Bookshelf vs floorstander speakers? (1 Viewer)

[edee_em]

Hi
I searched the question posed in the title and the results show this topic hasn't been discussed lately. Don't know why that is, so I thought I would resurrect it as I was wondering if the main fors and agins for either have changed over the years and with changes in technology. Thoughts?

PS: Looking for arguments for one or the other, not a personal recommendation, at this point.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I use 20+ year old Paradigm Monitor 9 floor standing speakers as my front mains because that's what was popular when I bought them in the 90s. Today, there has been more of a shift towards smaller bookshelf speakers like the Elac Debut 2.0 which perform just as well as my Paradigms. You can't go wrong either way, and it's more about personal aesthetics and how much space you have available. As long as the speakers are good, reputable ones, it's a win either way.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Actually, the "shift" probably depends on market segment.

In the budget-ish/entry level audiophile world, I'm thinking the shift is actually from bookshelves to (small-ish) floorstanders because it seems designs and build quality for this level has improved substantially over the last couple decades. Back in the mid/late-90's and earlier, this level was dominated by bookshelves and larger "monitors" (that required stands, eg. some Spicas, Vandersteens, KEFs, etc). There were no comparables to ELAC's budget-priced floorstanders (like their Debut and UniFi series). Beyond this level is still very clearly the exclusive domain of floorstanders (just as before) even though most of them seem to have gotten smaller.

IF there's a shift toward bookshelves at all, it's probably only in the non-audiophile, mass market segments, particularly for HT, instead of dedicated music playback, since people aren't generally concerned w/ the benefits of floorstanders nearly as much, but might (strongly) prefer the aesthetics and space-savings (and maybe cost-savings) of bookshelves (and monitors), especially since they'd generally want the subwoofer (or "subwoofer" bass module that's not true subwoofer) to handle the bass, especially in (less expensive and/or possibly less elaborate) HT setups... Heck! There might even be a meaningful shift toward in-wall speakers (along w/ wireless) over (traditional) bookshelves in a sub-segment of HT that didn't really exist 20-30 years ago...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

It really comes down to how far you want to push the system. If you have a decent sized, dedicated room without sound carryover problems, and you want to listen without limits, then you want the most capable, largest speakers you can afford, along with comparable subs, and plenty of power. If the system is in an apartment living room, that'll just annoy your neighbors. I'm fortunate to have a space where I can go as far as I please, and it will always be the best, most capable speakers (and subs) I can afford. In the living room system, it's ELAC Debut 2.0 bookshelves and a moderate sub, because that's all I want in that room.

 

[edee_em]

I use 20+ year old Paradigm Monitor 9 floor standing speakers as my front mains because that's what was popular when I bought them in the 90s. Today, there has been more of a shift towards smaller bookshelf speakers like the Elac Debut 2.0 which perform just as well as my Paradigms. You can't go wrong either way, and it's more about personal aesthetics and how much space you have available. As long as the speakers are good, reputable ones, it's a win either way.

That statement about the Elacs performing as well as your Paradigms is what intrigues and befuddles me. I would never think a set of bookshelf speakers would match up to a set of floorstanders, let alone Paradigms, but here we are. So, after 20-30 years, things have changed enough to allow that comment to be true.

Having said that, would those Elacs still perform equally to a more recent paradigm floorstander such as the 800 Reference line? I'm assuming that the change in tech for bookshelf speakers would also have benefited the floorstanders, if that's a correct assumption? I haven't come across too many Elac bookshelf vs Paradigm floorstanders shoot outs!

 

[edee_em]

Actually, the "shift" probably depends on market segment.

In the budget-ish/entry level audiophile world, I'm thinking the shift is actually from bookshelves to (small-ish) floorstanders because it seems designs and build quality for this level has improved substantially over the last couple decades. Back in the mid/late-90's and earlier, this level was dominated by bookshelves and larger "monitors" (that required stands, eg. some Spicas, Vandersteens, KEFs, etc). There were no comparables to ELAC's budget-priced floorstanders (like their Debut and UniFi series). Beyond this level is still very clearly the exclusive domain of floorstanders (just as before) even though most of them seem to have gotten smaller.

