Tower vs. Bookshelf Speakers

[MatthewB.]

If this is strictly for music, I would opt for a pair of towers with built in subs (AV123 Strata Minis's or DT 7### series) depending on cost. If for HT then bookshelves with an awsome sub will do a great job. I have two 7.1 systems in my house and a 2 channel music only system in my office. I use the Strata Minis for music only and the sound is phenominal for that, but for HT then I have discovered that with an awesome sub and bookshelves you can get sound that rivals the local cineplex. You mentioned in you OP that you were looking for 2.1, well with towers wil built in subs you would just need 2.0 and just calibrate the subs to give you great overall sound. Now I am one who believes that when listening to music that you should sit in your comfy chair and just get lost in the music, in which case a great set of headphones will also do the trick. People will say, "what if you want to hear the music all around the room" well then in that case it doenst matter what you get, because the sound will be hindered anyway with you walking around and different room acoustics as you walk, hence why great headphones will work best.

 

[Cruise Missile]

Isiberian,
The horse you're riding been getting pretty tall lately. No-one can possibly know something about everything. Disagreement with someone doesn't automatically make them wrong.

OP,
Most people who run subs xover their mains somewhere in the 60-80 hz range, so the lower -3db point of the mains doesn't need to be below +\- 50 hz. Most good bookshelf speakers can handle this.
The exception is if you plan on bypassing your receivers bass-management by using pure-direct\direct, then the lower -3db point tower speakers may provide becomes important.
And like everyone says, listen to as many speakers as you can, your ears will not misslead you.

 

[jamie2112]

Shouldn't the best sounding/ highest quality speaker be selected in the budget range? Then deal with the consequences of inefficiency etc.
Yes and no.If you buy speakers that have an 85db compared to a 95db eficient pair you are going to spend alot of money in amplification...
On the sound differences. Tubes and Solid state were compared as well.
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
Tube amps add AUDIBLE distortion you can hear that!
Say what you want, but according to that study your all wrong.
Whatever your horse has gotten tall hasen't it. You are starting to PO a few folks on here and should tone down your know it all routine a bit please..
The ball is in your court to provide scientific evidence that it is true and worth the 100s of dollars in extra money.

off base again.....

 

[lsiberian]

Isiberian,
The horse you're riding been getting pretty tall lately. No-one can possibly know something about everything. Disagreement with someone doesn't automatically make them wrong.

OP,
Most people who run subs xover their mains somewhere in the 60-80 hz range, so the lower -3db point of the mains doesn't need to be below +\- 50 hz. Most good bookshelf speakers can handle this.
The exception is if you plan on bypassing your receivers bass-management by using pure-direct\direct, then the lower -3db point tower speakers may provide becomes important.
And like everyone says, listen to as many speakers as you can, your ears will not misslead you.

My arguments were based on my own evidence and logic. The evidence was the article. The logic requires a study of electronics and amplifiers themselves. I personally have no desire to get into that.

As far as speakers go. There are very good towers out there even in the mid-fi range(ex the Primus towers) These are easily improved too.

I just find in a budget it's generally easier to find better quality bookshelves than towers. I also find bookshelves easier to deal with. But to each his own.

I think your ears are the best way to crossover anything. I used my ears for my crossovers. You should do the same.

What's a horse? Cars are faster! I know some don't find humor as a tension release.
I'll not undertake the amplifier SQ discussion again. It's not my area of expertise. For full disclosure my expertise is in the field of computer science and software engineering.

I know I can come across as a Know-it-all. I'm working on that.

 

[lsiberian]

Please don't take me too seriously please.

I apologize for being a little testy. I just don't understand how there can be a difference between amps that have been well engineered when it come to how something sounds. Of course there is more to it than that. Looks and feel count for a lot and are equally important. No one wants an ugly amplifier. Plus higher priced amps do give you more head room and less clipping.

I must add to this post. That power isn't everything. I get the same sound yes, but I preferred my old receiver.

Some people will prefer pre-pros. Pick what you like. And only take what I say under advisement. We do have experts, but I'm not one of them. Don't anyone ever think I am. I would trust Jamie, MatthewB, and many others advice before my own. I'm not trying to make anyone mad sorry. I prefer humor over rage.

 

[MatthewB.]

isiberian, I am one who believes that every person has a voice and a right to express their opinions (wether right or wrong) if that person is wrong, then somebody will correct them. I have learned the most on A/V forums by disagreements between two conflicting opinions. Thanks for trusting my opinion, but I am not an expert by a long shot, most of what I have learned is by members like yourself and others. I do agree that in some cases tube amps can add distortion, and I would never recommend a typical tube amp for HT use, I feel tube amps are geared more towards music applications hence why they don't require alot of watts and can handle music just fine, Meanwhile Class A,B,D and Ice amps are geared more towards HT use and are very good at those.

I feel your distortion with the tube amps happened while listening to demanding rock songs, while tube amps can make Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett sound jaw dropping.

 

[MatthewB.]

p.s.
There hasnt been a day gone by where I havent learned somthing new from members (again wether I agree with them or not). In fact for a year over at Sound and Vision, I got into a very lengthy debate with IG (guru over there) that HD-DVD was better than Bluray (we even had a 100 bet on who would win-losing that 100 was a bitter pill to swallow) but in all the debates, arguments and members choosing sides, I learned far more about Bluray than anyone should ever have to know and because of that, I can learn from both sides and enjoy both formats to this day.
With anyone, never let any one persons opinions sway you, take everything into consideration and if you feel tubes are not the answer, let your voice be loud and strong and give examples as to why. Trust me if it werent for personal experiences we'd all still be living in caves.

 

[jamie2112]

isiberian, I am one who believes that every person has a voice and a right to express their opinions (wether right or wrong) if that person is wrong, then somebody will correct them. I have learned the most on A/V forums by disagreements between two conflicting opinions. Thanks for trusting my opinion, but I am not an expert by a long shot, most of what I have learned is by members like yourself and others. I do agree that in some cases tube amps can add distortion, and I would never recommend a typical tube amp for HT use, I feel tube amps are geared more towards music applications hence why they don't require alot of watts and can handle music just fine, Meanwhile Class A,B,D and Ice amps are geared more towards HT use and are very good at those.

I feel your distortion with the tube amps happened while listening to demanding rock songs, while tube amps can make Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett sound jaw dropping.

To my ear the distorion caused by the tube sound is audible but not in a bad way.Typically if you think distortion you think scatchy tinny garbled type of distorion,or at least I do. Tube distortion is totally different than overload distortion. Tubes give the music a rich or warmer sound which is desired thing to many. As the music industry has moved towards "more volume less dynamics" for kids sitting in front of a screen with crappy speakers, it has been a benefit to me to have tubes.They make a harmonic distortion which is very musical and makes alot of the recorded music these days sound much better to my ears. I think tube amps make 2 channel sound great with rock or Sinatra it doesn't matter,its harmonic destortion not volume distorion.

 

[ski2xblack]

Please don't take me too seriously please.

I apologize for being a little testy. I just don't understand how there can be a difference between amps that have been well engineered when it come to how something sounds...

No need for apology, I can take it, and it looks like others already jumped on you for percieved sanctimony or something. (I don't care if you're on a high horse, you've helped many a curious person here, so keep it up. And cyberspace robs sarcasm/humor/emotion from communication, kind of like ss amps do to music.)

Yeah, I used to think that too (that well designed amps ideally should be indistinguishable). But the empirical evidence as provided by my own ears is that the SET's I use are not just slightly better than my decent ss amps, but sonically leave them in the dust. It's not even close. And as a bonus, they cost less. Regardless if this is due to distortion or whatever, my tube amps just achieve a degree of fidelity and 'liveness' far beyond what my ss amps can do.

Anyone just starting out in this hobby (such as the OP) should listen not just to tubes, but specifically SETs paired w/ high efficiency speakers, if for no other reason than having a point of reference. I've heard many stories of dudes (or dudettes, but far fewer) who spend thousands on equipment upgrades, chasing some elusive, perfect sound, only to finally discover the SET/high-efficiency thing was what they were seeking the whole time. The OP could avoid such an expensive and fruitless pursuit by going straight to the real deal.

 

[ski2xblack]

Isiberian, I read that story you linked to, and it seems they did not include a SET (nor would one have been a good match for the Maggies they used in the test; if they had, they would have been lucky to get more than 90db before the SET fizzled out). The tube amp they mention is a big, expensive ($6K/channel!!) push/pull type, which tend to sound more like SS amps, so it is not surprising to me that no discernable difference was identified in the ABX part of the study. Believe me, a single ended class A circuit is inherently more immediate than any push/pull, class AB amp out there, and they sound 'different' (I was going to put 'better', but that's too subjective...how about 'faster, cleaner, clearer, more spacious, more transparent, better dynamic contrasts, as though you're listenting to actual musicians instead of hifi gear playing a recording'...still subjective, but you get the idea).

Since the OP's budget would allow for such a system, and as some very good performing budget tube amps exist (Doc B, Decware, others), as well as any number of efficient speakers on the market, and since the OP is starting from scratch on a 2.0 or 2.1 setup, I felt it worthy of a mention. I know I could have saved some ducats if I had received the same advice.

Sorry for triggering a derailment of the thread!

 

[Djizasse]

Sorry for triggering a derailment of the thread!

Why? It turned out to be quite fruitful

I've heard my speakers (Monitor Audio RS6) playing the Four Seasons, while powered by a tube amp. It sounded delicious. The fuller sound is the result of the added harmonic distortion.

But I don't think I'll ever buy a tube amp, software emulation has come a long way and it's possible to have the "tube sound" without the tubes.


But returning to the OT, I've the notion that a tower, when used in conjunction with a sub, relieved of playing the low frequency band, won't have so much trouble with resonance. With this in mind, the problem about cabinet resonance does not apply as much. Towers also have the added benefit of being more efficient, in part due to the extra volume.
Is this correct? Does the extra internal volume of the towers make them better than bookshelves, when used with a subwoofer? Or do they still suffer from cabinet resonance problems?

 

[3db]

Shouldn't the best sounding/ highest quality speaker be selected in the budget range? Then deal with the consequences of inefficiency etc.

On the sound differences. Tubes and Solid state were compared as well.
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Say what you want, but according to that study your all wrong.

The ball is in your court to provide scientific evidence that it is true and worth the 100s of dollars in extra money.

No I'm not wrong. Tube amps from what I've read are rich in even order harmonics (audbale distortion as you put it ) causing that warm sound characteristic and slighlty rolled off treble. Thats different from the solid state amp chararcteristics. Also if its audable, you can hear it which makes a difference in the sound which makes it possible to distinguish between tube and solid state amps. Logic 101.

Klipsh are nortorious for sound bright but mate them to a tuibe amp and that brightness is tamed alot. Don't beleive me? DBT this for yourself and see. I have and I've heard and I correctly chose the tube amp each and everytime.

Further more, tube amps do not put out alot of power and require efficent speakers or you simply won't get much sound from them. If one is going the route of a tube amp, simply following the speaker first formula unchecked will lead one into big trouble. More care must be taken when going with tubes.

Like everythibg in life, there is no magic formula that you can blindly apply to all conditions. Speaker selection with a tube amp is an exception.

 

[Alex2507]

But returning to the OT, I've the notion that a tower, when used in conjunction with a sub, relieved of playing the low frequency band, won't have so much trouble with resonance. With this in mind, the problem about cabinet resonance does not apply as much. Towers also have the added benefit of being more efficient, in part due to the extra volume.
Is this correct? Does the extra internal volume of the towers make them better than bookshelves, when used with a subwoofer? Or do they still suffer from cabinet resonance problems?

I think it boils down to the speaker but the general rule of thumb is that it is much easier (cheaper) to make a less resonant bookshelf much like it is easier (cheaper) to make a good 2 way design. Throwing a good sub into the 2 way book shelf mix sounds like the easiest (cheapest) route to good SQ. Some guys can afford more and sometimes WAF plays a big enough role that even Bose is the correct course of action. [J/K]

 

[3db]

I think it boils down to the speaker but the general rule of thumb is that it is much easier (cheaper) to make a less resonant bookshelf much like it is easier (cheaper) to make a good 2 way design. Throwing a good sub into the 2 way book shelf mix sounds like the easiest (cheapest) route to good SQ. Some guys can afford more and sometimes WAF plays a big enough role that even Bose is the correct course of action. [J/K]

You said the "B" word again .

 

[bandphan]

Transmission line speakers, like the salks, will have usable bass output into the high 30s which would be acceptable for a small room without a sub, which could be added later.

 

[Pyrrho]

Hi all,

I've been doing research for a few months now, and I am looking to buy my first set of speakers. As of now, I intend to to spend somewhere between $1000 and $2000 on them. I will be using them for both music and home theater. My room is approximately 400 or so square feet.

At this point, I have been most interested in brands such as B&W, Monitor Audio, Paradigm, and PSB. To a lesser extent, I have considered Dali and Definitive Technology. I have heard some speakers in person (B&W, Definitive Technology), but I have yet to do extensive auditioning on the others.

Before I do so, though, I have a general question. Assuming space and placement are not a concern (but maybe they are), does it make more sense to buy bookshelf speakers and a dedicated subwoofer or simply two towers? For example, I have looked at the B&W 685s and a subwoofer. Yet, for about the same price, I could buy towers such as the 684s or, for slightly more, the 683s. I do not believe I would be able to buy towers and a subwoofer given my budget.

So, in general, what makes more sense? 2.1 system with bookshelf speakers or simply towers? How will sound quality compare across the two? And can towers alone match the bass of a dedicated subwoofer in a bookshelf system?

Thanks for the help,

Jordan

There are several issues to consider, including the space you have for everything. Assuming that you have the space for whatever you want, towers tend to be easier to deal with than a 2.1 system, because the manufacturer has already balanced the deeper bass with the upper bass (unless the manufacturer is incompetent). So the setup will be easier for you, and if you are not capable of balancing a subwoofer with the main speakers, this will give you the best sound (this inability to balance things properly seems much more common than you might think). However, for a given price point, usually one can get deeper bass if one buys bookshelf speakers and adds a dedicated subwoofer. You then place the subwoofer for optimum bass performance, and the bookshelf speakers for what works best for them. With towers, you are stuck with putting them where the upper frequencies sound best, so you are not optimizing the bass, and they usually don't play as low anyway.

The best way to balance between a subwoofer and the main speakers involves using a test disc and an SPL meter, and setting it so that the frequency response is flat. (Many surround receivers these days have a built in system to automatically adjust this for you, which is a very good thing.) Many people don't do that, and set the subwoofer too high, and then later complain that bass is boomy with music when they use a subwoofer. It is only boomy with music if the subwoofer is a piece of junk or it is not properly adjusted.

So, my advice is this: If you are competent to set it up properly, go with a separate subwoofer. If you are not, or simply don't want to bother with the hassle of the setup, go with towers.

One last point: Don't buy a speaker because it is a tower or because it is a bookshelf speaker; buy it based upon performance. A good high quality bookshelf speaker can often put out more bass than a cheap tower speaker. So don't get hung up on the tower/bookshelf issue in any case.

 

[MatthewB.]

Great post prryho, couldn't agree more.

 

[Pyrrho]

Great post prryho, couldn't agree more.

Thank you. There are a lot of other things that are basically irrelevant when buying a speaker, such as the number of drivers, etc. One should buy based upon performance, not on whether it is 2 way, 3 way, 4 way or whatever way, and not based upon whether it has one kind of tweeter or another. Any type can be made to sound bad, so one should be listening and deciding based upon actual sound quality, not based upon some irrelevant consideration. Of course, space requirements and efficiency and impedance requirements may affect one's choice, but even those things are essentially irrelevant when listening for the best sound quality.

And, of course, one should place one's speakers carefully in the room, and one should pay attention to the acoustics of the room (a common problem is having a room with too much of an echo, which is common when there isn't enough stuff in the room breaking up the reflections going back and forth between the walls, or between the ceiling and the floor). Poor acoustics in a room can make even the best speaker sound bad.

