Floor Standing Speakers vs Stand Mount

[MartinC]

An interesting argument and I see where you're coming from - but I'm afraid I don't agree! The well-designed full range speakers, if set up properly and the room is given careful consideration regarding furniture, carpets, etc will, or at least should be better overall than a multiple speaker array.

I disagree - if you want to theorise (your 'should be') the arguments for multiple subwoofers being the optimal solution for bass is a strong one IMHO (assuming appropriate DSP). Two floorstanding speakers is the compromise from a technical perspective.

 

[eddie-baby]

Have the best of both I say

 

[hiesteem]

Potentially yes, but with reservations. All cabinets vibrate, unfortunately. The more you increase the area of the cabinet walls the more potential vibration problems you have. Piega and Magico have shown that with thick aluminium walls you can reduce vibration to very low levels. Under those conditions it's possible to make good use of the extra volume in the cabinets. Otherwise with wood you are obliged to use substantial and intricate interior bracing, which commercial companies are loathe to do.

I realised what rigidity means to the sound of loudspeakers when I bought my Atacama SLX 600 stands to support my Mission 761s. The sound was quite audibly cleaner.

I agree with your last paragraph. In my opinion a well thought out stand mount, offers a different type of sound and is much more flexible to use in an average room.
The stand being an important part of the
Sound of the speaker, often creating better imaging and focus of presentation as only a good stand mount can.
There are benefits to a well thought out floor stander of course, but imo they offer a different presentation and a different set of issues to deal with.

 

[tuga]

Piega and Magico have shown that with thick aluminium walls you can reduce vibration to very low levels. Under those conditions it's possible to make good use of the extra volume in the cabinets. Otherwise with wood you are obliged to use substantial and intricate interior bracing, which commercial companies are loathe to do.

As intricate as this intricately braced aluminium Magico?

 

[hiesteem]

As intricate as this intricately braced aluminium Magico?

I'll take the first floor please

 

[tuga]

This photo is clearer:

 

[StingRay]

Floor standers or large speakers have a larger scale and a larger impact, both in sound stage and bass. Probably the bass extension could be achieved with the addition of a sub woofer, but it is really the scale that stands out. A larger vibrating cabinet just dissipates sound over a larger area. A bookshelf by comparison will sound smaller, if that makes any sense.

I found it interesting reading the observations of an Audiogoner who was auditioning some mega speakers in the 300k region, in a largish 20 x 30 feet room, and came away feeling all the speakers were on the verge of over loading the room. The sound stage and impact was massive. But it was immensely tiring, and impossible to relax into. So i guess it is that relation between speaker and room size that one has to be prudent with. Bloated bass might not always be the issue, but it might become a sensory overload and fatiguing in the long run. And i can relate with the above in my smallish room with speakers way larger for this space. If iam not careful with the volume, it can turn from enjoyable to miserable really fast.

Is that the case, some stand mount's are far larger than these thin floorstanders. Some Tannoys have 15" drivers. Ive heard some Neat floorstanders and there was hardly any bass. There are physical issues, Ive heard some floorstanders resonating even at modest levels, just playing some double bass, not heard that on standmounts.

 

[tuga]

Is that the case, some stand mount's are far larger than these thin floorstanders. Some Tannoys have 15" drivers. Ive heard some Neat floorstanders and there was hardly any bass. There are physical issues, Ive heard some floorstanders resonating even at modest levels, just playing some double bass, not heard that on standmounts.

You can get bass from small drivers, but they're high excursion and low sensitivity. Purifi makes very low distortion 8" woofers with an Fs of around 25Hz and ±15mm Xmax that'll give you more extended bass than a Tannoy.

https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop?search=&order=&attrib=346-8074

 

[StingRay]

You can get bass from small drivers, but they're high excursion and low sensitivity. Purifi makes very low distortion 8" woofers with an Fs of around 25Hz and ±15mm Xmax that'll give you more extended bass than a Tannoy.

https://ptt.purifi-audio.com/shop?search=&order=&attrib=346-8074

You are missing the point. How do Neat 5.3 inch drivers in a floorstander compare to Tannoy's 15 inch driver? There is too much generalisation in this thread.

