What are your thoughts on Bookshelf/Standmount speakers VS Floorstanding?

[Tarxman]

I'm curious on people's thoughts. I always had the notion that only a floorstanding speaker would deliver a detailed, full range sound, but admittedly have been very surprised with the sound I get out of my Jamo C803 bookshelf speakers. How do you feel about what you prefer and why?

 

[busb]

Well, with floorstanders you don't have to agonise over what stands to buy. Are floorstanders always better? Are pre/power amps always better than integrated? No they are not. To answer your question: it depends. Then there are other considerations such as ported or not, ribbon tweeters or not, active or not, planar over classic, electrostatic - all have there own strengths & devotees.

 

[Al ears]

As busb states each has it's place.

Also it depends what you mean by 'full range sound'. Standmount speakers will always have limitations in this department due to physical size constraints. That said you can generally get adequate range of sound from most of them and, unless your listening room is the size of a barn, then they will usually suffice.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Er - the Genelecs certainly are bookshelf/standmount speakers, as are the AVIs, so don't get your point there, mate.

 

[steve_1979]

I generally prefer small two way bookshelf speakers as they tend to be clearer and have a better stereo image. Floorstanders have deeper bass and are easier to drive though.

The best option IMO is to use bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer. This combination often doesn't work though because it's difficult to get them to intigrate properly and most speakers and subwoofers tend to 'boom' which makes integrating them impossible. But when you do get a 2.1 system right (AVI, Genelec and Acoustic Energy's Pro Sub/Sat) and they do integrate well it works wonderfully and sounds better than either floorstanders or bookshelf speakers.

 

[steve_1979]

Er - the Genelecs certainly are bookshelf/standmount speakers, as are the AVIs, so don't get your point there, mate.

Bookshelf or floorstanding speakers? They both have their compromises and are better suited to different rooms.

But with good bookshelf speakers and a good subwoofer you can have the best of both worlds IMO.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Everything is compromised to some extent, so bookshelf speakers and a sub aren't the be all and end all. Which approach the individual takes is down to the preference of the listener.

 

[plastic penguin]

Everything is compromised to some extent,

That sums it up in a nutshell.

 

[JMacMan]

I'm curious on people's thoughts. I always had the notion that only a floorstanding speaker would deliver a detailed, full range sound, but admittedly have been very surprised with the sound I get out of my Jamo C803 bookshelf speakers. How do you feel about what you prefer and why?

1. A small to modest size so called 'bookshelf' speaker, or if you will a 'standmount' will not be able to transcend the laws of physics and offer a full bandwidth sound on it's own.

Of necessity, given the limited size, it is likely to be a two way design, hence a bass mid + tweeter.

If you want to increase bass extension, you can a) fit a very long excursion bass/mid driver, but then when it is working hard in the bass, it will introduce intermodulation distortion in the midrange, or b) you can use as has been suggested, a dedicated sub.

The difficulty with a 2.1 arrangement, is that spatial detail and ambience is mainly conveyed through low frequency information, and in stereo, so when using a sub where the bass is effectively mono'd, this sense of natural space, such as for argument sake as heard in a large cathedral on organ works, is lost. Effectively one needs stereo subs, and hence you are now up with four boxes, not two.

2. To my eyes, (and it is only my aesthetic opinon of course!) a cuboid or rectangular, flat sided wood veneered MDF box, mounted on angle iron, looks like it belongs in the 1950's aesthetically, and is definitely very 'legacy' considering the technology available for loudspeaker design and building in the 21st century. IMHO of course!

3. An properly engineered and designed 3 way speaker, can act as a 2 way, with an integrated sub, depending upon design and crossover points, and as you have a stereo pair, you effectively now have stereo subs as well. AND, only two 'boxes' required, not four, and no ugly stands in sight.

Accordingly, on both performance, aesthetic and space requirement grounds, I much prefer a pair of floor standing three ways, (preferably active) over a pair of sstandmount on stands, and the two subs additionally required to give a similar performance envelope.

