Why would bookshelf speakers image better than floorstanders?

crouse

I only recently started reading a lot about equipment (reviews, specs, etc). One fairly consistent view I have come across is that, on average, bookshelf/stand speakers provide better imaging than floor standing speakers. Why is that?

Face

The only reasons I could think of is that there's less cabinet diffraction and small panels to resonate...but there are ways around both.

falconcry72

Also: sloppy, imprecise, or otherwise imperfect bass can be disruptive to pinpoint, coherent imaging. So for imaging, no bass is better than bad bass. In my experience, really good bass is a rare thing in tower speakers.

Face

falconcry72 wrote: »

Also: sloppy, imprecise, or otherwise imperfect bass can be disruptive to pinpoint, coherent imaging. So for imaging, no bass is better than bad bass. In my experience, really good bass is a rare thing in tower speakers.

You need to get out more then.

George Grand

Face wrote: »

You need to get out more then.

Right. And don't talk. Just listen.

rpf65

I think it has more to do with the freedom of placing the speaker at a desired heighth. Not everybodies ears are at exactly 31.276 inches, or whatever the industry standard is for a tweeter. By allowing you the ability to vary the heighth, it is easier to obtain that "sweet spot" from any distance.
Besides that, nobody ever expects serious bass, as they tend to do with towers, from a bookshelf, engineers have a field day. Easier to eleminate resonance and distortion from 2 channels than 3, so the real research and developement starts there, then is transfered to towers with acceptable imperfections.

Amherst

rpf65 wrote: »

I think it has more to do with the freedom of placing the speaker at a desired heighth. Not everybodies ears are at exactly 31.276 inches, or whatever the industry standard is for a tweeter. By allowing you the ability to vary the heighth, it is easier to obtain that "sweet spot" from any distance.
Besides that, nobody ever expects serious bass, as they tend to do with towers, from a bookshelf, engineers have a field day. Easier to eleminate resonance and distortion from 2 channels than 3, so the real research and developement starts there, then is transfered to towers with acceptable imperfections.

Naahh!
Where and what towers have you heard that don't image?

It's all in component and build quality. I'll never see another bookshelf in a main rig.
My sweet spot is across half the room. Towers

Face

rpf65 wrote: »

I think it has more to do with the freedom of placing the speaker at a desired heighth. Not everybodies ears are at exactly 31.276 inches, or whatever the industry standard is for a tweeter. By allowing you the ability to vary the heighth, it is easier to obtain that "sweet spot" from any distance.
Besides that, nobody ever expects serious bass, as they tend to do with towers, from a bookshelf, engineers have a field day. Easier to eleminate resonance and distortion from 2 channels than 3, so the real research and developement starts there, then is transfered to towers with acceptable imperfections.

This is hysterical.

Polkie2009

I may be old, but I can say this, I can still remember hearing some excellent___ bass through a number of floorstanding speakers over the past 40 something years.

allstock

My SDA's have good bass, AND good imaging. Of course since I could afford decent floorstanders, I haven't owned "bookshelves" for probably twenty years...

skrol

I can see where floorstanders could be more prone to bass issues due to placement. Since you don't have the open area under the speaker, like a bookie on a stand, distance from the back and side walls can be more critical. It has been said that speakers need room to breath. I know my RTA11TL's can sound pretty muddy if too close to the walls. With room, the bass is quite nice. They also image quite well, especially after the mods.

Face

Placing speakers near boundaries can affect up to 300hz, so bookies as well as towers would be affected.

naturallight

I can see the LSi 9 or the new LSm stuff being really good in a close Field, set up,

But if you sit back in a room ..like 12 feet..or in a large room to begin with..I just don't see it.


You pretty much have to spend at least 1K on a massive great sub. What they would sound like against a set of SDA 1C's that have had the tweeters redone....in a large room....i'm not sure.

Can these "bookshelf" speakers do better "image" then the SDA's...well.....thats up to the people that hear them.
Could they put out better or close to bass......lets get a grip..not even close.

skrol

Face wrote: »

Placing speakers near boundaries can affect up to 300hz, so bookies as well as towers would be affected.

Oh I agree 100%. I am implying that floorstanders are more difficult to to place as there is no air space under them. Also, they are a fixed height (unless you plinth). Bookies are logistically more easy to place and should be easier to position for optimal imaging. That is not to say that it can't be done for floorstanders.

newrival

This is a loaded question. Monitors don't inherently have better imaging than floor standing speakers.

Monitors frequently have less drivers, narrower FRs, less room interaction, simpler crossovers, and as face mentioned, smaller baffles and cabinets. This all helps to make coherence and imaging easier to achieve, but is not exclusive to monitors.

Reflections, distortion, poor time alignment can all smear imaging. Personally, I feel SDAs are only average-ish (being generous) on imaging. Put your pitchforks down, if you haven't heard properly set up planars, controlled directivity, or good ribbons, you don't have an argument.

