Just remember that they won’t provide the same amount of power as a larger set of speakers would. Larger speakers will usually provide a better experience overall, but make sure you have the room for them.


----------

