Floorstanders vs. Bookshelves – a different approach

[PENG]

I think the room is a huge factor. In a small room even a pair of KEF LS50 can do well without a sub except for pipe organ and grand piano focussed music. In a larger room, subs + floor stander or book shelves are better than full range towers. You can crawl the subs to where they perform best, and the tower's tweeter and mid range drivers won't need to deal with the otherwise heavy interference by the big woofers in large enclosures in order to extend smoothly down to 20 Hz.

 

[PENG]

Here are some bookshelf speakers, plus subs that will beat most towers in the same price range. The are heavy too, the Focal is heavier than the MA Bronze 6 tower.

 

[Swerd]

It's now the evening, and I see much more has been said on this subject, so I probably can't add anything. But that never stopped me before .

When I read the details that Monitor Audio claimed about the Bronze 2 and 6 models, I thought I would walk through a similar comparison of two speakers, one bookshelf and one floor stander, where they both use identical drivers, have similar cabinet build quality, and the same crossover designer. They are made by Salk (of course!), the Salk SongBird and SongSurround I. I know from experience that the ratings and measurements for both of these speakers are not exaggerated as we saw earlier.

The SongSurround I is a 2-way speaker in a small cabinet, 8" wide×13" tall×10" deep. It uses a Seas ER15 5¼" reed-paper mid woofer and Hiquphon OW1 ¾" silk dome tweeter. It produces sound as low as 50 Hz at 84 dB sensitivity (2.83V/1M).

The SongBird is a 2-way speaker in a 38" tall×8" wide×7½" deep tower cabinet. It uses the same two drivers as the SongSurround. It produces 42 Hz – 20 KHz (±2db) and is rated at 84 dB sensitivity.

That's what you get when all things are equal except the cabinet size.

If you use two of the same mid woofers in a taller tower than the SongBird, you get the SongTower. It has a similar frequency range to the SongBird, 42 Hz – 20 KHz (±3db), but because of the two woofers, it's sensitivity is 88 dB. Instead of the Hiquphon OW1 tweeter, this model uses the Hiquphon OW2 tweeter. It is 3 dB more sensitive than the OW1, but is otherwise similar.

None of those speakers are considered full range, they all need bass supplementation. But all of them will do an excellent job at the critical mid range frequencies where most of music is. They do have an upper limit in dynamic range, but they do a credible job.

I hope this comparison makes a bit more sense than the one with Monitor Audio Bronze models where the tower speaker had three woofers.

 

[TLS Guy]

It's now the evening, and I see much more has been said on this subject, so I probably can't add anything. But that never stopped me before .

When I read the details that Monitor Audio claimed about the Bronze 2 and 6 models, I thought I would walk through a similar comparison of two speakers, one bookshelf and one floor stander, where they both use identical drivers, have similar cabinet build quality, and the same crossover designer. They are made by Salk (of course!), the Salk SongBird and SongSurround I. I know from experience that the ratings and measurements for both of these speakers are not exaggerated as we saw earlier.

The SongSurround I is a 2-way speaker in a small cabinet, 8" wide×13" tall×10" deep. It uses a Seas ER15 5¼" reed-paper mid woofer and Hiquphon OW1 ¾" silk dome tweeter. It produces sound as low as 50 Hz at 84 dB sensitivity (2.83V/1M).

The SongBird is a 2-way speaker in a 38" tall×8" wide×7½" deep tower cabinet. It uses the same two drivers as the SongSurround. It produces 42 Hz – 20 KHz (±2db) and is rated at 84 dB sensitivity.

That's what you get when all things are equal except the cabinet size.

If you use two of the same mid woofers in a taller tower than the SongBird, you get the SongTower. It has a similar frequency range to the SongBird, 42 Hz – 20 KHz (±3db), but because of the two woofers, it's sensitivity is 88 dB. Instead of the Hiquphon OW1 tweeter, this model uses the Hiquphon OW2 tweeter. It is 3 dB more sensitive than the OW1, but is otherwise similar.

