Bookshelves vs. Floorstanders?

[L.J.]

Hey guys, I'm curious about something. I notice there's a lot of reference to bookshelves over floorstanders. Until I started hanging around here, I always thought the bigger the speaker the better, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Woochifer touched on the difference between the two in another thread, but just slightly. I understand the whole personal preference thing, but I'm still curious why bookshelves always seem to be recommended over towers.

What advantage does bookshelves have over floorstanders? I'm talkin SQ, not the diff in $$$.

[drseid]

I think the answer to this question depends on a number of factors...

Room size would be a big factor, IMO. If I have a very large room, as a general rule I would prefer a large floorstander... while if I had a small room, a mini-monitor makes more sense in most cases.

I don't think there is a "right" answer to this really...

Speaking for my own recommendations, I have recommended mainly mini-monitors due to the price constraints the posters have given (based on my listening experiences in those price ranges). Since on this site many people are not asking for 5K+ a pair speakers, I limit my recommendations to what I think will really yield the best sound at the price point of the requester. In most cases, in the under $2K range, mini-monitors make more sense to me based on my listening experience. If we were talking 5K+, I would surely recommend floorstanders for many situations (and I bought a pair of them myself). The key here is constraints... room, money, sound preferences, etc.

At the end of the day, there are good examples of each speaker type, and neither should be ruled out *if* budget allows.

---Dave

[Wireworm5]

It does have to do with money. Lets say you have $1000, with this amount you can get a bookshelf with very good mid-range and treble. But a floorstanders at this price is going to comprimise sound quality in these areas for extended bass. However if you have a larger budget then floorstanders will have very good sound qualities in the entire sound spectrum whereas bookshelves will lack in bass freq. and you will then need a sub to compliment them. With bookshelves and a good sub however you can probably equal or exceed good floorstanders. So good bookshelfs and a good sub offer better sound and value than what you might get for the same amount of money in floorstanders

[Dmax]

Hey guys, I'm curious about something. I notice there's a lot of reference to bookshelves over floorstanders. Until I started hanging around here, I always thought the bigger the speaker the better, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Woochifer touched on the difference between the two in another thread, but just slightly. I understand the whole personal preference thing, but I'm still curious why bookshelves always seem to be recommended over towers.

What advantage does bookshelves have over floorstanders? I'm talkin SQ, not the diff in $$$.

Matthew Polk explains this topic quite clear and straight to the point on his Polk Audio website. There are benefits and trade off's either way .

[L.J.]

Drsied,I guess you do have to add in the $$$ consideration when you have other speakers to purchase. I also recommend bookshelves, due to the usual budget of those seeking speakers.

Wireworm, this is the point I was thinking about. That makes alot of sense.

Dmax, what no link! JK, I read the article and it makes very good points.


Anybody else got any thoughts?

[RGA]

it really depends on the speakers you're talking about not a generality that a 1k floorstander is going to be worse than a 1K standmount. Depends who is making it.

Now there is supposrt for the take that floorstanders will have more box colourations or resonances - but then they also tend to have mopre bass can play louder and are often more sensitive (which means you can play louder with lower powered amps). Pretty much guaranteed that you will need to add a subwoofer with most standmounts. Now if add that money on you may not think it's such a great deal -- you may need to buy a $500.00 speaker a $350.00 Sub and EQ device at another $150.00 to help make the sub sound like it meshes with your standmount.

Standmounts are simpler to design less crossovers usually means less problems - less cabinet means less cabinet to resonate.

The thing is though when shopping you have to comapre the price of the standmount PLUS a good stand PLUS a subwoofer + and EQ then compare that final total to a floorstander fro the same price. The reason is that bass is important to music not just because it has bass but because it completes a picture of the overall landscape. I find most subwoofers to have a very one note dead bass sound -- so you certainly get the depth but not the resolution IME.

The easiest thing to do is listen to two such set-ups say a Dynaudio 82 Floorstander which is about $2200.00Cad and then listen to say a Dane 42, Paradigm or B&W standmount in the 1k range with good $200.00Cad Skylan stands with the parametric EQ. and a $600.00 Subwoofer say from the makers B&W or Paraidgm whichever the case may be.

The Dane 82 is gonna be pretty tough to beat here IMO musically - the sub set-up will always have more ultimate slam in the bass because that's what they're mainly designed to do. But ultimately it comes down to your opinion of such set-ups.

[Woochifer]

In general with conventional speakers, bookshelfs only lack the lower octaves compared to equivalent floorstanders. Typically when you're talking about floorstanders in the sub-$1,000 price range, they don't image as coherently as bookshelf speakers and have issues with cabinet resonance. With the cabinet, bigger is not necessarily better. A large cabinet creates more resonant surface areas, and minimizing these resonances is easier with a smaller speaker. The extra bracing and other approaches that minimize this resonating add to the cost of the speaker.

In interviews I've read, Vandersteen estimates that with a typical floorstanding speaker, over half of the time and materials costs go to the cabinet woodworking. That's why they and other speaker manufacturers continue to try various "boxless" approaches.

The other advantage with a bookshelf speaker is with the placement flexibility in a multichannel setup. Generally, in the lower price points you go with the floorstander to get that bass extension, knowing that in the process, you do make tradeoffs in other areas of performance.

I will say that good floorstanding speakers can sound every bit as nice as a bookshelf model, and add the bass extension to boot. But, those models are typically in a higher price range. As others have pointed out, you can get the bass extension by using a subwoofer. Integrating the sub with the rest of the system can be tricky, but subs have their own advantages since they can be better matched to the room acoustics because of their placement flexibility and easy option to add a parametric equalizer.

[Geoffcin]

Hey guys, I'm curious about something. I notice there's a lot of reference to bookshelves over floorstanders. Until I started hanging around here, I always thought the bigger the speaker the better, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Woochifer touched on the difference between the two in another thread, but just slightly. I understand the whole personal preference thing, but I'm still curious why bookshelves always seem to be recommended over towers.

What advantage does bookshelves have over floorstanders? I'm talkin SQ, not the diff in $$$.

When I set up a HT system using the Axiom M22ti's & the EP500 sub. The M22ti's response is about as flat as I've heard in a speaker under a grand, they were only missing response below 100hz. The Axiom sub filled this in perfectly, and the imaging was nothing short of startling. It was better in this respect than the big M80 floorstanders.

The M80's held a lead with midbass shading, and compression free dynamics when I really wanted to rock. You didn't need a sub with these floorstanders, but with one you've got a good full range system capable of serious uncompressed dynamics 20hz-20khz.