Only my opinon of course, and obviously I'm biased, as that is what I have, but when I have a pair of three way active speakers with 10" bass drivers, with 500 watts RMS behind each one, and capable of giving a serious 20hz in room, separate subs are simply not necessary, and nor would I wish to put up with the aesthetic and physical clutter involved in a pair of standmount speakers, the stands themselves (most, but not all are ugly to my mind and very meccanoesque) and two subs. Simply to ugly and far too much clutter in a modest room IMHO.

As I say though, just my opinion and obviously others will have different viewpoints.

It's all good!

JB

 

[steve_1979]

Everything is compromised to some extent

A good bookshelf speaker and subwoofer combination is less comprimised than either floorstanders or bookshelf speakers on their own though.

You get to keep the better clarity and imaging that small bookshelves bring and a good subwoofer has better bass than most floorstanders. A subwoofer also has more flexibility because it can be adjusted or moved to suit the rooms acoustics without you needing to move the stereo speakers.

The tricky bit is getting them to integrate and most don't for various reasons. But it can be done and when it is it's good.

 

[JMacMan]

Everything is compromised to some extent

A good bookshelf speaker and subwoofer combination is less comprimised than either floorstanders or bookshelf speakers on their own though.

You get to keep the better clarity and imaging that small bookshelves bring and a good subwoofer has better bass than most floorstanders. A subwoofer also has more flexibility because it can be adjusted or moved to suit the rooms acoustics without you needing to move the stereo speakers.

The tricky bit is getting them to integrate and most don't for various reasons. But it can be done and when it is it's good.

I agree in general terms, albeit it does depend upon the floorstander speaker in question.

Not all floorstanders are inferior to small bookshelf speakers in either clarity or imaging IMHO & E.

Don't forget that cabinet shape, materials and modern CAD/CAM designs with modern materials, makes a noticeable difference to the sound in terms of reducing standing waves and distortion, hence increasing clarity, and enhancing imaging over that found in a conventional legacy flat sided MDF box with a reflex port, IMHO & E - all other things such as speaker drivers, crossover, active drive etc, being equal.

It's true that a separate sub enables one to easily 'tune' the bass to suit the room, but then again, so does onboard Bass EQ courtesy of either dip switches or Full Bass frequency response tailoring via DSP for a 21st century, active 3-way floorstander.

Everythings a compromise as has been already mentioned, but there's certainly more than one way of going about things to get an excellent end result IMHO.

JB

 

[chebby]

I'd take a great pair of bookshelf speakers over floorstanders any day.

BUT they would have to work really well on/in bookshelves (on or in my book cabinets to be more precise) because I detest speaker stands with a passion.

I keep a pair of Partington Trophy stands in a cupboard under the stairs - along with my boxed up MS20i Pearl Editions and JPW Sonatas - just in case the Rega R3s fail and I need temporary speakers.

I did try out the JPW Sonatas, for a long weekend, shortly after buying them (and fitting new tweeters) and used the stands followed by the tops of two - not very optimally sited - book cabinets. They sounded equally good on both (probably due to their sealed cabinet / infinite baffle design).

If I were able to afford much better compact (sealed cabinet) speakers then I would move everything around so that the book cabinets were better placed. The JPWs are destined for a second system, eventually, but they confirmed to me that my Rega R3s will be my last floorstanders.

I am still toying with the idea of these Stirling Broadcast LS3/5A replacements. (Kit includes absolutely everything including fully constructed, varnished cabinets and would only need minimal soldering of the leads from the baffle assemblies to the terminals.)

However, I would then need to get a 'pokier' all-in-one front end like a NaimUniti or UnitiQute + NAP100.

Although this TEAC amp/DAC is still vexing me

(I'd only need to plug in an ATV.)