The best imaging speakers I have ever heard were floorstanders: rethm, lowther, apogee grand piano, carver amazing, emerald physics, a huge pair of maggies, revel salon studio, jtr Noesis to name a few. I have excluded the very high end speakers, because I think you get to a point where they pretty much all image well (generally speaking)

Face

Controlled directivity is the way to go if you want to take as much of the room out of the equation.

mantis

I honestly haven't heard bookshelf speakers image better then the floor standing models of the same line.
Lets look at Polk LSI. I had the LSi9's and the Lsi15's. Both speakers Imaging abilites IMO where equal. I never felt one did this better then the other. But I did feel the Lsi9's tried to play bass notes that it shouldn't have or didn't have the ability to and tried anyway and failed. This was a common problem I had with the Lsi9's and why I sold them before the lsi15's and the rest of the system.
The Mid range clarity is what I felt the lsi15's did a better job , not Imaging.
Does someone want to define "Imaging"? I can if you don't know exactly what it means.
I've listened to Dynaudio's line and never thought the bookshelf model Imaged better then the floor standing models , Actually I'm sitting here thinking about all the Bookshelf speakers Iv'e listened to right next to the floor standing models. Totem , Paradigm , B&W , Klipsch , , Sonus Faber , Vienna Acoustics , etc. All these speakers are fantastic in their own right but all make floor standing speakers equal or even more Impressive then the bookshelf model.

So who has heard a bookshelf model from the same line out Image The floor standing? I can't think of one.

gdb

Since when did "floorstanding" & "tower" become interchangeable terms ?

CCNJ

Totem hawks image great and have good controlled and tight bass

deronb1

My RTA 8Ts had great image. I had a number of people swear up and down that the center channel speaker was playing. They had to get up and put their ear up to it to convince themselves that it wasn't active. No, I don't think it matters one way or another.

dorokusai

Face wrote: »

The only reasons I could think of is that there's less cabinet diffraction and small panels to resonate...but there are ways around both.

Agreed.

The human is the worst opinion ever since bigger is always thought to be better. You EXPECT a floorstander to sound better and when it doesn't that sucks but when a Bookend sounds awesome....your world changes. I'm a smaller loudspeaker fanatic and will always choose them in regards to monkey coffins. Floorstanders are overrated, easy to make obtuse and obnoxiously loud. The real finesse for me is in a smaller speaker that you don't want to sound good, don't expect to sound anything but mediocre and then you get a surprise....or NOT, as they can bomb faster than the larger bretheren but I believe you get my point right? Smaller speakers is where real audio work begins and evolves. Not a soul in audio started making a Infinity IRS....it was a small bookend with the same EMIT tweeter and a simple driver, simple enclosure that led to that beast.

The lauded Polk SRT system started with the LS series, well kinda, but that's a long not super interesting story. My thought process is that all the big ones start from small ones. It doesn't have to be big to sound awesome.

Mark

newrival

gdb wrote: »

Since when did "floorstanding" & "tower" become interchangeable terms ?

I don't see the issue. Since when did they not?
They are contemporarily synonymous for speakers that are meant to be placed on the floor.

steveinaz

Things aren't always what they seem. I started with monitors 37yrs ago, worked my to floorstanders, and now I'm back to monitors--and doubt I'll ever return to floorstanders. I think it takes substantially more money to get a floorstander to have cohereancy and accuracy of a high quality monitor. While most monitors may lack the bottom end of a floorstander, I have found that the portion of bass the monitor does cover, is more accurate (in good designs). I think (IMO) it is easier to make monitors perform better because of the typically simpler crossovers. Just my 2 cents.

gdb

newrival wrote: »

I don't see the issue. Since when did they not?
They are contemporarily synonymous for speakers that are meant to be placed on the floor.

Horse droppings. :biggrin:

newrival

gdb wrote: »

Horse droppings. :biggrin:

Well, that obviously proves me wrong.

smglbrth

While I can't get into the "science" of this I can speak from experience. I, also, started with Monitors many years ago, went to floorstanders and thought that was the end all/be all. Well, now that I have monitors again, granted, the 7's are exactly small, they do image better than my 8t's, by far. I wouldn't have believed it, and still somewhat am amazed at what I hear. I had so much confidence in the 8t's that I thought for sure it wouldn't be much of a difference. I was wrong to say the least. The 8's are warmer with voices and such but that's it. I'm not talking down the 8's as I've had them for years and they are an excellent speaker, so much so I figured I'd be buried with them. Now, I'm not so sure. Detail is much better with the 7's, hence, better imaging. Sound is much more open than with the 8's.

Of course, my experience is pretty limited compared to others here who have had numerous loudspeakers (marriage and family usually take care of finances above and beyond hobbies).

Synergy is different with everyone however. The best sound I ever heard out of the 8's was with my old B&K 125.2 (which is now gone). The 7's just shine with the 200.2 where the 8's don't seem as excited. All I can say is that I find myself listening to the 7's on a more constant basis...

treitz3

mantis wrote: »

So who has heard a bookshelf model from the same line out Image The floor standing? I can't think of one.

Hello, Mantis. I can and this has been verified by a handful of members of the forum at an audio event a couple of years back. The Tyler acoustics 7u's [floor standers] and the monitors [book shelf]. You can even add in my current speakers within the same lineup. The Signature Series Linbrooks [also floor standers].

Tom