# Floorstander vs. Bookshelf for HT



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

Im currently shopping for my HT system, i dont have a huge budget all at one time but plan on piecing it together. I want to start with a receiver and front speakers, the receiver ive chosen is the Onkyo SR707, and im pretty much set on going with Paradigm fronts, center, and rears, and possibly a Velodyn sub....Anyways fellas, i am trying to make my mind up on either the Studio 20's (for fronts) or maybe the Monitor 7's or 9's...What do u guys think, it will be mainly for HT and of course the occational music listening


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

If your planning to use it for both I personally would go with floor standers (towers) I fund them better for full range music as they usually have better midrange sound and simply look better as well.


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

Thats kinda what ive been thinking too, i wanna check out the newer Paradigm line they have now , the SE's


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

It is my personal opinion but its always b etter to spend more on towers than to use bookshelves for the front speakers. They generally just sound better unless your budget is really low.


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

Thanks alot


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Me too,... I prefer floor standers. Generally you'll spend more for them than an equivalent bookshelf but I think it's worth it. Lots of pros and cons for both bookshelf and floor standing but as usual the only thing that really matters is if "you" like the sound of the speaker


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

nova said:


> Me too,... I prefer floor standers. Generally you'll spend more for them than an equivalent bookshelf but I think it's worth it. Lots of pros and cons for both bookshelf and floor standing but as usual the only thing that really matters is if "you" like the sound of the speaker


Yeah, i really want to audition some more speakers, i heard the studio 20's and were very impressed with them, just worried about down the road when i get a bigger house whether or not they will fill the room like a floorstander will


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Studio 20's are special speakers and definitely have nicer components than the SE or Monitor Series as they are part of the Reference line.

I would also look for used Studio 100's. Especially V.2's. I used to own a 5.1 Paradigm Studio Series system before switching to all Martin Logans. Sometimes I miss the power of the 100's.

The V2's weigh over 100 pounds each which is 20 pounds more than the V3. They really are, to many, the best of the Studio Series. And, they are usually available for around 1000 Dollars.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

I might have to look into that also, thanks


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Apparently, I'm the heretic of the group -- I will almost always go with a bookshelf over a floorstander at most price points. There is a fairly big assumption here -- you'll be getting a sub at some point.

And if you're looking between the Studio 20 and the Monitor 7 or 9, the published frequency ranges are:

Studio 20 -- +/-2dbs from 54hz-22khz
Monitor 90 -- +/-2dbs from 51hz-22khz

The monitors are a lot more sensitive, but unless you have a really large room, I don't think you'll need that extra loudness -- and, I'll say with some degree of confidence, the studio 20's will sound better/cleaner/etc.

I also prefer bookshelves because it's usually more flexible in where they can go.
I also prefer bookshelves because you can use them for the center speaker providing a perfect tonal balance across the front three speakers.

This is not to say that if I had unlimited funds I wouldn't go for a floorstander -- but I'm talking much more money than we're talking about here (or could spend myself).

Anyway, there's my $0.02


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Believe me, you are not a heretic. I was alluding to the superior componentry in the Studio 20. And there are some unbelievably expensive Bookshelf sized Speakers. For instance the 14K Focal Diablo Utopia. Many Audiophiles prefer Monitor sized Speakers and they have certain advantages. 

A major advantage is a less complex crossover network. In addition, less drivers means no issues with timing issues with the multiple drivers. What is known as smear.

That being said, it is hard to expect a great deal of bass from speakers with reduced cabinet volume. Then again, with HT, the use of a subwoofer is almost compulsory. However, if a 2 Channel purist, it will require a quality subwoofer with excellent placement to blend well with a monitor sized speaker in a music focused setup.

Certainly an excellent way to go with HT would be 5 matching high quality Monitor sized Speakers with a quality Subwoofer. In this instance, you would have true timbre matching.

Personally, I use Electrostatic Speakers so I cannot use that size of Speaker. Nonetheless, the Center Channel certainly is not a true timbre match to my towers. Martin Logan did the best they could to make it match, but my Stage is a much smaller Speaker than my Vantages.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

I've not worked with the v5, but based on previous studio versions: the cabinets have increasing resonance problems as you move up the chain from the 20's. The 20s are definately my favs in the Studio line (and the S2 in the sig).

Since the 20's go well below any sane crossover point: the only issue with them would be stereo-bass and bass coherency. The solution to that is not a tower: but an external crossover and stereo subs. You'll get better sound for the money that way.


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

I am going to be running a sub for sure, please explain what the x-over can do , im not familiar with what that is ??


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

For 2 channel material or purist HiFi a good pair of floorstanders are hard to beat with the relevant calibre of electronics partnering them, but when it comes to home cinema sat/sub systems make a lot of sense and especially if you have an awkward room for acoustics, sealed monitors can be placed close to the boundaries and xovers matched more evenly and all set to small, this is where I find my M&K system hard to beat, but I am tempted to go back to high quality floorstanders as I find myself listening to more music than ever...just concerned that I will miss the preformance that I have obtained with my M&K system for movies :scratch:


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Pretty much all AV Receivers have built in crossovers. There are also standalone crossovers as well.
A crossover is just that the crossing over from one speaker driver to another in a multidriver speaker or the crossing over of the entire speaker to a subwoofer in a HT application.

Generally when crossing over to a subwoofer, the lower the crossover point, the better as most subwoofers do not operate optimally at higher frequencies. This is why THX's recommended crossover point is 80 Hz. In some instances, lower is better, but some speakers cannot output much below 80 Hz. Unfortunately, many tiny satellite speakers are so small they need to be crossed over at 120 Hz or higher where a subwoofer really does not sound its best.

With multidriver speakers, the crossover points and the quality of the components in the crossover can make a difference in sound quality. This is why with budget speakers, many audiophiles prefer as few drivers as possible as it means less crossover points.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

1sickss said:


> I am going to be running a sub for sure, please explain what the x-over can do , im not familiar with what that is ??


Look at the front of most speakers and you will see that there is more than one driver (your average bookshelf has two). Because different drivers are better at producing sounds in certain frequencies, the sound from your audio source is split up into "ranges". Simplified "low", "mid", and "high".

The problem that many above are discussing with music listening on bookshelves is that, generally speaking, they cannot produce as good a "low" as a comparable tower.

A subwoofer can generally produce a far better low than the comparable tower, but when driven the way most people set it up, the stereo "low" is channeled into a mono subwoofwer and sonic cohesion is broken. This is why you see the recommendatiosn for towers.

But towers require far more bracing than bookshelves to avoid resonance... and so they introduce sound problems all their own.

The solution? Make bookshelves that can produce low frequencies? How? It's simple. A $70 CX external crossover will take a stereo signal and break it in to "high-mid" and "low" for you. You buy two subs, stick your bookshelves right above them, and use the CX to break the signal so you have a "left sub" and "right sub".

You now have two towers: but the mid and high will have far less problem with cabinet resonance, and the low will extend farther than a comparably priced tower would.

People post about "towers for music"... well music covers the full frequency range. Why get a tower that can do most of the job when for less money (since you are buying one sub anyway) you can create two true full-range speakers, and be dual sub (great for standing wave problems) to boot?


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Jungle Jack said:


> Pretty much all AV Receivers have built in crossovers.


 Yes, but that particular corssover is extremely limited: only capable of making a monoaural LFE from an arbitrary number of channels. 

For the best sound, the L/R speakers need to be made to go low: and that's done with L/R subs, which requires an external crossover.
Well: that or full range speakers. But I suspect things like 802D's are out of the budget being discussed.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

As I said, there are standalone crossovers as well. And I think you are right, Diamond tweeter based B&W's are probably out of the OP's pricerange. Lovely Speakers though they are.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Even with the best subwoofer, a bookshelf speaker can only do so well in the 80-250hz range when a single midwoofer is having to cover everything from say ~2500hz on down. What ends up happening is that a great subwoofer highlights how much that upper bass area is actually lacking with bookshelves, as their is a gap in capability in terms of dynamics and harmonic distortion. 

Go for floorstanders and still get a great subwoofer.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

I suppose I should also admit, in fairness, that my suggestion requires more tinkering than just buying towers (or bookshelves without creating stereo subs). I would love to see AVRs start offering L/R subs as an option, but presntly they do not (sad, because it would be relatively simple).

The low-pass filter can be faked by using standard outs (like tape out) on an AVR and letting the sub's low-pass filter do the work: but I can't think of a way to fool the AVR into being a high-pass filter without loosing LFE for surrounds.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

In reality each channel in a HT system should be full range and therefore really would require 5 subs to accommodate the full range signals going to each speaker, but for most that just is not possible and even the majority of floor standers would not do a convincing job of conveying the full range signal anyway...


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> Even with the best subwoofer, a bookshelf speaker can only do so well in the 80-250hz range when a single midwoofer is having to cover everything from say ~2500hz on down. What ends up happening is that a great subwoofer highlights how much that upper bass area is actually lacking with bookshelves, as their is a gap in capability in terms of dynamics and harmonic distortion.


 Really? Can you explain how this glaring omission fails to show up on FR charts? Perhaps you could also explain how a 3-way floor-stander does what a 3-way bookshelf+sub does not? Or are you asserting that a 4-way is neccessairy for mid-bass? And with matched bookshelves-subs, I'd likely raise the crossover frequency regardless. But I'd have to look at the responses of the individual units.

Finally, and here's one basic problem with "towers+subs". You've raised the cost, or lowered the quality of the units involved. Bookshelves are cheaper than comparable towers. To get towers+subs over bookshelves+subs, you either need to go with lower-end towers or, and this is the same difference, spend more money that would have allowed higher end bookshelves.

Of course I cannot guarentee that any individual case will hold true. Look at individual speakers and decide. But I've had more than one bad experience with resonance on expensive ($1600 per pair) speakers, and it's become something I actively look to avoid... though once we hit about $3k for the front 2, there'a a tower-sub combination I think I would like/recommend involving CM7's.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

recruit said:


> In reality each channel in a HT system should be full range and therefore really would require 5 subs to accommodate the full range signals going to each speaker, but for most that just is not possible and even the majority of floor standers would not do a convincing job of conveying the full range signal anyway...


