Why do we buy tower speakers? (1 Viewer)

[Michael R Price]

Thanks for the link.
Kit 81 vs. 281? Ah, this is why I have towers. With DIY it doesn't cost $1000 more to build a tower instead of a bookshelf. Maybe... $20 in my case. But it sure was a pain to get them upstairs...
I personally can't localize much bass under 100Hz. I think a 4th order crossover at 80Hz (or 2nd order at 50-60Hz) is a safe bet to cut as much bass as possible from the small speakers and give it to the sub, while not localizing the sub. And the bass quality from a good sub is usually miles better than from most main speakers.
Anyway, I don't think oyu need extension to one octave below the crossover point. The standard crossover in most receivers is designed to cut the subwoofer output with a 24 db/oct lowpass filter (usually 80 Hz). However, the 'small' speaker outputs are filtered with a 12 db/oct highpass filter. This is designed to work with a 'standard' sealed box Q=.7 speaker with a -3db at 80Hz. So for vented speakers which decline at 24db/oct under the tuning point, there isn't really a right answer to the question. If they're flat to an octave under the crossover point, you'll have a little extra bass in the 40-80Hz range. If they are -3db at 80Hz, you'll have a little less bass at the crossover point. Either way you have an asymmetrical crossover (different slopes on high and lowpass sides).
A popular option for using a large tower speaker as 'small' is to plug the port, making it a sealed box so it takes on a 12 db/oct or whereabounts rolloff. The -3db point goes up too (usually to 60-80Hz). This way it will integrate better with the receiver's crossover but still keep most of the output capability of the larger speaker.
Of course, if you get to create your own crossover (setting frequencies, slopes, and Q independently) this all goes out the window. You can integrate your speakers anyway you want. In my example, I would seal the port on my Kit281 mains giving them a Q=0.65 sealed box rolloff with -3db at 60hz or so. Then I would get a Q=.77 2nd order highpass filter at 60Hz and put it in front of the speaker. This is a typical L-R 4th order highpass which would be easy to integrate with a subwoofer's lowpass filter. Just an example.
Wow that was long, but hey this is an interesting thread.

 

[Max Knight]

A very good question has been raised here:
At what point does a "bookshelf" become a "tower"?
If we are to suppose that a bookshelf has some sort of sonic advantage due to it's size, what are the bounds of that size? I think we can all agree that a "cube" speaker will not satisfy us.
For this discussion to move forward in an enlightening manner we need to do the following:
1. We must define our question better.
a) Are we talking about a hypothetical set of bookshelves and towers using the same drivers and quality of material?
b) Are we talking about speakers that share a price point?
c) What criteria are we judging on? If our criteria is simply "better sound" we might as well all pack up and go home, because there is no way for people communicating using only text and with a myriad of different sonic tastes to decide this.
c.1) Are we instead talking about a cost issue, i.e. which format of speaker delivers the best "bang for the buck"
c.2) Are we looking at flexibility?
2. How do we define the contestants?
a) Is a bookshelf assumed to be any speaker which without the aid of a stand cannot place its tweeter that the level of a seated averagely sized human?
b) Assuming "a" above, would a size difference of 1" of vertical height be enough to make a hypothetical speaker fall into one category or the other?
3. What are our assumptions regarding influences outside the speaker box?
a) Are subwoofers (correctly positioned and calibrated) assumed for both formats?
b) At what point are the larger format speakers blended with the sub (assuming "a").
I propose that we, as a group, answer these questions before continuing the discussion. If we can have a set of guidelines mapped out, we can start looking to our members for people in a position to test our assumptions. Perhaps we have two members living close together with similar sonic tasts and different setups who could have a listening session or two and report to us on their findings.
P.S.
I think the original question of the thread "Why do we buy towers" has been answered: Because for whatever reason we think think they sound better. Those who think they sound worse (and who have not previously owned towers) obviously are not qualified to answer the question, because they would not buy towers!

 

[Adil M]

Studio 20's, 40's and 60's. Bookshelf, big bookshelf, and tower. 40's plus sub or 60's plus sub?

 

[shankar]

A popular option for using a large tower speaker as 'small' is to plug the port, making it a sealed box

My AR S40's came with some sponge plugs to plug in the ports. Are you suggesting that I do that and it'll integrate my S40's better with the sub??

Many posters here have suggested letting the speaker breathe to get a better bass blending. Doesn't plugging the port do the opposite??

 

[Brian Bunge]

Sankar,

Plugging the ports allows for a more gradual low end roll off and may very well aid in subwoofer integration. Also, depending on the specific speaker, plugging the port may increase the transient response. I usually notice the increased transient response as drums having more attack and sounding more natural with the ports plugged.

Like I said, this depends highly on the individual speakers themselves.

If you measure a large response hump around the sub/mains crossover frequency plugging the ports may help to smooth this out.

Brian

 

[Michael R Price]

Ah, as Brian says, the proof is in the measurements. That's the real way to integrate your system. Measure it yourself.

 

[Mal P]

Hi Max,

I think the original question of the thread "Why do we buy towers" has been answered: Because for whatever reason we think think they sound better. Those who think they sound worse (and who have not previously owned towers) obviously are not qualified to answer the question, because they would not buy towers!