None of those speakers are considered full range, they all need bass supplementation. But all of them will do an excellent job at the critical mid range frequencies where most of music is. They do have an upper limit in dynamic range, but they do a credible job.

I hope this comparison makes a bit more sense than the one with Monitor Audio Bronze models where the tower speaker had three woofers.

The Songbird with an F3 of 42 Hz will do a credible job with most music.

However you forget what the measurements do not show.

The Song bird will be much more relaxed at power and have significantly less dynamic thermal compression.

The drivers are not particularly robust and high power so it will be an adequate speaker within defined limits.

The problem with speaker measurements is that enough parameters are seldom measured. It is not that they are wrong or misleading, but that they are incomplete.

 

[killdozzer]

Quite a read!

It is really getting interesting. For all of you asking for listening preferences, I avoid the topic on purpose. What I’m interested in is overall performance for living room listening. I want to learn, for future purpose, should I pursue 2.1 or two channel set up for quality of sound.

Most of you already answered this.

Since you’re asking; I will use speakers for movies as well but that’s minor for me. I’m not all that much into surround/immersion/atmos (soundwise, nor am I into 3D etc. visionwise), I enjoy the distance and stereo is my preferred way of listening music. Being “inside of the sound/picture” is simply too gimmicky for me. This is HIGHLY subjective.

QUESTIONS: (this is my effort at moderating this conversation) how come it’s not a big deal to have a single source sub? I asked this a couple of times, any thoughts? @TLS Guy came close to answering one of my questions (when he said the sub is one of the most dispensable components) but missed for a splitting hair; even if you say some great towers don’t NEED sub, would they benefit even slightly from one?

This whole topic, for me at least, is about 2.0 vs. 2.1 – I took MA example simply because of the price point I made. And this brings me to what @BoredSysAdmin wrote. Forum debates are not governed well enough, generally speaking (I don’t mean this one) and a lot of misunderstanding occurs, partly thanks to English not being my first language. I guess you all see that.

So let me try to explain myself; I did read your posts carefully the first time. I wouldn’t post a question and then just skip over your answers. And I am not generalizing on account of what other people say. BUT, since I started this thread with a claim that the topic gets the same kind of coverage over and over again, a part of which is this claim “it’s cheaper to get good sound with bookshelves and a sub”, this was obviously one claim that needed dispelling. It is rarely cheaper. If you’re going for three good speakers instead of two good speakers you WILL end up giving more money. That was the purpose of my example. I hope you understand me now – in future, when I visit SoundStage, What Hi Fi or even some of those “lifehack” forums and read; buy bookshelf speakers for a smaller room you’ll save money, I’ll know not to take it too seriously. It was that particular claim I was putting to test among other things.

One might, perhaps, spend less money if he would combine different brands and picked “best-buys” and end up with a sound quality far better than some expensive towers have. But my question was about quality with no price limits. The quality itself. Where is it achieved more successfully: 2.0 or 2.1. As I said, arguments are mostly concerning price, bass and loudness. I wanted to read about the quality and this is why I named the thread “a different approach”



Thanks everyone!!!

killdozzer

 

[Robert94]

Thank you all.

Monitor Audio Bronze 2 – Walnut (280 pounds per pair)

Monitor Audio Bronze W10 Hi Fi Subwoofer – Walnut (500 pounds)


vs.


Monitor Audio Bronze 6 Floorstanding Speakers (pair) – Walnut (699 pounds per pair)

killdozzer

I know this thread is about towers vs bookshelves + sub, but as you mentioned the Monitor Audio Bronze 2 I was just going to say that when I auditioned them I didn't think that they were particularly impressive and were only marginally better than my old Q acoustic 2020i speakers that cost me £140 at the time. I also recommend testing Q acoustic concept 20 bookshelves (£390) which are very impressive for the price! (although these would need a sub if you wanted the full range). I ended up purchasing the B&W 685 S2 bookshelves without a sub and I'm very pleased, although I've never had a sub in my set-up so I suppose I don't know what I'm missing out on.. but it's probably best to keep it that way for now. When I was testing them out the guy who was doing the audition with me said that he'd never use a sub in a 2 channel set-up and would rather add the money for a sub onto the 2 channel budget for the greatest improvement to the sound quality, but he's one of the few people i've heard say that.

