Floorstanders Vs. Bookshelfs

[Brian Alexander]

This might be a really asinine question, but that's why I'm here.

Floortanding speakers. The advantage seems to be better low-frequency output in a lot of cases. They fit larger woofers, or simply stack more woofers in the larger cabinet.

But, in a system with a solid subwoofer, what's the advantage of better low-frequency output? Wouldn't you want speakers with more midrange and high-frequency output, and let the subwoofer handle a majority of the low-frequencies? Why is a larger and generally more expensive speaker with better low-end worth the cost when those lower frequencies will just be crossed over into a sub? Obviously they'll not be able to go as low as a dedicated sub, so the sub is still needed. But why spend more on a floorstanding model of a speaker?

What got me wondering is i have a pair of Elac UB5s that I really like the sound of. Given I'm moving into a house in a few months, I was toying with the idea of picking up the matching floorstanders--the UF5 speakers--and using the current UB5s for surrounds. But, given I already am getting a new sub in the next week or two... I thought "Is there any point?" At $900 a pair, it seems like I'm better off getting a second sub instead.

P.S. I'm asking in general terms, not specifically curious about my setup, although input in that area is always welcome.

 

[shadyJ]

Tower speakers can have a wider dynamic range in mids and treble, especially if they are a 3-way design as opposed to their 2-way bookshelf speaker counterpart. But if you aren't cranking your bookshelf speakers hard enough to press the upper limits of their dynamic range, the towers won't give you any real benefit when a sub is used. A decent sub will almost always have a dynamic range advantage over a tower speaker in bass frequencies. You would need a hell of a tower with a hell of an amp to match a good sub in bass.

 

[Brian Alexander]

I know I said in general terms... but I guess what my brain is thinking is more subjective than objective.

My pair of bnookshelfs are a 3 way design. The equivalent tower has the exact tweeter, midrange, and woofer combo. However, in a second, separately ported cavity, there are two additional woofers.

Knowing that... the high and mid output would seem to be the exact same. It's only the low frequencies that are really enhanced in the tower variant versus the bookshelfs I currently have.

So, it semes odd that I'd want to increase the low-end without also increasing the mids and highs, letting the speaker perform at an overall louder level, rather than only adding more output in the frequencies where another speaker--a subwoofer--already has the job handled.

It makes total sense if there was no sub. But when a sub enters the picture, the extra woofers I see in some designs--not just Elac's--doesn't make a lot of sense outside of a stereo 2-channel design with no dedicated subwoofer.

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

I agree, with subs there’s no good reason to get big floor-standing speakers. Floor-standers are more difficult to build, as the larger cabinet has more potential to resonate compared to a small cabinet. Also, multiple drivers require a more complicated crossover as well. Not saying those things can’t be done will with a floor-stander, but it would seem that it can be done much more economically with a bookshelf speaker.

The only reason I can see for big speakers is if you have a really large room, so large that the bass from a bookshelf speaker is weak and therefore not able to blend well with the subs.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Mikado463]

several driving forces ........ room dimensions, space constraints, etc.

One of the things to be aware of is that many of the 'affordable' floor standers are aimed at the 'HT' group knowing that a sub will be added for they have mediocre bottom octave performance. Not that is a bad thing since a sub (or two) can almost always be added to enforce the lower freq within ones listening room.

regardless of the 'type' of speaker, placement within ones listening space IS important. I've said before and it drives me nuts, speakers need room to 'breath', placing them up against a wall and or putting shelving and other 'crap' between them is about as stupid as one can get !

 

[Brian Alexander]

Mikado: I'm not sure I really agree with the HT-floorstander-market comment. That said, I still consider myself VERY green, and would put myself firmly in the "amateur" category. I'm 25 and have only been really captivated by higher-fidelity audio stuff for a few years now. But, speaking purely from a logical perspective, even the most basic, cardboard-manufactured HTIB kits include subwoofers. So, I do not understand why a floorstander--with better bass output than a bookshelf in the same product line--would be marketed to an audience that likely already has a subwoofer or two. Is there something I'm missing? That rationale seems like it's most fitting for the target market for budget bookshelf speakers more than budget floorstanders.


As for placement... yeah, I've definitely taken care in that regard with solid stands and living room arrangement to where my UB5s are about 18" off the wall, and aren't near any corners (no perpendicular walls within 4' or so).

Wayne: Glad it's not as silly an observation as I initially thought. The larger room volume makes sense. Or, perhaps seating distance from the speakers.

 

[Mikado463]

Brian, my comment about 'HT' floor standers and subs is more easily seen in the measurements. Many of the lesser priced models do not go as low and or roll of relatively early knowing that a sub will integrate for the 'fill'. Also understand that a subwoofer is just that ...... a 'sub', not a bass driver. In HT applications subs will and can play beyond their freq range intended for music applications which more likely is the second octave and below.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I would say your question is definitely valid.
I am an advocate for floorstanders. Risking oversimplification, I’ll explain my thoughts. Tower speakers of good quality will usually have larger/more drivers and IME, they deliver better dynamics more realistically and effortlessly above the xo point as well, and can be easier to integrate with a sub. The extra/larger drivers normally make them more sensitive and easier to drive, and also share thermal load better, which can help dynamic range. As others have said, as usual it depends on some things like the room, seating distance, listening material etc. BS and subs work for many spaces, but I’m a believer in towers(real ones, not a BS with a built in stand as mikado was referring to) and IMO, the uf5 would be worth the extra. This of course would depend on your space and listening habits too, so it’s not a simple rabbit hole to enter. Pretty much agree with what shadyj said. Time for coffee...

 

[KEW]

IME, unless you are spending over $2000/pr and being very selective, tower speakers are prone to resonances. It is really a matter of whether or not the manufacturers prioritize quality of cabinet construction; however, the more money they have to play with, the more likely they will be able to address cabinet resonances.

 

[herbu]

in a system with a solid subwoofer, what's the advantage of better low-frequency output?

Where do you set your crossover to the sub? 40hz? 60Hz? 80Hz? Let's say 80hz. Does the music you like have elements in the 80-200Hz range? (That's sarcastic. Of course it does.) That's why a good floorstander is better than a bookshelf, even with good subs.

 

[Bucknekked]

IME, unless you are spending over $2000/pr and being very selective, tower speakers are prone to resonances. It is really a matter of whether or not the manufacturers prioritize quality of cabinet construction; however, the more money they have to play with, the more likely they will be able to address cabinet resonances.

KEW
I agree. Cabinets matter. Drivers matter. Crossovers matter.
This is just a shameless post to say I still love my Salk Towers.
They are tall. Slender. Awesome in every respect.
I was listening last night and just marveling at the wonderful music coming out of them.
What a great hobby we have.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

KEW
I agree. Cabinets matter. Drivers matter. Crossovers matter.
This is just a shameless post to say I still love my Salk Towers.
They are tall. Slender. Awesome in every respect.
I was listening last night and just marveling at the wonderful music coming out of them.
What a great hobby we have.

Buck. This is just a shameless post to once again, congratulate you, and share my envy. Lol

 

[Montucky]

I'll just throw out the disclaimer that I am pretty biased as I am a total sucker for gigantic towers...especially the hudge monolithic towers like the absurdly outstanding Status Acoustics 8T Reference towers. They will be mine one day. Oh, yes. They will be mine.

THAT SAID, depending upon your usage and the very space you'll be putting them in, a pair of high quality bookshelf speakers with a high quality sub can be absolutely divine.

One of the reasons however, that I enjoy a good pair of towers that supply a beefy low end and great mids is due to the fact that sometimes I really do enjoy a good old fashioned (simple) 2-channel stereo setup sans subwoofer. I have a couple high power 2-channel amps with no bass management on them, so the subs are far less impressive (without dialing them in manually that is), and THAT'S where I find towers to outshine the books. If using a modern receiver with good bass management/room correction though, that can largely be overcome and thus the gap may be narrowed.

At the end of the day, it boils down to what works best for the intended space and desired usage. Can you tell us a bit about your room dimensions and what you're going for more? Are either movies or listening to some 2-channel tunes the priority? Both?

 

[j_garcia]

To me, it is use and budget that make the difference. At around a couple hudred a pair, you will get a better bookshelf than a tower IMO. Better that the funds difference goes toward a better sub which will yield a more well rounded budget system, vs. towers with no sub or a lesser sub. Cheap towers sacrifice many things to get down to this price range.

