Yeah. Those would.My stand mounts can bolt to the stands...
Questionable.
-
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!
Stand-mounted vs. Floorstanding
- Thread starter Roy_L
- Start date
My stand mounts can bolt to the stands...
From a pic in another post, I see that you have a cat. They can knock speakers off their stands, and even knock over attached speakers+stands or towers with narrow-plinths.
I have two cats, so they perfectly cancel each other out.
/s
And...the good thing about those FUGLY monitors is that I could probably just pick it back up and put it back on the stand and it'd be fine.
On the other end of the spectrum, I will happily admit I have an unreasonable disdain for towers
. Key word being unreasonable; I can't think of any truly great arguments reasons why, but I'll express myself anyway.
First things first: I don't get the point of towers that aren't truly full range. I became an audiophile through headphones first, which just about all have real extension into the 20s. So spending the extra money on towers that don't have extension to the 20s seems absurd to me. I would take bookshelf+sub over a tower that only reaches into the 40s or 30s -6dB every time. I listen to everything, including a lot of hip hop, rap, pop, and electronic music that has plenty of content in the 20s. Even classical, which makes up half of my listening, feels incomplete without good sub-bass (especially orchestral works or anything with an organ).
But the OP did specify a theoretical cost no object scenario, so some other very subjective reasoning for me:
While I like to talk about pure sound quality and blind tests here a lot, I'm also the first to admit that aesthetics and other subjective factors are a big factor for me. I just try to keep those issues separate when I can.
. Key word being unreasonable; I can't think of any truly great arguments reasons why, but I'll express myself anyway.First things first: I don't get the point of towers that aren't truly full range. I became an audiophile through headphones first, which just about all have real extension into the 20s. So spending the extra money on towers that don't have extension to the 20s seems absurd to me. I would take bookshelf+sub over a tower that only reaches into the 40s or 30s -6dB every time. I listen to everything, including a lot of hip hop, rap, pop, and electronic music that has plenty of content in the 20s. Even classical, which makes up half of my listening, feels incomplete without good sub-bass (especially orchestral works or anything with an organ).
But the OP did specify a theoretical cost no object scenario, so some other very subjective reasoning for me:
- Small speakers disappear more. It's very hard for me to ignore big speakers and I never feel like I get the full stereo illusion with them. Big speakers always shout at you that sound is coming out of two big speakers. Maybe this would be better if I were the type of person to close my eyes while listening.
- The above makes me feel like bookshelves image better, even if I don't have a real reason to believe that in reality. But it's my sighted impression, and obviously that's how we all listen.
- I think most towers are truly ugly. Another reason it might be better if I closed my eyes while listening. I know many feel the opposite though, and I agree some bookshelf+stand pairings are not very aesthetic either.
- This one is obviously very personal, but reviewing, measuring, and shipping towers is a pain .
- Another silly, but nevertheless meaningful one for me: It's much more exciting to hear big sound out of small speakers. Big sound out of big speakers, so what? Big sound out of speakers smaller than my toaster? Now that's something.
While I like to talk about pure sound quality and blind tests here a lot, I'm also the first to admit that aesthetics and other subjective factors are a big factor for me. I just try to keep those issues separate when I can.
Last edited:
Bear123
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2019
- Messages
- 796
- Likes
- 1,388
Towers vs bookshelves is partly a matter of opinion, but, whatever a bookshelf can do, a tower does better. And its not a matter of crossing to subs or not....all speakers should be crossed to subs for folks interested in optimal sound quality and high fidelity. Two speakers without subs, wether bookshelf or towers, will almost always be low fidelity regardless of how low the speaker plays.
Playing low is only half the equation. The other half is providing a smooth, accurate frequency response, which is required for high fidelity. This is almost never accomplished with an antiquated 2.0 channel system. Dual subs properly placed for an even response accomplish what speakers placed for imaging cannot. They provide better, higher fidelity bass with lower distortion and reduce the load on one's AVR or amp. My current subs can play louder than I can tolerate(above reference level) with below 1% distortion, powered by over 1,000 watts to each sub. This cannot be accomplished by any home speaker at any price.
Even if crossed to subs, I prefer tower speakers. First, because I think it is silly to have to precariously mount bookshelf speakers on stands to get them to the correct height. Second, even when crossed to subs as even towers should be, 2-3x as much cone area vs a bookshelf will result in lower distortion and higher output capability with better sound quality at anything above moderate volume.
So imo, towers with subs is better than bookshelf with subs. They look better and play louder with lower distortion since you have 2-3 woofers playing the challenging 80-300 Hz range vs one.
Its unfortunate that so many still think 2 speakers without subs are high fidelity. So much being missed.
Of course, if someone simply prefers the look of a bookshelf on a stand, or can financially afford the bookshelf vs the tower version, then these are perfectly good reasons for bookshelf speakers. Or, you know, if they are actually going on a bookshelf.
Playing low is only half the equation. The other half is providing a smooth, accurate frequency response, which is required for high fidelity. This is almost never accomplished with an antiquated 2.0 channel system. Dual subs properly placed for an even response accomplish what speakers placed for imaging cannot. They provide better, higher fidelity bass with lower distortion and reduce the load on one's AVR or amp. My current subs can play louder than I can tolerate(above reference level) with below 1% distortion, powered by over 1,000 watts to each sub. This cannot be accomplished by any home speaker at any price.
Even if crossed to subs, I prefer tower speakers. First, because I think it is silly to have to precariously mount bookshelf speakers on stands to get them to the correct height. Second, even when crossed to subs as even towers should be, 2-3x as much cone area vs a bookshelf will result in lower distortion and higher output capability with better sound quality at anything above moderate volume.
So imo, towers with subs is better than bookshelf with subs. They look better and play louder with lower distortion since you have 2-3 woofers playing the challenging 80-300 Hz range vs one.
Its unfortunate that so many still think 2 speakers without subs are high fidelity. So much being missed.
Of course, if someone simply prefers the look of a bookshelf on a stand, or can financially afford the bookshelf vs the tower version, then these are perfectly good reasons for bookshelf speakers. Or, you know, if they are actually going on a bookshelf.
Last edited:
Nope, you all ready have 2 pussy-cats.
They can be just like being married, mine even bitched when I went to the bar.
I have to put feet on my stands and pull hard....but that is a piano type finish so it may adhere better than a wood grain would now that I think about it
Dimitri
Senior Member
Has anyone said Yes , yet ?
Problem with stand mounts is they're all limited to some extent in SPL. Big towers with multiple drivers can pump out the SPL.
Separate subwoofers do offer the flexibly of best placement, and multiple subs allow positioning to even out the rooms peaks and nulls. I'm not happy with having to use standmounts but the room and gear placement make it almost mandatory.
Separate subwoofers do offer the flexibly of best placement, and multiple subs allow positioning to even out the rooms peaks and nulls. I'm not happy with having to use standmounts but the room and gear placement make it almost mandatory.
The OP title alone is asking several questions at once.
Floorstanding speakers usually save space. For an equivalent cabinet volume, floorstanding speakers take up less floor space than most equivalent bookshelf models.
Without going into detail, the larger woofer has numerous advantages in maintaining linearity and mechanical stability over a given stroke length. The displacement requirement is an inverse square to frequency, so a small "long-stroke" driver can only offer so much LF output. The upper bandwidth of a larger driver will be limited as the wavelengths grow smaller relative to the radiating area.
As for other points:
Hoffman's Law describes the performance of a closed box. It is perfectly possible to cheat Hoffman's formula with an EBS alignment, but this obscures the larger point, that cabinet size, LF performance, and mass-controlled sensitivity are all closely related.
Boundary interference, such as the floor bounce, can be understood by placing a second "image" speaker mirrored over any hard walls, as particle velocity must collapse at walls. You can determine out the resulting interference by summing the real speaker with the image speaker. If the wavelength involved is very long compared to the separation of the real and image sources, then you should not expect any strong interference nulls.
Floorstanding speakers usually save space. For an equivalent cabinet volume, floorstanding speakers take up less floor space than most equivalent bookshelf models.
Without going into detail, the larger woofer has numerous advantages in maintaining linearity and mechanical stability over a given stroke length. The displacement requirement is an inverse square to frequency, so a small "long-stroke" driver can only offer so much LF output. The upper bandwidth of a larger driver will be limited as the wavelengths grow smaller relative to the radiating area.
As for other points:
Hoffman's Law describes the performance of a closed box. It is perfectly possible to cheat Hoffman's formula with an EBS alignment, but this obscures the larger point, that cabinet size, LF performance, and mass-controlled sensitivity are all closely related.
Boundary interference, such as the floor bounce, can be understood by placing a second "image" speaker mirrored over any hard walls, as particle velocity must collapse at walls. You can determine out the resulting interference by summing the real speaker with the image speaker. If the wavelength involved is very long compared to the separation of the real and image sources, then you should not expect any strong interference nulls.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how that's easier than just moving the speaker on a stand...
Plus my (butt ugly, I admit) JBL's have such handy handles! I think the old HSU Sub's make a good stand...
Yes, I'm single...
View attachment 54600
That is a really unique surround speaker you have in the corner of the room. I'm guessing good for highs + mids, but not great for bass. Have you experimented with any room EQ or placement?
That is a really unique surround speaker you have in the corner of the room. I'm guessing good for highs + mids, but not great for bass. Have you experimented with any room EQ or placement?
View attachment 54621
That would be hard to EQ!
That's a resting place for an unused pair of Paradigm studio 40's...need to get them downstairs...
That's one of the surrounds...on another janky stand
Why would you want a tower with the same cabinet size as a standmount?
Trouble Maker
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Could you mount it behind the TV when the TV is in the up position, so when the TV is down it is just above the TV? You could even put it on some kind of mount that also extends out to get it flush in the Y-axis to the TV. I'm just assuming you will only use it when you are watching TV, unless you are doing multi channel audio too.
There really isn't room behind it...but as I look at it, a sliding shelf that comes out of the fireplace might be an interesting option... I can keep the glass doors closed when not in use, then roll out that ugly beauty as needed.
Many call them bookshelf speakers, but they are actually stand-mount speakers. Bookshelf speakers save space if you place them on an existing shelf, but they normally do not sound good on a bookshelf. So we move them out onto a stand - where they take up as much space as towers.
@napilopez Napier made some good points - but he is a reviewer with speakers coming and going. @Kal Rubinson is also a reviewer, but he doesn't like stand-mount speakers. Nor do I. And I don't like rectangular speakers with sharp corners - so I am considering the Wharfedale D330 towers...
These are all subjective "visual" preferences - and there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect.
Gotcha, was thinking more of today's typical slender tower, whereas was thinking more of a proper large tower. There are some towers with little advantage over even a bookshelf with similar sized drivers and still roughly take up the same footprint. Not too many standmounts these days with 12" woofers either.
Similar threads
