Bookshelves vs. Floorstanders

[yromj]

This is NOT intended to start a flame war or any kind of attack. This is to inspire a good healthy debate.

I would like to read everyone's stance on the bookshelves vs. floorstanders issue. More importantly, I would like you to back up your claims, as much as possible. We all understand that the ultimate goal is to get speakers which sound the best to each of us. It is also a given that these personal preferences can not be quantified. However, things like frequency response, sensitivity, etc. CAN be quantified.

With all that said, I'll start. I had my way of thinking about speakers challenged about a year and a half ago. The result was that I started examining floorstanding speakers' charecteristics vs. their bookshelf counterparts. I was amazed at the similarities between the two types of speakers today. In the past the floorstanders had much bigger drivers and usually more of them. Today this isn't always the case.

MOST (not all) floorstanders today have small drivers; many are less than 8". Bookshelves can be bought w/ these same size drivers. For example in the Paradigm Reference line the Studio 40s (BS), 60s(FS), and 100s(BS) all use 7" drivers. The B&W Nautilus 805(BS) uses a 6.5" driver while the 803(FS) uses a 7" driver. Klipsch does a similar thing w/ their Reference line.

In the <$1,000 market, I believe you can get better speakers for your money by going bookshelves vs. floorstanders. In other words, I believe $800 will allow you to buy a pair of bookshelves that will sound better than an $800 pair of floorstanders. For example, Klipsch RF-25s(45Hz-20kHz, 97dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $800/pr whereas the RB-35s(45Hz-20kHz, 96dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $600/pr. The RF-25s use a 6.5" bass/midrange driver and a 6" square horn, while the RB-35s use an 8" bass/midrange driver and a 6" square horn. That's $200 saved, no performance lost (spec-wise), and the bookshelf has the larger driver.

The bookshelves also give more flexible placement options, both horizontally (location w/in the room) as well as vertically. This vertical flexibility allows the speakers to be placed at the optimum listening height for a specific room.

Of course, no option is perfect. Bookshelves do require stands. Some see this as the "price equalizer". However, in reality stands do NOT have to cost an arm and a leg to look nice and perform well. In fact many times, too much credit/blame is placed on the stand when it comes to speaker performance. Most bookshelf speakers, and stands, come w/ rubber feet which serve to isolate (or decouple) the speaker from the stand acoustically.

Another thing to note in my discussion, is that it is based on speakers w/ similar driver sizes. This is because saying that a bookshelf can compete w/ a true full range speaker such as a Belle or Klipschorn is not wise.

John

[gcoker]

The only way Bookshelf beat there Floorstanding counter parts is in price.

While I have not comparied every type of bookshelf vs. Floorstanding..

the ones I have the Floorstanding sounds much fuller.

[pinipig523]

----------------

On 8/30/2004 4:55:40 PM yromj wrote:

I believe $800 will allow you to buy a pair of bookshelves that will sound better than an $800 pair of floorstanders. For example, Klipsch RF-25s(45Hz-20kHz, 97dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $800/pr whereas the RB-35s(45Hz-20kHz, 96dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $600/pr. The RF-25s use a 6.5" bass/midrange driver and a 6" square horn, while the RB-35s use an 8" bass/midrange driver and a 6" square horn. That's $200 saved, no performance lost (spec-wise), and the bookshelf has the larger driver.

John

----------------

Yeah but what you are forgetting is that the RF-25 has TWO 6.5 inch drivers which has more total surface area than a single 8" driver of the RB-35. Also, lets not forget that the RF-25 has a much larger internal cabinet volume in comparison to the RB-35, thus, adding extension and a more full range sound. Plus, the fact that the RF-25 doesnt require stands makes it an overall better deal once you factor in ~100$ stands that do the RB-35 justice.

[yromj]

----------------

On 8/30/2004 6:25:20 PM pinipig523 wrote:

Yeah but what you are forgetting is that the RF-25 has TWO 6.5 inch drivers which has more total surface area than a single 8" driver of the RB-35. Also, lets not forget that the RF-25 has a much larger internal cabinet volume in comparison to the RB-35, thus, adding extension and a more full range sound. Plus, the fact that the RF-25 doesnt require stands makes it an overall better deal once you factor in ~100$ stands that do the RB-35 justice.

----------------

The two drivers will add power only, not extension. The speakers are rated as shown, according to the Klipsch website. People tend to assume two things about floorstanders over bookshelves: 1. They definitely play lower. 2. They definitely play deeper. Klipsch, and other manufacturers, own specs say differently.

As for the stands, they can be had for considerably less. (I paid $40 for mine and they are very high quality stands.)