 In a perfect world, yes. I would assert, however, that the L/R channels are the most signifigant to the end experience... with the acknolwledgement that the center channel's ability to match the L/R in frequency ranges are "directional" will also be very signifignat for movies.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
This thread is kinda getting off the rails. With the OP's situation, a pair of Floorstanders with the ability to produce meaningful bass down to 60 Hz would probably be the way to start off. Low frequency extension is rated down to 40 Hz on the Monitor 7's as well. As he said, he is piecing it together so a quality pair of Floorstanders would at least allow better HT and music reproduction until he can afford a subwoofer. And Center and Surround Speakers.

Studio 20's are lovely Speakers, but are best when augmented by a Subwoofer. While they do boast higher quality components, the Monitor Series are still of a high quality. Furthermore, the matching Speakers to the Monitor 7's are much less expensive than the Studio Series.

Yes, going the DIY route would offer better value, but not everyone is comfortable or has the time or equipment or experience to do so. Moreover, Paradigms offer stellar resale value and will be easy to sell in the future if funds permit a upgrade in the future.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

JerryLove said:


> In a perfect world, yes. I would assert, however, that the L/R channels are the most signifigant to the end experience... with the acknolwledgement that the center channel's ability to match the L/R in frequency ranges are "directional" will also be very signifignat for movies.


personally I could not imagine 5 x my M&K MX5100's in my place now as the foundations would probably crumble, but in the perfect room saying big enough and NO limit on cost then there is a few ideas I could employ most certainly :whistling:


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

JerryLove said:


> Look at the front of most speakers and you will see that there is more than one driver (your average bookshelf has two). Because different drivers are better at producing sounds in certain frequencies, the sound from your audio source is split up into "ranges". Simplified "low", "mid", and "high".
> 
> The problem that many above are discussing with music listening on bookshelves is that, generally speaking, they cannot produce as good a "low" as a comparable tower.
> 
> ...


After much thought, this approach is what I am taking. I plan to use nice (discounted) 2 way bookshelves atop individual sealed 12" sonosub bass bins for my front three, hope it works out:whistling:

Seems like the OP will have plenty of ideas after reading all the varied feedback-lots of options, never ending, I guess.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

ironglen said:


> After much thought, this approach is what I am taking. I plan to use nice (discounted) 2 way bookshelves atop individual sealed 12" sonosub bass bins for my front three, hope it works out:whistling:


 If you run into problems with comb filtering from monaural LF sound, remember that the subs do not need to be directly below the L/R speakers. The goal is to keep them within 1/2 wavelength of the crossover point. Moving them inside the L/R position (closer together) can elminate comb problems if they occur (I've not had such a problem with my own setup).

See: http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#twosubwoofers

Please let me know your impressions when you get setup.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

JerryLove said:


> Look at the front of most speakers and you will see that there is more than one driver (your average bookshelf has two). Because different drivers are better at producing sounds in certain frequencies, the sound from your audio source is split up into "ranges". Simplified "low", "mid", and "high".
> 
> The problem that many above are discussing with music listening on bookshelves is that, generally speaking, they cannot produce as good a "low" as a comparable tower.
> 
> ...


This is a very good way to go. You get a three way speaker that is braced better (most of the time) and it will go a lot lower with more SPL. I did this for a while, but I wanted more bass so I made more subs. I have a sub below every speaker (5.1) I have all the subs on the LFE channel and I cross all of my speakers to the subs at 100Hz. With subs at all five locations there is no localization problem. Also rather than having a one, two or three small (8" or less) drivers producing the bass as would be the case with a tower speaker I have six drivers producing that same material. With this method there is no problem hitting reference level even using small speakers.


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> This thread is kinda getting off the rails. With the OP's situation, a pair of Floorstanders with the ability to produce meaningful bass down to 60 Hz would probably be the way to start off. Low frequency extension is rated down to 40 Hz on the Monitor 7's as well. As he said, he is piecing it together so a quality pair of Floorstanders would at least allow better HT and music reproduction until he can afford a subwoofer. And Center and Surround Speakers.
> 
> Studio 20's are lovely Speakers, but are best when augmented by a Subwoofer. While they do boast higher quality components, the Monitor Series are still of a high quality. Furthermore, the matching Speakers to the Monitor 7's are much less expensive than the Studio Series.
> ...



That is kinda what i was wondering too, i love the studio 20's , but i would think that a pair of surrounds , or even the center channel from the monitor series would be a good match with the 20's....Im keep going back and forth, but i may go with the Monitor 9's or even the newer SE-3 floorstander that are kind of a comination of the monitor series and the references....Thanks alot for all the help and info fellas


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

1sickss said:


> That is kinda what i was wondering too, i love the studio 20's , but i would think that a pair of surrounds , or even the center channel from the monitor series would be a good match with the 20's....Im keep going back and forth, but i may go with the Monitor 9's or even the newer SE-3 floorstander that are kind of a comination of the monitor series and the references....Thanks alot for all the help and info fellas


 Good luck. The Studio 20 is, in my opinion, one of Paradigm's best: but you will want to include at least one sub for LFE.


----------



## 1sickss (Dec 24, 2009)

Is it more important to try and match a center within the same series (meaning reference studio) than it would be the rear surrounds, im sure i could find a nice center channel in the classified ads on here to save a little $....what do u think?


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

JerryLove said:


> Really? Can you explain how this glaring omission fails to show up on FR charts? Perhaps you could also explain how a 3-way floor-stander does what a 3-way bookshelf+sub does not? Or are you asserting that a 4-way is neccessairy for mid-bass? And with matched bookshelves-subs, I'd likely raise the crossover frequency regardless. But I'd have to look at the responses of the individual units.


It would fail to show up on a FR measurement because a FR measuremnt is usually taken at a relatively low amplitude - typically 1 watt and 1 meter. What you would want to take a look at is a compression test (FR sweep at ever increasing amplitudes) and a THD measurement by frequency. As the volume starts increasing, the first range to start compressing in a two way bookshelf will typically be the lower octaves. Additionally, the amount of cone travel needed for a single midwoofer to keep up in the lower octaves increases exponentially, as will the THD. Assuming an 80hz crossover with two way bookshelves and a great subwoofer, the 80-250hz range is almost always the weakest link.

Now if you are referring to 3 and 4 way bookshelves, then that's a different story. The difference between a small cabinet and a large cabinet will mainly play a role only <80hz. I thought we were talking about something like the Paradigm Studio 20 however, as previous posts were referring to it as the generic bookshelf.

Of the speakers that I know of, in order to get enough cone area for the woofer section in a 3 or 4 way, you're basically going to have to go floorstander - I don't know of too may large 3-way or 4-way bookshleves.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

1sickss said:


> Is it more important to try and match a center within the same series (meaning reference studio) than it would be the rear surrounds, im sure i could find a nice center channel in the classified ads on here to save a little $....what do u think?


Yes! Ideally you would want all of your speakers to be the same, but you definitely want the mains and center to be sonically matched. If the surrounds are not a match it is not nearly as noticeable. Most of us need to compromise in one way or another so I'd suggest you compromise on the surrounds not the center.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

OK. For argument, we can talk about a Studio 20, and (since it's the same line) a Sub 12 with the cutoff at, say 150Hz (I can't see any reason to go lower unless the sub is incapable of performing).

So I'm asking a speaker that does 54Hz at 1w at 1m to do 150Hz at, what's our top here? 10W is 100dB (average room), and 100W is 110db. 

This data isn't eay to find.
Here's a monitor 5 which seems fine at 95db at 100Hz: http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_monitor5/

Here's the S1, which is not what I would recommend, but seems fine at 95db at 100Hz:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/paradigm_signature_s1_v2/

Perhaps you can point me to a FR sweep of a Studio 20 (or the like) that will illustrate what you are talking about?


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

JerryLove said:


> I've not worked with the v5, but based on previous studio versions: the cabinets have increasing resonance problems as you move up the chain from the 20's. The 20s are definately my favs in the Studio line (and the S2 in the sig).
> 
> Since the 20's go well below any sane crossover point: the only issue with them would be stereo-bass and bass coherency. The solution to that is not a tower: but an external crossover and stereo subs. You'll get better sound for the money that way.


I agree whole heartedly. This is the approach I took (see My Equipment). I have had other bookshelf speakers but the Studio 20 is a great bang for the buck and they sound fantastic. They are a much better speaker than the Monitor series. I prefere the V.3, and with the stereo subs you can get a fuller range sound than with a floorstander. With adjustable time alignment in the crossover you can take care of any smearing problems. I use REW to set the crossover point for the flattest response.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

I don't think a FR Sweep is going to prove this, I think what is being mentioned is say music.

We have a 2 Speaker configuration, playing say...Dragon Force's Through the Fire and Flames. It illustrates a excellent point.

We have a multitude of sounds, first guitars which have a very wide frequency range, singers, drums, bassist, and the addition of a harmony guitar as well. So we have a total of 5 sources of sound with on average each one playing more than one sound at a time, disregarding the singer. In this scenerio we have a fast guitar, and the addition of a harmony playing off beat to the main guitar alot of times. At the same time we have a drummer that plays on sync as well as off sync to the guitarists'. Now we have a singer that has similar frequency range but different coloration of the sound.

Now try to make all those sounds using your voice. Now give it to a two way bookshelf at 75dB. Now raise it to 90dB. How can a tweeter accurately play all those high harmonics of at least 4 instruments very quickly while retaining the clarity of each individual one, let alone the mid-bass driver in the small enclosure accurately playing drums, kicks, vocals, 2 guitarists, and bass guitar in such a fast paced song? You do not get that great of a sound. Many of these great sounds are compressed due to the louder mid section that is so predominant in the music. Why? Because we have sonic reinforcement from the harmonic voice, guitar, harmony guitar and the occasional drum that is in the similar frequency range that leads a helping hand to the harmonic sound of the rest of the band. So this lower end of sound gets cut off from existence.