IF there's a shift toward bookshelves at all, it's probably only in the non-audiophile, mass market segments, particularly for HT, instead of dedicated music playback, since people aren't generally concerned w/ the benefits of floorstanders nearly as much, but might (strongly) prefer the aesthetics and space-savings (and maybe cost-savings) of bookshelves (and monitors), especially since they'd generally want the subwoofer (or "subwoofer" bass module that's not true subwoofer) to handle the bass, especially in (less expensive and/or possibly less elaborate) HT setups... Heck! There might even be a meaningful shift toward in-wall speakers (along w/ wireless) over (traditional) bookshelves in a sub-segment of HT that didn't really exist 20-30 years ago...

_Man_

"...benefits of floorstanders..." What would those be?

 

[edee_em]

It really comes down to how far you want to push the system. If you have a decent sized, dedicated room without sound carryover problems, and you want to listen without limits, then you want the most capable, largest speakers you can afford, along with comparable subs, and plenty of power. If the system is in an apartment living room, that'll just annoy your neighbors. I'm fortunate to have a space where I can go as far as I please, and it will always be the best, most capable speakers (and subs) I can afford. In the living room system, it's ELAC Debut 2.0 bookshelves and a moderate sub, because that's all I want in that room.

Is it correct for me to say, from your response, that floorstanders will fill the room more and provide better, richer sound or am I out in left field? I am not in an apartment, the listening/watching room is our family room but it is open to the kitchen/eating area and to the living room/dining room on the right side. To boot, the room has a 12 foot cathedral ceiling.

I recall you gave me a setup recommendation that included floorstanders (SVS or Elac options). Admittedly, I haven't read every recommendation, but it always seems to be floorstanders first.

 

[smithbrad]

Like anything it comes down to preferred use and constraints. Are you into two channel music, multi-channel music, full blown HT with 5-10+ speakers? Do you have financial or environment constraints? Most will likely concede that when there are no constraints that quality full-range speakers all around will provide the ultimate in sound, even though a majority might be underused in a full-scale HT setup. However, how many can in all practicality say they can do that. Very few, so we make the best based of our usage needs and environmental and financial constraints.

My setup is 98% for movies/TV and 5% multi-channel music. I spent between $6K to $7K on my 7.1 speakers setup back in 2004. I chose bookshelf speakers because I wanted a more even capability between my front and surround speakers. I have a single subwoofer to handle all my low-end needs. For me this was the most appropriate way to go. However, if two-channel music was a priority I think I would have definitely sacrificed some on the surround speakers and put that into quality floor standing front speakers.

I don't think the guiding principles have changed that much over the last two decades, other than that HT has expanded upon the surround capabilities.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

It's basically just physics... as John alluded.

You generally need bigger speakers w/ good foundation/support to yield bigger sound and deeper bass w/out sacrificing quality. In the past, that usually meant much higher cost (not supportable by budget/entry level audiophile market). Still, even now, you're not going to get particularly deep bass from budget/entry level audiophile speakers, but affordable floorstanders like those from ELAC (as well as those Paradigms mentioned) don't seem to compromise quality like they used to.

And if you go for bookshelves, you really still need to have good stands and good/proper setup to yield best results. Ultimately, bookshelves don't really offer much real space-savings over floorstanders if trying to yield comparable sound quality (and not just setting them up in "convenient", acoustically compromising ways), and ELAC's offerings illustrate that quite well -- there's some cost savings (after factoring the cost of stands), but seems like good/proper setup would generally be easier and more reliable w/ the floorstanders.

IF you want a high quality, full-range speaker (in each box/unit), it'll probably always need to be a very sizable and hefty (and relatively expensive and power-hungry) floorstander (even though most seem to be getting smaller and/or more efficient, easier to drive these days)... and no, the budget-level ELACs (and those similarly budget-minded Paradigm Monitor 9's of various incarnations) aren't that... and adding good, dedicated, 3rd party subwoofers probably won't completely negate the benefits of fully integrated, full-range speakers (or gigantic speaker systems... like those from Genesis)...

But of course, subwoofer offerings and usage have improved (and maybe becoming increasingly more affordable) over the last 2-3 decade, thanks in (large) part to (improved) DSP tech, so that helps close the gap a lot for using smaller speakers that wouldn't have much, if any, bass extension...

Also, the deployment of multichannel music (as Brad mentioned just now) has further complicated/diluted the situation over the last 2-3 decades...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Is it correct for me to say, from your response, that floorstanders will fill the room more and provide better, richer sound or am I out in left field? I am not in an apartment, the listening/watching room is our family room but it is open to the kitchen/eating area and to the living room/dining room on the right side. To boot, the room has a 12 foot cathedral ceiling.