John

[Scp53]

The two drivers will add power only, not extension. The speakers are rated as shown, according to the Klipsch website. People tend to assume two things about floorstanders over bookshelves: 1. They definitely play lower. 2. They definitely play deeper. Klipsch, and other manufacturers, own specs say differently.

____________________________________________________________________

what do you mean by play lower and play deeper? whats the diff between lower and deeper?

and I think they do add extension. but its the port/cab doing it, not the woofer(s).

[yromj]

----------------

On 8/30/2004 8:48:32 PM Scp53 wrote:

___________________________________________________________________

what do you mean by play lower and play deeper? whats the diff between lower and deeper?

and I think they do add extension. but its the port/cab doing it, not the woofer(s).

----------------

I meant play louder and deeper, sorry about that. Note the specs given in the original post. These are straight from Klipsch's spec sheet. The RFs are 1dB more sensitive, and both have the same frequency range.

John

[pinipig523]

Specs on the website do not say much about how the two sound. Although both may have similar freq. responses according to specification posted, the two sound quite different. For example, the RW-12 is rated to go down to 21hz whereas the RSW-12 is rated to go down to only 22hz. Now, ask any klipsch afficionado and they will tell you that the RSW-12 is hands-down better than the RW-12.

This is in agreement to your statement that the RF-25 will play louder at ALL freq (especially sub 60hz) relative to the RB-35.

Also, you forgot to take into account the crossover settings of the two speakers you have compared. The crossover of the RB-35 is around 2300hz whereas the crossover of the RF-25 is around 2630hz.

I would take the RF-25 over the RB-35s in a heartbeat. I feel that the RF-25s are more dynamic and have better midrange.

[Deang]

I don't agree with that. If the RB-35 is anything like its predecessor, it should walk all move the 25's in the dynamics department. Now, comparing the two speakers in question -- I say you mind as well go with the 35's, especially if you are looking at running a sub down the road. Good monitors tend to sound more open, as they aren't as prone to resonating because they don't have the long side panels of a floorstander. I also think a two-way with one mid/woofer sounds more coherent. They just articulate better. I think in this instance John is right.

Now, when you move up the line things change up on you somewhat. Though I think the RB-75 has a punchier, faster sound -- and even seems more dynamically alive than the RF-7 on some material -- the sensitivity rating of the RF-7 makes it a bone crusher with a mere 40 watts. This also means at any given point, the RF-7 will have lower distortion and sound cleaner than RB-75. What would be interesting would be to compare the sound of a pair of RB-75s and something like the Dayton Audio Titanic III subwoofer against a pair of RF-7s. Both setups would run about $2K -- and my guess is it would be very difficult to pick one sound over the other.

[D-Rex]

I am not sure what a fair comparison is but I have acquired a pair of RB 5's for rear surrounds and a pair of RF 3IIs for front mains and I think the RF's are much fuller than the RB 5s. It was just a brief examination because I don't usually like to get too picky but my wife said she liked the RB 5s over the RF3 IIs. I stuck my ear to each and determined that the RBs sounded a bit "boxy" while the RFs sounded more crisp and rich. This was at a very mild volume and I still really like the sound of the RB 5s, I just preferred the sound of the RFs and, after getting a closer listen to the RF 3IIs I think my wife came around to my way of thinking as well.

Now, I do still plan on building a couple of stands for the RF's because they are somewhat short for my taste. Maybe something to raise them by about 8" to a foot should do the trick. Anyone else done this with their RF speakers?

[marksdad]

1 thing i have learned is that specs do not tell the story, i think they are more of a guidline, well more than that, but the difference can be readily heard, different ambience, sounstage, and the size of the enclosure does have a bearing on overall sound

[Scp53]

DeanG, do you have a titanic sub mk3 12" or 15"? I ve seen you recommend or comment on them 3-4 times and just makes me wonder. or at the least have you heard one? I have a 10" one and its nice. only problem is that the amp clips sometimes. sorry, hope Im not hijacking the topic...

scp53

[PhilMays]

I would be interested in comparing the RB-75's to the RF-35's or RF-3II's.

A great point was made though. I auditioned a pair of bookshelf B & W speakers (not sure the number now) to replace my Polk RT 800i's that I use on my deck. The cost for both were around $800 when I made the AB test.

Both the B & W and Polk had similar high's, however the Polks in floorstanding model had deeper and punchier bass, so I went with those.

[sivadselim]

----------------

On 8/31/2004 10:23:37 AM PhilMays wrote:

A great point was made though.

----------------

oh yeah? and what point was that? in your example, you're comparing one manufacturer's bookshelves to another's floorstanders. not really a valid conparison. perhaps the polk's "deeper and punchier" bass can be attributed to something besides the fact that they're floorstanders.

the ONLY generalizations one can make regarding floorstanding speakers versus bookshelf speakers is that the floorstanders (probably) don't require a stand. that's it.

