Assuming the towers are well designed like Revels or similar all the drivers will be integrated (distance, crossovers, timing, etc.) by a professional team of speaker engineers using an anechoic chamber or a Klipple measurement machine and sophisticated design tools and extensive testing so everything works together. For the monitor and sub you are trying to get different speakers made by different companies to work together using flawed in room measurements and limited automatic tools or guessing and doing it by ear.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Decision Paralysis: Sub $4k Speaker Pair?
- Thread starter jmdesignz2
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,559
- Likes
- 1,993
A tower loudspeaker can measure as having lower distortion than a bookshelf loudspeaker.
Amir noted in his review of the Polk Audio ES60 tower loudspeaker:
2. Large image. This is another major advantage tower speakers have over bookshelves but once again, the impression was even more positive than I expected. Images are almost life-sized which I really appreciate (compared to miniatures with bookshelves).
Let alone convenience aspects. There is little more satisfying in life than getting new speakers, simply placing them where you can according to basic rules (distances from walls), get a great sound, and call it a day.
I know we're mostly more sophisticated (and let's be honest, playful and tinkerish) than that here and many of us try improving further. But there's beauty in simplicity, and properly designed speakers tuned for the average living room that sound great out of the box without any fiddling, are a really nice thing.
I know we're mostly more sophisticated (and let's be honest, playful and tinkerish) than that here and many of us try improving further. But there's beauty in simplicity, and properly designed speakers tuned for the average living room that sound great out of the box without any fiddling, are a really nice thing.
phoenixdogfan
Major Contributor
Don't want to derail this thread. but I've discussed the differences I hear in the Meta review thread.
ZolaIII
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 5,569
- Likes
- 3,336
@jmdesignz2 well if not positioned good Linton's can give such impression by deep in the uper mids caused by room refractions but not on their own. On their own with ± 1.5 dB deviation they are among more precise one's ever.
www.spinorama.org
Now let's talk about elephant in the room. We hear psy different to flat in room speaker response that's only right for calibration point of 85/88 dB SPL white noise mono/stereo and differ to any other SPL. That's due to time domain difference especially for low end standing waves (low and sub bass) which are slow. So in order to (equal loudness) compensate for it we bust energy (SPL) there.
That's why you anyhow need sub's preferably in 2.2 setup in order that compensation to work well especially at lower SPL program loudness. Point of 2.2 is not something as stupid as stereo bass! It's to isolate refractions from spectrum below the knee (105 Hz) for ELC in low bass (by putting crossovers above it) which is problematic especially when amount of compensation (boost) becomes significant. On other point they sum together naturally on their own to physics or as set in material and remain separated above it the same way.
Unfortunately you won't get 2.2 of the shelf (integrated as it is in AVR's or room correction standalone solutions) it's do it yourself only for now. That's the truth no one wants to tell you.
Measurements for speaker Wharfedale Linton 85th Anniversary
www.spinorama.org
That's why you anyhow need sub's preferably in 2.2 setup in order that compensation to work well especially at lower SPL program loudness. Point of 2.2 is not something as stupid as stereo bass! It's to isolate refractions from spectrum below the knee (105 Hz) for ELC in low bass (by putting crossovers above it) which is problematic especially when amount of compensation (boost) becomes significant. On other point they sum together naturally on their own to physics or as set in material and remain separated above it the same way.
Unfortunately you won't get 2.2 of the shelf (integrated as it is in AVR's or room correction standalone solutions) it's do it yourself only for now. That's the truth no one wants to tell you.
I’d argue that bad to mediocre sub integration is absolutely the rule and good integration the rare exception.
It’s quite telling to read the relevant threads on this forum. Where the technically proficient, often DIY experienced, sometimes amateur speaker designers with mountains of experience, knowledge and equipment discuss their sub setups. Even among them, the default assumption seems to be that something went wrong. Good sub integration is basically a hobby in and of itself.
MarkS
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,763
- Likes
- 2,823
So I have a 2.1 system. I put the sub on the front wall between the main speakers, which are about 3 feet out from the wall. No measurements. I entered the distances from the listening position and the sub into my Lyngdorf integrated amp, and also the sub's electronic delay (6ms, per the manufacturer). I tried crossing over at 80Hz (LR4, both sides) and ran Room Perfect. Bass sounded a bit off (my guess: SBIR effect). I moved the crossover point to 100Hz, reran Room Perfect. Chef's kiss! Sounds amazing to me on all types of music.
