Subs with a floor stander or stand mount?

[marquis]

is there an inherent benefit to using a large floor standing speaker along with subs as opposed to just using the stand mount equivalent of the upper section of the same speaker with the subs crossed over a bit higher? It seems to me that in the first scenario you are basically just wasting the expense of extra drivers and excessive cabinet size if the subwoofer is going to take over most of the low frequency duties anyway

I prefer the minimal appearance of the latter set-up but haven't really had the opportunity to compare in real performance scenarios. In the end, I am a function over form guy so if a full range w/subs is what it takes then so be it. I'd love to hear some good rational commentary to help me clarify the pros and cons before I commit to any particular DIY speaker design. I will add that I am very interested in dipole designs if that makes any difference in the ultimate thought process.

Thanks to all who take time to respond!

Mark

[evilskillit]

Well a bigger speaker with more drivers, assuming everything else is equal, will be more sensitive, play louder and have lower distortion at the same volume, compared to a small speaker. For most people bookshelves on stands work just fine and are cheaper, more portable and have a higher WAF. If you're using a subwoofer chances are both will work great for you but bigger is pretty much always better.

[Bear]

Well a bigger speaker with more drivers, assuming everything else is equal, will be more sensitive, play louder and have lower distortion at the same volume, compared to a small speaker. For most people bookshelves on stands work just fine and are cheaper, more portable and have a higher WAF. If you're using a subwoofer chances are both will work great for you but bigger is pretty much always better.

I agree with the above -- with a caveat. All speakers will have some combination of frequency and power where the speaker will maximize its output. That is, the drivers will reach their maximum excursion (Xmax), and beyond that point, adding more power will produce rapidly increasing amounts of distortion and may damage the driver.

For most speakers, this limiting point is in the bass region, which would be handed off to the subwoofer. However, you can easily have a mid-range or mid-woofer that hits Xmax in the upper bass/mid-bass area which might have been covered by a woofer in the "floor stander". You are getting into some implementation-dependent issues here. That being said, my MTMs will play upwards of 110dB before reaching Xmax without a sub crossover, and I don't need to know how much louder they will go since I have a small room (approx. 13x13x9). If you have a large room that you are trying to fill, go bigger. SPL is inversely proportional to distance, so 100dB at 3' will be much, much less at 20'.

In other words, match your speakers to your room.

[Dennis H]

I will add that I am very interested in dipole designs if that makes any difference in the ultimate thought process.

Yup, it makes a huge difference. Consider the Orion as a benchmark system. It uses an 8" midwoof crossed at 120. With dipoles, to play 1/3 octave lower, you need to double the swept volume. So 2x8" to cross at 100 and 4x8" to cross at 80. Even the Orion's 2x10" long-stroke sub drivers won't get you down to 20 Hz with very many dB. Linkwitz crosses them to monopole subs at 50Hz these days.

[evilskillit]

Yeah Bear when I say all things being equal I'm comparing say a bookshelf using the Dayton RS Tweeter and 5" woofer vs a Tower using maybe the RS Tweeter two 5" woofers and two 8" woofers, or something. You get the idea

[Bear]

Yeah Bear when I say all things being equal I'm comparing say a bookshelf using the Dayton RS Tweeter and 5" woofer vs a Tower using maybe the RS Tweeter two 5" woofers and two 8" woofers, or something. You get the idea

Got it, though you really aren't playing fair with two mids for the Tower vs. only one for the Bookshelf. :W A 5" or 7" MTM will be plenty loud in most "normal" rooms, especially when paired with a good sub or two. For smaller rooms, a 5" or 7" TM would most likely be fine, as well. If you want to bypass a sub and focus more on music than HT, then a full-range is definitely in order, but form follows function and the cabinet size will grow quickly as you plumb the depths.

[---k---]

A good comparison would be CJD's RS150 MTM to the Khans. The only difference between the two is the addition of the pair of RS225. I've heard both and will keep my Khans. I bet CJD would too.

Not that a simple MTM and sub setup can't be very satisfying, but I would venture to say the Khans deliver more snap and punch in the upper bass region. Those shotgun shots you hear aren't really in subwoofer territory. Same with many of the bangs. Having a pair of RS225 is nice.

[evilskillit]

Yeah or Statement Monitors vs Mini Statements vs Statements.

[marquis]

Nortorious B.I.G.

Thanks guys,

It seems for the most part that the concensus still is that size still matters. As far as the WAF factor goes, thankfully the ol' P.T. Barnum axiom "you can fool all of the people some of the time, etc..." keeps working for me in some of the more critical aspects of our houshold! Otherwise, what the heck am I suposed to do with all this massive equipment I've got hangin' around, right fellas?!?

[evilskillit]

Thanks guys,

It seems for the most part that the concensus still is that size still matters. As far as the WAF factor goes, thankfully the ol' P.T. Barnum axiom "you can fool all of the people some of the time, etc..." keeps working for me in some of the more critical aspects of our houshold! Otherwise, what the heck am I suposed to do with all this massive equipment I've got hangin' around, right fellas?!?

Are we still talking about speakers? ops:

[marquis]

Famous quotes

That's what she said.

[A9X]

That's what she said.

[theblue]

good and funny thread.