Im sorry but yes a higher yielding bookshelf in a small enclosure wont have as much bracing space available as the larger tower with the same amount as well as same sized drivers in it making it more susceptible to this resonance. But also design quality, as well as brand name quality will make a difference. 

Thats just my idea on it at least.

And to answer the question I would go with a nice floorstander, no one ever won the Smith vs Joe smoe contest with smaller speakers than the other neighbor.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

the_rookie said:


> I don't think a FR Sweep is going to prove this, I think what is being mentioned is say music.


 It's all just vibrating air. 

If Steve is correct in his premise (and I'm certainly willing to be corrected if he is), then the problem would be seen in a FR curve done at a higher SPL. 



> We have a multitude of sounds, first guitars which have a very wide frequency range, singers, drums, bassist, and the addition of a harmony guitar as well. So we have a total of 5 sources of sound with on average each one playing more than one sound at a time, disregarding the singer. In this scenerio we have a fast guitar, and the addition of a harmony playing off beat to the main guitar alot of times. At the same time we have a drummer that plays on sync as well as off sync to the guitarists'. Now we have a singer that has similar frequency range but different coloration of the sound.


 One insturment or an orchestra. It's irellevent. We have two (one left, one rght) electric waveforms we need to convert into sound. 



> Im sorry but yes a higher yielding bookshelf in a small enclosure wont have as much bracing space available as the larger tower with the same amount as well as same sized drivers in it making it more susceptible to this resonance. But also design quality, as well as brand name quality will make a difference.


 This is objectively an untrue conclusion. Cabinet resonance is regularly measured and is lower on similarly constructed bookshelves. The reason is because the shorter distances offer less distance for resonance to occur on, and give the soundwave less leverage agasint the corner. 

Which one is easier to bow? A 1' stick or a 10' stick that otherwise has the same dimensions? Same thing here.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

My point was a sine wave sweep is just one sound at any given time. When dealt multiple sounds at once is what needs to be tested as well. just because it can do 55hz-22khz at any given point in time doesnt mean it will play 55hz when dealt a 550hz, as well as 1100hz and 4400hz sound at the same time. which will happen as well as a number of other frequencies at the same frequency just different coloration.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

the_rookie said:


> My point was a sine wave sweep is just one sound at any given time. When dealt multiple sounds at once is what needs to be tested as well. just because it can do 55hz-22khz at any given point in time doesnt mean it will play 55hz when dealt a 550hz, as well as 1100hz and 4400hz sound at the same time. which will happen as well as a number of other frequencies at the same frequency just different coloration.


And this is why the higher up the tree of high end speakers they get better, I had a pair of Wilson Benesch Discoverys and the cabinet was made of carbon fibre and it's sound was so free of any colouration due to the design, the sound was just so 3 dimensional and free from any cabinet resonances up and down the frequency range.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

JeryLove said:


> a Sub 12 with the cutoff at, say 150Hz (I can't see any reason to go lower unless the sub is incapable of performing).


Well actually we really wouldn't want a subwoofer - no matter how capable - to be crossed much higher than 80hz, as higher than that and the frequencies can be localised. Unless you planned to use one subwoofer underneath each main (and even then we'd have the issue of that probably not being the best location in the room for the smoothest FR), let's keep the crossover at 80hz and 4th order.



> Here's the S1, which is not what I would recommend, but seems fine at 95db at 100Hz


Eh, I tend to disagree - look how the distortion rapidly increases below 250hz (the bottom or 2nd line). At 100hz the THD is only 15db less than the fundamental - that's really poor. THD decreases below that only because the speaker rolls off sharply below 100hz. With a 4th order 80hz crossover, a sharp rolloff from the bookshelf at 100hz is essentially incompatible with a proper system - you'd have to raise the subwoofer lowpass to 150hz, and then we find ourselves in a far less than ideal situation as described above.











The Monitor 5 is better, but still subpar below 250hz at 95db as compared to THD performance in higher frequencies. Again, notice how quickly THD rises below 250hz - and this is with two midwoofers. These are good example to illustrate why you really need to cross over to a woofer section somewhere between 200-400hz to get a speaker capable to handle 80hz-20khz, let alone any lower than that without a subwoofer.













> If Steve is correct in his premise (and I'm certainly willing to be corrected if he is), then the problem would be seen in a FR curve done at a higher SPL.


Again, you won't see it in a single FR measurement. You need a compression sweep or a THD measurement. It's painfully obvious in the Soundstage THD measurements, and as far as a compression test, I really don't know of any publications who do one. To give you an example of what one looks like though, member Ilkka did a bunch of them in his subwoofer testing - one is included below. 

Each sweep was taken with a master volume 5db higher than the last - if the difference between two subsequent sweeps isn't 5db apart, compression is taking place. The second chart shows you exactly how much compression is occurring.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> Well actually we really wouldn't want a subwoofer - no matter how capable - to be crossed much higher than 80hz, as higher than that and the frequencies can be localised. Unless you planned to use one subwoofer underneath each main (and even then we'd have the issue of that probably not being the best location in the room for the smoothest FR), let's keep the crossover at 80hz and 4th order.


 Using stereo subs under each of the L/R mains is *exactly* what I have been discussing. 

If you have been basing your responses on monoaural subs or subs not placed within 1/2 wavelength of the L/R speakers: then we are discussing apples and oranges. The 150Hz distortions are similar to the distortions at 8k and 5k respectively: and I'm not sure that the actual number is audible regardless. my FR curves are pretty flat over 100Hz, and yours don't go over 100Hz.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

the_rookie said:


> My point was a sine wave sweep is just one sound at any given time. When dealt multiple sounds at once is what needs to be tested as well. just because it can do 55hz-22khz at any given point in time doesnt mean it will play 55hz when dealt a 550hz, as well as 1100hz and 4400hz sound at the same time. which will happen as well as a number of other frequencies at the same frequency just different coloration.


 Your point seems to be "less drivers, worse sounds"; which means that headphones don't put out good sound as they are single-driver (yet many do).

Even single notes aren't single notes. They have harmonics and sub harmonics and cover a range. Frither, the crossovers don't split by insturment... so my singer and her guitar may be coming over the same driver on even a 4-way system.

So no: Dealing with complex waveforms is an issue regardless of number of drivers. Multiple drivers exist because of limitations of individual driver designes on given frequency ranges.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

Its not just less drivers, worse sounds...its more of in a speaker bookshelf sized, you have a 7" woofer, a 5" midwoofer, a 3 inch mid, and 1 inch tweeter in your standard size bookshelf speaker. how much cubic feet of space you have now for the woofer to work its best. If its ported, now how big is that port?

You put the same amount of drivers, as well as same exact ones in a standard floorstander size you have around 2.5X more gross speaker space, which means alot more room for woofer to have more available air to perform best, as well as an addition to a longer port for deeper tuning.

I would say in the world of sound bigger is better for some applications. Bigger woofers will yield deeper bass. Smaller ones wont, but will yield better mid bass than the larger one.

In this case larger enclosure will allow the bigger speakers to work better, more freely. I mean by your argument bose's speakers should still work just fine if given a wood body. Because size doesn't matter.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

the_rookie said:


> Its not just less drivers, worse sounds...its more of in a speaker bookshelf sized, you have a 7" woofer, a 5" midwoofer, a 3 inch mid, and 1 inch tweeter in your standard size bookshelf speaker. how much cubic feet of space you have now for the woofer to work its best. If its ported, now how big is that port?


 Why would I have a 7" woofer in a bookshelf when the sub it's mated to has a 10" woofer?



> You put the same amount of drivers, as well as same exact ones in a standard floorstander size you have around 2.5X more gross speaker space, which means alot more room for woofer to have more available air to perform best, as well as an addition to a longer port for deeper tuning.


 Every driver has a specific enclosure size that works best with it. Larger is bad, so is smaller (though there are ways around). As you correctly assert: the point where this enclosure size becomes "big" is with the lowest of frequencies (tweeters are generally self-contained, and mids don't require a lot of space). The LF is generated by the subwoofer, not the bookshelf: so the enclosure space in the bookshelf is irrellevent (unless it's too little for the mid, in which case it's just a bad design)



> I would say in the world of sound bigger is better for some applications. Bigger woofers will yield deeper bass. Smaller ones wont, but will yield better mid bass than the larger one.
> 
> In this case larger enclosure will allow the bigger speakers to work better, more freely. I mean by your argument bose's speakers should still work just fine if given a wood body. Because size doesn't matter.


 And on your argument a 18" guitar amp should work better than B&W CM7s because the driver and enclosure is bigger.

You've made a parody of my claim (propped up a straw man) and then shown why your parody is wrong (hacked the straw man). It has nothing to do what what I have discussed.

Steve has raised a meritorious concern: Does a 2x bookshelf have a problem with FR at higher volumes at least as low as 150Hz? If so: he would seem to have a valid argument. Right now I'm not sure if they do because he seems to have been working from the assumption of an 80Hz cross-over.

Your concern on cabinet size however lacks merit. Poor designs aside: a well chosen bookshelf (let's say a Behringer 2030p) will have the appropriate cabinet space for the drivers installed in it. As long as those drviers can run low enough to meet the top end of the subwoofer, without signifigant distortion, then we can create a cohesive three way with the bookshelf and sub.

This may not have occured to you, but a 3-way tower is really three seperate speakers (with seperate enclosures within the cabinet), a tweeter, a mid, and a bass. I'm just seperating that into two enclosures and using an active crossover. 

