are tower speakers necessary in 2022?

[JSmith]

significant cabinet volume

Exactly... solid floorstanding towers all the way for me too, +1.


JSmith

 

[Pearljam5000]

Absolutely. Stand mounted two ways 'look' less intrusive, but in real terms they take up more space because there's likely a subwoofer or two and the space around stand mounted speakers is a bit of 'no-go zone' due to them being easy to topple.

Small stand mount speakers are fun, but no substitute for a real speaker with significant cabinet volume and a bunch of optimized drivers.

What about stand mounted 3-ways like 8361, KH420 and Trio 11?

 

[MarkS]

What about stand mounted 3-ways like 8361, KH420 and Trio 11?

IMO, a stand is just a waste of space. Extend that cabinet to the floor and use the expanded volume to get better bass.

Of course, this will cost more and be heavier, both of which may be considerations. But there is no inherent advantage to a stand mount vs a tower.

 

[Pearljam5000]

IMO, a stand is just a waste of space. Extend that cabinet to the floor and use the expanded volume to get better bass.

Of course, this will cost more and be heavier, both of which may be considerations. But there is no inherent advantage to a stand mount vs a tower.

Problem is there aren't many real towers/ floorstanders that are active.
So if you want to go the active way you have to compromise something.

 

[restorer-john]

Problem is there aren't many real towers/ floorstanders that are active.
So if you want to go the active way you have to compromise something.

That's a good point.

 

[levimax]

3 way towers and subs will generally outperform 2 way bookshelves and subs.

 

[buzwork]

I like big boxes and I cannot lie... unfortunately I have cats and my last pair of towers were used as scratching posts.

My Revel M105s on bolt-through stands have been unscathed thus far. :fingers-crossed: SB1000 Pro does a good job at providing lows. No complaints really.

Life factors sometimes dictate speaker form factor. I would love to have towers again but until I finish out my basement with a dedicated stereo listening room that will have no cat entry rights my Focal Sopra purchase will remain on hold.

 

[tomtoo]

If you add up the price of good stands, you are near the price of towers. But the stands are useless to the casevolume of the speaker while the case of the tower is speaker volume. What helps for better efficience and lower bass. In short speaker stands are dead money. While the case of a tower is active money regarding sound.

 

[Fledermaus]

Problem is there aren't many real towers/ floorstanders that are active.
So if you want to go the active way you have to compromise something.

You have stand-mount shaped subs from Genelec or Neumann, even though looks are a bit utilitarian ; same and classier with Kii three+BXT - not much choice otherwise in effect. Or you can go DIY with a nice Fusion Amp from Hypex and build your own, which is a lot of fun !

 

[Vict0r]

Towers look more impressive, so they must sound better. Psychoacoustics. Don't put towers on your desk, though. That doesn't look impressive. Unless you have a really long neck, perhaps. I don't know. Towers FTW!

 

[tomtoo]

Towers look more impressive, so they must sound better. Psychoacoustics. Don't put towers on your desk, though. That doesn't look impressive. Unless you have a really long neck, perhaps. I don't know. Towers FTW!

Larger case is phyisics, not only psychoacoustics. Its real, you can measure the impact. No towers are not very well for the desktop. But there are people that not only listen on the desktop.

 

[Wesayso]

The list is long why the tower could have more potential. Some reasons might not be that obvious from the start.
They could have an advantage of how they interact with the room. I say "could" as that does require a well thought out
concept. They should have more potential than any stand mount speaker. Or the designer didn't do his job right.

 

[Skyro]

I'm assuming OP is talking about costs. I think the vast majority of people would prefer towers over standmounts if costs were not a factor. If you do consider costs IMO you could likely build a better system with standpoints + sub(s) than towers for a given price range. Subs will dig deeper and cleaner in the bass which is a big factor especially in a mixed use setup (movies/games).

 

[Sancus]

As others have stated, it's basically true that towers and comparable standmounts take up the same amount of space, but towers perform better on average. In the general case, it ends up being an aesthetics and portability choice. It's rare that portability matters and towers do look better IMO.

That said, the problem is that it's often not a general choice. There are many models with special features that only come in stand mount, for example Genelec Ones or the D&D 8C. Or the "tower" option is extremely expensive(W371A). If you want one of those models, as I did, you may end up stuck with stand mounts.

Particularly for multi-channel, there are also situations where a stand mount does fit better, for example if you want to put something underneath it for space reasons. In the system linked in my signature, the L/R surrounds sit above the side tables in my living room. Towers would not fit there. Additionally, if you are building a dedicated multi-channel system, having much larger L/Rs than the center is pointless, as the center bottlenecks overall output for nearly all multi-channel content.

But if both are in budget and the choice is between stereo generic 2-way passive bookshelf or generic 3-way passive tower... Buy the tower every time.

 

[kipman725]

I had to get a bit creative as my living room is small so I needed to push the speakers right back into the corners. On the left side I fit a sub with a top hat and on the right side I reinforced the meter cupboard with a wooden internal 'leg' and also fit a top hat. Speakers with directivity control hould IMO mostly be as close into a wall/corner as possible as long as measurement and EQ capability are available to correct for the low frequency gain. Also this system has effectivly zero footprint for the tops, only subs are using floor space and they have been built to have minimal footprint for the driver size.

 

[krabapple]

Towers are a bit of a bother if you want a proper surround sound setup.

Also, subs give you more options for optimizing the bass. It's pure luck if the position of the towers is the optimal position for bass output in a particular room.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Towers are a bit of a bother if you want a proper surround sound setup.

Not really. You just need the room.

Also, subs give you more options for optimizing the bass. It's pure luck if the position of the towers is the optimal position for bass output in a particular room.

Agreed but you can do both!

 

[Sokel]

Usually the liters of a tower (combined with proper drivers) give the freedom to a designer for higher spl as it allows higher crossover points for the big drivers and let the mids working without the need to stress trying to produce high spl's at low freqs.At least with "traditional" speakers.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Necessary? -Depends on your preferences.

I find tower speakers generally more appealing soundwise and aesthetically.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

From a scientific point of view, larger cabinets permit lower distortion for a given SPL. They also are more efficient, which designers can trade in to get greater LF extension. These are NOT aesthetic or psychoacoustic matters, just physics.