bookshelf vs. floorstander

[funnyhat]

Just wondering what the pros and cons of these two styles of speakers are. I will probably never have a large listening room, but would like to have full range sound at some point. Is there a minimum size room that works well for a full range floor stander? Thanks for all ideas!

[superpanavision70mm]

Personally I would rather have a decent floorstander than an outstanding bookshelf.

[topspeed]

"Search" is your friend. It's at the top of the page, almost dead-center.

This topic comes up about once a month or so, so there should be no shortage of in depth analysis and all-out wars to wade through.

[RGA]

Your question is also too general. If the issue is bass you can add a subwoofer (though i've not been impressed with any Sub satelite set-up -- even one set-up by pros. But others like that set-up and you may too -- and you won't know till you try.

That being said floorstanders generally offer higher senstivity so they are easier to drive will usually play louder with deeper bass -- but also generally they have more unintentional cabinet noise which can make the sound muddy. All that being said the words in general is what I'm using. Plenty of standmounts will play loud deep bass (ore than a great many floorstanders) and also be more sensitive (easier to drive) and quite also true is that a number of floorstanders don't add the nasties (cabinet noise) I mentioned above and are very good sounding speakers.

Floorstanders save you some cash on buying stands -- and reselling stands can be a pain -- especially if you trade your standmount and want another one that is supposed to be at a different height. If I sell my standmounts I have to sell the stands with it because my stands are so low that virtually no standmount from any other company will work properly. SO these are things to consider as plusses for floorstanders.

Spend the time listening -- and hear which is better for yourself -- after all we ain;t the one's who have to live with your decision - you do!

[shokhead]

Personally I would rather have a decent floorstander than an outstanding bookshelf.

Not if you have a good sub.

[markw]

Not if you have a good sub.You just don't have to depend on the sub to make up deficiencies in the main speaker's bass.

For music. the lower the sub cuts in at, the better the imaging. For HT, it's a moot point. Everything below 80 hz (or so) is channeled to the sub anyway.

I use floorstanders (Athena Audition AS-F1's) for my mains and, having them set to "large" in the receiver, I don't need the sub for music.

[dean_martin]

Getting down to your specific question about room size, I'm not sure there is a minimum size room for all full range floorstanders. You may, however, be able to determine this on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis. Some manufacturers have fairly informative websites that include set-up diagrams for optimum placement. You'll find that most speakers sound best __ft apart, __in or ft from the front wall and __ft from the listening position. The measurements for the blanks will vary widely. For example, in just a few reviews of floorstanders I've read recently the optimum distance from the listening position has varied from 6ft to 10ft. The optimum distance from the front wall has varied from a range of 1ft to 18" on the low end and 3 to 4ft on the high end.

There is a general rule that you start off with an equilateral triangle with the points being the 2 speakers and the listening position then work from there.

As far as preferences go, I prefer standmounted/bookshelf speakers to floorstanders for music only. Mine go down to about 50Hz then "roll off" to about 38Hz according to specs. In my room, I can hear a bass solo in a jazz piece without having to crank the volume. The other night I listened to Massive Attack's Mezzanine without any consideration of whether I was missing any bass. Of course someone accustomed to floorstanders may have a different view. Whether my actual listening experiences match up with the specs, I'm not sure. It seems pretty close though.

A lot of variables go into "soundstaging" and "imaging". I'm not even sure what those terms mean anymore, but I haven't heard a floorstander yet that can hang Miles Davis and his trumpet between the speakers like a good pair of standmounts. (Let the flames begin.)

[Geoffcin]

A lot of variables go into "soundstaging" and "imaging". I'm not even sure what those terms mean anymore, but I haven't heard a floorstander yet that can hang Miles Davis and his trumpet between the speakers like a good pair of standmounts. (Let the flames begin.)

You can not only hear the trumpet "hanging in the air", but you can feel the "room vibe" from where ever the recording was made.

But, I suggest you DO NOT listen to Miles on a Maggie setup. (it's just going to ruin you for everthing else).

[dean_martin]

You can not only hear the trumpet "hanging in the air", but you can feel the "room vibe" from where ever the recording was made.

But, I suggest you DO NOT listen to Miles on a Maggie setup. (it's just going to ruin you for everthing else).

Dang! I always fall for that reverse psychology stuff. Now I have to hear a Maggies setup and bring some Miles w/me.

[Geoffcin]

Dang! I always fall for that reverse psychology stuff. Now I have to hear a Maggies setup and bring some Miles w/me.

OK, but make ABSOLUTELY SURE, it isn't the 3.6r, or 20.1r speakers.

You have been warned! :thumbsup:

[JoeE SP9]

You can not only hear the trumpet "hanging in the air", but you can feel the "room vibe" from where ever the recording was made.

But, I suggest you DO NOT listen to Miles on a Maggie setup. (it's just going to ruin you for everthing else). You should add any large ESL or any Apogees to that list. Any of those panels will ruin it. Wait till Flo see's this.:cool:

[JoeE SP9]

OK, but make ABSOLUTELY SURE, it isn't the 3.6r, or 20.1r speakers.

You have been warned! :thumbsup:
You are so right! I have a buddy with 3.6R's with custom crossovers. He bought them from a guy who replaced them with MG 20.1's. I heard the 20.1's the night my buddy picked up his 3.6R's. I was with him to help with the loading and packing and just for the ride. As good as the 3.6R's are the 20.1's are even better. I mean better! Anyone who likes the sound of panels will never be satisfied with boxes.:cool:

[Geoffcin]

You should add any large ESL or any Apogees to that list. Any of those panels will ruin it. Wait till Flo see's this.:cool:

But yes, there's just some music that's absolutely made for panels. Jazz is one that fits the bill.

[Geoffcin]

You are so right! I have a buddy with 3.6R's with custom crossovers. He bought them from a guy who replaced them with MG 20.1's. I heard the 20.1's the night my buddy picked up his 3.6R's. I was with him to help with the loading and packing and just for the ride. As good as the 3.6R's are the 20.1's are even better. I mean better! Anyone who likes the sound of panels will never be satisfied with boxes.:cool:

It's the quasi-ribbon midrange that does it. It's simply better than planar-magnetic (what the 3.6r uses) for the upper mids. The fact that you can rattle the house with 25hz planar bass doesn't hurt either!

[dean_martin]

Alright guys. There's no reason to call in Flo. I've only listened to Maggies once. While I was on a trip, I happened to find a place in Denver that carried them. It was my last stop before having to get to the airport. I didn't have a lot of time with them. Based on the size and from what I've seen on the Magnepan website, I was probably listening to either the MG12s or MG1.6s. They were being driven by ARC gear and I was listening to the store's cd-r copy of an album I'm familiar with. I thought the musical presentation was "small" and the music was somewhat thin. (But, I have the same album on vinyl.) I wasn't blown away by the initial impression but I would like to listen to the line again when I have a chance. Heck, I still have a headache from my first audition of Martin Logans.

[Geoffcin]

Alright guys. There's no reason to call in Flo. I've only listened to Maggies once. While I was on a trip, I happened to find a place in Denver that carried them. It was my last stop before having to get to the airport. I didn't have a lot of time with them. Based on the size and from what I've seen on the Magnepan website, I was probably listening to either the MG12s or MG1.6s. They were being driven by ARC gear and I was listening to the store's cd-r copy of an album I'm familiar with. I thought the musical presentation was "small" and the music was somewhat thin. (But, I have the same album on vinyl.) I wasn't blown away by the initial impression but I would like to listen to the line again when I have a chance. Heck, I still have a headache from my first audition of Martin Logans.

