Do floorstanding speakers present more realistic imaging than bookshelf speakers?

[Will2campb]

Today, in a review of the Triangle Espirit Antal EZ, Amirm stated:

As a way of comparison, I put my Revel M16 next to the Triangle on a stand. While tonality and to some extent clarity was better on the Revel, the sound was clearly localized to a smaller source vertically, leaving a preference for the Triangle for the larger, more realistic image it portrayed.

Do floorstanding speakers offer a larger, more realistic image? If so, why? And what measurements are relevant to creating a large, realistic image?

 

[Ricardojoa]

Probably the speakers need to have different position setting to create the best soundstage and image in your listening spot.

 

[Sancus]

Sighted listening is sighted.

 

[richard12511]

For me, it's the opposite. Floorstanders don't image as well as bookshelfs, because their drivers are spread out over more distance. This is one of the very few real sonic advantages bookshelfs have imo. Towers are better in pretty much every other way, though, and better overall.

This is one of those things that I think is different between mono and stereo. @Duke talked about it in another thread. In stereo, point source is a positive, as it improves the imaging, and the disappearing comes for free by the magic of stereo. In mono, point source is a negative, as it's a dead giveaway where the sound is coming from. You want your speakers to disappear, and without the illusion of stereo, towers do that better. Your brain has more trouble pinpointing the apparent source of the sound when that source is spread out over 50 inches.

 

[VintageFlanker]

While tonality and to some extent clarity was better on the Revel, the sound was clearly localized to a smaller source vertically, leaving a preference for the Triangle for the larger, more realistic image it portrayed.

Do floorstanding speakers offer a larger, more realistic image?

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge:
Imaging ≠ Soundstage

Stereo imaging would be related to what is going on between the speakers. Soundstage being all over the room.

There, Imaging would be the center "stereo field", the rest being soundstage.

 

[MZKM]

I think Amir just meant with the deeper extension, it provided more soundstage in the bass.

 

[richard12511]

I think Amir just meant with the deeper extension, it provided more soundstage in the bass.

Oddly though, the NFS says the M16 has 10Hz better bass extension than the Antal.

 

[Harmonie]

For me, it's the opposite. Floorstanders don't image as well as bookshelfs, because their drivers are spread out over more distance. This is one of the very few real sonic advantages bookshelfs have imo. Towers are better in pretty much every other way, though, and better overall.

This is one of those things that I think is different between mono and stereo. @Duke talked about it in another thread. In stereo, point source is a positive, as it improves the imaging, and the disappearing comes for free by the magic of stereo. In mono, point source is a negative, as it's a dead giveaway where the sound is coming from. You want your speakers to disappear, and without the illusion of stereo, towers do that better. Your brain has more trouble pinpointing the apparent source of the sound when that source is spread out over 50 inches.

Point source is what Cabasse was after since long with their coaxial speaker design

 

[restorer-john]

And what measurements are relevant to creating a large, realistic image?

The max distance between the drivers would be a good start.

This:

Versus this:

 

[VintageFlanker]

Oddly though, the NFS says the M16 has 10Hz better bass extension than the Antal.

I'm still not convinced by Klippel NFS ability to measure floorstanders bass accurately...

See the F328Bee review...

 

[Ricardojoa]

The max distance between the drivers would be a good start.

This:
View attachment 121855

Versus this:
View attachment 121856

What if a speaker that have different drivers but exact same cabinet specs?

 

[muad]

Oddly though, the NFS says the M16 has 10Hz better bass extension than the Antal.

Could more drivers spread out over a larger area have a greater affects than purely measured bass extension? Maybe it's not just bass, but everything under 300hz having greater representation throughout the room? A more even sound field from more sources? Also, if the woofers are closer to the ground, how does that factor into the same design with the woofer closer to the mid?

Also a bigger, and sometimes less stiff box. Does that add to the perceived radiating area?

I know it's anecdotal, but so often the floor stander vs bookshelf speaker, larger sound concept is talked about. I would love a scientific explanation for it.

My current dual 8in floor standers go deep and the woofers are low slung. I really want to try dual LS50s, with stereo high crossed subs to try and see if I can create that larger than life sound of my floor standers. It would answer many questions.

 

[richard12511]

Could more drivers spread out over a larger area have a greater affects than purely measured bass extension?

I think so. Harman science says that flat bass is what's preferred, but if you look at the big Revel towers, most of them aren't actually neutral in the bass, but rather rolled off. I think what's going on is they're compensating for the fact that the bass drivers in the tower will be closer to the ground, and thus more room gain. Their bookshelf speakers don't seem to show as much bass roll off. This is just a guess of mine. Most of the best actives seem to be following the flat bass science, though most are bookshelfs.

Also, I think the fact they generally have multiple woofers spread out in space should lead to slightly smoother in room bass. Same concept as having multiple subs. The woofers obviously aren't as spread out as multiple separate subs can be, so the benefit won't be as large, but I would expect it to still be there, especially in the upper bass.

A more even sound field from more sources?

Exactly!

 

[richard12511]

I'm still not convinced by Klippel NFS ability to measure floorstanders bass accurately...

See the F328Bee review...

I'm 95% sure the NFS is wrong for the F328Be. Speaking of that speaker, the NFS says that the M16 also beats it in terms of bass extension.

My hope is that we can figure out what's causing this error, and then Klippel can fix it with a software update.

 

[Racheski]

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge:
Imaging ≠ Soundstage

Stereo imaging would be related to what is going on between the speakers. Soundstage being all over the room.View attachment 121854
There, Imaging would be the center "stereo field", the rest being soundstage.

THANK YOU. Someone has actually explained the difference between soundstage and imaging clearly. Until someone has a better definition, I'm going with this.

 

[Emlin]

THANK YOU. Someone has actually explained the difference between soundstage and imaging clearly. Until someone has a better definition, I'm going with this.

Soundstage is the width and depth (maybe height also) of the presentation. Imaging is how precisely instruments etc are located in the soundstage.

 

[Daverz]

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge:
Imaging ≠ Soundstage

Stereo imaging would be related to what is going on between the speakers. Soundstage being all over the room.View attachment 121854
There, Imaging would be the center "stereo field", the rest being soundstage.

Is that your own image?

 

[More Dynamics Please]

For clarity, @amirm specified only the vertical plane in the comparison of the M16 and Triangle, not width and depth:

As a way of comparison, I put my Revel M16 next to the Triangle on a stand. While tonality and to some extent clarity was better on the Revel, the sound was clearly localized to a smaller source vertically, leaving a preference for the Triangle for the larger, more realistic image it portrayed.

 

[Racheski]

Soundstage is the width and depth (maybe height also) of the presentation. Imaging is how precisely instruments etc are located in the soundstage.

Yeah that makes sense too - ugh.

 

[Jim Matthews]

The most cohesive image I've heard at home was from Quad ESL63.

The most believable Soundstage was from Magnepan MMG (and I had owned larger versions).

Neither replicated live performances for me, where acoustic performances often competed with reinforcement amplification. Both had real problems that lead me to smaller, dynamic drivers.

At this (late) stage of the game, tone and dynamics trump the illusion of players in my music room.