Move up the food chain to a few thousand a pair, likely a tower will be far more capable because they're more focused on getting things right and you'll get better cabinets, drivers, x-overs, etc...

Then there's your focus - music or movies. For movies, IMO, towers aren't really needed, particularly in the budget area. If the primary listening is music though, for me, I'd put all of the speaker budget toward the best towers I could get (probably still end up with a sub though).

My system is ~30% gaming, 30% movies/TV, 60% music and I don't have towers.

 

[Auditor55]

This might be a really asinine question, but that's why I'm here.

Floortanding speakers. The advantage seems to be better low-frequency output in a lot of cases. They fit larger woofers, or simply stack more woofers in the larger cabinet.

But, in a system with a solid subwoofer, what's the advantage of better low-frequency output? Wouldn't you want speakers with more midrange and high-frequency output, and let the subwoofer handle a majority of the low-frequencies? Why is a larger and generally more expensive speaker with better low-end worth the cost when those lower frequencies will just be crossed over into a sub? Obviously they'll not be able to go as low as a dedicated sub, so the sub is still needed. But why spend more on a floorstanding model of a speaker?

What got me wondering is i have a pair of Elac UB5s that I really like the sound of. Given I'm moving into a house in a few months, I was toying with the idea of picking up the matching floorstanders--the UF5 speakers--and using the current UB5s for surrounds. But, given I already am getting a new sub in the next week or two... I thought "Is there any point?" At $900 a pair, it seems like I'm better off getting a second sub instead.

P.S. I'm asking in general terms, not specifically curious about my setup, although input in that area is always welcome.

Floorstanders are not preferred if you have sub(s) and you are going to cross them over anyway. Floorstanders then becomes pieces of furniture.

 

[Mikado463]

Floorstanders are not preferred if you have sub(s) and you are going to cross them over anyway. Floorstanders then becomes pieces of furniture.

not true, it all depends on ones tower specs and room interaction. I have Revel Studio 2's and sill utilize a sub for bottom octave reinforcement.

 

[shadyJ]

Floorstanders are not preferred if you have sub(s) and you are going to cross them over anyway. Floorstanders then becomes pieces of furniture.

One of the dumb things that you can see from time to time are bookshelf speakers on speaker stands that are so expensive that it wouldn't have cost much more to just get the tower version of the bookshelf speaker being used.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Floorstanders are not preferred if you have sub(s) and you are going to cross them over anyway. Floorstanders then becomes pieces of furniture.

Not preferred by who? You?

 

[j_garcia]

One of the dumb things that you can see from time to time are bookshelf speakers on speaker stands that are so expensive that it wouldn't have cost much more to just get the tower version of the bookshelf speaker being used.

As well as taking up more or less the same floor space. I can reuse the stands though. I've had 5-6 sets of speakers live on mine over the past ~10 yrs.

 

[Brian Alexander]

I'm really glad this has sparked such a lively discussion.

A bit more about my (upcoming) use case. Right now, my apartment's living room is too small for me to warrant a pair of towers or the sub I'm acquiring in the near future.

Listening: 50% music, 30% TV/movies, 30% spoken word (audiobooks, podcasts, etc.)
Room size: appx 15x 30 with a slightly higher ceiling than most (Say 12 ft maybe?)
Receiver: Denon X3400H. Supports external amps but I currently don't have one.
Fronts: Elac UB5 pair
Center: Elac UC5
Surrounds: inexpensive Energy satellites. Driver is only like 3.25" or so.
Sub: (Acquiring this weekend) HSU VTF-2 MK5

Currently crossing over at 60. Gives the bass a bit more direction and sense of space than if I cross it over at 80Hz. And given the speakers can dip into the 30Hz range, I don't notice any irregularities in bass output in that crossover range.

William: That makes sense. You say the UF5s would be worth the extra cost. Are there any competitors in that same price range that I should consider? Or is it best to ensure the towers match the center and surrounds (The bookshelfs would become surrounds if I acquired the floorstanding variant.)

Mikado: THAT makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks for clearing it up.

I'm looking at either:
1. Grabbing a second VTF-2 MK5
2. Getting better front speakers so the UB5s can replace my sub-par surrounds The satellites are light enough to be wall mounted with a bracket, so I could use them as height speakers, or rear surrounds up on the wall.

Other options I should consider are obviously welcome, too.