You've discribed a common initial reaction to panels. A lot of people who are used to box speaker at first think panels are a little "thin" in their presentation. They are not, and you can prove this with a Db meter. The illusion of "thiness" is caused by a lack of boxyness (enclosure distortion). Listen to planels for a few hours and then play a conventional speaker of your choice. I can guarentee that you notice the box right away.

[dean_martin]

You've discribed a common initial reaction to panels. A lot of people who are used to box speaker at first think panels are a little "thin" in their presentation. They are not, and you can prove this with a Db meter. The illusion of "thiness" is caused by a lack of boxyness (enclosure distortion). Listen to planels for a few hours and then play a conventional speaker of your choice. I can guarentee that you notice the box right away.

Ok, are you saying that even when a decent pair of monitors is pulling a disappearing act you can still hear the effects of the box in the music? I was never quite sure whether panel advocates meant that you could tell the music was coming from a box or that boxes imposed certain sounds (like resonance or distortion) on the music.

Interestingly, the shop I heard the Maggies in had a separate room for them. It seems like they would have had a pair of box speakers in the room so they could switch back and forth.

[RGA]

Alright guys. There's no reason to call in Flo. I've only listened to Maggies once. While I was on a trip, I happened to find a place in Denver that carried them. It was my last stop before having to get to the airport. I didn't have a lot of time with them. Based on the size and from what I've seen on the Magnepan website, I was probably listening to either the MG12s or MG1.6s. They were being driven by ARC gear and I was listening to the store's cd-r copy of an album I'm familiar with. I thought the musical presentation was "small" and the music was somewhat thin. (But, I have the same album on vinyl.) I wasn't blown away by the initial impression but I would like to listen to the line again when I have a chance. Heck, I still have a headache from my first audition of Martin Logans.

I am a bit surprised by your comment of small (if it was the 1.6) because I found the horizontal stage quite nice and well spread out. I didn't think the front to back stage was realistic and I felt like I was getting the surface of the event without the in room pressurization that a live event offers and for which dynamic boxes present so well.

There is no free lunch -- the 1.6 is thinner sounding because it cannot push enough air -- you need the box for that and real magnets - that is why most all of the industry and most audiophiles choose boxed loudspeakers and recording studios -- I don't understand the kind of implied assumption that the only people buying boxes are those who have not heard panels. My dealer has owned the the 20.1 for several years and went to a box which he claimed clocked in every regard. The 1.6 does some things very well and if you handpick the music they will do well you will be in for a treat -- the competing speaker the store had for around the same price is the B&W 604 and the Paradigm Studio 100V2 floorstanders and the 1.6 competes well here if you listen to small scale strings and acoustic instruments or stage music such as Gershwin. Neither of the boxed speakers are particularly great IMO so I can easily see why anyone would lean to the 1.6.

They present a left to right stage more realistically than I could get from the floorstanders. The 1.6 and the 3.6 have a clearer sparkly presentation than the floorstanders could muster. The Mags could not go as loud before they began to get hard and brittle in the treble - the 1.6 has bass that lacks presence and power. The off axis response is atrocious -- you need to sit in a very tight sweetspot. That does not bother me though because horns are like this typically and I think the issue is overblown -- most people sit between their speakers so who cares.

The Maggies have a holographic sparkly ribbony sound to them which the boxed speakers don't have -- if you like the sound of that presentation then I suppose the statement that no box will suffice is true -- but on the other hand the maggies don't do what the boxes typically do (and if you like the visceral feel of instruments in space the Maggie certainly won't do. As usual you are just noting the trade-offs. ALL us speaker owners have a difficult time of being objective because we think our taste is the end all taste -- and of course for us it is.

I would suggest you try other panels -- the Quad 989 -- most of these speakers you can buy used for a decent price. You should not judge them based on the entry level models.