I currently own tower speakers. They have excellent frequency response down to the -3dB point of 31hz. They also have excellent phase cohesion and high sensitivity. The specs are here: http://www.vaf.com.au/catalog/products/dcx_spec.htm
This speaker is highly regarded in the Australian Hi-Fi scene, because it offers a very balanced, neutral and powerful sound, and at the same time providing very good detail and finesse. Imaging is superb.
However, I also have a HSU VTF-2 subwoofer, and have it produce the bass (it's identical to the bass performance of the DC-Xs, for the majority of music - meaning that one would not be able to differentiate between the two for bass). I would have bought this, or any other sub anyway, because it is required for films.
For around the same price as the DC-X, one could buy a pair of Signature monitors (from the same manufacturer) which are built around the SEAS Excel range of drivers, and offers stunning detail, finesse and imaging. Not much bass though, being a smaller speaker, but yet it offers a leap in performance with the mids and highs.
As an owner of floorstanders, and after hearing the Signature monitors with the VTF-2 in my setup, I regret purchasing the floorstanding DC-Xs, despite them being excellent speakers. I could have had magnificent sound, not just very good sound, for the same price.
Cheers,
Mal

 

[Max Knight]

Hi Mal,

You raise a good point, being someone who owns towers but is looking towards bookshelves. But once again we run into the problem of defining our question and assumptions. Your comparison is based on price-point, i.e. a set of bookshelves and a set of towers at aproximately the same price. In your experience the bookshelves deliver a more satisfying sound.

Not knowing too much about the brand you are working with I can't really guess at the differences between the drivers. Should we compare based on price point, or based on an assumption of equal technology? I would argue that if we are going on price point alone we are doing ourselves a disservice, as speakers of equal price can have widely different quality (Bose vs. Paradigm for example).

To truely understand the differences between a tower speaker and a bookshelf I am beginning to think that there can really be no comparison unless we are speaking about two sets of speakers from the same company sharing the same primary components and design philosophy. Otherwise we might as well be comparing two totally separate speakers with a number of variables other than just simple format.

 

[Bob_A]

"To truely understand the differences between a tower speaker and a bookshelf I am beginning to think that there can really be no comparison unless we are speaking about two sets of speakers from the same company sharing the same primary components and design philosophy. "

Exactly!!! I do know someone at this forum who compared the bp2000TL + quality external subs to the bp30 (similar speaker, but without a built-in powered woofer) + quality external subs, and found the former setup to be preferrable (cost differences aside). But it is not always a clear-cut issue. Ultimately, it depends on our preferences.

 

[matthew_rm]

Charles J P, my reply may be a little late...

(the jbl, polk's crappy sound)

They were $1000 CDN. I have no doubt that the higher end JBL can keep up with Klipsch REF. And top of the line JBL can keep up with dynaudio. (or better) They were hooked up to a HK reciver.

The JBL northridge series? I think thats what it was. VERY BAD if you ask me. the polks sounded bas as well. I think it might have something to do with the way HK recievers die so slowly...

 

[GarryW]

Great discussion!
As someone who started with towers (Paradigm M7's), I am thinking about going back to bookshelves on stands. Being that this was my first entry level purchase, I bought the towers because:
1) I wouldn't need stands
2) I was told I would get better blending with my sub (Paradigm PW-2200)
3) They looked more impressive than bookshelves on stands
When I audtioned some bookshelves like the Mini Monitors & Studio 20's, I actually thought they sounded better, when used with a sub, but bought the M7's anyway for the above reasons.
So now, I'm a back at square one, with a little experience and a lot of great information from you guys. I am looking seriously at Studio 20's or maybe 40's as I've heard the 40's are rated very highly for music listening.
The location of my sub is unchangeable now and puts it almost adjacent to my left main. I am thinking that this being the case now, I just don't need anymore bass.
Maybe the room acoustics shold really dictate if you should go "bookshelves on stands or towers"

 

[Jason_Me]

This is a very interesting debate, one that should be added to the archives when finished.

The biggest knock against a bookshelfs sound quality is the fact that one driver has to handle the midrange and the bass. I think I'm going to throw a curveball at that argument. What about 2 1/2 way bookshelfs like the Polk LSi9? They have a driver to handle the mids, and another driver to handle the bass. Its still a fairly small speaker, since it uses 5 1/4" drivers, so it dosent loose the advantages that come with being a small bookshelf. Adding an excellent $400 sub like the Energy S10.2 will give the LSi9 full range performance, at $1500. I'm willing to bet this this combo will sound superior to the more expensive towers, LSi15 and LSi25.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Why do we buy towers?
Errr, I don't. I buy planars, Magneplanars. Just think they sound better.
And don't believe that stuff about rock and roll not working. Mine go down to a very clean 40 hertz. The 3.6s go to 34 hz and the 20.1 to 25hz. Lots of bass.
Sorry, I just thought the planar contingent needed a voice.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[Dustin B]

Jason you're defining a 3way, not a 2 1/2 way.
I'm just gonna use some random numbers for a fictious speaker to illustrate what a 2 1/2 way speaker is.
Tweeter - 2200hz - 20,000hz
Cone 1 - 40hz - 2200hz
Cone 2 - 40hz - 600hz
Between Cone 1 and the Tweeter is a full crossover (low pass and high pass filter). Cone 2 has half a crossover, only the low pass filter, and helps out Cone 1 in the bass frequencies.
If you want a little more detailed understanding of crossovers (I only understand what they do, not how they do it or how to design them) give this a read:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...602#post523602

 

[Jason_Me]

Dustin, Polk calls the LSi9 a 2 1/2 way on their website.

My understanding is that a speaker has to have different size drivers to be a 3 way. I have never seen a speaker with the same size drivers called a 3 way.

 

[Dustin B]

It's possible, although like you, I can't think of anyone that has made a 3way with two identical drivers for the mid and woof. However, the definition still stands, 3 way, 2 1/2 way and 2 way have to do with the crossover, not the drivers. Although you do need a minimum of 3 drivers for a 2 1/2 way or 3 way speaker. But you can still have a two way speaker with 3 drivers (Paradigm Monitor 5 and 7 are examples).

Give that post I made in the primer a read through. It will make a lot more sense after you do.