Also I assumed that tower speakers have more rich sounding base due to the larger cabinet - although I'm no expert.

 

[TLS Guy]

Quite a read!

It is really getting interesting. For all of you asking for listening preferences, I avoid the topic on purpose. What I’m interested in is overall performance for living room listening. I want to learn, for future purpose, should I pursue 2.1 or two channel set up for quality of sound.

Most of you already answered this.

Since you’re asking; I will use speakers for movies as well but that’s minor for me. I’m not all that much into surround/immersion/atmos (soundwise, nor am I into 3D etc. visionwise), I enjoy the distance and stereo is my preferred way of listening music. Being “inside of the sound/picture” is simply too gimmicky for me. This is HIGHLY subjective.

QUESTIONS: (this is my effort at moderating this conversation) how come it’s not a big deal to have a single source sub? I asked this a couple of times, any thoughts? @TLS Guy came close to answering one of my questions (when he said the sub is one of the most dispensable components) but missed for a splitting hair; even if you say some great towers don’t NEED sub, would they benefit even slightly from one?

This whole topic, for me at least, is about 2.0 vs. 2.1 – I took MA example simply because of the price point I made. And this brings me to what @BoredSysAdmin wrote. Forum debates are not governed well enough, generally speaking (I don’t mean this one) and a lot of misunderstanding occurs, partly thanks to English not being my first language. I guess you all see that.

So let me try to explain myself; I did read your posts carefully the first time. I wouldn’t post a question and then just skip over your answers. And I am not generalizing on account of what other people say. BUT, since I started this thread with a claim that the topic gets the same kind of coverage over and over again, a part of which is this claim “it’s cheaper to get good sound with bookshelves and a sub”, this was obviously one claim that needed dispelling. It is rarely cheaper. If you’re going for three good speakers instead of two good speakers you WILL end up giving more money. That was the purpose of my example. I hope you understand me now – in future, when I visit SoundStage, What Hi Fi or even some of those “lifehack” forums and read; buy bookshelf speakers for a smaller room you’ll save money, I’ll know not to take it too seriously. It was that particular claim I was putting to test among other things.

One might, perhaps, spend less money if he would combine different brands and picked “best-buys” and end up with a sound quality far better than some expensive towers have. But my question was about quality with no price limits. The quality itself. Where is it achieved more successfully: 2.0 or 2.1. As I said, arguments are mostly concerning price, bass and loudness. I wanted to read about the quality and this is why I named the thread “a different approach”



Thanks everyone!!!

killdozzer

I don't think there is anything wrong with 1 sub. The last two octaves should be mono. If you have more than one sub, they should have the same signal. This lessens adverse room effects and does not alter stereo imaging or localization. Two subs or more is mainly to try and smooth out room reflections and other adverse room effects.

Remember it is very hard to pick someone's to pick someone's speakers for them. Music selections, desired sound level and room all enter into the situation.

Lastly there is absolutely nothing wrong with 2.0 or 2.1. Far better two good speakers then five or seven lousy ones.

Lastly, subs offload speakers, not amps or receivers. They off load speakers because they limit cone excursion of the other speakers.

They really do NOT off load amps or receiver to any meaningful extent. The reason is that there is not much acoustical energy in the sub range, and in the range we are talking about it coincides with the tuning peaks of impedance of the speakers, and so this range takes little power from the amp or receiver.

It is posted here and elsewhere again and again, that subs offload receivers. That is absolute bunk, they don't!

 

[PENG]

If there are no limits in terms of money, room size, room acoustic environment, that is no limits whatsoever, then perhaps 2.0 is better. In real world you are going to have all sorts of limits so separating the heavy current consumer from the more delicate MF/HF drivers/crossovers (that can be external too) seems naturally better. So if you want to come back to the real world where most people don't have large rooms designed for hifi sound enjoyment then I tend to think a well put together high quality bookshelves plus two subs (stereo subs) would have a better chance to yield better results. Even then, it is still a case of 60/40 if not 50/50 because there are so many variables as in a way we all live in our different world.

 

[herbu]

But my question was about quality with no price limits. The quality itself. Where is it achieved more successfully: 2.0 or 2.1.

OK. Here's my view specifically on that question. The answer is 2.0. Here's why.

A speaker system with multiple drivers, (tweeter, mid, woofer, subwoofer), has several critical elements. Buying quality drivers and building quality cabinets are not the most difficult elements to achieve. Perhaps the most difficult is designing the crossovers.

You understand that neither the upper nor lower limit of a driver's capability stop like falling off a cliff. They "roll off", like rolling down a sand dune. It means in the transition area between drivers, BOTH drivers are working. One is fading and the other is coming up. The crossover design determines how and when this transition happens.

Crossover design is part science and part magic. A good designer is a scientific wizard. Some, (few), are recognized as the best in the industry. Everybody can't do it well.

With this in mind, think about a 2.1 system using the very best speakers and subwoofer. A skilled professional designed the crossover between drivers in the speakers. YOU will design the crossover between your woofers and subwoofer. In a 2.0 system with the subwoofers built into the speakers, the professional designs all crossovers.

So if your question is "quality without price limits", a 2.0 system is better than a 2.1 system... in my humble opinion.

 

[Irvrobinson]

@TLS Guy came close to answering one of my questions (when he said the sub is one of the most dispensable components)

Except for the minor problem that hardly anyone here agrees with him. If he wants to go down that path, IMO surround speakers are the most dispensable components. A sub is far more useful, and I'm a relatively recent convert to subs.

In some rooms a sub really isn't necessary. In my HT room, for example, I have no urge to get a sub. I'm not an action movie fan, but the modest towers I have in there, that reach down to perhaps 35Hz, are very satisfying. In my main listening room, which is asymmetrical, with my main speakers that insist on an equilateral triangle with the listening seat for best imaging, the only way to achieve the magical imaging performance they're famous for *and* smooth bass response to 20Hz is with a sub providing carefully tuned (via PEQ filters) fill-in. I have heard these speakers in other rooms (like the dealer's from which I ordered them) provide no-sub-required bass, but I wrestled with them for a year in my last listening room before I relented and bought a big sub. Even though my current room needs a lot less correction, I'm hooked on subs and now I'll never go back.

 

[TLS Guy]

Except for the minor problem that hardly anyone here agrees with him. If he wants to go down that path, IMO surround speakers are the most dispensable components. A sub is far more useful, and I'm a relatively recent convert to subs.

In some rooms a sub really isn't necessary. In my HT room, for example, I have no urge to get a sub. I'm not an action movie fan, but the modest towers I have in there, that reach down to perhaps 35Hz, are very satisfying. In my main listening room, which is asymmetrical, with my main speakers that insist on an equilateral triangle with the listening seat for best imaging, the only way to achieve the magica imaging performance they're famous for *and* smooth bass response to 20Hz is with a sub providing carefully tuned (via PEQ filters) fill-in. I have heard these speakers in other rooms (like the dealer's from which I ordered them) provide no-sub-required bass, but I wrestled with them for a year in my last listening room before I relented and bought a big sub. Even though my current room needs a lot less correction, I'm hooked on subs and now I'll never go back.

You have used the UK sub application. I think that is best.

I'm not on a drive for full range speakers, although if you can do it, I think it is best. However a good speaker with an F3 of 32 Hz, especially if it is at least partially active does a really good job for most sources. Adding the sub is then subtle at best.

One of the biggest problems with three ways and there are lots, is the passive crossover between woofer and mid. That is a quality spoiler unless a fortune is spent on the components and you have lots of space to place them. This area really does cry out for an active solution. In this area passive is a distant second best to active.

 

[Irvrobinson]

One of the biggest problems with three ways and there are lots, is the passive crossover between woofer and mid. That is a quality spoiler unless a fortune is spent on the components and you have lots of space to place them. This area really does cry out for an active solution. In this area passive is a distant second best to active.

We've discussed this point before, and while I understand your argument, and I philosophically agree, listening to the audible results on two different speakers that are designed with the crossover travesty you dislike, the Revel Salon2 and the KEF 207/2, it is difficult to share your disdain. Both of these speakers have a crossover at 120Hz, which makes the transition more like woofer-to-sub than mid-to-woofer. It does seem to work admirably, but, of course, these are speakers that list for $10K-$11K each, and I'm guessing the manufacturers probably have spent a relative fortune on the crossovers.

It is a pity that active speakers have never become popular for home systems, though I do have a pair myself. (The Audioengine 5+) Of course, would you switch to active commercial speakers if you couldn't choose you're own amplifiers?

 

[killdozzer]

I've waited for a couple of days this time to see all the answers I'll get. Thank you all for participating, it was quite interesting to read all you have to say on this topic. The one thing I’m still against is having bookshelves alone. Although you still find audiophiles who defend this traditional position, one thing herbu said makes perfect sense to me: “I think the myth is that you don't need a sub with towers (I would apply this to bookshelves). A simple look at the freq response will show this is usually not true”. So, to put it quite simply, small room will not produce all the lacking frequencies for your bookshelves. If they do not produce the required frequency it doesn’t matter how small your listening room is. It just isn't there for you to hear.

So my conclusion is this: it is either a pair of pretty good and expensive floorstanders or standmounts plus a good sub.

Furthermore, you might expect that a good producer will do a better job of matching the sub to your standmounts. It doesn’t HAVE to be true, but if we’re talking about able engineers this will probably be the case. If for no other reason then simply because they will have the accurate picture about what’s lacking in your sound image.

The way I see it, this means you probably won’t go cheaper with standmounts. If you want a good, broad and versatile sound image, you’ll need to buy a decent sub. It seams, at least for me, bookshelves or standmounts on their own are not good enough. Although I remember hearing a pair of Sonus Faber Olympica1 and having that gut wrenching feeling of disbelief that standmounts can sound so heavenly. I probably went a bit pale in that moment. It was like in that dream when you’re endlessly falling down. But it was an instrumental song with a couple of guitars (acoustic amplified guitars) and there was probably no need for a sub.

So, to round things up, it seems quality is achieved the easiest with 2.1. With small, compact two speakers you will always lack certain sounds. On the other hand to achieve full range sound with towers you’ll have to pay quite a lot.

This means if you like stereo, as I do and if you’re not for some reason enamoured with towers and have tones of cash lying around to simply throw away, but you still want full range sound, 2.1 is the way to go.

Thank you all!
killdozzer

 

[PENG]

It is posted here and elsewhere again and again, that subs offload receivers. That is absolute bunk, they don't!

I wouldn't be so sure so quick to call it absolute bunk. You could be right for most applications but it still depends a lot on the crossover setting and the music contents. If by adding a sub one can set the crossover for the speakers to 100-150 Hz, the sub could in fact help off loading the receiver to a point.

Practically speaking, people who correctly and purposely set their crossovers lower than 80 Hz most likely have receivers good enough that they don't need to worry anyway. For those who have the lower end receivers, they also likely have lower end speakers, and the need to set crossover higher than 80 Hz. In doing so, there be some off loading for the receiver to a point that may not be much but enough to make a difference. Now this is just my educated guess but it is easy enough for us to take some measurements. I'll do mine, but will just be a quick and dirty one.