Someday, maybe I will take measurements with my UMIK1 and REW. I may then find out that the sound is not very good after all. Until then, I will just enjoy the music.
YMMV.
Oh, I used to have VMPS tower speakers with two 12" woofers per side (in the same room). Without room correction and with limited placement options, I never got bass anywhere close to as good as I'm getting now.
Someday, maybe I will take measurements with my UMIK1 and REW. I may then find out that the sound is not very good after all. Until then, I will just enjoy the music.
YMMV.
Oh, I used to have VMPS tower speakers with two 12" woofers per side (in the same room). Without room correction and with limited placement options, I never got bass anywhere close to as good as I'm getting now.
Last edited:
As mentioned, have had comparable experiences. Not saying subwoofer integration may not take some work, but bass coming out of a subwoofer built into a tower has many of the same issues with room integration and the tower will cost you more due to higher shipping costs, storage costs and any premium the vendor tacks on.
Otoh, subwoofers have lower overhead, and more competition makes for better values. Since bass in recordings is also variable, many blame the equipment for something "off" as well. On my AVR, if I do not like the added contribution from the subwoofer, can readily change to stereo only (I rarely do). In either case, also agree that ARC can be a very helpful tool and should be a major consideration in any newer system.
My first subwoofer system had a serious passive crossover. It was not perfect but clearly demonstrated the bass advantage of subwoofers. At that point, for me, there was no serious listening without a subwoofer. I have several other very enjoyable systems without a subwoofer, but struggle to think of any other audio investment that returns more value than adding one (or more).
Last edited:
OP
jmdesignz2
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2025
- Messages
- 384
- Likes
- 190
- Thread Starter
- #49
Ended up destroying my budget and got the Philharmonic BMR Towers.
They sound incredible, driving them with Fosi V3 mono blocks, ZD3 DAC, WiiM Ultra
They sound incredible, driving them with Fosi V3 mono blocks, ZD3 DAC, WiiM Ultra
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,310
- Likes
- 1,107
I'm unclear the differences between the LX and the 2EX V2. It seems the LX gets all the love and reviews. I have not seen a review of the 2EX V2s. Anyone compared them? On a visual level, I much prefer the 2EX V2. It seems they have a different tweeter and a different mid base driver.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,310
- Likes
- 1,107
As mentioned, have had comparable experiences. Not saying subwoofer integration may not take some work, but bass coming out of a subwoofer built into a tower has many of the same issues with room integration and the tower will cost you more due to higher shipping costs, storage costs and any premium the vendor tacks on.
Otoh, subwoofers have lower overhead, and more competition makes for better values. Since bass in recordings is also variable, many blame the equipment for something "off" as well. On my AVR, if I do not like the added contribution from the subwoofer, can readily change to stereo only (I rarely do). In either case, also agree that ARC can be a very helpful tool and should be a major consideration in any newer system.
My first subwoofer system had a serious passive crossover. It was not perfect but clearly demonstrated the bass advantage of subwoofers. At that point, for me, there was no serious listening without a subwoofer. I have several other very enjoyable systems without a subwoofer, but struggle to think of any other audio investment that returns more value than adding one (or more).
Correct me if I'm wrong: I'd add integration has gotten considerably easier and better with DSP and room correction offerings, and the use of REW for those willing to get that far. Back in the day, your choice was essentially to set the sub at the role off point of the mains and mess with that and the volume on the subs until you got the sound you liked. That was a PITA and often didn't result in great audio, and part of why subs still have a bed rep with some. Now you have amazing options available to get sub and mains to integrate beyond the dreams of those in the the past.
Me, I think good stand mounts and quality subs using modern options to integrate them are the sweet spot in terms of $ spent and audio experienced.
Subwoofer integration has evolved over time and may not have perfect 40 years ago but does not mean it was not good or enjoyable. If the claim is that we were blissfully ignorant of integration flaws back then, that may or may not be true. As am sure some of the current vinyl lovers will testify, can still hear some great sound despite the limitations of older technology.
Am not sure what issues others have had with subwoofer integration but has not been my experience. Can see if you get too myopic about how good your room measures, yo may be disappointed. As i also mentioned, some recordings have bass issues. If one has not heard real bass extension previously, some of it can be off and foresee that the system takes the blame for compromised source material.