[Kenstr]

----------------

On 8/30/2004 4:55:40 PM yromj wrote:

...

I believe you can get better speakers for your money by going bookshelves vs. floorstanders. In other words, I believe $800 will allow you to buy a pair of bookshelves that will sound better than an $800 pair of floorstanders. For example, Klipsch RF-25s(45Hz-20kHz, 97dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $800/pr whereas the RB-35s(45Hz-20kHz, 96dB/1W/1m) have an MSRP of $600/pr.

----------------

I went on this same idea when deciding what to get for my HT front left and right speakers. The difference for me was that I compared the SAME price range bookshelf vs floor. So for my $600 it was the RB35 vs the RF15 (they are both the exact same price). To me it was no question that the RB35 sounded better.

Not sure I agree about the RB35 vs RF25 but when comparing the same dollar amount and speaker brand I think the bookshelf usually wins.

[PhilMays]

sivadselim,

The point was that bookshelf speakers can come close in the same dollar range. No where in YROMJ's initial post did they say to keep within the same brand. I already owned the Polk's so I saw no reason in purchasing additional speakers. However they were close.

Do you think DCM floorstanding speakers will sound as good as say the old RB-5's?

How about $800 Bose 701's compared to B & W DM 303's?

If you stay within the same manufacturer I feel it will be harder for a bookshelf to out perform their floorstanding economic counterpart.

[yromj]

----------------

On 8/31/2004 2:28:31 PM PhilMays wrote:

If you stay within the same manufacturer I feel it will be harder for a bookshelf to out perform their floorstanding economic counterpart.

----------------

This is where my opinion differs from yours. I don't feel it will be harder for the comparably priced bookshelf to outperform the floorstander. The RF-15/RB-35 post provided earlier demonstrates this somewhat.

When I was auditioning speakers before I purchased mine, I had the exact same comments about the Rx-15, 25, and 35, whether they were floorstanding or bookshelves. I could easily tell the difference between the 15s and the 25s. The 25s and 35s took more careful listening, but the differences were there, especially at higher volumes. However, what wasn't nearly as obvious to me was the difference between the RBs and the RFs. I thought the 15s sounded much more "compressed" than the 25s, bookshelf or floorstanding. In other words the RB-25 sounded much better to me than the RF-15.

John

[PhilMays]

I could agree with that when comparing entry level floorstanding to it's counterpart, say an RB-35. To be totally fair I have not even heard either of these speakers you are speaking about so my opinion is really null and void in regards to those.

What would the RB-75 compare pricewise to on a floor model? That's the comparison I would be interested in personally as I have RF 3II's for surrounds and have considered placing the RB-75 there. Specs are compairable between the two but I put very little stock in published spec and more in what my ear tells me.

[ygmn]

Floor standing speakers look better.....hehehe

[Krispy Kirk]

Some observations:

- Take a pair of Heresies and put them up against their floorstanding "counterpart" the original Forte. No contest IMHO. A 12" woofer simply needs a bigger cabinet - about twice as big as the Heresy can offer. Hey, what a coincidence! The Forte WAS almost twice as big as the Heresy. OK, so the Forte had a passive radiator to help it out, but you get my drift, right?

- Stands (even very sturdy steel ones filled with shot/sand) are a bad idea if you have kids and/or large pets. Sooner or later, something's gonna knock them over.

- Floorstanders get the woofer closer to the floor (while maintaining the ear height of the tweeter.) This "floor bounce" bass reinforcement is another big reason why floorstanders from Klipsch and others tend to sound bigger and fuller than their bookshelf equivalents with the same sized drivers and even similarly sized cabinets.

- Floorstanders really DO look better!

- This isn't an either/or debate. There is one other option: the "powered tower." Basically, a bookshelf speaker grafted onto a powered sub. A brilliant design for so many reasons. Best of which are: you get all the advantages of a bookshelf speaker without the added cost/trouble of stands; you get two smaller subs in place of one big one (for smoother in-room bass); and they look as handsome as regular floorstanders! The recently discontinued SP-1s weren't the most popular model Klipsch ever made (but I like mine just fine!) Definitive Technology, Infinity, Polk, and Athena Technology are just a few of the better-known manufacturers who are still producing powered towers.

[yromj]

I totally agree w/ the Heresie statement. If today's floorstanders were all made w/ larger drivers, this discussion would never come up. Instead, many floorstanders are made w/ the same size drivers as their bookshelf counterparts. Thus, their advantages are fewer.

I do not necessarily agree w/ the powered tower recommendations. The best place for a midrange, and higher frequency, driver is in the middle of the room away from the walls. The best place for a sub is in a corner. Multiple subs in a single room can be quite difficult to tame properly because of the interaction of the two subs w/ each other and the room.

John