Floor standers or Monitors?

Good points from Arthur. I'd add my own generalization about the two different routes: Floorstanders certainly lend a fullness in the low end that monitors will fall short on. If the floorstander is a 3-way (or more), vs. a 2-way monitor, where I've found the monitor excels is in creating a more laser-focused image of instruments/vocalists in space whereas the multi-way floorstanders tend to diffuse that image slightly. It is not as much a matter of sound staging (width/depth), but one of focus. Monitors seem to be champs at both disappearing and at creating a very convincing soundstage, though I've heard some floorstanders that are pretty damn good. I think both designs well-implemented can do a great job creating a soundstage, but the fewer and closer the drivers, and the fewer the crossover points, it seems to me the more focused and sharp (lifelike, if it occurs to you that way) the images themselves become. This is one of the ways single-driver and concentric driver speakers excel, where the full range of sound is coming from a single point (or a single point on each side). Again, this is a generalization based upon my personal experiences over the years. I like what each route has to offer. I've not done much listening with subs, so can't comment much there, other than integrating them into system and room is ever so critical.

Marco

Von Schweikert, among others, have addressed the problem by producing speakers which are comprised of two seperate cabinets. An upper mid/trebile box and a lower bass module, physically separated from one another to isolate lower bass cabinet resonance from the upper unit. Seems to work quite well. I know I love mine and it seems to produce the level of imaging and separation I get from the monitors in my secondary system.

Arthur
yes, thanks much. I've not had Coincident, or Silverline, (which those two seem nigh on the first thoughts in high eff FS usually), but felt perhaps monitors + subs would be capable of attaining as good a performance level.

My sole concern is as you said, integration.

Jax2
thanks, I believe you pointed to the item I now see more clearly, as the diffs I do precieve between FS & Mons. Focus.

I have two sets of speakers now FS & MONS. Over the past few days I've heard the mons... today I placed the FS. Apart from the greater range of the FS the mons are hands down way more focused. I could live quite easily with mons & a sub or two.

I suppose for me it comes down to the price of addmission. Mons that'll hit 40 before rolling off in a mid sized room and perform well tonaly shouldn't be out of reach... and I can add subs as I go.

Apart from the seemingly only reasonable choices the coins and Silvers, one piece floorstanders with good and deep bass are IMO priceyer by some bit.

...or I'm not looking in the right areas or brands.

One other thing, the two sets of speakers I have now a vastly different in the 'load' area. I have found just between these two samples, that the 85db 8ohm two ways, are near half as much trouble to drive as are the 87db 4ohm FS... just looking at the volume knob on the preamp is my high tech test method.

the 4ohm'er is a couple notches above the 8ohm'ers for about the same level. I do get a loud enough vol though with either. Just hate to push the gear more than I need to... so I figure 91-92db at 8ohm should do it... on paper.

Hi joe!
I do understand, and their bottom end wasn't bad at all, but mine are gone. sooo, next?

Of the loads of speaker makers runing the highways and byways of audioland, aren't there other choices besides Mr. Bloom's & mr. yun's units to consider in the realm of easy load and near full range without resorting to Hornsville?
Oh, and without too much 'unobtainium' in them too.

Bob_reynolds
Not opposed to doing FS, just having a hard time finding good sounding ones with the things I need, decent price,m easy load, 91-92db, and reasonable bottom end impact and res.

I don't feel mons are without issues either but mostly they represent at least easier loads. