Do floor standing speakers even make sense when used with a sub?

[shadyJ]

There are full range live sound speakers if that is what you want. They tend to be very large.

But I wouldn't pay too much attention to -3dB points unless you know how that figure was established. Besides that, if you tried using these speakers for home audio, you would have the headroom to EQ them down to 60 Hz flat if you wanted.

 

[DubPlate]

I would say towers are only necessary for folks that want to keep it all analog, with no conversion to digital for bass management. In that case you would need decent low end for records and such. Though I suppose one could employ some kind of analog crossover or dedicated analog 2.1 preamp, not sure how cost effective that would be.

 

[lsiberian]

I think most 5.25” speakers can easily handle 60hz content, and do it better than a sub, at least that has been my experience. A good deal of ported bookshelf speakers have a box tuning between 50-70hz, in my case, mine are tuned to somewhere around 60hz. I see more cone movement at 80hz at the same volume than I do at 60hz, so crossing at 80hz offers no benefit in headroom, mechanically or electrically, since many ported speakers have an impedance of 20+ ohms at the port frequency, I’d be using less power to produce a 60hz wave with my receiver and speakers than I would my sub.

There aren't many 5.25" drivers capable of properly handling 60hz content. Sure you can port it to make it dig down there, but that's definitely not optimal. Normally a proper 8" driver is required to handle content that low well. Obviously there are exceptions.

FWIW sensitivity varies from driver to driver. Heck the Dayton Audio RSS390HO 18" has a 93 dB sensitivity.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I have two systems with towers (one of them with a sub), and one system with bookshelf speakers and a sub, and the towers are far better in the midrange and bass than the bookshelf/sub combination. Blending the sub to the bookshelf speakers has also been a pain, providing evidence for the old saying that subs match best with speakers that need them least.

 

[MrBoat]

I actually would love to have these, how long and how difficult would you say it is to build these (excluding finishing time)? I haven’t got a lot of free time lately. Do the flat packs have grooves for an easy fit? How does the sound compare to Klipsch? I do want accuracy as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the flat pack has rabbets for the corners and braces and the parts fit very well. I built mine in a few hrs time.

These are very revealing speakers with a midrange and mid bass to die for, IMO. The highs are excellent too. I have run these full range without a sub and with the large woofers in a bass friendly room, could really get away without a sub, although, they work even better with one. I think they sound better than my buddy's Klipsch speakers. The Tempests may be considered "laid back" comparatively, but the sheer power/clarity of these things makes that kind of an erroneous perception. Impossible to locate in my humble setting.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think the goal of any speaker system is to achieve sufficient accuracy and dynamics for your specific room.

If you can achieve that with your current system (bookshelf + sub), then there is no practical reason to change.

If you cannot achieve that goal with your current system, then you have a good reason to upgrade to something more accurate and dynamic suitable to your room.

This upgrade could be a much bigger and more dynamic "bookshelf" or it could be a tower.

Not all "tower" speakers are more dynamic than "bookshelf" speakers; some "bookshelf" speakers are more dynamic than some "tower" speakers.

 

[Hetfield]

I think the goal of any speaker system is to achieve sufficient accuracy and dynamics for your specific room.

If you can achieve that with your current system (bookshelf + sub), then there is no practical reason to change.

If you cannot achieve that goal with your current system, then you have a good reason to upgrade to something more accurate and dynamic suitable to your room.

This upgrade could be a much bigger and more dynamic "bookshelf" or it could be a tower.

Not all "tower" speakers are more dynamic than "bookshelf" speakers; some "bookshelf" speakers are more dynamic than some "tower" speakers.

Agree with this completely.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Steve81]

Not all "tower" speakers are more dynamic than "bookshelf" speakers; some "bookshelf" speakers are more dynamic than some "tower" speakers.

No doubt. This puppy is only 26.5" tall, so it's definitely not a tower, but in terms of raw dynamic capability, it'd crush the vast majority of them on the market.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No doubt. This puppy is only 26.5" tall, so it's definitely not a tower, but in terms of raw dynamic capability, it'd crush the vast majority of them on the market.

Yeah, that's one example of a "bookshelf" that is more dynamic than most "towers".

What about the accuracy, though?

Are there any on-axis/off-axis FR measurements of the JTR speakers that you know of?

 

[Steve81]

Are there any on-axis/off-axis FR measurements of the JTR speakers that you know of?

Only measurements I know of for Jeff's gear is at DB, but Josh is only testing the low end of the speakers. There might be some measurements by end users on AVS, but I can't say I've gone looking for them.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just for fun, I looked at the JBL Pro "bookshelf" + sub. Here is a dynamic 26" bookshelf + 26" subwoofer. Someone could stack the bookshelf atop the sub and turn it into a 52" tall dynamic tower of power.

https://www.amazon.com/JBL-PRX415M-Speakers-PRX-418S-Subwoofers/dp/B00K2TFBKI/ref=sr_1_13?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1509998612&sr=1-13&keywords=JBL+PRX

JBL seems to always have measurements.

http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_PRX415M.v3.pdf

 

[Irvrobinson]

No doubt. This puppy is only 26.5" tall, so it's definitely not a tower, but in terms of raw dynamic capability, it'd crush the vast majority of them on the market.

Maybe, but 75lbs and 26" tall is not a "bookshelf" speaker by any definition I was thinking of, more like a stand-mounted speaker, a la some large ATC models. B&W 801s used to be like this too, albeit even bigger. The question here as I understood it was more about something like a 2-way small speaker with maybe a 6.5" woofer. Perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[Steve81]

Maybe, but 75lbs and 26" tall is not a "bookshelf" speaker by any definition I was thinking of

So your bookshelves don't look like this???
http://www.globalindustrial.com/g/storage/shelving/steel-heavy-duty/little-giant-72-high-hd-adjustable-shelving-steel

IMHO, whether its a piddly mini-monitor or that JTR beast, they're all stand-mounted speakers. I assume that's why ADTG used the quotation marks on "bookshelf" in the first place. Of course, for a more "bookshelfy" sized speaker, the JTR Single 8HT would still go toe to toe with a lot of towers 80Hz on up in terms of dynamic range.

The question here as I understood it was more about something like a 2-way small speaker with maybe a 6.5" woofer. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Nah, I just like to go off topic

 

[yepimonfire]

Just for fun, I looked at the JBL Pro "bookshelf" + sub. Here is a dynamic 26" bookshelf + 26" subwoofer. Someone could stack the bookshelf atop the sub and turn it into a 52" tall dynamic tower of power.

https://www.amazon.com/JBL-PRX415M-Speakers-PRX-418S-Subwoofers/dp/B00K2TFBKI/ref=sr_1_13?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1509998612&sr=1-13&keywords=JBL+PRX

JBL seems to always have measurements.

http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_PRX415M.v3.pdf

Hard to read the directivity measurement without numbers but it looks like there’s a notch at the xover frequency in coverage.

Pro subs aren’t useful for HT, most wont go much below 40hz, and you aren’t going to get far eqing a ported box.

Honestly I have no issues achieving Reference levels with the speakers I have now, it’s the sub that usually craps out during extreme lfe lol. I generally don’t exceed -10dB from Reference because my wife says it’s too loud, but usually stick between -15dB and -10dB, which is still loud as hell during certain scenes, 105dB-110dB Lc Fmax is my current “record”. I do notice my center has more headroom than my l/r due to dual woofers. Perhaps a set of 160ms and a second sub 1500 is in order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KEW]

For specific instances, another reasonable comparison would be the SVS Prime Towers ($1000/pr) vs the Ultra bookshelves ($1000/pr). I think this would be an easy win for the Ultras (though I have not heard the Prime series).

As I speculated before the Ultra Tower should be better than the Ultra bookshelf.

