What do floor standers really bring to the table?

[Galliardist]

Depends on what you call 'bass'. If the music one listens to is mostly made up of bands with electric bass, then 40Hz or so is fine, and a floorstander will do that with more efficiency than a stand mount because of the extra cabinet volume.

Going lower in frequency with high output levels will require a sub. Period.

My floorstanders are quite happy to go lower and loud without a sub. If I want even output in tbe bass throughout the room, that’s when I would need to add subs.

If the speakers are designed to do the job they will do it. There are active standmount speakers that go low, like the Devialets, that don’t need subs as such.
A lot depends on the particular implementation of a system in a room. Our living room is heavily furnished, the best spots for subs were already taken. In a clean or dedicated room I’d use subs, they are cost effective apart from anything else.

Necessary,though? No.

 

[Duke]

Aside from higher SPLs, what real listening advantage do towers have over the better measuring bookshelfs, if any?

The larger enclosure of a tower loudspeaker may allow the designer to do some things better than he could in a stand-mount format, aside from bass extension.

For instance having two (or more) midwoofers on the front of the tower covering the same frequency region will result in each having its floor-bounce dip at a different frequency (because of the differing reflection path lengths), such that each somewhat fills in the other's notch resulting in more natural-sounding midbass.

For a given system efficiency and SPL, having the heat distributed across more motors results in better thermal compression characteristics. Likewise, having more air-moving capability results in less chance of reaching the system's linear mechanical limits on loud peaks.

The greater front baffle size allows the designer more room for the drivers themselves which offers the option of maintaining good radiation pattern control further down into the midrange region and/or dividing the spectrum where he prefers to, if those are priorities.

And the designer can still optimize tower speakers for use with subs, and/or the user can usually still integrate subs (which is what Floyd Toole does with his Salon 2's) if either thinks subs are the best solution in the bass region. So it's not necessarily "either/or".

 

[Beershaun]

My floorstanders are quite happy to go lower and loud without a sub. If I want even output in tbe bass throughout the room, that’s when I would need to add subs.

Necessary,though? No.

I think Subwoofers are a great value though. When people are looking to improve their sound quality beyond their existing 2channel system with decent speakers, and agonizing over SINAD and whether or not to add a DAC or separate 2ch amp. My recommendation would always be to add a sub first. There is so much musical information below 60hz and the ability to independently have a powered sub with sufficient power and cone size to deliver the SPL clearly to hear those low notes is a huge value in terms of overall cost and increase in preference score. That's why most of the "preference score" calculations jump up a full point when adding a Sub. Because there is a 30% weighting on bass extension in Sean Olive's preference score calculation. Subs are the most cost effective way to get there.

 

[theyellowspecial]

Better measuring bookshelf speakers with cheap stereo subwoofers at 40Hz flat, or worse measuring floorstanders from same series at 60Hz flat?

 

[BenB]

The larger enclosure of a tower loudspeaker may allow the designer to do some things better than he could in a stand-mount format, aside from bass extension.

For instance having two (or more) midwoofers on the front of the tower covering the same frequency region will result in each having its floor-bounce dip at a different frequency (because of the differing reflection path lengths), such that each somewhat fill in the other's notch resulting in more natural-sounding midbass.

I'm not sure it always plays out this way. Often times the impact of having 2 midwoofers (or even more) instead of 1 is a wider, shallower dip. However, that dip may actually be more noticeable instead of less, the same way a low Q resonance can be more noticeable than a high Q one. However, the wider, shallower dip is certainly easier to EQ, and will be more consistent across a larger span of listening distances (thus making the EQ more effective).

So overall I think multiple midwoofers is superior, assuming the listener will EQ the response at those frequencies if necessary in their room.

 

[kchap]

It is also easier to integrate a subwoofer with tower speakers ..... crossing a sub at 80Hz eliminates issues with sound localization but to do so you need good response down to ~40 Hz which towers are more likely to do. A tower and bookshelf on stands take up the same footprint and as mentioned stands can be expensive so if the price is not a lot higher for towers you get better performance, they take up the same footprint, and may or may not look better (subjective) so towers actually do bring a lot to the table.

If you are going to setup a subwoofer, I think you've summed up the technical issues well. For me I still think the subwoofer is not worth it. I'm trying pickup an additional 1 to 1.5 octaves that I can barely hear and the room acoustics will fight me, standing waves etc. I can still 'feel' the bass with my existing floor standing speakers; unfortunately so can my neighbours.

If I was into organ music, had very large room and could pay someone to setup the room and subwoofer then, maybe.

 

[Chrispy]

If I was into organ music, had very large room and could pay someone to setup the room and subwoofer then, maybe.

Then you'd still have the neighbors....

 

[deprogrammed]

"And if you already have a sub?
Remove the sub and enjoy a large Soundstage with fully integrated bass drivers.
It is obvious for music listening.
Keep the sub for movies.

Guess I am oblivious.

 

[deprogrammed]

In the same line usually a bit more bass and a bit more sensitivity. Sometimes more power handling, if there are more drivers.
That is what I have noticed.

Size, sensitivity, bass. Pick 2.

 

[JRS]

Depends on what you call 'bass'. If the music one listens to is mostly made up of bands with electric bass, then 40Hz or so is fine, and a floorstander will do that with more efficiency than a stand mount because of the extra cabinet volume.

Going lower in frequency with high output levels will require a sub. Period.

May be a quibble, but there are any number of high end floorstanders that have integrated "subwoofers," i.e. dedicated woofers to cover 25-120
or so. And they get down and they get loud. And rightly so,

You talking smack about me?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

May be a quibble, but there are any number of high end floorstanders that have integrated "subwoofers," i.e. dedicated woofers to cover 25-120
or so. And they get down and they get loud. And rightly so,

View attachment 159521

You talking smack about me?

I wasn't talking about speakers like the above, but I bet that my four 18" subs, each in an 8 cubic foot cabinet would beat the bass shit out of that Wilson and leave it as roadkill. No brag, just fact.

 

[JRS]

The larger enclosure of a tower loudspeaker may allow the designer to do some things better than he could in a stand-mount format, aside from bass extension.

For instance having two (or more) midwoofers on the front of the tower covering the same frequency region will result in each having its floor-bounce dip at a different frequency (because of the differing reflection path lengths), such that each somewhat fills in the other's notch resulting in more natural-sounding midbass.

For a given system efficiency and SPL, having the heat distributed across more motors results in better thermal compression characteristics. Likewise, having more air-moving capability results in less chance of reaching the system's linear mechanical limits on loud peaks.

The greater front baffle size allows the designer more room for the drivers themselves which offers the option of maintaining good radiation pattern control further down into the midrange region and/or dividing the spectrum where he prefers to, if those are priorities.

And the designer can still optimize tower speakers for use with subs, and/or the user can usually still integrate subs (which is what Floyd Toole does with his Salon 2's) if either thinks subs are the best solution in the bass region. So it's not necessarily "either/or".

Agree--they just have more presence in the room, and as you say, many use multiple drivers for a given band which not only helps to even the FR, but also the area in space from which the sound is being projected is larger (thinking Wilson, Focal, Aurum Cantus, etc)--I doubt they are launching plane waves or even a cylindrical wavefront like a LA, but not a point source, so that and the bass, the effortless dynamics all lead to a more palpable presence. It's a gas if you have the space.

 

[Duke]

I'm not sure it always plays out this way. Often times the impact of having 2 midwoofers (or even more) instead of 1 is a wider, shallower dip. However, that dip may actually be more noticeable instead of less, the same way a low Q resonance can be more noticeable than a high Q one.

It's a juggling of tradeoffs.

The wider, shallower double-dip does arguably model worse on paper, but ime sounds better in the midbass region if done well, and I'll have to just make that claim without supporting objective evidence.

If the crossover to the high frequency section is too high, the dual midwoofer first-arrival times (from the slightly different direct sound path lengths) can degrade clarity. This latter issue can be mitigated with a "2.5 way" topology, at the expense of some additional radiation pattern tilt in the crossover region. There are of course other tradeoffs to be juggled so dual vertical midwoofers is not something I would do in every situation, but there are allowable-size-and-budget combinations where imo it makes sense.

 

[JRS]

I wasn't talking about speakers like the above, but I bet that my four 18" subs, each in an 8 cubic foot cabinet would beat the bass shit out of that Wilson and leave it as roadkill. No brag, just fact.

No doubt, but most anything that large I normally keep food in. (Edit: or beer in--I have two 15 cu ft chest freezers to support my lagering in one and a 4 tap system in the other). There have been some floorstanding speakers that consist of twin columns, one a LA of woofers-- Infinity did that a couple of iterations but others as well--those I suspect could keep up with your JBL's bt never achieve the sweet uniformity of a distributed system.

 

[antennaguru]

So you don’t have to spend money on speaker stands…

 

[JRS]

I think Subwoofers are a great value though. When people are looking to improve their sound quality beyond their existing 2channel system with decent speakers, and agonizing over SINAD and whether or not to add a DAC or separate 2ch amp. My recommendation would always be to add a sub first. There is so much musical information below 60hz and the ability to independently have a powered sub with sufficient power and cone size to deliver the SPL clearly to hear those low notes is a huge value in terms of overall cost and increase in preference score. That's why most of the "preference score" calculations jump up a full point when adding a Sub. Because there is a 30% weighting on bass extension in Sean Olive's preference score calculation. Subs are the most cost effective way to get there.

The invention of the sub satellite configuration M&K? has had a lasting impact. I use Acoustic Elegance 15"s to "augment " my 0.75 cu ft monitors. I'm too old to be schlepping monsters around nor do I have the floorspace or cochlear reserve to take too many more hits. I have a hand truck to roll the bass cabs around.

 

[001]

....or cochlear reserve to take too many more hits. ..

Quite right that one! I'll crank up the Tannoy Ardens every now and then to 'blow the cobwebs out'. More often than not it's instead actual physical body blows and an assault on the ears. Absolutely love it. High volume for all sorts of music from a set of Alesso's 'Tomorrowland' to Tchaikovsky to Snarky Puppy or Pat Metheny. And then I'll turn it down again for WAF, neighbours and internal cladding reasons. Would a separate sub do the same? I suppose so but in the end it's a preference. Logically speaking, when one needs to move house or wishes to re-organise furniture easily, separates with sub is a much preferred option (man, those Tannoys are *heavy*)

 

[student of history]

The footprint of floor standers (FS) is the same as bookshelf speakers (BS) on stands. But you get to use all that air between the floor and the BS as cabinet to tune the extra woofers of the FS. And FS come out of the box standing at the right height (when sitting in a chair). That is, the tweeters level with your ears. So I'd say there's an elegant simplicity/economy of design with FS if the intention is putting them on the floor.

That said, BS are elegant as desktop speakers (in my case mounted to the wall above my desk). With subwoofers under the desk (or in my case, pucks mounted to my chair).

Which do I prefer? It's complicated since my FS are 25+ year old NHT Super Twos (the international version with biamping capability, essentially sealed NHT Super Ones mated to ported subwoofer cabinets) and my BS are the newer, objectively better Polk S15s. Aesthetically I prefer the NHTs. Audibly I slightly prefer the Polks.

 

[audio2design]

An inaccurate colocation of deep bass drivers with higher frequency drivers in the typical room (almost all)

 

[Pearljam5000]

Big speakers just sound bigger than smaller ones...