Tower vs. Bookshelf Speakers

[jmscott2306]

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

 

[browninggold]

Depends

I have 3 Towers across the front and 4 other speakers and I use a sub for movies. For music I just use the towers 90% of the time without the use of a sub-6Ts go plenty deep and you can feel the bass in my 15'x25'x8' room. I enjoy the direct 2 channel for music running my towers as Large.

 

[walter duque]

At this time I am using 2 Powertowers with 400 Watt Subs build in. I also use a 1000 Watt and a 400 Watt Sub for my front stage. If I would do my system over I think I would get a very high end MTM design with dual subs. Between the towers and the subs I am in $9000.--. With 2 MTM's and 2 Subs It would be around $7000.-- and I prefere that sound since I have been turning the power on the tower subs off.

 

[fast1]

7000? isn't that a tad too expensive?

 

[alexwakelin]

For home theater, a sub is essential. Personally, I would go with bookshelf speakers and dual subs. $2000 is enough to go with two SVS PB10s and a very nice set of bookshelf speakers.

 

[ski2xblack]

Well, I never get rid of anything, so I currently have a 2.1 sub/sat system composed of M&K S85's and an old M&K sub, as well as a 2 ch system utilizing Def Tech BP7006's.

The Def Techs, each with their own built in subs, were much easier to place and get uniform bass throughout the room. Much, much easier. With the M&K system, I spend hours and hours taking measurements, crawling around, moving the sub, tweaking settings, you get the idea (search audioholics for 'crawling for bass' if you don't). It was tedious, but I finally have quite decent, fairly even bass response for just one sub. The Def Techs required almost none of that tedious fussing for fairly even bass response throughout the room with very little concern for placement (strictly regarding bass performance...these like breathing space behind them, so if you consider bipolar DT's, keep that in mind).

So what I guess I'm saying is that you can get very satisfactory results with a 2.1 sub/sat system, as long as you are understanding that it takes a bit more work to optimize things, and it's quite difficult to get it right with only one sub.

I really enjoy my Def Techs, for what it's worth; they are about the most dinimutive yet legitimate full range tower out there, are easy to place as long as you can keep them a couple feet from the rear wall, and efficient enough for my lower powered amps.

There are quite a few options if your budget ceiling is $2K. You should be able to get fantastic performance, either tower or 2.1 for that amount of dough.

 

[lsiberian]

B&W makes very high quality speaker as does Paradigm.

I suggest bookshelves for several reasons.

1. Lighter weight to move.

2. Separate subs will make for better sound.

3. Usually sufficient to fill a space.

4. lower price.

5. Simpler to make thus more likely to be well made.


I disagree with 2 10s over a single 12 SVS sub.

Though you might consider a more musical option.

Extension is everything for theater.

Get a 1000 dollar bookshelf set and about a 1000 dollars subwoofer.

 

[wilmeland]

depends on your priorities

If your primary goal is getting the most accurate sound for music - definitely go with the full range towers. If your primay function is home theater, you might prefer the sub and bookshelves. If I had just one system and space was not a concern, it would always be the full range speakers.

Not to say you can't get excellent results with a good sub and good bookshelves, but the accuracy of a really nice pair of full range speakers seems inherently superior to me. For 1 to 2 k, you have a lot of nice options available. Listen closely and for as long as you can afford to before making the move.

 

[3db]

For music, I prefer towers over a sub/sat combo as I find teh sound to be better integrated and more cohesive. Towers can play louder and handle the dynamics better than bookshelves. Towers and bookshelves with stands take the same foot print.

My system is built around the PSB IMageT45 towers, Subsonic5, Image series surrounds and cenetr channel. I find for most music that my towers offer plenty of bass, image as well as anybookshelve system I'ver heard and are very dynamic. For HT, I run them as small crossing them over at 80 Hz and I let the sub take care of the heavy bass.

It all comes down to your own preferences and the acoustics of the room. Either way, much auditioning is required by you tio determine what you like the best. Have fun and enjoy.

 

[walter duque]

7000? isn't that a tad too expensive?

That was back then when things where good. Now I could'nt affort to spend $500.-- on speakers. Market put a major hurting on me.

 

[bandphan]

With your budget I'd look into 8 series B&W used for bookshelves. But if it were towers and that room size I'd seriously look at the Salk Songs and no sub. I'm assuming that this is for 2ch.

 

[ack_bak]

@OP,

You have a tough decision to make. For home theater I feel a dedicated subwoofer is a must, and that alone could easily take up $700-1000 of your budget. So that really limits your tower selection.

Just curious, but why are you limiting yourself to 2 speakers if you are interested in both home theater and music? I would consider at least a 3.1 to start with, but with your budget you could do a 5.1 easily.

If you wanted a 5.1 package you could get something from SVS, HSU, Emotiva, Ascend, etc and definitely come in around or under that $2K max budget.