So I think much of the answer to this question lies in how you frame the budget aspect of the question.

If it is the matter that you have the money to buy equivalent towers (to the series of the bookshelves), and they are well braced (which usually means expensive), the towers should win.

But, on a budget I would generally expect bookshelves and Subs to get you a lot more for Less!

Then, if we get into "quasi-bookshelves" like Dennis's BMR speaker, the waters become muddy.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Maybe, but 75lbs and 26" tall is not a "bookshelf" speaker by any definition...

Wait, what? You mean my 30-inch-100-pound SV-831 isn't a bookshelf?

Perhaps I should use the term "Monitor" from now on?

 

[yepimonfire]

For specific instances, another reasonable comparison would be the SVS Prime Towers ($1000/pr) vs the Ultra bookshelves ($1000/pr). I think this would be an easy win for the Ultras (though I have not heard the Prime series).

As I speculated before the Ultra Tower should be better than the Ultra bookshelf.

So I think much of the answer to this question lies in how you frame the budget aspect of the question.

If it is the matter that you have the money to buy equivalent towers (to the series of the bookshelves), and they are well braced (which usually means expensive), the towers should win.

But, on a budget I would generally expect bookshelves and Subs to get you a lot more for Less!

Then, if we get into "quasi-bookshelves" like Dennis's BMR speaker, the waters become muddy.

Obviously a three way or four way config will always beat a two way, it add headroom to both the tweeter (since its no long required to cover the very top mid range) and reduces IM distortion in the mids since the bass is handled separately.


I’m talking two way bookshelf to two way dual/larger woofer floor stander. It’s also worth noting a two way with a horn loaded tweeter offers much of the benefits of a three way, since excursion is controlled and the usable cutoff and radiation pattern of the tweeter is determined by the horn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yepimonfire]

Wait, what? You mean my 30-inch-100-pound SV-831 isn't a bookshelf?

Perhaps I should use the term "Monitor" from now on?

Ha. I think the term “bookshelf” should be replaced with monitor anyways. Nobody places speakers in bookshelves unless they want awful sound and many “bookshelves” are rather large anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[killdozzer]

But, on a budget I would generally expect bookshelves and Subs to get you a lot more for Less!

Yes, things should either be matched by price or performance. Price/Gain-wise bookshelves would always win. Performance-wise, at a certain point I guess towers+sub/subs would take over and bookshelves+sub/subs wouldn't catch up any more. Going even further, at a certain price point you might not NEED a sub, but could always profit from one (maybe not with Legacy Audio Valor).

Also, as @yepimonfire said; fair comparison would have drivers matched in both towers and bookshelves.

There's another thing that's buggin' me. I'll use adjectives and nonprofessional terms, so I apologize up front. There's the size of the sound. As @MrBoat said perfectly; there's no replacement for displacement.

Going through many dedicated listening rooms that are no bigger/smaller than mine, I've noticed that not only the quality of sound played a role. Speakers with large drivers gave a feeling of large sound (or am I being biased?) Going by how easily I could converse with others who auditioned the gear (and only by that), I'd say it wasn't the SPL. I can further confirm this with another (completely unreliable) proof; no matter how much I turn the volume up on my speakers, I don't get the size. I get the SPL, but not the size. You can get accuracy and still miss this feeling of a large sound stage. My speakers when loud give a feeling of a "loud smaller" sound.

This is not only woofers, but, even more, midds! You need big, powerful and well handled midds and lower midds/upper bass. Just the other day I've watched a video that features at the moment on home page of this site (well not anymore, but it's the one about Audio Legacy Valor speakers) and I heard @gene saying the same thing; (paraphrase) having small/smallish mains and adding an army of subs is not getting you there.

I remember asking about this in my Floorstanders vs. Bookshelves - a different approach thread, where I wanted to talk about all the differences other than sufficient bass and the size of the room.