 

[SiUK]

Blimey, must be something in the air. I was looking at that combo (elsewhere) yesterday as well Chebby (the TEAC amp/DAC and also the Teac PD-501HR CD Player) but would be looking at reviews for all. Good looking system and it would be fairly compact. Hopefully it sounds as good as it looks.

 

[steve_1979]

I agree in general terms, albeit it does depend upon the floorstander speaker in question...

Yes it was rather a sweeping generalisation I made there.

There are of course exceptions to this generalisation (the large three-way standmount Genelec 8260A speakers spring to mind).

 

[Leeps]

In general my preference tends to veer towards a decent stand mounted speaker, although that's not what I currently own. I think it largely depends on what aspects of sound float your personal boat. I prefer speed & attack, starting and stopping notes on a sixpence. I really enjoy listening to that quality, so I am willing to make some bass compromises that others wouldn't. For this reason when I visited the Bristol hifi show, I found that my most loved speakers that day were stand-mounts by 3 (Neat Iota, Monitor Audio GX50 & some Kudos speakers (I can't remember the model)) to 1 (Spendor A6's), and I still get a kick listening to my old Ruark Epilogue stand-mounts.

Based on What Hifi's description I'd love to hear the ovoid Eclipse speakers.

Yes it is always about compromise, but I'm extremely happy with my current set-up. My Radius R270HD's are very petite floorstanders so retain much of the speed of my Ruarks, but have a much more breathy and effortless midrange, all underpinned by a stonking sub. I must admit that some of my favourite Massive Attack tunes are blisteringly impressive with this added depth, but the snap of percussion or plugged strings on Rodrigo & Gabriela's "11:11" is retained. In my listening room, going the whole hog with MA RX6 floorstanders would overblow the bass and lose some of the agility. (I even had to use Andrew Everard's suggestion of socks for the rear port on the 270's, which tightened things up nicely).

Thankfully my ears can't detect where the R270HD's stop and the sub takes over and I do make use of the sub's volume control and different settings when changing from movies to music and from daytime to late evening listening. I do therefore have a more flexible arrangement than my old stereo system.

So in my case I feel my set-up of petite floorstanders and sub gives my room and ears the best compromise.

Also to counter one of the above posts, I think well-chosen stand mounts & stands (for example Spendor SA1's or the Q Acoustics concept 20's) can look considerably more appealing than many floorstanders. I'm sure there are some ATC floorstander owners out there that think their speakers are beautiful, but if I ever purchased any, it would have to be for their sonic abilities not their looks.

It's a good job we don't all like the same thing otherwise we'd all own the same speakers and forums like this would be very dull indeed.

 

[busb]

In general my preference tends to veer towards a decent stand mounted speaker, although that's not what I currently own. I think it largely depends on what aspects of sound float your personal boat. I prefer speed & attack, starting and stopping notes on a sixpence. I really enjoy listening to that quality, so I am willing to make some bass compromises that others wouldn't. For this reason when I visited the Bristol hifi show, I found that my most loved speakers that day were stand-mounts by 3 (Neat Iota, Monitor Audio GX50 & some Kudos speakers (I can't remember the model)) to 1 (Spendor A6's), and I still get a kick listening to my old Ruark Epilogue stand-mounts.

That's one area where my floorstanding Arros excel at - speed! The also image exceptionally well. Like many speakers, in the wrong room, they can sound dreadful! Most visitors see them before hearing them. The first thing they latch onto is the small size of the bass/mid drivers - only 4" - pretty tiny. They are also usually surprised to shocked when they hear the bass they DO produce. Not the same bass you will get from Blades or Aurum Titans admittedly but much more and the neighbours below would object!

Based on What Hifi's description I'd love to hear the ovoid Eclipse speakers.

I did - on their dedicated stands in Loud & Clear, Edinburgh. They have astonishing detail, were brightish & only hinted at bass!

Yes it is always about compromise, but I'm extremely happy with my current set-up. My Radius R270HD's are very petite floorstanders so retain much of the speed of my Ruarks, but have a much more breathy and effortless midrange, all underpinned by a stonking sub. I must admit that some of my favourite Massive Attack tunes are blisteringly impressive with this added depth, but the snap of percussion or plugged strings on Rodrigo & Gabriela's "11:11" is retained. In my listening room, going the whole hog with MA RX6 floorstanders would overblow the bass and lose some of the agility. (I even had to use Andrew Everard's suggestion of socks for the rear port on the 270's, which tightened things up nicely).

Thankfully my ears can't detect where the R270HD's stop and the sub takes over and I do make use of the sub's volume control and different settings when changing from movies to music and from daytime to late evening listening. I do therefore have a more flexible arrangement than my old stereo system.

So in my case I feel my set-up of petite floorstanders and sub gives my room and ears the best compromise.

Your's are pretty similar in size to my Arros & I bet they also image very well indeed. The bass is adequate for me to not tinker with a sub. I keep reading that subs are pretty difficult to integrate but sounds like you've suceeded

Also to counter one of the above posts, I think well-chosen stand mounts & stands (for example Spendor SA1's or the Q Acoustics concept 20's) can look considerably more appealing than many floorstanders. I'm sure there are some ATC floorstander owners out there that think their speakers are beautiful, but if I ever purchased any, it would have to be for their sonic abilities not their looks.

It's a good job we don't all like the same thing otherwise we'd all own the same speakers and forums like this would be very dull indeed.

I also don't like large cube-like speakers. The ATCs do perform better than they look!

 

[the record spot]

I had some Mission 752s a while back which I loved, albeit when I moved house to an apartment, this meant they'd impact on the neighbours downstairs. I gave them to my ex and she has them in her place. This of course meant I could buy some new speakers! Originally tried out some Mission 751 Freedoms, however they were the polar opposite of the original 751 I loved (and still do to this day, now long gone though). I got shot of those quickly and tried out a few standmount speakers at the now sadly gone Home Cinema Centre in Edinburgh.

The Tannoys I now use were probably the last out of the cupboard for demo, but I was impressed from the off. It was pretty close though; Castle's Knight 1 speaker was a nice performer, the KEF R100 was poor by comparison with both and the Epos M12 was too big and perhaps a tad too "clean" for my tastes. So off I went with the DC4. It's proved to be a terrific choice. For a small speaker, it throws out a wide stereo image; sounds appear from way off to the left or right and moreso in films. There was one film where a fire alarm went off off-screen to the left and I jumped up thinking the one in the hall was going off. Likewise for a car alarm in the car parking area across from my flat near the beach. Disconcerting at first, but shows to my mind how good the whole setup works.

The DC4 just does everything right. For its size it puts out a very wholesome sound. Where the 752s majored on scale with plenty of insight in the bigger room I was in previously, the DC4 delivers presence and detail in the smaller room. The end result is, surprisingly, quite similar with the listener getting a good feel for the music.

Which is best? Depends, I liked both. I guess the current one takes it. I've Joni Mitchell's "Blue" on just now, the window's open and the sounds of the Forth with the tide coming in roll gently in the background. The sky's pretty clear and the view to Fife in the distance is uninterrupted barring an occasional cruise ship, or yacht. Yeah, this one'll do.

 

[Tarxman]

It's interesting just seeing the varying opinions. I don't think I really have a preference myself, but it's good to just talk about what we all appreciate about speakers and sound in general. I love my bookshelf speakers, but am very much looking forward to getting some nice floorstanding speakers too. I guess if you've got the bug, you've got the bug!

 

[Leeps]

Enjoyed reading your comments Busb.

"That's one area where my floorstanding Arros excel at - speed!"

Interesting that. Maybe in the large sea of speakers available, smallish floorstanders are the way to go for rooms our size. It's also great to hear a few contributors eulogising over their speakers' qualities. After so many people spending so much on their systems, it's nice to know there are a few genuinely happy customers out there.

I do love my current set-up, but could probably improve things again by going a few rungs up the food chain with my amp, which is tempting at the mo when they're selling off the Pioneer SC-LX 76 & 86 at half their original RRP! Over the years I've noted plenty of positive comments about Primare amps.

it's also handy to lodge a few particular models in the brain for future demos. Totem Arros & Tannoy DC4s noted then.

 

[lindsayt]

I generally prefer small two way bookshelf speakers as they tend to be clearer and have a better stereo image. Floorstanders have deeper bass and are easier to drive though.

The best option IMO is to use bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer. This combination often doesn't work though because it's difficult to get them to intigrate properly and most speakers and subwoofers tend to 'boom' which makes integrating them impossible. But when you do get a 2.1 system right (AVI, Genelec and Acoustic Energy's Pro Sub/Sat) and they do integrate well it works wonderfully and sounds better than either floorstanders or bookshelf speakers.

In my experience small two bookshelf speakers tend to have worse midrange clarity than properly engineered 3 ways or 4 ways. This is most apparent with vocals, especially at generous to loud volumes. My guess is that getting a cone to deliver bass at the same time as the midrange results in doppler effect distortion as well as cone break-up distortion, as well the midrange cone at times being outside it's resting position - ie with the cone suspension pushing or pulling on the cone as it's trying to recreate the vocalist along with the effects of the magnetic field being non-linear as the voice coil is moved away from its' resting position.

Clarity, of course depends largely on the quality of the speaker drivers, the quality of the speaker cabinet and the general quality of execution of the design.

What you often get with small two way speakers is a curtailed frequency response. When you take away some of the bass and some of the treble the mind tends to focus on what's left. It's a psycho-acoustic trick.

The downside of moving from 2 to 3 way speakers is that you have another crossover region. With likely comb effects at nearfield listening in the crossover region. It will depend upon the speaker as to how far away you need to sit to not get comb effects. But even with these comb effects, it could be argued that that's an acceptable price to pay for better vocalist clarity and less bass distortion.

Adding a subwoofer to a small 2 way speaker isn't necessarily a good fix. Small ported 2 way speakers tend to have large amounts of bass distortion, especially as the volume is turned up and with repetitive bass transients. When you add a subwoofer you still have this distortion coming from the 2 ways, as well as the lesser clarity in the midrange. All you're doing is overlaying the signal from the sub onto that coming from the main speakers.

The biggest compromises with properly executed 3 way or 4 way speakers is the increased manufacturing costs and the increased size.

Some standmounts have a bigger internal volume than some floorstanders. EG Linn Isobariks are bigger than many floorstanders.

 

[busb]

Enjoyed reading your comments Busb.

"That's one area where my floorstanding Arros excel at - speed!"

Interesting that. Maybe in the large sea of speakers available, smallish floorstanders are the way to go for rooms our size. It's also great to hear a few contributors eulogising over their speakers' qualities. After so many people spending so much on their systems, it's nice to know there are a few genuinely happy customers out there.

I do love my current set-up, but could probably improve things again by going a few rungs up the food chain with my amp, which is tempting at the mo when they're selling off the Pioneer SC-LX 76 & 86 at half their original RRP! Over the years I've noted plenty of positive comments about Primare amps.

it's also handy to lodge a few particular models in the brain for future demos. Totem Arros & Tannoy DC4s noted then.

My room is about 33m2 so not tiny. I gave my system a huge boost with a decent power amp - people acknowledge the importance of speakers - they have to mechanicaly match into the listening room - but many tend to under-estimate what drives them. I went from a very accomplished amp to a stonkingly good one - it was well worth driving a power amp from a DAC directly. The source is important but any system is only as good as its weakest link. I heard a friend's NAD M51 DAC - it's better than my M-DAC by some way but over twice the cost.

I've also heard Naim's Ovator 400 speakers in shops. Both products are extremely good but will probably stick with my existing setup until next summer. Yes, I'm very happy with my system as it stands!

 

[marou]

I don't have room for floorstanders but standmount speakers suit me fine. Generally I'm unwilling to be too dogmatic about hifi preferences but I have to say that anyone who thinks Eclipse speakers deliver an accurate representation of piano music in particular has different ears to mine.

 

[CnoEvil]

I don't have room for floorstanders but standmount speakers suit me fine. Generally I'm unwilling to be too dogmatic about hifi preferences but I have to say that anyone who thinks Eclipse speakers deliver an accurate representation of piano music in particular has different ears to mine.

Majik DSM + Harbeth looks likes a very interesting combination......I suspect it sounds very good indeed.

 

[Neuphonix]

having moved from floorstanders to stand mounts a year or so ago, I have to say that I have really missed the scale and the midrange (especially the mid-range). Am currently think about swapping back to floor standers.

Have played around with integrating two subs & this has helped. But the settings don't seem to stay true for all recordings, can sound great with some music & not so great with other. As much as Ilike playing around with my set-up I don't really want to have to keep tweaking the settings each time i put on a different piece of music. Am prepared to confess that a large part of this might be my lack of expertise.

My system is sort of set up for combo AV / Hifi use & I feel that especially for AV the floorstanders give much greater impact.

I think that if I had never had floor standers before I wouldn't feel that I was missing anything.

 

[steve_1979]

I generally prefer small two way bookshelf speakers as they tend to be clearer and have a better stereo image. Floorstanders have deeper bass and are easier to drive though.

The best option IMO is to use bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer. This combination often doesn't work though because it's difficult to get them to intigrate properly and most speakers and subwoofers tend to 'boom' which makes integrating them impossible. But when you do get a 2.1 system right (AVI, Genelec and Acoustic Energy's Pro Sub/Sat) and they do integrate well it works wonderfully and sounds better than either floorstanders or bookshelf speakers.

In my experience small two bookshelf speakers tend to have worse midrange clarity than properly engineered 3 ways or 4 ways. This is most apparent with vocals, especially at generous to loud volumes. My guess is that getting a cone to deliver bass at the same time as the midrange results in doppler effect distortion as well as cone break-up distortion, as well the midrange cone at times being outside it's resting position - ie with the cone suspension pushing or pulling on the cone as it's trying to recreate the vocalist along with the effects of the magnetic field being non-linear as the voice coil is moved away from its' resting position.

Clarity, of course depends largely on the quality of the speaker drivers, the quality of the speaker cabinet and the general quality of execution of the design.

What you often get with small two way speakers is a curtailed frequency response. When you take away some of the bass and some of the treble the mind tends to focus on what's left. It's a psycho-acoustic trick.

The downside of moving from 2 to 3 way speakers is that you have another crossover region. With likely comb effects at nearfield listening in the crossover region. It will depend upon the speaker as to how far away you need to sit to not get comb effects. But even with these comb effects, it could be argued that that's an acceptable price to pay for better vocalist clarity and less bass distortion.

Adding a subwoofer to a small 2 way speaker isn't necessarily a good fix. Small ported 2 way speakers tend to have large amounts of bass distortion, especially as the volume is turned up and with repetitive bass transients. When you add a subwoofer you still have this distortion coming from the 2 ways, as well as the lesser clarity in the midrange. All you're doing is overlaying the signal from the sub onto that coming from the main speakers.

The biggest compromises with properly executed 3 way or 4 way speakers is the increased manufacturing costs and the increased size.

Some standmounts have a bigger internal volume than some floorstanders. EG Linn Isobariks are bigger than many floorstanders.

I've read a few time that many people find good three way speakers have a better mid-range than two way speakers. The guys who write reviews for the pro audio magazine 'Sound On Sound' seem to think that three ways are better.

In my own experience I've mostly found that two way speakers are generally better for midrange. But of course I've also heard some three way speakers that have a great mid range and two way speakers that aren't so good too.