The only point of concern I can see, and I've yet to be convinced it's valid, is the one that steve brought up: that the sub is incapable of going high enough to meet the mid. Since most 3-way towers cross over around 250Hz, and I'm crossing at 150Hz, he may have a point. I'm looking forward to seeing the FR graphs for 150Hz-250Hz at 100db or 105db on a bookshelf in the range we are discussing.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

JerryLove said:


> The only point of concern I can see, and I've yet to be convinced it's valid, is the one that steve brought up: that the sub is incapable of going high enough to meet the mid. Since most 3-way towers cross over around 250Hz, and I'm crossing at 150Hz, he may have a point. I'm looking forward to seeing the FR graphs for 150Hz-250Hz at 100db or 105db on a bookshelf in the range we are discussing.


I'm curious on this one myself, though I'm crossing my fingers that mid-driver distortion is sufficiently diminished with the stereo bass modules handling a larger portion of the lf content.


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

ironglen said:


> I'm curious on this one myself, though I'm crossing my fingers that mid-driver distortion is sufficiently diminished with the stereo bass modules handling a larger portion of the lf content.


In my situation (i.e. Studio 20's, DIY subs, sub equalizer settings, sub amp gain vs bookshelf amp gain, my room acoustics, L-R crossover, etc) REW tells me to crossover at 73Hz for the flattest FR. I am extremely pleased with this setup. In the past I have had other bookshelf speakers (Quad 12L, Paradigm Monitor-3, Boston Acoustic A40, Polk Monitor 5) in a more traditional setup with a single subwoofer in the corner of the room. While this arrangement produces great bass for HT, it is not necessarily the best arrangement for listening to music, especially 2-channel. 

To me one of the most important aspects of sound quality is how clearly voices and instruments are delineated across the sound stage. It's not enough for an audio system to produce a realistic phantom center speaker. With very high quality source material a good audio system should produce a vivid sound stage where you can pinpoint the placement of voices and instruments. The frequency range of the human voice stays within the range of most good quality bookshelf speakers, but some instruments (organ, Piano, Bassoon, Tuba, and others) go well below what bookshelf speakers can reproduce. While it is true that we humans cannot effectively localize low frequencies, none the less I find that the addition of stereo subs in close proximity to the bookshelf speakers improves the delineation of these low sounding instruments. While this is purely a subjective statement on my part, I find by turning the subs on/off I can tell a difference.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

If we're talking about crossing a subwoofer up at 150hz with it being near each stereo speaker, then I guess I would just wish you luck at achieving a decent bass FR, as next to each main typically isn't a very good spot in the room for that unless you have the subs tucked into the corners. Additionally, there are few subwoofer drivers capable into the really low frequencies that can also do a good job up to 150hz - but I don't know if you desire the capability to dig competently with headroom to 10hz like I do.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> If we're talking about crossing a subwoofer up at 150hz with it being near each stereo speaker, then I guess I would just wish you luck at achieving a decent bass FR, as next to each main typically isn't a very good spot in the room for that unless you have the subs tucked into the corners.


 *sigh* So then the exact same problem would exist with full range towers.

Am I to understand your position as "the ideal sound reproduction is towers, but not full-range ones"?



> Additionally, there are few subwoofer drivers capable into the really low frequencies that can also do a good job up to 150hz - but I don't know if you desire the capability to dig competently with headroom to 10hz like I do.


 No. If we are discussing 10Hz subwoofers then we are likely talking about a seperate unit for ULF. It is still just as simple to add a 10Hz-35Hz sub-sub to my setup as any other. (why stop at 10? there's that rotating sub that supposedly hits 1). 

Hrm. Perhaps there's a market for DIY-ers to make and sell: bass boxes to add to bookshelves to cover 35Hz-250Hz specifically.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

My goal is not to come off condescending, or rude; but most of the discussions in this thread have been about cabinet size. One the basis of localization is much easier, much more versatile for LCR uses, as well as having all 7 speakers being used as the same speaker. Furthermore, the size issue has come up as a generalization that larger is better among almost all the people here. Not to say I don't think this, but this has been the case.

So yes, I would say my arrangement has validity, as well as good points. A true scientist cannot say for certain his idea is the best, or most right. But to try and spread his rational as well as view points around to give others a different perspective on an idea. 

I will agree that I am biased towards Towers aka Floorstanders on the basis of the the generalization that bigger is better. I was raised in a house with big speakers, and my father feels the same way. Naturally I took it up as a first opinion. As an adult I am open to this, but no matter how well designed a speaker is it has limitations. And with this I will stand by my opinion until proven wrong with the proper evidence that a bookshelf speaker will not outperform a tower when they are designed exactly the same. Now price to price...maybe a similar priced of each the tower may not perform as well as a well as a similar priced bookshelf. But than again it all comes down to brand name + design quality. Because some brands are expensive for not alot of bang for the buck while others are much better priced. I mean SVS vs Velodyne in similar price ranges...its no contest, while klipsch vs Paradigm has very competive stuff, but prices...who would choose who?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I am using dual towers in my 5.1 setup as well and could not be more pleased. However, with Electrostatic Speakers, Bookshelf sized Speakers are not possible.

However, before I switched to Martin Logans, I used towers for my Surrounds as well. Though none of my Speakers were truly full range (unbelievably few are truly full range), I found crossing over around 60 Hz resulted in an excellent all around HT experience.

There are certainly variables in the debate between Towers and Monitors, but especially if starting off,
Towers will usually provide you with more bass. This is especially important if having to save up for purchase of a subwoofer. Something like PSB's Image T55 will provide quality bass down to 40 Hz at an excellent price.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

the_rookie said:


> So yes, I would say my arrangement has validity, as well as good points. A true scientist cannot say for certain his idea is the best, or most right. But to try and spread his rational as well as view points around to give others a different perspective on an idea.


 That's not accurate: A scientific model is best is the makes the most accurate predictions. 



> I will agree that I am biased towards Towers aka Floorstanders on the basis of the the generalization that bigger is better. I was raised in a house with big speakers, and my father feels the same way. Naturally I took it up as a first opinion. As an adult I am open to this, but no matter how well designed a speaker is it has limitations. And with this I will stand by my opinion until proven wrong with the proper evidence that a bookshelf speaker will not outperform a tower when they are designed exactly the same. Now price to price...maybe a similar priced of each the tower may not perform as well as a well as a similar priced bookshelf.


 I'm not sure how two things can have identcial designs and yet be different. If you hunt, or want to make your own, you could measure resonance on Studio 20s compared to Studio 60s and see. 

It's pretty well established that longer levers need greater rigidity to have the same amount of flex: that a 3 story building sways less than a similarly constructed 30-story building.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Jungle Jack said:


> I am using dual towers in my 5.1 setup as well and could not be more pleased. However, with Electrostatic Speakers, Bookshelf sized Speakers are not possible.


 Electrostatics, ribbons, and other non-cabineted planar speakers are an entirely different kettle of fish. The conversation doesn't apply to them. 



> However, before I switched to Martin Logans, I used towers for my Surrounds as well. Though none of my Speakers were truly full range (unbelievably few are truly full range), I found crossing over around 60 Hz resulted in an excellent all around HT experience.


 I assert that your sound quality would have been higher with similarly-constructed bookshelves and two subs running stereo with a higher crossover. 

Certainly: the case for two subs to aviod problems with room-standing waves has been well made elsewhere.



> There are certainly variables in the debate between Towers and Monitors, but especially if starting off,
> Towers will usually provide you with more bass. This is especially important if having to save up for purchase of a subwoofer. Something like PSB's Image T55 will provide quality bass down to 40 Hz at an excellent price.


 The T5 is $900/pair, the B5 is $400/pair. So you could get two B5s and a $500 sub, or two $200 subs and a crossover. 

So let's pick a sub. Do you believe that the T5 has better bass than an SVS PC12-NSD (near-flat to 20Hz)? In fact, the SVS has a reasonable roll-off to 250Hz, so would likely make an excelent LF extension for when you go full range on both.

If you were not buying a sub for some reason, then yes: a floorstander generally has a larget dynamic range than a comparable bookshelf.


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

For another take on multiple subwoofers you may want to look at this thread. Dr. Griesinger is now at: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-subwoofers/813-four-subwoofers-post6032.html#6032


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

JerryLove said:


> Electrostatics, ribbons, and other non-cabineted planar speakers are an entirely different kettle of fish. The conversation doesn't apply to them.
> 
> I assert that your sound quality would have been higher with similarly-constructed bookshelves and two subs running stereo with a higher crossover.
> 
> ...



Hello,
While certainly there are a multitude of advantages to running dual subwoofers, I was beyond pleased running dual Studio 100 V.2's and a Studio CC along with a Servo 15. The V.2 Studio 100's were capable of close to full range reproduction and I honestly think it was better than dual subwoofers and cheaper surrounds. I ran my mains and surround full range using the Servo 15 only for LFE.

With the OP planning on building his system incrementally, he will be better served with Towers if he cannot afford a subwoofer currently and is buying piece by piece.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> While certainly there are a multitude of advantages to running dual subwoofers, I was beyond pleased running dual Studio 100 V.2's and a Studio CC along with a Servo 15. The V.2 Studio 100's were capable of close to full range reproduction and I honestly think it was better than dual subwoofers and cheaper surrounds. I ran my mains and surround full range using the Servo 15 only for LFE.


 Hello,
Did you take a pair of Studio 20v2's and a pair of subs, and connect them with an external crossover to compare to your 100's and determine which sounded better to you?

I assume you are not asserting they were full range (or you would not have had a subwoofer). The simple question of comparison is the one I mentioned above. I feel I've belabored the point already, but the responses are a continued re-iteration of a counter-claim without an offered justification. 



> With the OP planning on building his system incrementally, he will be better served with Towers if he cannot afford a subwoofer currently and is buying piece by piece.


 I think it's up to the OP to decide what order and gear would best serve. I can only offer advice and my own observations (and I have compared Studio 60v3's to dual-subbed Studio 40v3's), and the logic behind my advise. The OP must live with what he chooses to do, and I would not wish it any other way than that.