My conclusion is that there really is no replacement. Even if you're in a small room, small speakers will not start to sound "large" all of a sudden. I'm not even fully convinced that small rooms don't need a sub - what type/size of a wall would you need to have, to get reinforcement bellow 40Hz? I think that a more serious problem would be whether sound waves bellow 60Hz would have enough space to develop in a small room. But in this case I feel it would be fair to say; you're gonna miss it, but small rooms are not good for sound reproduction.

What I'm interested in now, is how much would you miss the woofer in a large mid or mid/woofer bookshelf and a sub or subs combo? Something like Dynaudio Special40 with 170mm mid/woofer driver, or Revel Concerta2 M-16 & B&W 805 d3 with 165.10mm mid/woofer. Would you, in this case, have an easier or harder job of integration and would it be good enough for the feeling of a large size sound?

 

[yepimonfire]

Yes, things should either be matched by price or performance. Price/Gain-wise bookshelves would always win. Performance-wise, at a certain point I guess towers+sub/subs would take over and bookshelves+sub/subs wouldn't catch up any more. Going even further, at a certain price point you might not NEED a sub, but could always profit from one (maybe not with Legacy Audio Valor).

Also, as @yepimonfire said; fair comparison would have drivers matched in both towers and bookshelves.

There's another thing that's buggin' me. I'll use adjectives and nonprofessional terms, so I apologize up front. There's the size of the sound. As @MrBoat said perfectly; there's no replacement for displacement.

Going through many dedicated listening rooms that are no bigger/smaller than mine, I've noticed that not only the quality of sound played a role. Speakers with large drivers gave a feeling of large sound (or am I being biased?) Going by how easily I could converse with others who auditioned the gear (and only by that), I'd say it wasn't the SPL. I can further confirm this with another (completely unreliable) proof; no matter how much I turn the volume up on my speakers, I don't get the size. I get the SPL, but not the size. You can get accuracy and still miss this feeling of a large sound stage.

This is not only woofers, but, even more, midds! You need big, powerful and well handled midds and lower midds. Just the other day I've watched a video that features at the moment on home page of this site (well not anymore, but it's the one about Audio Legacy Valor speakers) and I heard @gene saying the same thing; (paraphrase) having small/smallish mains and adding an army of subs is not getting you there.

I remember asking about this in my Floorstanders vs. Bookshelves - a different approach thread, where I wanted to talk about all the differences other than sufficient bass and the size of the room.

My conclusion is that there really is no replacement. Even if you're in a small room, small speakers will not start to sound "large". I'm not even fully convinced that small rooms don't need a sub - what type/size of a wall would you need to have, to get reinforcement bellow 40Hz? I think that a more serious problem would be whether sound waves bellow 60Hz would have enough space to develop in a small room. But in this case I feel it would be fair to say; you're gonna miss it, but small rooms are not good for sound reproduction.

What I'm interested in now, is how much would you miss the woofer in a large mid or mid/woofer bookshelf and a sub or subs combo? Something like Dynaudio Special40 with 170mm mid/woofer driver, or Revel Concerta2 M-16 & B&W 805 d3 with 165.10mm mid/woofer. Would you, in this case, have an easier or harder job of integration and would it be good enough for the feeling of a large size sound?

I think imaging and dispersion have more to do with sound “size”. The tiny Klipsch R-14m speakers (when paired with a sub) in my bedroom project a huge, outside of the speaker sound stage compared to the similarly sized Polk OWM3s. So long as you cross them over at 70hz, they can dish out about 104dB @8’ before they start complaining according to my measurements. (I left the room and set the spl meter to record LC Fmax, since above 90dB was unbearable).

The other thing you might be perceiving is dynamic range. Most small direct radiating monitors can’t reproduce dynamics in the same way big speakers can. I have yet to hear a small two way bookshelf maintain its composure above 85dB. One reason I’m a fan of horns and/or really big speakers. No replacement for displacement is definitely correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk