• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

What do floor standers really bring to the table?

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
When I bought my new sub I was very curious to see how much it would contribute to extend the lows of my main towers, which already go to 32 Hz. So I cut it there too, put on some bass heavy music and turned up the volume. Was sounding great and all, so I turned off the speakers amp just o hear how much the sub was contributing. To my surprise hardly nothing at all! I had to stick my ear next to the sub to hear the low frequency low amplitude rumble it brought, but it was like 0.001%! At the same loud volume I was hearing before!

This experience convinced me that my speakers are fine for stereo and the sub would be used for HT only.

Now try high-pass filtering your main speakers and letting the subwoofer cover a more significant part of the low-bass output...
 

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,029
Likes
10,796
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Now try high-pass filtering your main speakers and letting the subwoofer cover a more significant part of the low-bass output...
I thought that too but then what is the point of spending more in a tower speaker to high pass it at 60 or 80Hz? Then I would save and buy a bookshelf to begin with. Which is what I chose to do with my HT.
 

kchap

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
579
Likes
566
Location
Melbourne, Oz
Now try high-pass filtering your main speakers and letting the subwoofer cover a more significant part of the low-bass output...
It looks like we're ganging up on you;) I'm still not that keen on having a subwoofer but you bring up a good point. If you do not have a HPF for the main speakers you can end up with a frequency hump.
 

aac

Active Member
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
217
Likes
163
No need to buy stands at a price being unable to set them lower if needed. And larger cabinet.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
I thought that too but then what is the point of spending more in a tower speaker to high pass it at 60 or 80Hz? Then I would save and buy a bookshelf to begin with. Which is what I chose to do with my HT.

I found 3 advantages to adding big subs (SB16 Ultras) to large towers that, in theory, more than cover the "musical frequency range"

1 - I can really go "all-in" with any modern synth music where I want punch or a bass boosted EQ curve.
2 - I can work more effectively on my room's bass response in general.
3 - for lots of recordings such as small classical ensembles with cellos or pianos that were recorded live or "naturally", occasionally in large rooms on wood podiums, the very low frequencies added an eerie level of life-likeness. Not essential, totally absent on many clean recordings, but really nice to have.

Blindly adding non-tunable subs is certainly not worth the trouble for music listening but the ability to measure and tune the subs from a smartphone app according to the live measurements has been a game-changer for me.
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
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".
This is a great summary. Comparing, for example, the Revel 126Be vs 228Be (or 226Be, see here) illustrates your third point. I'd also add the inherent stability of floorstanding speakers compared with bookshelves on stands, unless bolted/affixed into place (and even then, sometimes still top-heavy).

Regarding subwoofers, some listeners prefer/recommend setting the crossover to twice the F3. Also, some experts (Greisinger) advocate for bass sources to be positioned to the sides to contribute to the perception of envelopment at low frequencies, which is another plus for the use of subwoofers that hasn't been mentioned yet.
 
Last edited:

sigbergaudio

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
2,639
Likes
5,397
Location
Norway
When I bought my new sub I was very curious to see how much it would contribute to extend the lows of my main towers, which already go to 32 Hz. So I cut it there too, put on some bass heavy music and turned up the volume. Was sounding great and all, so I turned off the speakers amp just to hear how much the sub was contributing. To my surprise nothing at all! I had to stick my ear next to the sub to hear the low frequency low amplitude rumble it brought, but it was like 0.001%! At the same loud volume I was hearing before!

This experience convinced me that my speakers are fine for stereo and the sub would be used for HT only.

The idea isn't to add a subwoofer below 30hz, but to high pass the speakers and allow a subwoofer to play the bottom octaves. This would give a net benefit in bass quality despite the fact that the speakers could play low to begin with. Very few floorstanders can compete with a dedicated, high quality subwoofer from 100hz and down. A subwoofer placed somewhere else will also typically result in a more even response.
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
I thought that too but then what is the point of spending more in a tower speaker to high pass it at 60 or 80Hz?
Hence my comment above about the sort of speakers I'd like to see more of :). However, the reason to try it if you have the option is that you may find it sounds better.
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
To recap a few of the replies I've seen:

1) Regardless of any sonic advantages, I choose to use tower speakers because I think that spending money on stands to get bookshelf speakers at the correct height, with the end result being little speakers balancing precariously on stand looks out of place and wouldn't want it in my room. Floor space is the same, and a normal speaker(towers) look better. This point is of course simply opinion.
2) Tower speakers crossed at 80 Hz to a pair of good subs are better than a pair of small single woofer bookshelves crossed to subs. Larger, multiple woofers will play the 80-300Hz region with lower distortion and higher fidelity than a small, single woofer bookshelf. They struggle in this range, especially since this is where we need to apply eq if the goal is high fidelity. Eq eats up headroom and requires even more capaility in this demanding region. Look at almost *any* bookshelf speaker and how soon they distort below 300 Hz even at low SPL at 1M. Now try adding 3-6 dB of eq…….
3) Despite this being a forum focused on the objective pursuit of high fidelity, it amazes me how many think turning their subs off for music is somehow higher fidelity???? If you have poorly placed, poorly integrated, and or low quality subs, maybe.
4) It has nothing to do with subs or no subs. For those whose goal is high fidelity sound reproduction, bass managament, dual subs, and eq are all but required. 2.0 channel is, for practical intents, low fidelity regardless of how much we imagine our 120 dB signal chain improves what we hear. What we DO hear is the train wreck, low fidelity response of a 2.0 channel setup in a room. Towers with subs are better than bookshelves with subs in most cases. Lower distortion, lower extension for better integration around crossover(even at 80 Hz), better looks, and better ability to play louder if you ever want to, even if occasionally.
5) If people sit close, or listen at low enough levels, or just prefer small speakers balancing on stands, thats ok too. But objectively, towers with subs are better than bookshelves with subs in several ways.
 

storing

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
226
Likes
220
So, you don't put massive towers in a small room. Having KEF Blade in 4x6m (12x18 feet) is simply useless. You won't be using 40% of what they could do. Also, you don't put KEF LSX in a 9x12m (27x36 feet) room. You match the dB output and enclosure volume to the volume of the listening room.

Practicality and cost aside, is it a problem to only use 40%? I mean how many people here would use their speakers (no matter which they are) for much more than that percentage? Even if I could I wouldn't be using my speakers near the full SPL they can produce, that'd be tiring and probably deafening anyway. Or perhaps you mean something else than just power. I guess what I really want to know: is there some objective threshold at which, soundquality-wise, it becomes worse to have big speakers in a smallish room?
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
Practicality and cost aside, is it a problem to only use 40%? I mean how many people here would use their speakers (no matter which they are) for much more than that percentage? Even if I could I wouldn't be using my speakers near the full SPL they can produce, that'd be tiring and probably deafening anyway. Or perhaps you mean something else than just power. I guess what I really want to know: is there some objective threshold at which, soundquality-wise, it becomes worse to have big speakers in a smallish room?
Before I answer your question, I'd like to make a general observation about this thread. I've read all the posts and I see that a lot of pro-tower answers go on about other things besides the enclosure itself. Perhaps it would be better to refer to a specific model of the speakers which differ only in the enclosure (floorstander vs. bookshelf). There are many such speakers where a bookshelf has it's exact match in floorstander as if a bookshelf was popped into a bigger box. This would focus the debate to one difference that OP put in his question. Something like; all other things being exactly the same, what would you benefit from getting a tower speaker. (OK, I know all other things are not the same, if the box is bigger, f3 is tuned differently and the x-over is never exactly the same, but let's say that's the minimum of differences).

I'm saying this bc there ARE very well made, genuine, 3way bookshelf speakers, so number of the drivers is not the main issue. Let's talk mostly about the volume of the enclosure and what it brings to the table.

@storing Few things do come to mind, but I would immediately agree that it has to do with the quality of the product as well. Having said that, I don't think it's all about SPL. A small-smallish room of hard walls might give such a bump to your low region that you have to attenuate it almost all the way with some speakers that have an otherwise good low region. So saying 40% (it's a number from the top of my head only to serve the point in question) might refer to other properties of your speaker. It would mean you bought a speaker that does exceptionally well in the 40-60 range only to have to take it all the way down.

Of course, it's mostly practicality and cost, but then again every overkill is. Still, there IS such a thing as overkill.
 

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Subs and big standmounts blur the lines between floorstanders and bookshelf speakers and compromise is much smaller than it used to be in the past
Before they existed I would guess floorstanders were always the much better choice
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
Practicality and cost aside, is it a problem to only use 40%? I mean how many people here would use their speakers (no matter which they are) for much more than that percentage? Even if I could I wouldn't be using my speakers near the full SPL they can produce, that'd be tiring and probably deafening anyway. Or perhaps you mean something else than just power. I guess what I really want to know: is there some objective threshold at which, soundquality-wise, it becomes worse to have big speakers in a smallish room?
Why would it be? While a speaker's upper capabilities are nice to have, doubt many listen at the "max" for very long if they like their ears. There might be something to said for some towers that require some distance to the listener for the sound to integrate well, but as long as your room is large enough to sit at a good distance from a large tower.....
 
OP
D

Destination: Moon

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
478
Likes
314
Location
Western USA
Thank you all for your responses! Aside for the question of asthetics, which is somewhat questionable in my eyes (I think my setup looks pretty nice) there still seems to be some question about size really mattering?
That leads to another question that maybe gets to the heart of it. If several speakers measure well and look similar on paper for FR, then how much difference can there be while listening to them? Or put another way, do 2 different sets of speakers with similar measurements actually sound much different??
Should this be another thread?
 

Attachments

  • 20211017_104408.jpg
    20211017_104408.jpg
    322.1 KB · Views: 166

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
Thank you all for your responses! Aside for the question of asthetics, which is somewhat questionable in my eyes (I think my setup looks pretty nice) there still seems to be some question about size really mattering?
That leads to another question that maybe gets to the heart of it. If several speakers measure well and look similar on paper for FR, then how much difference can there be while listening to them? Or put another way, do 2 different sets of speakers with similar measurements actually sound much different??
Should this be another thread?
Well, not my taste in speaker stands, but... :)

Speakers with similar measurements can still sound different....altho might depend on how deep a dive into what particular measurements....
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
I don’t get where people got the impression of floorstander without subs are ok. There is a big difference listening to music and being in front of the stage. If you want to get that feel you need more than 8 inch woofer sitting in a small cabin.

Get a big woofer and set it up correctly. Bookshelf or floorstander, doesn’t matter. They all need a woofer.

For a while I bought in to that line of thinking often preached by subwoofer enthusiasts and tried dual subwoofers with my floor standing speakers (rated 35 Hz – 20 kHz). I personally didn't find they added much at all, and I actually preferred the sound of my speakers without the subs (hence I finally sold the subs, crossover, etc). So I did indeed find my floor standing speakers "ok" without subs. :)

YMMV, of course.
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
as long as your room is large enough to sit at a good distance from a large tower.....
Would probably mean your speaker is not too big for your room and thus not what I was talking about.

On an unrelated note, people here keep mixing the role of a woofer driver and a subwoofer driver. Every speaker that has only a woofer driver in the enclosure can benefit from a sub woofer. We can only debate is the benefit worth the effort and expense. If your sub does nothing for your system, then it's your program material that rendered the sub unnecessary. It has nothing to do with how well a system with a sub performs.

In other words, after deciding a sub is superfluous in your system, try the same system, with the same sub and a program material that has a lot of power in the sub region and it won't be superfluous anymore.

Mind you, almost all of the tweeters in the speakers owned by members here go much higher than needed by their program material.
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
3) Despite this being a forum focused on the objective pursuit of high fidelity, it amazes me how many think turning their subs off for music is somehow higher fidelity???? If you have poorly placed, poorly integrated, and or low quality subs, maybe.
4) It has nothing to do with subs or no subs. For those whose goal is high fidelity sound reproduction, bass managament, dual subs, and eq are all but required. 2.0 channel is, for practical intents, low fidelity regardless of how much we imagine our 120 dB signal chain improves what we hear. What we DO hear is the train wreck, low fidelity response of a 2.0 channel setup in a room. Towers with subs are better than bookshelves with subs in most cases. Lower distortion, lower extension for better integration around crossover(even at 80 Hz), better looks, and better ability to play louder if you ever want to, even if occasionally.
5) If people sit close, or listen at low enough levels, or just prefer small speakers balancing on stands, thats ok too. But objectively, towers with subs are better than bookshelves with subs in several ways.

I've brought that up before too.

Many people in the High Fidelity/Accuracy camp will cast stones at the idea of various deviations from neutral in someone else's system (e.g. tube amps, vinyl, speakers with more jagged frequency response etc). Yet if that person is only using an "accurate" bookshelf speaker, or speaker that only goes down to, say, 50 or 40 or 35 Hz, then his system is deviating from "accurate" as well. He's not just distorting part of the signal, he's literally throwing out a bunch of the signal in many tracks! (Especially modern recordings).
 
Top Bottom