I recall you gave me a setup recommendation that included floorstanders (SVS or Elac options). Admittedly, I haven't read every recommendation, but it always seems to be floorstanders first.

There's a lot of over generalizations with this topic. Not all bookshelves are the same and not all floorstanders are the same. You can get good bookshelves and bad floorstanders. I'll just take the ELAC Debuts as an example. You can get a variety of models. The B6.2 bookshelves won't sound all that much different from the F6.2 floorstanders. That's because they're well designed with results in mind rather than marketing. They will probably sound a little fuller, but what you gain is greater output and dynamics, with the same overall sound. You'll also gain a bit of efficiency, largely due to the bigger cabinets. What you will not get is noticeably lower extension. A few Hz (as in maybe 2-3) but not enough to really be audible.

What you gain with floorstanders over equal bookshelves is potential output and dynamics, as opposed to a significant difference in sound. With a given source at a given level, they will be less stressed and therefore won't be as likely to compress the dynamics. It's not the cake, and it's not even necessarily the frosting, but it can be the cherry on top that just makes that last little bit of difference.

 

[edee_em]

That was something I was thinking about with using bookshelf speakers: the height has to be addressed by stands (I don't have a level space across my front), so that must decrease the allure of bookshelves to some point. And adding a sub as well, well there goes the savings part of it.

I was reading some reviews about a speaker brand called Fluance and many of the reviews spoke of the speaker's ability to go so low that many said a subwoofer wouldn't be needed (assuming room dimensions and such fit). Also heard the same about Jamo. I know they don't go where a sub would go but if they sound like they don't need a sub, that's a) telling me manufacturers are able to build stuff that has a wider range and b) I can save some money.

 

[edee_em]

There's a lot of over generalizations with this topic. Not all bookshelves are the same and not all floorstanders are the same. You can get good bookshelves and bad floorstanders. I'll just take the ELAC Debuts as an example. You can get a variety of models. The B6.2 bookshelves won't sound all that much different from the F6.2 floorstanders. That's because they're well designed with results in mind rather than marketing. They will probably sound a little fuller, but what you gain is greater output and dynamics, with the same overall sound. You'll also gain a bit of efficiency, largely due to the bigger cabinets. What you will not get is noticeably lower extension. A few Hz (as in maybe 2-3) but not enough to really be audible.

What you gain with floorstanders over equal bookshelves is potential output and dynamics, as opposed to a significant difference in sound. With a given source at a given level, they will be less stressed and therefore won't be as likely to compress the dynamics. It's not the cake, and it's not even necessarily the frosting, but it can be the cherry on top that just makes that last little bit of difference.

Oh great... not only do I have to worry about solving the bookshelf vs floorstander debate, but now I'm hungry too

 

[JohnRice]

I'll tell you what, no matter what main speakers you have, and a couple guys here have Legacy Focus SEs with gobs of power, and they still both use subs. I would still use suitable subs with just about any speaker.

After 30 years of my Thiel CS3.6 I might eventually upgrade to those or the Signature SEs, but I'll still use my SVS SB-16s.

 

[smithbrad]

IF you want a high quality, full-range speaker (in each box/unit), it'll probably always need to be a very sizable and hefty (and relatively expensive and power-hungry) floorstander

Which in turns means dedicating more of that budget to separate amps to drive them. I'm not a two-channel music listener so I won't debate the differences between full-range floor standing speakers and bookshelf speakers with a dedicated subwoofer. I just know for my needs in a primary HT environment the bookshelf model with externally powered sub is much more financially viable while still providing the quality audio I needed.

Also, what hasn't been discussed is that bookshelf speakers are generally two-way, while floor standers are three-way. From a component standpoint for the same money you can end up with higher quality components in the bookshelf speakers then equally priced floor standing speakers. While this may not be as much a factor in the higher end range, but for low to mid-range priced speakers this can make a difference based on one's preference. For example, are you more interested in a cleaner mid to high range sound, or is it more important to have more prominent bass? You can always as a subwoofer later to accent the bookshelf speakers, the floor standing speaker are not going to change. Just additional food for thought.

Now I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. They all have their pros and cons. While I have bookshelf speakers in my dedicated HT, I have older Klipsch (mid-1990's) floor standing speakers in my family room without a subwoofer, and in-wall speakers in my bedroom to round out the many options available.

 

[JohnRice]

Which in turns means dedicating more of that budget to separate amps to drive them. I'm not a two-channel music listener so I won't debate the differences between full-range floor standing speakers and bookshelf speakers with a dedicated subwoofer. I just know for my needs in a primary HT environment the bookshelf model with externally powered sub is much more financially viable while still providing the quality audio I needed.