*sigh* I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but the responses seem to be identical to one another. I'm sad that the one truely interesting line of argument (that of Freq.Response at elevated levels in the sub 250Hz range) wen't nowhere. I was really hoping to see that turn into either proof that I am wrong, or further support that I am right. Now all I have is the annoying "not entirely sure".

But I give up. I've argued my case ad nauseum. No one has produced a single piece of objective measurment against it, nor indeed a compelling logical case. A subjective comparison (your 100s vs 20s+subs) has rarely been done, and even then only tells what one person percieved on one comparison (I liked 40s + subs more than 60s + 1 sub... that means nothing for anyone else). 

So I'm just going to drop this, until and unless some new actual case is made (someone starts pulling out resonance measurements or FR at elevated SPL on bookshelves, or something like that). I suppose now would be a good time for everyone to reiterate "the towers I bought are better than Jerry's suggestion that I've never tried" and let this thread die.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Jerry, I am not trying to or considering this an argument with you. When I had the system I did with dual Studio 100's, I was primarily concerned with SACD via multichannel analog outputs. I was beyond pleased with the results of that system.

I fully realize that dual subwoofers make a huge impact in correcting many room issues. I have never disputed that dual subwoofers are more often than not, advantageous.

However, again this thread has completely gone off the rails of what it was about. The OP is building a system where he is starting with an AVR and a pair of Speakers.
And again, I believe, in this case, a pair of towers would be the way to start.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Come on guys, don't let this thread die.  I always enjoy a good civil discussion with differing points of view. I'm sure Steve will be back with more.

I'm also an advocate of floor standers, though I have never had a dual sub / dual bookshelf set-up. So I really can't say one way or the other. I'd really be interested to hear more on this subject.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

JerryLove said:


> *sigh* So then the exact same problem would exist with full range towers.
> 
> Am I to understand your position as "the ideal sound reproduction is towers, but not full-range ones"?


I guess I should start from the beginning. I do not feel any setup - whether using bookshelf speakers or towers - should be crossed to a "subwoofer" any higher than 80hz. If you want to build a "superwoofer" to cover 60-150hz, then that is a different conversation altogether, but nowadays, the implementation of a superwoofer is pretty much nonexistant. As mentioned before, frequencies above 80hz can be localised, and if the subs are placed by the mains, the bass FR will suffer due to cancellations and peaks and nulls created by the room.

Having a mono signal subwoofer or multiple subwoofers that handles the LFE channel plus redirected <80hz bass from each individual channel is ideal because reproduction of low frequencies is much more location dependent in a room than higher frequencies. Additionally, most systems are not that capable in the low frequency range and summing all of the low signals to a really powerful subwoofer setup will give you more clean headroom to handle dynamic peaks than an individual woofer section on a speaker would. 

I should also clarify what you envision as a competent subwoofer and what I envision may be two different things, as I don't know what your setup looks like or consists of. Here is a picture of the front of my setup:










I user towers for the mains, center, and surrounds with mini towers for the rear surrounds. I also use dual Avalanche 18" subwoofers - each one is ~650 liters, 7' tall, and tuned to ~13hz with an 8" diameter port. I have solid, reference capability (115db) to 10hz in room. In my opinion, if a subwoofer system isn't reference capable into the teens, then it is leaving something to be desired for home theater duties. For just stereo music listening, the subwoofer demans are less extreme.


So to answer your question, yes, I feel the best setup is 3 or 4 way towers crossed to a powerful subwoofer(s) at 80hz.




> *sigh* I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but the responses seem to be identical to one another. I'm sad that the one truely interesting line of argument (that of Freq.Response at elevated levels in the sub 250Hz range) wen't nowhere. I was really hoping to see that turn into either proof that I am wrong, or further support that I am right. Now all I have is the annoying "not entirely sure".
> 
> But I give up. I've argued my case ad nauseum. No one has produced a single piece of objective measurment against it, nor indeed a compelling logical case. A subjective comparison (your 100s vs 20s+subs) has rarely been done, and even then only tells what one person percieved on one comparison (I liked 40s + subs more than 60s + 1 sub... that means nothing for anyone else).


I don't know of any off hand compression tests of bookshelf speakers - if I had a pair of bookshelf speakers, I could take some measurements myself. If you are handy with RoomEQ Wizard, you could take the measurements of your bookshelf speakers - take a FR sweep at a normal level, then increase master volume by 5db and repeat. Continue until the speakers start audibly distorting. I am quite confident you will see compression in the 80-250hz range with small bookshlef speakers. 

The THD from those Soundstage measurements you linked to are very telling - THD increases as excursion increases - with small cone area, lots of excursion is needed. When the midwoofer starts running out of excursion, compression sets in. High distortion is therefore an early indicator of compression. Reference capability for speaker channels is 105db, so if that much THD was present at 95db, compression is essentially guaranteed at 105db.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Firstly: nice setup. What are the large acoustic panels behind your L/R speakers? 



SteveCallas said:


> I guess I should start from the beginning. I do not feel any setup - whether using bookshelf speakers or towers - should be crossed to a "subwoofer" any higher than 80hz. If you want to build a "superwoofer" to cover 60-150hz, then that is a different conversation altogether, but nowadays, the implementation of a superwoofer is pretty much nonexistant.


 Do you feel that your average, well chosen subwoofer is deficient in the 60-150Hz range?

I suspect that those 7' 650li subs you are running are pretty expensive. I suspect further that anyone considering even one sub of that class has a pretty considerable budget in which they are working. 

Further, and perhaps I've not been clear on this point: there are circumstances in which my advice ceases to apply. People working with ribbon/electrostatics, while still likely to find use in my crossover/pairing, will not be worried about resonance. Similarly, at a certain price-point, the resonance is adequately addressed (B&W 802's are well braced, and I cannot off the top of my head say where that cut-off is). Also DIY people may find bracing a tower a good project. Also people who will not, for some other reason, be using stereo subs, and who will be doing music listening. 

If my bookshelf+sub recommendation has a noteable deficiency in the 80-250Hz range, I'd love to know about it. Sadly, I am not setup to test here at home right now... though it's been added to my "to do" list when I can.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

JerryLove said:


> Do you feel that your average, well chosen subwoofer is deficient in the 60-150Hz range?


Let's take a look at some FRs of both commercial and DIY domestically available subwoofers that member Ilkka has measured in alphabetical order.




















































































































































I'd say that with the exceptions of the DIY CSS SDX15, the HSU VTF3-MK3, SVS PB13-Ultra, and maybe the SVS PB10, most subs don't look like they will stay very flat up that high in frequency. To be able to dip down and produce low frequencies somewhat efficiently, a cone typically has to have high mass, and unless that high mass is counteracted with shorting rings in the motor assembly of the driver, the higher frequencies will tend suffer by means of a quick rolloff. Though this is only a small sampling of subwoofers, you can see that there aren't too many manufacturers who want to go to the extra cost of ensuring a subwoofer driver stays flat up even in higher frequencies.


As for my setup, the acoustic panels are made from harboard backing, fiberglass batting insulation, and then layers of resin bonded polyester fabric. My subwoofers are suprisingly not that expensive as compared to commercial options. I built the pair for ~$1500 including two amplifiers. When it comes to subs, if you are handy, DIY definitely offers the most bang for the buck.


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

I prefer floorstanding with very powerful subwoofers. If bookshelfs are used a very large, efficient and powerful bookshelf is preferred to go with the subs. Small ineffecient bookshelves run into problems in the 80-250hz range where the average small driver has too large of a workload for it to handle at anything over a modest volume level and the vc and motor system is too small and delicate to handle much real power to make up for the innefficiency further up. Dynamics end up squished and the lower midrange upper bass gets congested when the levels are increased. Distortion rises. 

That's not to say that bookshelves can't sound good or pull it off, but bigger is better. BTW I do use 5 bookshelves in a 5.1 system and they do quite well but they are a little more beefy than normal. Listening habits and placement options also factor in quite a bit.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> %207060b%20fr.png[/IMG]
> I'd say that with the exceptions of the DIY CSS SDX15, the HSU VTF3-MK3, SVS PB13-Ultra, and maybe the SVS PB10, most subs don't look like they will stay very flat up that high in frequency. To be able to dip down and produce low frequencies somewhat efficiently, a cone typically has to have high mass, and unless that high mass is counteracted with shorting rings in the motor assembly of the driver, the higher frequencies will tend suffer by means of a quick rolloff. Though this is only a small sampling of subwoofers, you can see that there aren't too many manufacturers who want to go to the extra cost of ensuring a subwoofer driver stays flat up even in higher frequencies.


 Let's be fair on a couple of points here. 

1) We are not discussing DIY builds.
2) For commercial subs running competently at 15Hz, it's likely we are discussing very expensive units (in which case we fall back to both the price limitation in my post, and the possability of subwoofers and sub-subwoofers both).

Also realizing that I'm bypassing the XO: 
Axiom: apparently not applicable (no bypass). Sharp drop at 95Hz. Not a good choice.

B&W PV1: I see why it's not a popular brand for subs. It's 150 performance is similar to its 30 performance... so it's either bad for both (IOW a bad sub) or could be EQ'd

SDX15: near flat to 200 or more.

Rythmik: Again no bypass. It stops being flat at 70, though the rolloff is gentile and could be EQ'd.

Genelic: Again no bypass. Drop off looks to be the XO.

HSU Mk2: Drop is slow and even, could easily be EQ'd.
HSU Mk3: Minor dip, otherwise good to at least 200

Fathom f113: less than -5db at 150HZ. Again easily EQ'd.

BRW10: No bypass. Flaky at all frequencies. 

SVS 10, 12, 12+, etc: Steady roll-off to 150Hz, less than -10db from peak. Could be EQ'd.

SVS PB13-Ultra: Ruler flat. I want to play with this sub.

Velodyne SPL1200 Mk2: -10db by 90Hz. Suspect this is heavily EQ'd just to get THX cutoff. Likely too much curve to correct.



