Floorstander or Sub/Sat

In defense of floor standers:

-They are capable of imaging as well as monitors (my Silverline Sonatas do)
-No worry or fiddling with bass integration of a sub
-No additional expense of a sub
-Fewer interconnects (cost and aesthetics)
-No sub placement worries or floor space compromises
-Considering the stands monitors take up roughly the same space as floorstanders
-Bass response required below 32hZ is needed in very few musical passages

Floorstanders have better coherence its sometimes harder to get this with a sub/sat.

I am now of the opinion that for the money a sub is necessary, even if only for the sub-30Hz information. So many opinions....but, unless you can spend a large sum for very large floorstanders, I think subs are great. I like the way monitors image, but they require excellent heavy and solid stands to sound their best. Even with large floorstanders that have large bass drivers, integrating is still an issue. I now use a 12" Hsu sub to augment my floorstanding Dynaudios. Just my opinion, of course. It becomes an issue of cost, space and WAF.

I like floorstander, but only if I have no setup issues with them in my room. If I do..I go with smaller stand mount speakers and subs.

Get the bass right and everything else will fall into place with just a little tweaking.

Dave

I'm with entrope and his statement re.,not much music below 32. Most what we think of as low info, is in the 40's and 50's. But all speakers don't reproduce it with the same dynamics--Thus making these "numbers" inconclusive. One listening comparison (having owned both) would be Merlin VSM MM's vs Wilson Sophia. The spec. sheet may say they go down to near the same figure but the music you hear doesn't bear that out. The MM's need a sub, the Wilson doesn't. My opinion is based on changing NOTHING, but the speakers. I guess what I'm saying when you find the right speaker a sub may not be needed and I would rather have the same speaker reproducing bass and low midrange notes from the "same woofer".