[superpanavision70mm]

If the speakers are good enough, they won't sound box-like on any level. I am amazed at how people comment that box speakers sound like they are producing sound inside a box. The technology behind great speakers are to fill the room and not sound like the source is being limited. I am not saying that going with a planar is a better or worse choice, however, there are far more speakers being made in boxes and even top of the line stuff. When I am listening to my speakers I have a hard time telling where the sound is coming from....it simply exists and just sounds like it's all over. I am not even listening in 5.1 at this point, but even in 2.0.

[dean_martin]

I am a bit surprised by your comment of small (if it was the 1.6) because I found the horizontal stage quite nice and well spread out.

I was surprised with what I heard, or didn't hear. But, maybe I wasn't in the sweet spot. The different models were lined up the same distance from the listening position. Maybe I was too far away for the smaller 1.6r. Maybe there was something wrong with the cd-r. I thought I would at least come away with an appreciation of what die hard panel fans hear, but I didn't. Maybe next time.

[emack27]

Don't you wish we could all get together and listen to each other's systems?
Anyone in the Las Vegas area willing to display their system?

[Geoffcin]

Ok, are you saying that even when a decent pair of monitors is pulling a disappearing act you can still hear the effects of the box in the music? I was never quite sure whether panel advocates meant that you could tell the music was coming from a box or that boxes imposed certain sounds (like resonance or distortion) on the music.

Interestingly, the shop I heard the Maggies in had a separate room for them. It seems like they would have had a pair of box speakers in the room so they could switch back and forth.

Good monitors will disappear into the soundstage, but that has nothing to do with enclosure resonance.

Simply put, enclosure resonance adds distortion into the mix. Resonant distortion is, for the most part, benign, and some would consider it "warm" and attractive, (as opposed to dissonant distortion) There are some people who really like that sound. I give you RGA, and his hopelessly resonant Audio Notes. That speaker was designed to accentuate resonant distortion, and it's quite effective at it. Most speaker designers shun this type of distortion though, and companies like B&W, Dynaudio, Revel, Wilson and others have developed sophisticately engineered enclosures to deal with it.

[bobsticks]

Heck, I still have a headache from my first audition of Martin Logans.

Wow, really? I mean you obviously don't still have a headache, but I'm surprised to hear that you had such a negative experience. I've been quite enamored with my SL3s. It has thus far been my experience that if decent amps are used and if good source material is used, that the results are outstanding---especially in the area of hangin' Miles or John C. or Dizzy out there. I am emphatically NOT trying to start a flame war, but it is it possible that one of these factors was messing with the synergy of your test system? On the same note, I'd be a little leery about using a CD-R of unknown quality in a test situation with any panel ( I read that Denver was not the optimal situation;maybe just a thought for next time ).
Cheers to ya deano,
M

[funnyhat]

To be more specific, thoughts on the Tyler reference monitors vs the linbrook monitors vs the linbrook system 2's for detail, imaging, range, and use in a small (10 X 10) room? All tips appreciated.

[dean_martin]

Wow, really? I mean you obviously don't still have a headache, but I'm surprised to hear that you had such a negative experience. I've been quite enamored with my SL3s. It has thus far been my experience that if decent amps are used and if good source material is used, that the results are outstanding---especially in the area of hangin' Miles or John C. or Dizzy out there. I am emphatically NOT trying to start a flame war, but it is it possible that one of these factors was messing with the synergy of your test system? On the same note, I'd be a little leery about using a CD-R of unknown quality in a test situation with any panel ( I read that Denver was not the optimal situation;maybe just a thought for next time ).
Cheers to ya deano,
M

The MLs were being driven by a Plinius integrated. A Diana Krall cd was used. I don't remember the cd player but I'm sure it was first rate. The leading edges of the piano notes went "bam", "bam", "bam". The sales guy must have been deaf. I think the main problem was that I didn't have control of the system and didn't have my own music. The build quality of the Plinius integrated and the engineering and build quality of the MLs were impressive, enough so that I wouldn't mine trying either or both again.

On that same visit (this was at a shop in B'ham, AL) I heard a Jolida amp with a pair of Nola speakers that I liked very much.

About 10 years ago I would've wanted that big, aggressive system. Now I listen to my music for relaxation. I eventually got the Jolida amp.

I went to another place in Denver to check out some Quicksilver monoblocks that I was considering before I got the Jolida. I was psyched to hear some magic. The system included a Quicksilver preamp, Rega Planet cdp, and PSB Image floorstanders. I heard a glare that was obvious and annoying. It was soooo opposite of what I expected! Either the thin air in Denver screws everything up, or there was a mismatched component in this set up.

My auditioning experiences are limited because of where I live, but when I know I'm about to travel for work I'll look up some audio shops in case I have extra time.

Cheers to you too, Bobsticks and enjoy those MLs!

[Geoffcin]

To be more specific, thoughts on the Tyler reference monitors vs the linbrook monitors vs the linbrook system 2's for detail, imaging, range, and use in a small (10 X 10) room? All tips appreciated.

A 10 X 10 room is going to have some issues no matter what speaker you put in it. While I woudln't discount a full range floorstander completely, a standmount speaker is more suited in this application.

[RGA]

I was surprised with what I heard, or didn't hear. But, maybe I wasn't in the sweet spot. The different models were lined up the same distance from the listening position. Maybe I was too far away for the smaller 1.6r. Maybe there was something wrong with the cd-r. I thought I would at least come away with an appreciation of what die hard panel fans hear, but I didn't. Maybe next time.

The issue you hear with these panels is not that uncommon. There is often a sense that when a speaker is not producing what should be produced that it is less coloured. Which is why so many standmounts because they miss 3 octaves seem cleaner sounding than ones that are producing more of the signal. You'll note that anyone who says anything even remotely negative about panels' "supposed absolute perfection" will have their speaker choice attacked rather than staying on topic.

In fact it is amusing because I like them far more than it seems you liked them but the 1.6 is a far from perfect loudspeaker - though I like em a lot bette rthan virtually everything else i have heard for the money (including a more expensive ML panel) .

They don't speak to me because they don't have the physical in room presence of instruments in a visceral way - they can't play at acceptable volume levels - they don't do low level microdynamics as well as I would like, they never hide from beng an artiface for me.

Unlike your first audition though I do certainly get "why" people like them so much and I get why they make the comments that without a box you can't have a box resonance - It's very overly simplistic argument since the large radiating base of the panel itself resonates and shows up in every measurement of every panel. You can easily and rightly argue that you don't move enough air to create a solid foundation for the music...and the argument is irrelevant other than to argue. The subjective result is the subjective result. You listen and you either like the presentation or you don't. Then you explain why.

I chose a highly resonating box -- a speaker company who "deliberately" chooses to not damp but to "control" resonances will under measuring conditions reveal a lot of resonances -- but umm that's the point of the design -- so if the resonances were not detected with the measuring equipment then I would be very worried.

Mr. Dean Martin -- you have to decide in this industry if you want to be an audiophile treating GEAR as the ultimate thing to be listened to in the system or whether it is going to be about the music reporduction. Personally I prefer the buy it and forget it approach...but you need equipment that allows your ear to forget it. Talking about imaging because it continually makes me notice that it is imaging -- or something that sounds hard when I turn the volume up a little, or something that if I move my head one inch makes me notice it are not exactly things that help me get into the music.

Put on the Rat Pack and enjoy the music!

[Woochifer]

Back to the original topic ...

Assuming that the speakers are from the same family and use a lot of the same components, the advantage of bookshelf speakers is generally in its imaging coherency, balance throughout the frequency band, and less pronounced box resonance. Floorstanding speakers have a larger interior volume, so they can produce more bass. However, a larger cabinet is more susceptible to resonances without good bracing, and creating a well controlled cabinet adds to the cost. Most of the sub-$1,000 floorstanders I've heard have audible box resonances that undercut the overall coherency of the sound.

For your room size, a floorstander can easily sound overwhelming because the room boundaries will reinforce the low frequencies. In your situation, I would look to a good standmount, and if you decide to move to a larger room later on, you could always add a subwoofer.

[drseid]

To be more specific, thoughts on the Tyler reference monitors vs the linbrook monitors vs the linbrook system 2's for detail, imaging, range, and use in a small (10 X 10) room? All tips appreciated.
I have heard all three, and own 2 of the speaker models mentioned...

The System 2 is going to be a major problem for that sized room, IMO. It is a large speaker that just is not going to be a good fit for your room (Ty will almost certainly confirm that if you ask him). Quite frankly, the Linbrook Signature Monitors are too much for your room as well IMO, and they are rear ported... They are a much larger speaker than you might expect from looking at their pictures on the Tyler website (they are standmonts that are as large as many floorstanders -- they just make up the volume differential through their depth).

The Taylo Reference Monitors are a good fit for your room, IMO. They are front ported, and will have enough low bass for your room size (although obviously they do not go even close to as low as the other two). I think you will find that resolution-wise, all three speakers have a very similar quality in that respect, and they also have a "house sound." If you prefer the SEAS Millenium tweeter as opposed to the Scanspeak Revelator, Ty will substitute it at no extra charge... I personally like the Taylos as is with the Scanspeak, but they both are excellent tweeters... The Revelator has a bit more detail, and the Millenium is a bit more natural sounding. Pretty much a draw -- more a matter of personal taste. My review of the Taylos can be found on this site, as wellas a review on the larger Linbrook Signature System that I also own (the original version that sounds similar to the System 2, just a bit more cohesive and it goes lower too).

---Dave

[accastil]

i own both speaker types and as for me, i am using bookshelf types for stereo music since i mainly listen to lite and vocal jazz while the floor stander i normally use for home theater. 1 thing i notice also is that the floorstander is quite a bit dull sounding to me and the response quite slower compared to the lively and fast attack of the book shelf speaker.
the bookshelf speaker might sound a bit fatiguing when listened to for extended period of time but the real secret is to match it with the electronics to tame its brightness.

[Florian]

I like Maggies, and still have a pair. After two 3.6's i can savely say that they are wonderfull speakers and if one doesnt want to move into restoration areas or spendind 100K on a new one, Maggies are the best Planar brand price and performace wise. No matter what others say, to me music only lives in planars and so far every single visitor agrees, no matter if musician, reviewer, death metal freak or simply casual listeners.

Cheers

Flo

[Florian]

It's the quasi-ribbon midrange that does it. It's simply better than planar-magnetic (what the 3.6r uses) for the upper mids. The fact that you can rattle the house with 25hz planar bass doesn't hurt either!
Yep, and having true ribbons for the midrange and bass down to 18Hz with dynamic of over 118db at 4m doesnt hurt either :-) Panels (and apogees for me) for live!

.........End of my fanscript ;-)

[JoeE SP9]

What's going on? Suddenly there are lots of people with boxes, little ones at that, making all kinds of claims about bass response and clarity. Boxes are bad enough but little boxes with no low end, please!:confused:

[Florian]

What's going on? Suddenly there are lots of people with boxes, little ones at that, making all kinds of claims about bass response and clarity. Boxes are bad enough but little boxes with no low end, please!:confused:

Oh come on now Joe! You know that we all just hear different. No system is better then the other, they are all just "different". People like us with man tall speakers are just snobbish ignorants with too much money. LOL

[RGA]

It's interesting when the original poster is looking at standmounts and floorstanders that it becomes a panel thread. I respect the folks who choose panels -- but I could easily drop $50,000.00US on a loudspeaker (USED) tomorrow -- so I have the financial backing to buy most any loudspeaker I wish to. There are plenty of people with exceptionally deep pockets I know who have spend more than $300,000 on two channel audio -- who have heard EVERYTHING that ever came down the pike that any sort of name attached to it.

The fact is that many people have come and heard and chose not to buy panels due to their sound. I certainly have no problem with people getting overly excited by speakers like the 3.6 -- I've heard them on several occasions now -- I get what people like about em -- they just ain't for me or for the people auditioning with me or in fact for the majority of audiophiles. You are certainly welcome to Belive they are the best -- many people believe in Ghosts, God, Freedom, Aliens, The Loch Ness Monster, George Bush, truth in advertising, unbiased reviews and all sorts of other things -- but truth is something else. Though it does please me that people get genuinely thrilled about what they're listening to -- that is the point -- to enjoy your music.

[Florian]

but truth is something else

Exactly, and i for one, do not believe that you are it :-)

[funnyhat]

Thanks for tips so far. If a sub with the taylos is my best option for a room of my size, are there subs that will integrate the smoothest with these speakers? Also, I am not very experienced on setup, are there any DIY guides on line for such integrations, as my fear with a sub/bookshelf is being able to hear the joint where the crossover takes place. Thanks again for the help.

[drseid]

Thanks for tips so far. If a sub with the taylos is my best option for a room of my size, are there subs that will integrate the smoothest with these speakers? Also, I am not very experienced on setup, are there any DIY guides on line for such integrations, as my fear with a sub/bookshelf is being able to hear the joint where the crossover takes place. Thanks again for the help.
Well, one that I had good results with was the ACI Titan ($1200) sold direct from ACI. For a room your size, I think the Titan may be a bit of overkill. ACI makes a 10 incher called "The Force" for about $800 that would fit the bill nicely. ACI's web address is http://www.audioc.com for reference. Their subs are a very good match for Tyler speakers, IMO. REL also makes good subs that would get the job done nicely, but they are quite pricey due to the lack of strength of the US dollar versus the Pound and the Euro.

---Dave

[JoeE SP9]

Let me reiterate. I have not pushed panels at all. I have merely said that 6 1/2" woofers in small boxes can't produce the kind of deep loud clean bass a decent subwoofer can. If you disagree with that so be it, but you are deluding yourself.:ihih:

[emack27]

Hmmm...Did I hear someone mention Tyler and Audio Note speakers.
Oh BTW don't they use SEAS drivers?
The SEAS Thor speakers I own have eliminated the boxy sound using a transmission line enclosure design.
I'll match my Thor floorstanders against any floor standers and bookshelves known to man.
Bookshelfs are ok but unfortunately can not deliver the bass output required to be worthy of beging considered a true high-fi sound system.

[Florian]

The SEAS Thor speakers I own have eliminated the boxy sound using a transmission line enclosure design.

If it has a box, it will change the sound from the driver. Period!

[emack27]

If it has a box, it will change the sound from the driver. Period!
Kinda like how a violin changes the sound from the strings. Or kinda like how a drum shell changes the sound of the drum head when struck?

[Florian]

Kinda like how a violin changes the sound from the strings. Or kinda like how a drum shell changes the sound of the drum head when struck?
No, a music system has to be neutral and show no character or sound of its own. A box resonates and the membrane is acoustically transparent. This will change the way of the source, and cannot be predicted. Even if you get the resonance right for a single frequency, it will fail to be correct 99.9% of the rest of the signal.

The instrument makes the tone by using its body, are you really telling me that you want another body (box) to alter the original body? If so, then your not hearin the source which is what i say since the dark age and you just made my point.