 

[tuga]

You are missing the point. How do Neat 5.3 inch drivers in a floorstander compare to Tannoy's 15 inch driver? There is too much generalisation in this thread.

Those two speakers don't have the same performance potential, you should be comparing the Tannoys with a floorstanding speaker of identical volume, for example the DMT15 cabinet has an internal volume of 100 litres, about the same size as a Magico A5 (3x 9" woofers).

 

[StingRay]

Those two speakers don't have the same performance potential, you should be comparing the Tannoys with a floorstanding speaker of identical volume, for example the DMT15 cabinet has an internal volume of 100 litres, about the same size as a Magico A5 (3x 9" woofers).

But people just say floorstanders blah blah blah, that is my point.

So tell them they should be comparing the dame size Speakers then.

 

[sailor]

An interesting argument and I see where you're coming from - but I'm afraid I don't agree! The well-designed full range speakers, if set up properly and the room is given careful consideration regarding furniture, carpets, etc will, or at least should be better overall than a multiple speaker array. The latter requires many enclosures - carpentry is costly and floor-space if often valuable - with multiple amps and cables - more expense - and the sound from cross-over instruments (cello, etc) will be coming at you from 2 or more speakers, so will be less identifiable location-wise. For me, good imaging is hugely important and multiple speakers will reduce imaging considerably.

I really am not sure what you're talking about here. It does not relate to what I said and think you might be confusing my posts with some other.

You talk about multiple speaker arrays, many enclosures, multiple amps and cables. Where did you get this from ??? Maybe you just skim read my posts or I did a poor job of explaining myself. Please read posts #54 and 59 again.

I'm talking about a pair of speakers that don't pretend full range frequency response and augmenting this with 2 or 3 subs. and I claim this approach will yield a superior performance.

In a nutshell I was trying to point out that very expensive full range speakers are going to disappoint because the requirements for quality bass differ from the requirements for a good sound stage. Nobody will position their speakers for the best possible bass performance because I can guarantee you that they will not then image well. Now if you place them where they will image well then the bass is compromised which leads to me suggesting avoiding the top of the line flagship speakers and going for a model or two below because the full range bass just has to be accepted where it is, as it is.

There are manufacturers like Richard Vandersteen who take cognisance of this phenomenon and provide tunable bass sections for his top design

So if no tunable bass what do you do??? You add subwoofers (with built in plate amps) and you place them where they actually serve to smooth out all the peaks and nulls.

This approach will outperform the so called 'full range speaker" in terms of cost and quality sound and I'm not talking about using a pair of Kenwood speakers from the 70's There are standmount speakers from some manufacturers that utilise the exacrt same tweeter and mid-range driver used in their top model at a significantly lower price.

 

[tuga]

I really am not sure what you're talking about here. It does not relate to what I said and think you might be confusing my posts with some other.

You talk about multiple speaker arrays, many enclosures, multiple amps and cables. Where did you get this from ??? Maybe you just skim read my posts or I did a poor job of explaining myself. Please read posts #54 and 59 again.

I'm talking about a pair of speakers that don't pretend full range frequency response and augmenting this with 2 or 3 subs. and I claim this approach will yield a superior performance.

In a nutshell I was trying to point out that very expensive full range speakers are going to disappoint because the requirements for quality bass differ from the requirements for a good sound stage. Nobody will position their speakers for the best possible bass performance because I can guarantee you that they will not then image well. Now if you place them where they will image well then the bass is compromised which leads to me suggesting avoiding the top of the line flagship speakers and going for a model or two below because the full range bass just has to be accepted where it is, as it is.

There are manufacturers like Richard Vandersteen who take cognisance of this phenomenon and provide tunable bass sections for his top design

So if no tunable bass what do you do??? You add subwoofers (with built in plate amps) and you place them where they actually serve to smooth out all the peaks and nulls.

This approach will outperform the so called 'full range speaker" in terms of cost and quality sound and I'm not talking about using a pair of Kenwood speakers from the 70's There are standmount speakers from some manufacturers that utilise the exacrt same tweeter and mid-range driver used in their top model at a significantly lower price.

