Bookshelf and sub vs. Floorstanding

For purely 2 channel I'd much rather have a very good full range speaker system then a pair of bookshelves and a sub. Subs are great for HT but are imho overkill for 2 channel.

Bookshelve speakers by nature sound better then floorstanding speakers. Ideally, if technology was at the point it needs to be, speakers would be no bigger then a marble. They are not. But the advantages of a small speaker usually outweight the advantages of a larger one.

Most of the exceptions come from speakers costing $20-30,000 US plus. While a floorstanding speaker creates better depth in dynamics, they lack speed, imaging and overall depth in comparison to Bookshelve speakers. Case in point, take a Bookshelve speaker that costs $200 retail and put it against a floorstanding at the same price. NOW, take another bookshelve speaker at $1500 and put it against another floorstanding at the same price, USUALLY (not always) the bookshelve will win.

Most people that complain that a bookshelve doesn't reproduce enough bass don't have the proper electronics. With a good source and amp, a speaker that can go down to 40hz clean will be more then enough for an average sized room.

Totem Mani 2's were a bookshelve speaker and could reproduce below 35hz, this speaker could cleanly outperform even most floorstanding speakers within its price range, and has been credited by a number of reviewers as one of the best speakers ever bulit.

Listen to this speaker, or take a floor standing speaker like Mirage OM7's-5's or Oskar Kitharas and you will hear speakers that don't need a sub. Heck give me Polk Audio rti12's (which I hate) and allow me to hook up what I think would work best and you'd never need a subwoofer. A speaker is only as good as the food you feed it. using diet electronics will result in a diet sound.

I've been pondering this very topic myself, and the conclusion I've come to is that it largely depends on how loud you typically listen. Bookshelves offer the best imaging and usually the finest midrange quality, but I've yet to hear a bookshelf that didin't end up sounding "congested" at high levels----it's a design caveat. The floorstander will give you big sound at high levels, but then sacrifice some imaging and midrange quality at lower levels. So it really depends upon your typical listening levels.

My approach would be seek out a high-efficiency bookshelf in an effort to circumvent the congestion problem at higher levels, yet reap the benefits in imaging/midrange.

I think a good compromise is "mid-sized" speakers such as Rt55i, Lsi9, Paradigm Monitor 5's or Studio 40's, these type of speakers. These still provide the benefit of cabinet stiffness, but usually have higher output capability and higher efficiency.

My opinion anywho.

for me, it's bookshelves because i like to be able to adjust the height to where i want the image to be. though, i think i probably sit higher than folks sitting on a sofa or furniture type chair and probably at a steeper incline. that part is just personal taste.

another thing i think about, if i were to build speaker stands to help bookshelves sound their best, i doubt it would be a box, the same width and depth of the bookshelves, directly under them(as is the case with a floorstander), especially since my bookshelves(lsi9) have a rear port. i'm thinking, that that energy coming from the port would do better not having the big box deflecting it.

also, against the value of floorspace, in terms of value, it might make sense to look at the subs your getting with the lines of speaks you're looking at in comparison to the bookshelves + a sub. i mean, how do the subs in the floorstanders stack up against a sub you might add to bookshelves to get you into the same price range.

)

Larry, I think makes a good point......

I think that IF done right ( BIG if) that the sub and booshelf speak idea could be a good one. However, I've yet to see it done properly. I've read/heard about the older Dahlquist DQ-10/DQ-1W setups sounding absolutely magical.

Given my preference though, I'll take a good floorstander. I'm of the opinion that to give a convincing presentation you have to move a LOT of air and that gives the advantage to the floorstanders.

Sid,

What sort of sub would you use with those 1.2tl's? A big bad KLH 15" ? :rolleyes:

Both my 2.3tl's and my Carver Amazings produce more and better quality bass than one could really ask for.

BDT

I have heard several different bookshelf speakers and they lack one thing in particular. "mid-range". I have to disagree with lush, there is no way a bookshelf is better then a floorstanding loudspeaker (assuming it's the same company and the same series). When I got my SVS PB2+ I was able to set my towers to "small" and was extremely happy with the results; by not pushing the bass drivers as hard, the speaker naturally didn't have to work near as hard to produce good sound. I mean, you tell me the real purpose of a bookshelf speaker, I think it's simply so the consumer can save some cash and get a similar product opposed to a full sized tower and it's cost.

I have always used floor standers but could not make an equilateral triangle in my room as recommended by speaker manufacturers. Recent articles/discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of stand mounts have perked up my interest in using good stand mounts with subwoofers (2). Get the natural and fast response of stand mounts and low bass extension from sub woofers for $1,500 to $2000 instead if an equivalent costing floor stander. The only floor stander capable of low bass is the Bose 901s but not favorable to audiophiles. They are good if you have 3 bare walls to work with so the sound can bounce and circulate but still prevents me from making an equilateral triangle with the speakers and my listening area.

ken brydson wrote: »

Holy 18 year old necropost Batman

What is the normal time limit "allowed" Ken?

F1nut wrote: »

The only floor stander capable of low bass is the Bose 901s

Don't get out much, do you!?!

Could you at least bash him on it NOT being a floor stander even??