Bookshelf Speakers With A Sub vs Similarly Priced Tower Speakers Without A Sub...

[bluegrassphile]

...I'm talking about really good sounding bookshelf speakers with a sub vs really good sounding tower (or large bookshelf) speakers without a sub. I know there are a lot of variables here so I'm just talking in generalities. Which do you prefer and why?

The reason for my post is I've heard some extremely good sounding small bookshelf speaker systems that included a sub. There are times when I wonder if a person with a limited budget would be better served spending their money on a bookshelf speaker/sub combination since subs are often a more economical way of enhancing your sound than spending considerably more to move up in a really good sounding tower style speaker.

These days there are countless, truly great, surprisingly sounding, bookshelf speakers. IMHO, we as audiophiles may be a little slow to appreciate just how good some bookshelf speakers sound even without a sub. I'm not saying that most bookshelf/sub combinations sound better than similarly priced towers. But I am saying I think there are some bookshelf/sub combinations that, when the sub was added it was like the quality of sound of the bookshelf speakers took a huge leap.

I'm not sure I can remember the brands of bookshelf speakers I heard (I think one was was Klipsch) it's been awhile since I've heard them. And, it was at a time when I wasn't into audio like I was in the late '70s and like I am now. So there is a certain amount of speculation mixed with my opinions.

Anyway, generally speaking, do you think there are times when a person with a smaller budget might get the most bang for their buck by adding a sub to their audio system vs moving up to a higher priced tower? Maybe there are more people than I realize that have already done this? IMHO, this is a an underrated, underappreciated, way of improving the sound of bookshelf audio systems. And, yes, even larger systems. However, I do realize there are times when a system sounds better without a sub. But for the entry level or budget constrained audiophile the bookshelf/sub combination can be very effective and sound quite good.

[Projectman]

I moved from Wilson Audio Sophia 2s to Focal Sopra 1s with JL Audio Subwoofers. I’m very happy with the change. Personal preference is the key, but in my system I’m much happier with the current setup.

[kiwi_1282001]

Hello bluegrassphile,

IMHO the only meaningful advantage of opting for bookshelf speakers with subwoofers (vs. full range loudspeakers) is perhaps a small saving of space. Many bookshelf speakers perform best on stands and when that’s the case even the real estate argument looks weak. On the other hand there are lots of potential downsides to the bookshelf / sub combo the key of which is the difficulty of integration especially at the point where the bookshelf transitions to the subwoofer.

[Mr Peabody]

My personal preference is no sub. I'm not saying it's impossible to integrate seamlessly but it's been rare I've ever heard it.

[Al M.]

I moved from Wilson Audio Sophia 2s to Focal Sopra 1s with JL Audio Subwoofers. I’m very happy with the change. Personal preference is the key, but in my system I’m much happier with the current setup.

How does your new monitor/sub set-up sound better to you than the Wilson Audio Sophia 2, why are you happier with it?

[W9TR]

If your speaker placement options are limited by the room layout, stand mounted speakers and a sub are a great option. You can place the stand mounted speakers for great soundstaging and place the sub for best bass integration.

Larger floorstanders are harder to place such that they correctly couple into the room for even bass response and also image properly.

[kiwi_1282001]

If your speaker placement options are limited by the room layout, stand mounted speakers and a sub are a great option. You can place the stand mounted speakers for great soundstaging and place the sub for best bass integration.

With bookshelf speakers there is a temptation to employ only one subwoofer, which is always a huge mistake IMHO.

[Al M.]

Ok, I'll give this topic a go.

I don't like the term "bookshelf speakers", since monitors usually sit on dedicated stands. My own monitors also do not qualify as such by size, with their depth of 17.5 inches (and weight of 75 pounds each!). So let's call them monitors.

Integration of subs with monitors has never been a problem for me. I've also done it with a single sub. So with this out of the way, and when we are talking about mid-sized rooms, NOT large ones (mine is 24 x 12 x 8.5 ft; 13.5 ft wide at small window bay):

I don't think just in the lower price classes, but also higher up a monitor/sub system can have advantages, both price for price, and in specific areas (speaker/room interaction) also in absolute terms. I chose monitors throughout my audiophile life, and my current monitor/sub system consists of Reference 3A Reference monitors and dual JL Audio 112v2 subwoofers (about 20 grand; $ 12 K for main speakers).

Advantages (medium-sized rooms):

1. It is easier to achieve a lively sound, which is very important to me, with monitors. Crossovers can be simpler than with multi-way speakers. My Reference 3A Reflector monitors have no crossover for the mid-woofer at all, and only a capacitor for the tweeter. The mid-woofer thus couples directly to the amp. Multi-way floor standers often do not sound as lively, and if they have the potential to do so, making them actually sound lively is often a matter of careful amplifier selection and positioning in the room. It's just harder to achieve with many designs.

2. I do not like 'box' sound at all. If a speaker has any 'boxy' and/or 'boomy' coloration this is highly distracting to me. Due to their smaller cabinet size, monitors often have little self-resonance of the cabinet, which avoids a 'boxy' sound, much more easily than with multi-way floor standers. Even though compared with my current, elaborately constructed, monitors my older ones did have cabinet coloration (obvious only by comparison), it never sounded as a "boxy" or "boomy" coloration.

3. A lack of cabinet resonance also allows better presentation of detail. To achieve a similar performance on detail resolution, e.g., timbral micro-detail on solo violin, with multi-way floor standers is often only possible with *multiples of* investment. It is just much harder to make a large cabinet as rigid as the smaller enclosure of a monitor speaker. If it is achieved -- at a price -- of course then boxiness of sound completely vanishes as well.

4. Since monitor speakers are more like a point source, you can sit fairly close to them without losing the sense of driver integration. I like that because I prefer small scale music, such as classical chamber music, close-up. On the other hand, monitors can throw, in a mid-sized room, just as large a soundstage as multi-way floor standers. The idea that "small speakers sound small" is a myth. I have a fairly large soundstage on orchestral music in my room, and especially spatial depth is excellent (it helps that the speaker drivers are 7 feet out from the front wall). Audiophile visitors usually comment on my "big sound". Lower midrange, the 'power' range of, e.g., orchestra and piano, is also often generous, depending own the recording; thus here no "small" sound either.

5. It is easier to get tight and accurate bass with a monitor/sub combo, and even with a multi-way floor stander that has the potential for great bass, this potential is often realized only by very careful and laborious set-up. As for mid-bass, a well integrated and well set up monitor/sub combo will satisfy on most music as much as a multi-way floor stander. In addition, I like the easy adjustability of bass by turning the volume knob on the subs; with multi-way floor standers you are more stuck on what the recording offers. Bass amount between recordings varies greatly at times, and I want to optimize bass by recording, especially when it is anemic (those recordings sound anemic on large speakers as well).

6. As has been pointed out above, with a monitor-sub combo you are not stuck between optimizing for bass on one hand, and soundstage on the other. Often the best position for bass when setting up a multi-way floor stander is one where soundstage suffers, and vice versa. With a monitor you can optimize for soundstage, and put the subwoofers elsewhere.

Disadvantages (medium-sized rooms):

1. Mid-bass may be less prominent than with multi-way floor standers. This can be problem or it can be an advantage, it also depends on the recording. I listen mostly to classical and jazz, but also rock. On some rock I would prefer more mid-bass, on other rock recordings I think it's perfect. On the other hand, apparently sometimes impressive mid-bass on a multi-way floor stander can be too much. I thought the famous drum solo "Freedom Rider" by Art Blakey was more impressive on another system with multi-way floor standers than it was on mine, because there was more mid-bass. However, an audiophile, who is also a drummer, thought that it sounded more impressive, because more realistic, on my system (he there also *loved* the explosive dynamics on the track). A bit of a surprise, but I am in no position to argue with that. So all in all, the mid-bass issue is a mixed bag, I would say.

Having said all that, overall it does seem easier to arrive at a satisfying mid-bass quantity with multi-way floor standers. A monitor-sub combo requires more work. In my room, I also had to work quite a bit on the acoustics.

2. Monitors cannot play as loudly as multi-way floor standers. I cannot reasonably listen to orchestral music beyond peaks of 97 dBa (a bit above 100 dB), yet up to that level, no problem. If you are looking for 110 dB peaks on orchestral or for blasting rock at 105 dB or more average levels, monitors are not for you. But then, I don't want to damage my ears (I follow NIOSH guidelines), and would not want to listen at those levels every night. I listen to rock at average levels of 88-90 dBa (ca. 93-95 dB) which is plenty loud and also free of distortion on my system. Even that I don't do for great lengths of time; again, I don't want to kill my ears. I want to be an audiophile at age 80 too if I should live that long in good health, God willing.

3. Instrument height, such as on solo saxophone, may be portrayed better by some multi-way floor standers.

4. The acoustics of some rooms do make integration of monitor and subwoofers hard. In those cases you are certainly better off with high-quality multi-way floor standers.

***

Reference 3A know about the advantages of monitor speakers. Even though they make also much larger speakers, they have called their Reflector monitors, which I have, "the pinnacle of Reference 3A" and 'the current pinnacle of Reference 3A technology", see their website:

http://www.reference3a.com/reflector.html

Sure, they do not have as elaborate designs of larger speakers as Magico for example, who manage cabinet rigidity also on large enclosures (at a price!!), but again, monitors have inherent advantages when it comes to cabinet rigidity.

***

But what about large rooms? When trying to fill a considerably larger room than mine with sound, the situation is different -- there you absolutely *need* a big multi-way floor stander. Such a room will then also, just by the sheer volume of space available, allow for aspects of reproduction that are simply not accessible in medium sized rooms.

If you ask me what I would do had I generous financial resources, I would probably opt for two systems in two rooms for listening. A large room would be a system with big multi-way floor standers for large scale music, especially orchestral, a mid-sized room might very well be with my monitor/sub combo for smaller scale music.

[the professor]

If the “monitor” speaker goes down enough - let’s say 50hz - then often monitors w 2 subs is better than the same priced floor speaker.

There is a lot of the time something very special w a 2 way speaker - most being a monitors. Period. 2 ways can also be a floor speaker and have the same special quality.

Size of room only matters if you can’t plat your speakers loud enough for your listening pleasure. Otherwise bigger the room the better. Less interaction issues.

Subs do not integrate easily if you have to cross them over above 50hz. It can be done but it’s hard.

[kiwi_1282001]

Therein lies the rub Jock. With small drivers and equally small cabinets how many 2-way ‘monitor’ loudspeakers have a flat response to 50Hz or below?


Yes, some manufacturers may claim a frequency response of say 50Hz to 30KHz but what’s left unsaid is the 50Hz is 6 or even 10dB down relative to the reference. Realistically many small 2-way monitor speakers roll off at 70 or 80Hz.

[Jack]

http://alta-audio.com/collection/frm-2/

[Al M.]

There is a lot of the time something very special w a 2 way speaker - most being a monitors. Period. 2 ways can also be a floor speaker and have the same special quality.

Not that I disagree, but how would you describe that special quality? I have my own ideas, I am curious about yours.

Size of room only matters if you can’t plat your speakers loud enough for your listening pleasure. Otherwise bigger the room the better. Less interaction issues.

Sure a bigger room is better, but only if you don't intend to *fill* it with sound. If in a large room I had the speakers only as far apart as in my medium sized room, and the listening seat at the same distance, sure this would probably work (although room boundaries do have an SPL enhancing effect; this effect will be diminished in a large room). But if for large scale I would like to take advantage of the room dimensions, put the speakers further apart and sit farther away from the speakers, this will not work with monitors. Just two or three feet behind my current listening position *) SPL levels are already down by about 5 dB. One can compensate for that with a large speaker and enough amp power, but not with 2-way monitors at the already quite loud levels that I like to listen at. For *filling* a large room with sound you do need large multi-way floor standers.

__________________

*) I sit at 8.7 feet away from the speakers (ear to tweeter), sometimes a bit closer. Speakers are 8.4 feet apart, tweeter to tweeter.

[jdandy]

bluegrassphile.......I achieved excellent results using a pair of Sonus faber Guarneri Memento speakers, a pair of McIntosh XLS112 powered subwoofers, and a Bryston 10B Sub active crossover. The Guarneri Memento's are fine sounding stand mounted monitors but their mid-bass driver struggled to reproduce frequencies below 50Hz. In their attempt to do so the mid-bass, and even the lower midrange clarity was impacted, particularly when volume was raised where dynamic peaks reached above 95dB. Once I employed the Bryston 10B Sub active crossover, thus relieving the Guarneri Memento's from grappling with the lowest two octaves, their overall sonic performance improved remarkably. I was surprised to notice just how much clearer and dynamic the Guarneri Memento's sounded once the low frequency reproduction was transferred to the two powered McIntosh XLS112 subwoofers. Imaging was improved, as well. You may find my Bryston 10B Sub Active Crossover In Studio System review an interesting read.

[the professor]

Agreed. Even most floor standers don’t have a flat response to 50hz. Which is why subs w floor standing speakers improve the sound.

I’ll change my 50hz requirement to 6db down point at 50hz.

Therein lies the rub Jock. With small drivers and equally small cabinets how many 2-way ‘monitor’ loudspeakers have a flat response to 50Hz or below?


Yes, some manufacturers may claim a frequency response of say 50Hz to 30KHz but what’s left unsaid is the 50Hz is 6 or even 10dB down relative to the reference. Realistically many small 2-way monitor speakers roll off at 70 or 80Hz.

[the professor]

The coheancy is very good. They have an intimency to them.

Not that I disagree, but how would you describe that special quality? I have my own ideas, I am curious about yours.

[Al M.]

The coheancy is very good. They have an intimency to them.

Yes, coherence is very good, but can also be achieved with multi-way floor standers, provided you are not sitting too close. I do love the intimacy of my monitors on small scale music, e.g., chamber such as string quartet -- you bring up a good point here! On the other hand, the monitors also can throw a rather large soundstage with great spatial depth on orchestral music. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned.

[the professor]

Agreed