> As for my setup, the acoustic panels are made from harboard backing, fiberglass batting insulation, and then layers of resin bonded polyester fabric. My subwoofers are suprisingly not that expensive as compared to commercial options. I built the pair for ~$1500 including two amplifiers. When it comes to subs, if you are handy, DIY definitely offers the most bang for the buck.


 True... but DIY changes the parameters of this discussion very heavily: as one could add bracing to a tower, build a woofer enclosure, etc. 

My newest set of speakers are 4-way externally crossed-over towers... they include steel-tensioned concrete, steel tubing, and a lot of oak in the construction. Towers can be made non-resonant.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Ricci said:


> I prefer floorstanding with very powerful subwoofers. If bookshelfs are used a very large, efficient and powerful bookshelf is preferred to go with the subs. Small ineffecient bookshelves run into problems in the 80-250hz range where the average small driver has too large of a workload for it to handle at anything over a modest volume level and the vc and motor system is too small and delicate to handle much real power to make up for the innefficiency further up. Dynamics end up squished and the lower midrange upper bass gets congested when the levels are increased. Distortion rises.


 So there are no low-efficiency drivers in the world that pull off decent sound at 200Hz? Very well: since you've spoken in absolutes (more efficient is always better, bigger is always better), let's see if you will put your money where your mouth is...



> That's not to say that bookshelves can't sound good or pull it off, but bigger is better. BTW I do use 5 bookshelves in a 5.1 system and they do quite well but they are a little more beefy than normal. Listening habits and placement options also factor in quite a bit.


 I saw a picture of some horn speakers with horns about 15ft long. Obviously, since bigger is better, whatever you are using sucks in comparison.

Similarly: You should definately preference a large pair of Cerwin Vegas, or Sony's, or 70's Pioneer or Bose 10.2s over Some small Paradigm S4, or B&W CM7 (a tower, but a little one) or the like as obviously the former are bigger than the latter.

. I've got some old no-name brand boxes from the 70s in my garage. I'll bet they are bigger than your bookshelves. I'll pay shipping and we can even-trade. Does that sound good to you?


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Let's stay on course here. By bigger, he meant more cone area - more cone area will also tend to result in more efficiency. 

As far as EQ'ing >80hz on a subwoofer in order to keep it flat to ~200hz so that a 150hz crossover can be used, I really think we're getting too deep into the forrest. A person COULD do that, and as a result the subwoofer will create higher THD in that range, or they could just get speakers that can hold their own with a woofer section solid and capable to say 50hz so that an 80hz crossover could be used.

Regarding sub-subwoofers, I really don't know of any such product - you mentioned the rotary woofer which can cover 0-20hz, but that's about $15,000 and requires home modification, so we can pretty much exclude that. Any subwoofer that will be capable down to 15hz will tend to be very capable up to 80hz as well - that's pretty much the range a "subwoofer" should handle. A "superwoofer" would handle 80-250hz.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

1sickss said:


> Im currently shopping for my HT system, i dont have a huge budget all at one time but plan on piecing it together. I want to start with a receiver and front speakers, the receiver ive chosen is the Onkyo SR707, and im pretty much set on going with Paradigm fronts, center, and rears, and possibly a Velodyn sub....Anyways fellas, i am trying to make my mind up on either the Studio 20's (for fronts) or maybe the Monitor 7's or 9's...What do u guys think, it will be mainly for HT and of course the occational music listening


Revisiting your post, you may choose towers or bookshelves as for your budget you'll likely get good sound either way. Since it's primarily for HT, you can start just as you said, then get a solid, capable sub and surrounds as your funds allow.

Alternatively (what I would recommend in your case), if you can afford to get some decent bookshelves, along with the capable sub to start, you can then add your front three speakers later while moving the original pair to perform surround duty. In this way, you will have less compromise while you save for those important front three:T


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> As far as EQ'ing >80hz on a subwoofer in order to keep it flat to ~200hz so that a 150hz crossover can be used, I really think we're getting too deep into the forrest. A person COULD do that, and as a result the subwoofer will create higher THD in that range, or they could just get speakers that can hold their own with a woofer section solid and capable to say 50hz so that an 80hz crossover could be used.


 EQ'ing occurs in all crossover networks, and I have been disucssing an external cross-over from the get-go. To remove the idea that the crossover will EQ is not justified.

In the case of most I discussed EQ'ing, there was less than a 10db range between the peak and the 150Hz crossover point. That means EQ from -5 to +5... and at most a -5db reduction in maximum SPL before distortion (and even then, only if the distortion first occurs in the >80Hz range)



> Regarding sub-subwoofers, I really don't know of any such product - you mentioned the rotary woofer which can cover 0-20hz, but that's about $15,000 and requires home modification, so we can pretty much exclude that. Any subwoofer that will be capable down to 15hz will tend to be very capable up to 80hz as well - that's pretty much the range a "subwoofer" should handle. A "superwoofer" would handle 80-250hz.


 Why don't you go take another look at that VTF Mk3 sitting at -20db at 90Hz on the max XO, or BR10 -20db at 35Hz, or even the SPL-1200, -13db from peak at 90Hz. 

Many of the subs you cited don't do 15Hz. Several have problems at 90Hz. Conversely, some are nigh-flat to 200Hz, and several have no more than a 10db difference from peak to 150Hz (if they have problems, it's at the low end). You are cherry-picking mis-matched examples. 

And what about my 32Hz organ note? You are making a big deal over the idea that I might have to +5db a frequency on my crossover while ignoring that your very expensive, DIY rig would play complete silence when fed a 32Hz organ note with the L and R channels 180-degrees out-of-phase (because they would electrically cancel in the conversion to monoaural). 

Let me ponder the difference in audibility between -5db and -infinity for a bit.

When you discussed problems at 150Hz-250Hz, I was all ears (I still am if you have FR charts at elevated SPL for some of the discussed bookshelves). I'm actually interested in what is true, and if I am wrong would dearly love to be shown how. These last few posts you seem to be more interested in being right...dismissing any number of subs you put up that were flat to 150 or 200Hz, squabbling over 5db of EQ correction as though room interactions don't routinely do far more than that. 

I hope that's my mis-perception. I hope we are all still most interested in determining what truely makes the best audio and not justifying our preconceptions.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> Let's stay on course here. By bigger, he meant more cone area - more cone area will also tend to result in more efficiency.


 I was resisting this one, but it bugged me.

OK. Then he should only be running subwoofers and no towers or bookshelves because they have smaller cones. 

And he should still trade, becase the no-name POS's in my garage have bigger cones than his bookshelves.

Of course, the reason we don't run "nothing but subs" is because different driver sizes end up best suited for different ranges... and since the drivers in the subs I recommend start at 10" and go up from there, they are bigger than the drivers in the towers he is likely thinking of and so, by that standard, my setup wins again.

No. There is no rationalization that makes is global "bigger is always better" true or reasonable. 

If I had said "bigger cabinet always equals more resonance", then I would have been rightfully chewed up and spit out. What's interested is that the pro-tower crowd doesn't even seem to be considering the effect of resonance on sound


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

A subwoofer driver is geared towards lower frequency reproduction, however, that doesn't mean a 12" driver can't be used as a midbass if it is geared that way. Different drivers have different T/S parameters and they govern the performance.

I've listed many reasons why you wouldn't want to run a subwoofer up to 150hz, but it seems Jerry is dead set on doing it. I'll just give up at this point and say to the OP that you want to ideally cross to the subwoofer at 80hz.

The subwoofer crossovers you are mentioning on the HSU - I don't know anybody who uses those. The majority of enthusiasts allow their processor to handle the crossovers, not their subwoofer's plate amp. So we just need to concern ourselves with the bypass FRs.

Lastly, for a 32hz organ note present in both mains out of phase from each other - I guess I'm missing out


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

SteveCallas said:


> I've listed many reasons why you wouldn't want to run a subwoofer up to 150hz, but it seems Jerry is dead set on doing it. I'll just give up at this point and say to the OP that you want to ideally cross to the subwoofer at 80hz.


 Sure. You said that a bookshelf would have trouble producing SPL in the lower mid. I said that sounded meritorious and asked you for a FR graph illustrating it. You presented none. I tried to find one on my own, but found very little. 

You said that 150Hz was directional, but that's irrellevent because I'm using stereo speakers near the L/R.

You said that "commercial subwoofers wouldn't do well to 150Hz", but then gave graphs of a number of subwoofers that did fine to 200Hz.

You've listed reasons. Some simply invalid, and others you've failed to substantiate. 



> The subwoofer crossovers you are mentioning on the HSU - I don't know anybody who uses those. The majority of enthusiasts allow their processor to handle the crossovers, not their subwoofer's plate amp. So we just need to concern ourselves with the bypass FRs.


 It seems one problem is that you are not listening at all to what I am saying. More evidence is that you are discussing the processor crossover. I've been discussing using an external crossover.

And yes, that does mean that only the bypass is important... but you put up a number of charts with no bypass graphs at all. You seem to be pointing out that a good chunk of your own earlier post is not applicable to the discussion at hand.



> Lastly, for a 32hz organ note present in both mains out of phase from each other - I guess I'm missing out


 And if you can show an SPL limitation on midbass, then what to miss out on is a decision a buyer will need to make. 

Of course there's nothing that stops someone with towers from implamenting stereo subs and simply crossing over lower... except perhaps budget.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

I am beginning to think that this thread might be best served by creating a separate thread with the debate over the past few pages on a different thread. This thread as it stands has gotten somewhat esoteric and getting away from helping the OP start building his HT.

There are certainly advantages to a Monitor sized Speaker with higher quality drivers than a Tower with a cheaper drivers. Especially if a subwoofer is going to be used.
However, if starting from scratch and building brick by brick, a high quality Tower with a much larger cabinet and the ability to produce higher SPL's really might be the way to go. Without knowing the true budget and timeframe, it is difficult to know what is the best path for him.