I will argue that you need 3-ways + subs if you wish to pursue full range. And most 3-way speakers are floorstanders.
As long as you high pass the main speakers there is no advantage in using smaller (standmount) speakers because both will be operating within the same range.

 

[hearhere]

Ive heard some floorstanders resonating even at modest levels, just playing some double bass, not heard that on standmounts.

True - most standmounts can't even attempt to deliver double bass and poorly designed / built floor-standers will deliver poor results - but at least they try! Better than either is to get properly built floorstanders that can and do deliver realistic double bass withour support from subs.

 

[hearhere]

You talk about multiple speaker arrays, many enclosures, multiple amps and cables. Where did you get this from ???

Sorry, but didn't you say "To me, far better is to choose a smaller speaker and it does not matter if floor standing or on stands, that excels in great midrange purity and clean detailed highs and augment this with 2 or 3 good subs optimally placed where they contribute to smoothing out the room's response."

My elementary arithmetic suggests you are promoting 4 or 5 speakers, rather than just 2. These extra speakers (subs) each require an amp and a cable and of course an extra costly piece of joinery and loss of valuable floor space.

As I said I have some sympathy for your argument but I don’t fully agree with it for the reasons I described in detail. However there’s plenty of space for different approaches, so I respect your opinion.

 

[tuga]

Of course

Sorry, but didn't you say "To me, far better is to choose a smaller speaker and it does not matter if floor standing or on stands, that excels in great midrange purity and clean detailed highs and augment this with 2 or 3 good subs optimally placed where they contribute to smoothing out the room's response."

My elementary arithmetic suggests you are promoting 4 or 5 speakers, rather than just 2. These extra speakers (subs) each require an amp and a cable and of course an extra costly piece of joinery and loss of valuable floor space.

As I said I have some sympathy for your argument but I don’t fully agree with it for the reasons I described in detail. However there’s plenty of space for different approaches, so I respect your opinion.

Multiple subs (an idea first defended by Earl Geddes in the piece Why Multiple Subs? ) are the best option to get a more even response but there are at least 2 good reasons why they're not popular: cost and space requirements.
Also most of us (in Western Europe) use 2 channel preamps and integrateds which don't have sub outputs.

 

[rocky raccoon]

A good biggie is always better than a good smallie.
Of course, some rooms are too small for a good biggie. That is why good smallies exist.

 

[MartinC]

These extra speakers (subs) each require an amp and a cable and of course an extra costly piece of joinery and loss of valuable floor space.

Floorstanding speakers that have realistic output capability down to 20 Hz aren't cheap, and doing so places greater demands on the amplifier for the main speakers too. Things that need to be factored in when considering cost an argument again subwoofers. I'd argue subs are the cheaper option.

 

[newlash09]

@sailor and @StingRay...no offense meant sirs...but please try listening to a big cabinet with big drivers. It is not just about the bass, it is about the acoustic energy that the drivers throw out. I like to call it as scale... the acoustic throw of a speaker. My system is in my small room, very well treated, more than most domestic rooms are...especially in the bass. And when I listen to it in my kitchen , which is 30 feet away, there is no difference in sound volume, either in my small music room or the kitchen 30 feet away. Everything sounds just as loud, and just as clear. That is scale....The ability to maintain that sound pressure levels over a larger distance. And big drivers in big cabinets achieve this easily....

 

[hearhere]

Floorstanding speakers that have realistic output capability down to 20 Hz aren't cheap, and doing so places greater demands on the amplifier for the main speakers too.

Yes to point 1. though similar performance from a standmount plus subs is likely to be equally costly.

No to point 2. Large speakers often have higher sensitivity compared with small one. My big speakers are 107 dB and need a handful of watts to upset the neighbours, whereas the small LS3/5A has a typical sensitivity of 83 dB and will need hugely more power from the amp that feeds it and will never upset the neighbours!

OK, that may be a factor in favour of standmounts I hadn't previously considered! I think I'll stick with my floorstanders.