 

[ski2xblack]

The fuller sound is the result of the added harmonic distortion.

But I don't think I'll ever buy a tube amp, software emulation has come a long way and it's possible to have the "tube sound" without the tubes.

Hmm, not sure I completely agree with you on this. There is more to it than just even-ordered harmonics. (Consider the expensive pp tube amp from the article Isiberian posted; it had the tube harmonic signature but listeners could not discern the difference between that an the ss amps.) It seems to me that SETs by virtue of their inherently faster circuit yield qualities which account for their transparency and speedy presentation, with the tube harmonics either necessary evil or pleasant bonus, depending on your point of view. I would argue that the speed of the single ended class A circuit is responsible for the convincing 'liveness' of SETs. Without such amplifiers, you can add as much 'tube' signature with a processor as you want but you still won't get the whole picture (in fact you would end up with the worst combo-intentionally added 'tube' harmonic distortion from the processor, the unfriendly higher order harmonics inherent in the ss amp, and the two-dimentional presentation inherent to AB amps). I'm not a 'signal purist' by any means, and have tried numerous processors to do what you suggest, and it's just not the same. (As an aside, there are lots of cool processors in the pro-audio world which are really fun to play with, for sure, but they cannot replicate 'liveness' like a SET amp can. You can add midrange bloom til the cows come home, but you can't make up for slower amp topology with signal processing.)

The OP should realize that his search for the right system is heavily based on his own goals, taste, and practical considerations. Is ultimate specs important in this quest, or is convincing fidelity what really matters? The only thing to do is listen to as much as possible first hand. And his intended use matters; if this 2.0 system will be used for HT at all, he should go with ss amps, bookshelves and a sub, two subs if within budget. With careful calibration, two bookshelves and a single sub can sound as cohesive as towers; two subs would make that task even easier. This would likely be the best bang for the buck solution. I also like the idea of DefTech BP towers with their built in subs as a good compromise. There is a lot of worthy product in the OP's price range.

 

[lsiberian]

Hmm, not sure I completely agree with you on this. There is more to it than just even-ordered harmonics. (Consider the expensive pp tube amp from the article Isiberian posted; it had the tube harmonic signature but listeners could not discern the difference between that an the ss amps.) It seems to me that SETs by virtue of their inherently faster circuit yield qualities which account for their transparency and speedy presentation, with the tube harmonics either necessary evil or pleasant bonus, depending on your point of view. I would argue that the speed of the single ended class A circuit is responsible for the convincing 'liveness' of SETs. Without such amplifiers, you can add as much 'tube' signature with a processor as you want but you still won't get the whole picture (in fact you would end up with the worst combo-intentionally added 'tube' harmonic distortion from the processor, the unfriendly higher order harmonics inherent in the ss amp, and the two-dimentional presentation inherent to AB amps). I'm not a 'signal purist' by any means, and have tried numerous processors to do what you suggest, and it's just not the same. (As an aside, there are lots of cool processors in the pro-audio world which are really fun to play with, for sure, but they cannot replicate 'liveness' like a SET amp can. You can add midrange bloom til the cows come home, but you can't make up for slower amp topology with signal processing.)

The OP should realize that his search for the right system is heavily based on his own goals, taste, and practical considerations. Is ultimate specs important in this quest, or is convincing fidelity what really matters? The only thing to do is listen to as much as possible first hand. And his intended use matters; if this 2.0 system will be used for HT at all, he should go with ss amps, bookshelves and a sub, two subs if within budget. With careful calibration, two bookshelves and a single sub can sound as cohesive as towers; two subs would make that task even easier. This would likely be the best bang for the buck solution. I also like the idea of DefTech BP towers with their built in subs as a good compromise. There is a lot of worthy product in the OP's price range.

I'm sure a processor is capable of doing it to the point of inaudiblity in differences. However when a person looks up on their rack and likes tube amps they should see tube amps. There is no reason to make such a processor in my mind when the tube amp has already solved the problem.