If starting with a AVR and a pair of Speakers, I really think something like PSB's Image T55 B-Stock would be a better call than Studio 20's at close to the same price.
That being said, the current V4 Studio 20 is rated down to 54 Hz and has gotten much larger. Nonetheless, the T55 is rated down to 45 Hz and that is not a tiny difference. And the PSB's are still very high quality Speakers. If not initially purchasing a Subwoofer, I would certainly want the highest quality Speakers I could get that could go as low as possible.


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

JerryLove said:


> So there are no low-efficiency drivers in the world that pull off decent sound at 200Hz? Very well: since you've spoken in absolutes (more efficient is always better, bigger is always better), let's see if you will put your money where your mouth is...
> 
> I saw a picture of some horn speakers with horns about 15ft long. Obviously, since bigger is better, whatever you are using sucks in comparison.
> 
> ...



Jerry,

You seem like an intelligent individual. Can you please try to keep from making these types of negative and sarcastic remarks that neither serve to present a differing point of view well IMHO, or to advance the discussion in a laudable direction. Thank you.

To address some of your remarks...

If you wish to assume that I'm referring to large CV's, Bose towers, junk Sony's with paper tweeters and cheap 15" woofers, etc, when I say that big is better, or efficiency is better, then I will assume that you are referring to Aiwa shelf system speakers, Bose cubes, boom boxes and various computer speakers when speaking of the virtues of high fidelity book shelf designs. 


I never said that there is no low efficiency drive that will pull off 200hz well. I said that a typical bookshelf (6" mid woof with a tiny 1" vc in an enclosure of a few liters with a sensitivity well under 90db is typical to me) is not going to handle the midrange to bass transition to a subwoofer system as well as something larger with more efficiency, cone area, power handling, etc. How many 6" 2 way bookshelves do you know of that will legitimately produce 100db from 80-200hz at a distance of 4m without sounding tonally different than they would at 80db? Without sounding distressed? Not to mention that the mid woofer is being asked to produce output all of the way up to 2khz or even higher often times as well. If given a choice I will avoid using something like a single inefficient 5 or 6" driver in a small enclosure as the hand off to the dedicated bass system in a HT in favor of a quality larger speaker every time. Perhaps from the same manufacturer as the aforementioned bookshelf model. (The OP's topic is about HT performance. My opinions don't change much for music though.) 


You mentioned Paradigm and B&W. What speakers are at the top of each of their lines? Are they small bookshelf models? Smaller than the less expensive models in the line? Like most other manufacturer's each of their speaker lines grow larger, more powerful, more expensive,with more driver surface area, utilizing bigger drive units, or more of them. They tout them as having increasing levels of purity of sound reproduction as well. That is not coincidence I am convinced at least.


You bring up some valid points about increased issues with enclosure resonances with larger enclosures, increased cost, weight, complexity of design, placement issues, etc. I already stated that there is nothing wrong with a good bookshelf per se and I do use them. There are great ones to be sure that trump a lesser floor stander. As mentioned before there are also issues of personal taste and circumstance to consider as well. I would personally take a great floor stander, over a great bookshelf though. YMMV.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I'm beginning to doubt it's even worth the typing anymore Ricci.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

the_rookie said:


> Its not just less drivers, worse sounds...its more of in a speaker bookshelf sized, you have a 7" woofer, a 5" midwoofer, a 3 inch mid, and 1 inch tweeter in your standard size bookshelf speaker. how much cubic feet of space you have now for the woofer to work its best. If its ported, now how big is that port?
> 
> You put the same amount of drivers, as well as same exact ones in a standard floorstander size you have around 2.5X more gross speaker space, which means alot more room for woofer to have more available air to perform best, as well as an addition to a longer port for deeper tuning.
> 
> ...


Wrong. if you want real mid-bass slam then you need to be using larger 12" to 18" pro drivers.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> If we're talking about crossing a subwoofer up at 150hz with it being near each stereo speaker, then I guess I would just wish you luck at achieving a decent bass FR, as next to each main typically isn't a very good spot in the room for that unless you have the subs tucked into the corners. Additionally, there are few subwoofer drivers capable into the really low frequencies that can also do a good job up to 150hz - but I don't know if you desire the capability to dig competently with headroom to 10hz like I do.


Use smaller sealed subs up front under the speakers that can go up to the frequency that you want covered and use larger subs at the back of the room to cover the lower end of the spectrum.


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

Having totally re-read the thread again after getting a few hours of sleep, I have some further comments. 

I think that I have a better grip on where Jerry is coming from. He is advocating for a pair of small bookshelves, in this case Paradigm studio 20's, which are very good ones, in combination with a stereo pair of subs to essentially make the bookshelves into a more powerful fullrange system. The subs would be placed near the mains and crossed over as high as feasible. Also he's making the point that a larger cabinet is more prone to resonance and harder to make inert, which is true. 

Steve and myself are making the case that if the OP cannot afford to get the subwoofer system until later it is in our opinion better to start off with larger more dynamically capable tower speakers that are still of good quality. You still add the subwoofer system to the towers when funding permits just as you would with the bookshelves. Both systems need dedicated low end reinforcement for HT. Instead of placing the subs by the mains, crossover lower in the 60-90hz range and place the subs in the locations that provide the smoothest bass coverage, which is likely not by the mains. 

The points that I am trying to make about smaller 2 way bookshelves versus larger tower type speakers with more drivers, or larger ones, with a larger enclosure and the drivers operating in a more restricted dedicated range is that a small 6" or 7" cone with low sensitivity that is forced to cover all 100-3000hz (approximate) is that at even moderately spirited volumes it is getting driven quite hard and the lower midrange and bass at the bottom of it's range is the first bottleneck to appear in it's output almost always. Small cones require high excursion for high output at lower frequencies and that in turn increases distortion and can cause modulation effects of the upper frequencies being produced as well. A larger tower speaker has more enclosure airspace which allows the low end to be more efficient and thus requiring less input power to achieve the same output. The drives are either bigger or there are more of them. This also increases efficiency, lowers the excursion demands for a given output level and if there are more vc's it shares the power demands, lowering power compression effects. If it's a 3 or 4 way design the woofer section is likely a sturdier more bass proficient design since they do not need to be light and extended enough to cover the critical midrange well and the midrange driver can be freed up from the heavy lifting of lower freq's. 

The issue that may come up with placing the subwoofers by the mains is that it is not usually the best place for a smooth bass response. Also if crossing at 150hz or even higher the sound from the subs will assuredly be localizable, which precludes them from being placed in the spots that would allow for that smoother bass coverage without screwing with the imaging. A crossover is not a brick wall. With a 150hz crossover there will still likely be some audible sound emanating from the subs at 200-250hz. Sometimes even an 80hz xover isn't enough to make the subs truly unlocalizable for some people. 


I do not have any distortion or compression measurements of bookshelf speakers off hand, but I will see if I can find that testing somewhere. A FR graph doesn't say much of anything about a speakers distortion levels unless it is in reference to other measurements for the same speaker of varying loudness. I believe that Zaph may have done distortion testing of various popular 5 -8" drivers from Vifa, Scanspeak, Peerless, Dayton Audio, etc, that are used in many popular speaker designs. I'm sure that some are available somewhere, but most magazines, reviewers, or manufacturers do not post anything like THD, or compression measurements. Perhaps because we would not like what we'd see. Also keep in mind that every time you double the distance your sound intensity drops by 6db. If you listen at a distance of 4m you'd need to remove 12db from a level referenced to 1m. 

I've heard quite a few sets of Paradigms including the Studio 20 V5's and they are excellent. Also I own no less than 6 sets of bookshelf speakers, so I'm not just denigrating or ragging on bookshelves here. I'm just trying to explain what are IMHO the compromises between the 2. 

Did anyone ask the OP what size his room is, how much amplifier power is available and how far away from the speakers he will be sitting? Also his listening habits as far as material, average volume level, etc, would be nice to know as well. If he's going to be 6 ft away from the speakers in a 2000cu ft room and he listens at moderate volume levels then the Studio 20's would more than likely be plenty. If he has a 6000+ cu ft room open to other areas of the house, he'll be sitting 12ft away from the speakers and he likes to "feel" the soundtrack like at a commercial theater it may be a different story.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

VERY nice summation, if I say so myself. What do guys think of my previous recommendation? Using bookshelfs for surrounds is almost a given, so by purchasing them first and experiencing them in his environment, the OP can better determine his next purchase for the front three, eh?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
The OP has left the building it would seem. He has not posted in the past few pages unfortunately.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> I guess I should start from the beginning. I do not feel any setup - whether using bookshelf speakers or towers - should be crossed to a "subwoofer" any higher than 80hz. If you want to build a "superwoofer" to cover 60-150hz, then that is a different conversation altogether, but nowadays, the implementation of a superwoofer is pretty much nonexistant. As mentioned before, frequencies above 80hz can be localised, and if the subs are placed by the mains, the bass FR will suffer due to cancellations and peaks and nulls created by the room.
> 
> Having a mono signal subwoofer or multiple subwoofers that handles the LFE channel plus redirected <80hz bass from each individual channel is ideal because reproduction of low frequencies is much more location dependent in a room than higher frequencies. Additionally, most systems are not that capable in the low frequency range and summing all of the low signals to a really powerful subwoofer setup will give you more clean headroom to handle dynamic peaks than an individual woofer section on a speaker would.
> 
> ...