If you only want to do 2.1, I would consider a pair of Ascend Sierra bookshelf speakers and a sub from SVS, or HSU. Or consider a tower speaker like the M60 from Axiom and a sub from SVS, HSU, or eD.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For movies, you gotta have a subwoofer; regular towers without a big, powerful built-in subwoofer will simply not do. It must go down to 20 Hz for movies. Tower speakers that are this capable are way over your budget.

Given your budget, I also vote for bookshelf/monitor speakers + subwoofer.

 

[lsiberian]

If your primary goal is getting the most accurate sound for music - definitely go with the full range towers. If your primay function is home theater, you might prefer the sub and bookshelves. If I had just one system and space was not a concern, it would always be the full range speakers.

The type of build makes no difference on the accuracy of the sound. Only on the potential range. Even then the difference varies between drivers

On that topic I would argue based on my understand, experience, and study of loudspeakers that towers are much tougher to build properly than bookshelves and 3-way crossovers are far more problematic.

 

[ski2xblack]

Hi all,

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

If you're starting from scratch, 2 channel is a high priority for you, and utmost sound quality is your goal, you should consider or at least audition a SET amp/high efficiency speaker setup. For $2K you can have a very, very entertaining system which would literally spoil you rotten.

For example, Decware Zen amp (among the best options for an initial foray into tubes) for ~$730 new, Hornshoppe Horns for ~$850 new, and the rest for the most musical sub the remainder of you budget allows will get you to a level of grins that a comparably priced SS/inefficient speaker setup simply cannot approach.

You owe it to yourself, as a music lover, to at least listen to such a system before you buy.

 

[lsiberian]

If you're starting from scratch, 2 channel is a high priority for you, and utmost sound quality is your goal, you should consider or at least audition a SET amp/high efficiency speaker setup. For $2K you can have a very, very entertaining system which would literally spoil you rotten.

For example, Decware Zen amp (among the best options for an initial foray into tubes) for ~$730 new, Hornshoppe Horns for ~$850 new, and the rest for the most musical sub the remainder of you budget allows will get you to a level of grins that a comparably priced SS/inefficient speaker setup simply cannot approach.

You owe it to yourself, as a music lover, to at least listen to such a system before you buy.

Wasting money on amps that make no improvement in sound is unwise.

Your perceived improvements are just perceived. You've tricked yourself into believing your right even though double blind studies have shown you to be wrong. If you want to hold on to that I have no quarrel with that, but to suggest a new person take on your perceptions at the cost of better speakers is unwise IMO.

There is no need for anything more than what a mid-range receiver will provide in most cases.

Put your money in the speakers and don't worry about efficiency. Look for quality construction and sound reproduction. Your goal should be the best speakers possible. Many find listening a way to select speakers. There can be a several problems with the listening approach.

1. Placement effects sound greatly

2. Room effects sound greatly

3. Source material doesn't always give you the best idea of how a speaker really performs.

Of course listening should always be done, but along with Aesthetic considerations, actual measured sound quality and ultimately budget. If super sound isn't your top priority in life then stick to your budget and settle.

 

[3db]

Wasting money on amps that make no improvement in sound is unwise.

Your perceived improvements are just perceived. You've tricked yourself into believing your right even though double blind studies have shown you to be wrong. If you want to hold on to that I have no quarrel with that, but to suggest a new person take on your perceptions at the cost of better speakers is unwise IMO.

I don't think there was DBT test done between tube and solid state amps. I betcha dollar to donughts you can tell the difference between teh two in a DBT as the amplifier characteristics are way different.

I think you missed the point of ski2xblack post. He was suggesting going the tube amp route for music only. Tube amps require efficient speakers to work.

Wether to go tube or not is a matter of personal taste.

 

[jamie2112]

I don't think there was DBT test done between tube and solid state amps. I betcha dollar to donughts you can tell the difference between teh two in a DBT as the amplifier characteristics are way different.

I think you missed the point of ski2xblack post. He was suggesting going the tube amp route for music only. Tube amps require efficient speakers to work.

Wether to go tube or not is a matter of personal taste.

Agreed 100%.......

 

[jamie2112]

Really???? Don't worry about efficiency? Bad advice IMO.............tube amps sound great for music and like 3db said you need efficient speakers for a tube amp.

 

[lsiberian]

I don't think there was DBT test done between tube and solid state amps. I betcha dollar to donughts you can tell the difference between teh two in a DBT as the amplifier characteristics are way different.

I think you missed the point of ski2xblack post. He was suggesting going the tube amp route for music only. Tube amps require efficient speakers to work.

Wether to go tube or not is a matter of personal taste.

Agreed 100%.......

Really???? Don't worry about efficiency? Bad advice IMO.............tube amps sound great for music and like 3db said you need efficient speakers for a tube amp.

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.