Also, what hasn't been discussed is that bookshelf speakers are generally two-way, while floor standers are three-way. From a component standpoint for the same money you can end up with higher quality components in the bookshelf speakers then equally priced floor standing speakers. While this may not be as much a factor in the higher end range, but for low to mid-range priced speakers this can make a difference based on one's preference. For example, are you more interested in a cleaner mid to high range sound, or is it more important to have more prominent bass? You can always as a subwoofer later to accent the bookshelf speakers, the floor standing speaker are not going to change. Just additional food for thought.

Now I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. They all have their pros and cons. While I have bookshelf speakers in my dedicated HT, I have older Klipsch (mid-1990's) floor standing speakers in my family room without a subwoofer, and in-wall speakers in my bedroom to round out the many options available.

Compact three way speakers are becoming a lot more common. Look at SVS, Monoprice and the ELAC UniFi for example. Some use coincident drivers, so they look like two way but are actually three way.

 

[smithbrad]

Compact three way speakers are becoming a lot more common. Look at SVS, Monoprice and the ELAC UniFi for example. Some use coincident drivers, so they look like two way but are actually three way.

I generally focus on what's going on in the speaker industry when I in a mode to buy. Luckily, that hasn't been needed since the early 2000's when I picked up my last setup. Back then there were also some compact three-way designs but based on my listening at the time I preferred equally priced better quality two-way designs. But things change, and I haven't kept up in that regard.

 

[JohnRice]

I generally focus on what's going on in the speaker industry when I in a mode to buy. Luckily, that hasn't been needed since the early 2000's when I picked up my last setup. Back then there were also some compact three-way designs but based on my listening at the time I preferred equally priced better quality two-way designs. But things change, and I haven't kept up in that regard.

Things...
Have...
Changed.

As always, there are bad speakers of all types, but these three examples are all worth considering.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Much like it was 3-plus decades ago, most of us just have to figure out what we really want and how best to choose/make our compromises. It's just that the advances in audio tech/design have allowed us better and/or more choices (and affordability) for those compromises...

Compact three way speakers are becoming a lot more common. Look at SVS, Monoprice and the ELAC UniFi for example. Some use coincident drivers, so they look like two way but are actually three way.

Yep, designs have changed some toward this. Used to be 3-way usually meant large-ish speakers w/ substantially deeper bass extension (that may or may not involve serious compromises), but now, there's more mix/variety w/ smaller woofers being used in more compact designs (even for some floorstanders) that wouldn't go that deep...

But as in the old days, depending on your tastes/needs, that might be good enough for one's music preferences w/out needing subwoofer. For instance, you probably don't need to go deeper if you mostly listen to (acoustic) jazz and/or (classical) chamber music, including (classical) music using smaller scale (chamber) orchestras...

_Man_

 

[edee_em]

I have a set of Altec Lansing 96 series floorstanders. Smallish, with small drivers (5 1/4", with 1" tweeter that is hardly visible), no ports but they seem to go as deep as I need them to go (not knowing what deeper would give me, i.e. what I'm missing). Seems like they are coming full circle with designing smaller speakers. How many reviews have I read where the reviewer is shocked at the sound coming from smaller drivers.

I don't have a sub and never have had one since the day I bought them back in the early to mid 90s. I rounded out the surround sound with a different manufacturers center and rears. The fronts sound awesome, the others not so much and actually the main reason I've been looking to change them all out.

Gone are the days of sitting down with an album so most of my focus is on movie and tv watching. Sometimes I'm happy to just put on some headphones and listen away. Not to change direction here, but anyone else amazed at the sound they are getting out of ear buds and headphones?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Right. Most of the music I listen to don't really need subwoofer either even though my current ELAC UniFi 2.0 mains don't go as low as my old Vandies (NVM the big, old Thiels I have in storage), and they play plenty loud enough in my small-ish living space driven by an Emotiva amp that can readily deliver 300-plus watts to them, especially for stereo music...

And yeah, headphones have also made some advances over the last couple decades or so. I have an older pair of classic Sennheiser HD600s (that are rather power-hungry and definitely need significant headphone amp) plus a newer pair of HiFiMan Sundaras (that are much less demanding of power, but could still benefit from better power nonetheless)... I only use (wireless) ear buds on-the-go for much more casual listening...

_Man_