115 db at 10Hz? Are you sure about that. A pair of 18" LMS 5400 in 200L with two 18" passive radiators is not capable of doing that and the 18" LMS has a lot more excursion and power handling. www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17695991#post17695991


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

I'd say that with the exceptions of the DIY CSS SDX15, the HSU VTF3-MK3, SVS PB13-Ultra, and maybe the SVS PB10, most subs don't look like they will stay very flat up that high in frequency. To be able to dip down and produce low frequencies somewhat efficiently, a cone typically has to have high mass, and unless that high mass is counteracted with shorting rings in the motor assembly of the driver, the higher frequencies will tend suffer by means of a quick rolloff. *Though this is only a small sampling of subwoofers, you can see that there aren't too many manufacturers who want to go to the extra cost of ensuring a subwoofer driver stays flat up even in higher frequencies.*


As for my setup, the acoustic panels are made from harboard backing, fiberglass batting insulation, and then layers of resin bonded polyester fabric. My subwoofers are suprisingly not that expensive as compared to commercial options. I built the pair for ~$1500 including two amplifiers. *When it comes to subs, if you are handy, DIY definitely offers the most bang for the buck.[/quote]*

Yes you do have to know what the response of the sub to see if it will do what you want. I use three small sealed subs in the front of my room and I adjusted the tilt so that these subs are pretty flat to 100Hz (my cut off point) See the red trace. home.comcast.net/~jhidley/WF-100k_FR_with_VR603_adjustments.pdf In the back of my room I have two larger subs to cover the low end. 

DIY is a great way to go when you want performance.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Yes, I read your next post and will respond to this one with a mind to the later one.


Ricci said:


> You seem like an intelligent individual. Can you please try to keep from making these types of negative and sarcastic remarks that neither serve to present a differing point of view well IMHO, or to advance the discussion in a laudable direction. Thank you.


 It seemed to me that you were speaking in absolutes. To show that such absoultes were untrue I posted a reducto-ad-absurdium response. If you were not intending to use absolutes (as your later post seems to indicate), I certainly was not intending to argue based on semantics. 



> How many 6" 2 way bookshelves do you know of that will legitimately produce 100db from 80-200hz at a distance of 4m without sounding tonally different than they would at 80db? Without sounding distressed?


 Actually, I don't have these numbers on basically *any* speaker that's been discussed. When this was raised as an issue (and for me, the issue is more like 120Hz / 150Hz), I was eager to see the FR graphs. All I found were some at 95db where the couple of speakers in question performed similarly at 2m to the 1w-1m graph.



> Not to mention that the mid woofer is being asked to produce output all of the way up to 2khz or even higher often times as well. If given a choice I will avoid using something like a single inefficient 5 or 6" driver in a small enclosure as the hand off to the dedicated bass system in a HT in favor of a quality larger speaker every time.


 Were I DIYing right this moment, I'd likely lean toward using a good 10" woofer in a 3-way design with a crossover somewhere in the 250Hz range (dependant on specific drivers of course). Were I very concerned with 15Hz response, and again depending on specific drivers, I'd start thinking 4-way (or some other trick to up ULF). I certainly would not fault a DIY design for doing exactly what you suggest.

In fact: my most recent purcahse was a 4-way, 5-driver tower (well two of them) braced to high-heaven with a ribbon on HF and a JL 10W7 running LF. The crossover is being tuned this weekend I hope. 



> You mentioned Paradigm and B&W. What speakers are at the top of each of their lines? Are they small bookshelf models? Smaller than the less expensive models in the line?


 Their most expensive units are towers. For Paradigm (having not listened to the v3 Sigs, but based on the v1) I would actually choose to build with the S2 (now that the S4 is gone) over the S8 in many instances. For B&W, it's the 800D or 802D. 

In fairness to me, I did cite exactly the 802D as one example that, at a certain price range, the rules change. I have said repeatedly that at some price my advice changes, with DIY my advice changes, under some needs-of-user my advice changes, and with specific speakers in mind my advice changes. 

The 802D is one of those times.



> Like most other manufacturer's each of their speaker lines grow larger, more powerful, more expensive,with more driver surface area, utilizing bigger drive units, or more of them. They tout them as having increasing levels of purity of sound reproduction as well. That is not coincidence I am convinced at least.


 The Paradigm Signature S2 is more powerful and more expensive than whatever the tower in their monitor line is... but has less driver area and is smaller. Nor does Paradim tout "more purity" within a given line. They tout "fuller sound", which is to say "a greater frequency response" or "more air moved".

And I have no doubt that a more expensive tower in a given line offers more LF response than the bookshelf in the same line (Studio 20 vs Studio 100 for example).



> I would personally take a great floor stander, over a great bookshelf though. YMMV.


 For me it's very much about the individual speakers. I would definately choose two Signature S4v2's mated with two servo subs in stereo over steo S8v2's mated with one sub in mono... doubly so if I was music listening. 

As we go into less expensive speakers: this actually becomes more pronounced (generally speaking)

On the other hand, I would choose two 802D's over two 806's regardless of sub configuration... and for CM7 towers vs their bookshelves with stereo subs... well, I honestly don't know.

And yes, again, if there is a problem with mid-bass (and I'd still love to see the charts on that), I'd likely take a tower with a resonance problem over a bookshelf/sub that left a midbass hole. 

I really need to get an SPL meter and start running some graphs on my own setup.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

mjg100 said:


> 115 db at 10Hz? Are you sure about that. A pair of 18" LMS 5400 in 200L with two 18" passive radiators is not capable of doing that and the 18" LMS has a lot more excursion and power handling


1) Those PRs are tuned to ~17hz I believe and it has a 6th order rolloff. My subs are tuned to ~13hz and have a 4th order rolloff.

2) Those subs were measured outdoors at 2m groundplane, so the numbers are lacking room gain and - in my case - boundary gain from corner placement. The boundary gain alone is worth a discrete 6-9db at all frequencies for each subwoofer. My room gain starts ~20hz and is maybe 6db / octave.

3) My subs don't need a lot of power to achieve high cone travel because my enclosures are much larger (over 3x as large), thus my low end is more efficient than the LMS subs.

3) Two of those LMS subs would be more than reference capable - even in an outdoor 2m groundplane test, and even when distortion limited - from 20hz on up. 


So while an Avalanche 18 doesn't have as much air moving capability as a LMS 18, due to the points above, I'm still capable of over 115db in the range discussed.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

the_rookie said:


> My goal is not to come off condescending, or rude; but most of the discussions in this thread have been about cabinet size. One the basis of localization is much easier, much more versatile for LCR uses, as well as having all 7 speakers being used as the same speaker. Furthermore, the size issue has come up as a generalization that larger is better among almost all the people here. Not to say I don't think this, but this has been the case.
> 
> So yes, I would say my arrangement has validity, as well as good points. A true scientist cannot say for certain his idea is the best, or most right. But to try and spread his rational as well as view points around to give others a different perspective on an idea.
> 
> *I will agree that I am biased towards Towers aka Floorstanders on the basis of the the generalization that bigger is better.* I was raised in a house with big speakers, and my father feels the same way. Naturally I took it up as a first opinion. As an adult I am open to this, but no matter how well designed a speaker is it has limitations. And with this I will stand by my opinion until proven wrong with the proper evidence that a bookshelf speaker will not outperform a tower when they are designed exactly the same. Now price to price...maybe a similar priced of each the tower may not perform as well as a well as a similar priced bookshelf. But than again it all comes down to brand name + design quality. Because some brands are expensive for not alot of bang for the buck while others are much better priced. I mean SVS vs Velodyne in similar price ranges...its no contest, while klipsch vs Paradigm has very competive stuff, but prices...who would choose who?


A tower speaker has a blocked off area for the low end. What is the advantage of having that low end attached to the rest of the speaker vs having it separate? Now if the smaller speaker can not keep up at it's bottom end at lets say 100Hz then advantage goes to the tower. Now the separate sub will be able to dig deeper and with more SPL vs the woofer in the tower, so advantage to sub with bookshelf. If the integration between the sub and the bookshelf is good then you have basically made a better full range speaker.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

mjg100 said:


> What is the advantage of having that low end attached to the rest of the speaker vs having it separate?


The advantage is that most 3 way towers cross over to the woofer section around 250-400hz, so you have dedicated drivers for the range of ~80-400hz. If you use a bookshelf and a seperate subwoofer, you typically won't cross over to the subwoofer at 250-400hz, it will be more like 80-100hz, and the single midwoofer is left having to cover from below the tweeter (let's say ~2khz) down to 80-100hz. It isn't nearly as capable as a dedicated woofer section.

A subwoofer is called a "sub"woofer because it's not really meant to play up to 250-400hz. A woofer is meant for that range. A standalone powered woofer in an enclosure is typically called a superwoofer, but those aren't really used anymore, as you have to have a way to use external crossovers and have seperate amps. With a tower speaker, you just plug in one set of speaker cables and need one source of amplification.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Has anyone been able to find a graph to validate the statements about 200-400Hz performance of bookshelves compared to towers of similar manufacture?

If this is true: then this is *critical* to any given speakers performance and I've never seen anyone publish it as a spec. If this is nigh-universal with 5-6" drivers, how do I know if that 8" I'm staring at on Parts Express will do 200 well, much less 100? All I have is the FR chart. For that matter: how do I know a given tower will.

My Studio 60 tower has the same drivers and crossover as my Studio 40 bookshelf. What now? What about The 2-way towers with 5-6" drivers (infinity has some I know, I've no doubt I can find plenty on Audiogon)? 

And where is the cutoff to do 80Hz? 8"? 10"? Surely it's not simply "always get the biggest", because we've had that discussion already.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Jerry, you've asked for that measurement numerous times in this thread and I've told you that I don't know of any website who takes a compression test measurement for speakers. If you really need to see the measurement, you will have to take it yourself. However, you shouldn't need the measurement, it's simply physics and common sense at play. 

As for Studio 40 vs 60, the frequency range in which there is a difference in performance is below the range I am talking about. A larger enclosure with the same drivers will only increase the low frequency efficiency, it does nothing to increase air moving capability. 

Where is the cutoff to do 80hz - at what amplitude, from how far away, and how much power will you have available to feed it? If we're talking reference level capability at say 6', and you want to do it relatively cleanly, you'd probably need no less than the equivalent of a 10" driver (dual 7" woofers, three 6" woofers, quad 5" woofers) *for just the woofer section*.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

I think this thread has served it's purpose so closing.


----------

