Main reasons for choosing floorstanders vs bookshelf speakers?

If anyone needs convincing on how good stand mount speakers are... I'll just say 505

A real " titan" of a speaker

Floor standers:

1. Extended bass
2. No stand
3. Visually more integrated
4. Not a misnomer.

Bookshelf:

1. Tight and clean bass
2. Control/precision
3. Options for placement
4. Generally cheaper
5. Lighter!

I have both. Floor-standers win every time.

Bookshelf speakers are usually better when fitting in a bookshelf.

Floorstanders are usually better at standing on the floor.

Very often it’s all about what works best in ones room....

I would say room size. One can cheat things by integrating a subwoofer with a bookshelf in a large room.  I have never liked that approach. 

Floorstanders Also will typically give a lower frequency response .

Ok so what do forum members think of the trend (if indeed it is a trend) towards the "super-sized" standmounters such as Kudos' 505, B&W's 805 D3 and the compact floorstanders epitomised by Neat? Is it aesthetics at play here?

I was perfectly happy with a good pair of monitors, except when playing large scale orchestral music. I really wanted more slam, more impact, more presence, more stage and an upgrade to floorstanders acheived that. I have since gone to even bigger and more capable floor standers (i.e. from Dynaudio Contour S1.4 to Contour S3.4 to the Confidence C2 Platinum I have now). The 282/HC/250 has been constant throughout, although I did do the service and DR upgrade prior to getting the C2s.

If it weren't for the orchestral music I like playing then monitors would be perfectly adequate (since I also use a pair of REL subs in any case).

My stand mounts (Russell K red 100) on linn stands are nice looking (wife appeal) and nice sounding (me appeal) 

Realistically an awfully lot of small floor standing speakers offer no advantage over a well designed stand mount

Although my room is medium sized ( 4.2m X 7m ) with a highish ceiling my speakers fill the apacs adequately and can still come with me if / when I retire to a smaller house

Jonners posted:

Ok so what do forum members think of the trend (if indeed it is a trend) towards the "super-sized" standmounters such as Kudos' 505, B&W's 805 D3 and the compact floorstanders epitomised by Neat? Is it aesthetics at play here?

Those are not exactly supersized standmounts. Large standmounts, to me would be ATC SCM50 and SCM100, Harbeth Monitor 40.2 etc.

Brubacca posted:

I would say room size. One can cheat things by integrating a subwoofer with a bookshelf in a large room.  I have never liked that approach. 

Floorstanders Also will typically give a lower frequency response .

I share the same sentiment. Subwoofers are useful in reinforcing the very low frequencies and adding more depth and 3-dimensionality to the music but they won't add too much to the scale by filling up the room unless the main speakers are not run as full range and the sub(s) crossover is set higher, taking more low-end duties.

Perhaps a matter of preference. I would rather use a pair of subs with large full range speakers than a pair of small mini-monitor with 4 or 5 inch drivers.

It really depends on what the OP is referring to here. A true "bookshelf" scenario indicates that any speaker is basically undesirable unless it fits on a shelf making all other possible reasons about sound quality or aesthetic totally moot.

On the other hand, if the OP simply means a small speaker (generally stand mounted), I would say my thinking goes like this:

1. Scale. With all but the very largest stand mounts (often based on studio monitor designs), scale just doesn't compete to a floor stander. There may be a trade off in precision (sometimes), but the scale of the sound is hard to beat from a floor standing variant in whatever speaker range is being considered.

2. Aesthetics. Consider a stand and a floor stander have about the same footprint, I'd rather have a consistent finish, such as a nice wood veneer, top to bottom than an ugly stand of any description for two thirds of the height with an unwieldy bit of cable conspicuously making its way up off the ground.

3. Safety. If you have kids around, a clumsy better half, or live in a earthquake zone (in my case all three), stand mounts are disasters waiting to happen (and happen over and over again). A heavier solid floor stander reduces the impact of these hazards.

4. Easy approval by "the decorating committee". See comment 2 on aesthetics. When I worked in the trade, it was easier to sell up to more expensive floor standers simply because the customer came in with their partner who took one look at back or silver stands and said "uhhh no way. Oooh the wood finish on these is nice!" 

Floorstander benefits are all about cabinet volume. Pretty simple.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the enclosure; sealed versus ported.

If you prefer the bass response of sealed speakers and don't want to mess with a sub then floorstanders seem the way.

OTOH, if you like sealed standmounts, faffing with a sub, and don't have neighbors to offend with deep bass energy, then a good choice.

If you have sealed enclosure floorstanders and are still pondering a sub, you may have room treatment or system issues to deal with, shitty speakers, or a speaker/room mismatch.

A great Floorstander will always outperform a great standmount, although with a clever choice of source and amplification - a smaller speaker - from either can sound a lot larger than it actually is.

An imaginary dream system of mine would run the Statement pre/power with a no compromise small speaker like the Magico Q1.

Although I do like a good pair of stand mounts, I prefer the aesthetics of a floor stander. No stands to mess around with (which always look a bit of an afterthought) and neater cable connections. The Kudos 505 is an interesting one. Superb as it is, I'm not sure the aesthetics of the bigger Titan models carry over into the 505 as well. It looks a bit awkward compared to the S10.

The Wilson Benesch Endeavour is an aesthetic success I think, with its integral stand and with some of its bits hanging out.

TOBYJUG posted:

The Wilson Benesch Endeavour is an aesthetic success I think, with its integral stand and with some of its bits hanging out.

I really like WB's, the use of carbon fibre makes for a striking design. Years ago I demo'd a pair of Arcs and I absolutely loved everything about them, particularly the looks but the price was beyond me.  Why can't more manufacturers be more daring in their designs instead of churning out the same old boxes? They frequently talk of all the technological advances on the inside - what about the outside? 

You would be surprised of the number of companies that get just one company in the UK to make their boxes for them,they just finish off in house. I would guess more challenging designs need an in-house design, manufacture and assembly. Too few now have this capability.

Those WBs epitomise the problem of standmounts - that the stand is as visually and spatially obtrusive as having a floorstanding element.

I'm sure that was the thinking of JV when he introduced the SBL in the mid-80s, one of the first floorstanders as we know them. Before that nearly all speakers were standmounted in some way (Isobariks, ESLs, Tannoys, IMFs).

But they are now underrated and can produce magical imaging in a way that floorstanders find harder...

Original Linn Kan bookshelf speakers will give any modern speaker a run for its money. It took large floor mounted PMC speakers to significantly better them in musicality. Yes I still have them, no, I'm keeping them. Rich

The standmounts have less large areas of cabinet to sing along with the drivers but they don't save you any space, you won't find many thin walled cabinets among floor standers but the BBC designs (among others) have had some success with them for standmounts.

feeling_zen posted:

It really depends on what the OP is referring to here. A true "bookshelf" scenario indicates that any speaker is basically undesirable unless it fits on a shelf making all other possible reasons about sound quality or aesthetic totally moot.

On the other hand, if the OP simply means a small speaker (generally stand mounted), I would say my thinking goes like this:

Yes, I should have clarified that by bookshelf I mean stand mounted speakers which are smaller than floorstanders but not necessarily tiny. An example would perhaps be the TAD CE1 which are not what i would call exactly small.

TOBYJUG posted:

The Wilson Benesch Endeavour is an aesthetic success I think, with its integral stand and with some of its bits hanging out.

Beautiful speakers indeed and they would put to shame many of the floorstanders as well. However at that price one would expect tham to be. I am trying to compare the more realistically priced speakers, or rather more in the (what I consider) mid range of around £3k-£5k.

Wow. Those Wilson B Endeavours look like an dark room enlarger with some wood veneer slapped on. Not doing it for me I'm afraid. Just goes to show, eye of the beholder and all that. 

joerand posted:

Floorstander benefits are all about cabinet volume. Pretty simple.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the enclosure; sealed versus ported.

If you prefer the bass response of sealed speakers and don't want to mess with a sub then floorstanders seem the way.

OTOH, if you like sealed standmounts, faffing with a sub, and don't have neighbors to offend with deep bass energy, then a good choice.

If you have sealed enclosure floorstanders and are still pondering a sub, you may have room treatment or system issues to deal with, shitty speakers, or a speaker/room mismatch.

 

So ported floorstanders would be the best choice which would give the best sound and avoid the issues mentioned above (no sub, no issues with neighbours, no roomtreatment, etc)?

Floorstanders might possibly be more common with Naimites due to most having the system away to the side, leaving a bit more room available and without worrying about bass vibration issues if placed between them. Probably that they have deeper pockets, bigger houses and rooms to fill as well.    Although much depends on your listening habits. A Floorstander is Generally for every season and happy with whatever you can throw at it.

As some have already noted that with some types of music replay, a high quality stand mount will easily trump a similar cost Floorstander.  In fact it could be argued that with a careful choice you can get a better speaker as a standmount, as the main cost is with the drivers and crossover and not on additional cabinet materials and research costs on minimising its effect.

I listened to the WB Endeavour and wanted to buy them - but for some reason WB dont seem to selling their speakers in the UK any more... I originally had WB Curves which were really nice... in the end I ended up buying into Sonus Faber speakers...