I think the right answer was given early in the video: It depends.
It's always a matter of tailoring the system to the specific situation: Where are the goalposts, and what are the constraints?
Some things we might look at, in no particular order:
- If bass quality is a high priority, can we use
multiple subs? In most rooms, that would be optimal.
- It's inefficient to pay for duplication of capability, so if we're going to use an optimal sub setup from about 80 Hz on down, it makes no sense to pay extra for main speakers that go much deeper than that, BUT we also don't want speakers that are weak in the octave or two north of the subwoofers (which happens more often than we'd like to think).
- It's also inefficient to have one part of the system prematurely become the limiting factor, so dynamic capabilities of the mains (preferably including freedom from compression and timbral shift on peaks) should be matched to the subs and sufficient for the application.
- If room positioning constraints are limiting the footprint size, in general we can get more output from a floorstander than from a similar-footprint stand-mount.
I think that a well-executed satellite/subs system has the highest potential, and that (in the absence of subs) the floorstander format has more potential than the stand-mount format, but budget, living space, and/or spouse can overrule all of that.