[JoeE SP9]

Hmmm...Did I hear someone mention Tyler and Audio Note speakers.
Oh BTW don't they use SEAS drivers?
The SEAS Thor speakers I own have eliminated the boxy sound using a transmission line enclosure design.
I'll match my Thor floorstanders against any floor standers and bookshelves known to man.
Bookshelfs are ok but unfortunately can not deliver the bass output required to be worthy of beging considered a true high-fi sound system.
Transmission lines don't eliminate any box sound. There is still a box there. A box means resonance. Put a stethoscope on the side of any box and listen.:confused5:

[emack27]

Transmission lines don't eliminate any box sound. There is still a box there. A box means resonance. Put a stethoscope on the side of any box and listen.:confused5:
Maybe you should be having this argument with the man who designed the speakers instead of me.
Quote by Joe D' Appolito: "Transmission Line loudspeakers have long enjoyed a small, but dedicated following. The advantages of TL's are well known. They are essentially non-resonant enclosures, producing a deep, well-controlled bass response. For a given driver, bass response will extend well below that produced with either a vented or sealed enclosure using the same driver. Above a few hundred Hz, the line filling material completely absorbs the driver back wave, giving the TL an open, non-boxy sound."

[Florian]

Emack, your an .......

I have TL speakers here, and have heard some of the biggest and most expensive TL designs in many private auditons and NOONE here is contesting the bass performance from TL, we are still smart enough that a box will always affect the sound. No matter if it is based on a TL design or not!

If you come to Europe, let me know and i will demo a 97000EUR TL design for you at over 475lbs with bass, that is a bit more powerfull then your 6 1/2 woofers that sound awsome, but are still colored by the box.-

[JoeE SP9]

If you place a stethoscope or an accelerometer on the side of any enclosure you will hear and/or detect vibrations when you tap on it. These are what's known as resonances. Of course the filling material will absorb frequencies above a couple of hundred hz but there are still the low frequencies to deal with. I have always been a fan of transmission line enclosures. They are especially good for subwoofers. My buddy with the 3.6R's uses a folded tubular transmission line subwoofer I designed. This is strictly a subwoofer and is cut of above 50hz or so. This particular enclosure is tubular which has less resonance than a box but it is still there. The only drawback to this subwoofer is the size. It has a 15" driver and is approximately 28" in dia. and about 5 1/2' tall. The total length of the transmission line itself is around 9'. It is quite efficient at around 96db per w/m and goes very deep. It is flat to 18HZ with no eq.:cool:

[emack27]

If you place a stethoscope or an accelerometer on the side of any enclosure you will hear and/or detect vibrations when you tap on it. These are what's known as resonances. Of course the filling material will absorb frequencies above a couple of hundred hz but there are still the low frequencies to deal with. I have always been a fan of transmission line enclosures. They are especially good for subwoofers. My buddy with the 3.6R's uses a folded tubular transmission line subwoofer I designed. This is strictly a subwoofer and is cut of above 50hz or so. This particular enclosure is tubular which has less resonance than a box but it is still there. The only drawback to this subwoofer is the size. It has a 15" driver and is approximately 28" in dia. and about 5 1/2' tall. The total length of the transmission line itself is around 9'. It is quite efficient at around 96db per w/m and goes very deep. It is flat to 18HZ with no eq.:cool:
So. Are you saying that if my folded transmission line were tubular instead of square then there would be less resonance?
I was thinking about modifying my box by putting chamfers at all corners, and making the line rounded at the end and making a radius at the fold instead of 45 deg. braces. Do you think these modifications would benefit this enclosure?

[JoeE SP9]

emack check out my answer on the too much bass thread.
Yes, tubes are much less resonant than flat sided cabinets. Modifying your current cabinets is not a solution. If you add internal chamfers you would be changing the volume of the transmission line. Although there are such things as tapered transmission lines the length and amount of taper is critical and beyond the scope of this discussion. I think the B&W Nautilus may be a tapered transmission line system although B&W calls it an exponential line enclosure.:cool:

[RGA]

Emack you better be real careful here because the disinformation you are getting is quite surprising - Boxes and all other speakers have various deviations from perfection -- panels suffer panel lobing a severe audible coloration created by the panel -- the bigger the panel surface area the greater the colouration. they infer that neutral is accurate -- they are nto the same and a technically coloured speaker can still be neutral. I don;t have the time to go into this now -- but you can research about it on other sites and Lynn Olsen has discussed it -- search him and you may find the articles.