ANY loudspeaker can sound boomy when it is placed incorrectly. Some may think it's O.K. to place a typical loudspeaker right next to the floor or other room boundaries like walls because they see subwoofers placed like that. But the thing is, subwoofers only reproduce a small fraction of what a fullrange loudspeaker reproduces, and while subs can also sound boomy, a loudspeaker can get even more boomy because of all the
upper bass and other frequencies it is reproducing.
Ever notice that the Boston Acoustics A200 (I think that is the correct model #) has its 10" woofer placed at the very bottom of the cabinet, but the midbass driver and tweeter are way up at the top? And there's all the dual woofer floorstanders (the better ones anyway), including older Infinitys from the early 80s, where the bottom woofer's output is restricted to a narrow band of sound but the upper woofer is allowed to crossover much higher? Same concept.
So it kind of pains me to see these awesome vintage bookshelf speakers stuck on the floor, where the lower bass sounds great but everything above that can get kinda ugly, not to mention the fact that the mid's (if equipped) and tweeter's output is firing into couches and listener's pants legs, something that can have a really negative effect on the speakers' imaging ability. Not to mention the overall sound of the speaker because these drivers' outputs can be partly absorbed by those things, making the speakers' overall sound seem even more lopsided i.e. bass-heavy.
Slightly off-topic subject: this is just a theory on my part but I think the above scenario is partly why so many people think large speakers don't sound as good as small bookshelf-type speakers mounted on stands: it is because the large speakers they have heard were located incorrectly......and this also goes for speakers like the A200s. All that lower bass they can generate - if it isn't emanating from the proper place in the room - can become bloated/boomy/etc & so can pretty much ruin the overall listening experience. So as far as the bass region is concerned, small speakers *seem* like they sound better but that is really only because they are not generating any low bass to get screwed up in the first place (classy technical term eh? :stupid

.
So IMO small speakers sound "tighter" simply because they are missing the boominess of an
ill-placed large model but when compared to a properly-placed large model, oh boy, there is no contest if you're a fan of bass-heavy rock, pop or whatever. ---> This is why so many people nowadays use subwoofers** for the lowest bass frequencies, because a sub can be placed where the low bass is reproduced best and everyting else is handled by the satellites, which can be placed where
they sound best. And when I say "satellite" I mean a speaker that can properly/fully reproduce sounds located around the standard 80Hz xover point so they blend smoothly with a subwoofer and
NOT a tiny speaker with a 4 inch "woofer".
I'm done rambling for now.
*
this is why it is not a good idea to crossover any sub at too high a frequency - the THX people knew what they were doing when they picked 80Hz (for me 100Hz is when things can finally start getting clearly audibly messy)
**
and since most subwoofers are self-amplified, this also means you don't have to invest in a powerful amplifier, which is needed for most large speakers that can get down flat to 20Hz. But getting sats and a sub to blend 100% perfectly can be tricky, so sat/sub systems and a pair of full rangers each have their own sets of advantages & disadvantages.