OP
jmdesignz2
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2025
- Messages
- 384
- Likes
- 190
- Thread Starter
- #54
True
If someone has been listening to loudness enhanced inaccurate speakers and source material then a flat and accurate system can sound a bit thin with some recordings or even incredibly shrill
My experience too.
I am not one that experiments all the time, I prefer just enjoying music.
But as I was setting up my current system a few years back, at first I set up a single sub and went by the traditional sub setup advice. I walked around and listened from different spots, I moved the sub around a but here and there... and when it sounded "right" I just let it be.
Then I got ambitious and set up "stereo" subs, crossing them over at 160Hz. And it sounded pathetic. So bring in the Dirac tool. I set up things like that, and it sounded OK, but I didn't feel I was getting any more insights, and if anything, things sounded quite different as I walked around, more variability there.
So I went back to the single sub extactly the way it was, and Dirac was quite happy with it, imagine that, but we optimized things a bit further with positioning and speaker toe-in. And I emphasize "a bit", it was nowhere near a huge improvement. I know I do have a pretty benign room, so I am lucky in that respect.
But I also don't think setting up a sub is so complex that it negatively impacts things frequently. I'd claim integrating big honking speakers that integrate sub-bass into real world rooms is often more complicated than integrating two good bookshelves and a sub.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,310
- Likes
- 1,107
I had my first sub mid 90s, and was sold on the value of subs. As you know, until very recently, many had a no "real" audiophile used subs attitude. I had such an attitude until I visited my local dealer and listened to a quality sub set up right and left with a sub that day.
I just went through a big sub integration process with a deep dive into measurements, stereo bass, learning multiple software (2 MSO programs, REW, Rephase and DIRAC DBLC) and working with 2, 3, and 4 subwoofers and mains that play flat to 38 Hz. My final setup, which I am quite happy with, ended up being mains co-located with 2 subs and stereo bass. It was not the "smoothest measured response" but it is my preference at this point. I may play around with DIRAC ART or a DBA at some point later since I have the extra subs.
This experience has show me that 2 full range speakers are the foundation of a good stereo system. It is certainly possible to add subs to a system that does not have enough bass to begin with but if you are starting from scratch I would much rather get 2 full range speakers (or as closes as you can afford to full range) and only add subs to try to even out room modes rather than adding bass. YMMV.
Last edited:
The LS60 is a good choice not only because it is a great speaker, but also its active so you don't need extra gear AND it has EQ built in so you can have the sound balance exactly as you like it. Far more user adjustability than any of the passive speakers mentioned.KEF LS60 available for right around $4K depending on where you shop, and whether you can go secondhand.
You are really at a tricky price point because there are a lot of strong options at or near it. Unfortunately we ASR folk tend to make these decisions harder, not easier.
Can you demo any of them?
The LS60 is probably very good, as long as you are not concerned with longevity. Operating them absolutely requires the app. And that requires KEF to stay in business, to keep updating the app and to keep supporting the product for however long you intend to use it. It also requires Apple and Google to not introduce any major architecture changes that permanently break compatibility. In that respect, the "smart" offerings from KEF are not HiFi equipment as we understand it, but rather consumer electronics like tablets or streaming boxes.
None of this is hypothetical, btw, all of it has happened already to other devices.
The LS60 does not need the app to work. It will need it to make changes like sub crossover or EQ settings. But, it has a remote control and you can always connect other devices to it. So, in 10 years if Airplay, Tidal/Spotify connect, or the built in apps no longer exist you can still connect an eternal device to it and control the source selection and volume with the remote. It does not turn into a big paper weight. This is also true of many smart TVs. A number of them after a few years their built in apps are no long supported. I was at a customers yesterday and said Hulu on their TV app no longer worked. Solution, add a streaming box, Roku, Apple TV, Firestick, etc. They had already done that and I have seen that happen many times with TVs.
It is certainly possible the built in apps will no longer work someday. Maybe there will be a new technology so Airplay and the various Connect service no longer work. But, you will always be able to connect an external device and the speaker will still work. Hopefully, even an old version of the app will let you make changes for EQ, etc.
It is certainly possible the built in apps will no longer work someday. Maybe there will be a new technology so Airplay and the various Connect service no longer work. But, you will always be able to connect an external device and the speaker will still work. Hopefully, even an old version of the app will let you make changes for EQ, etc.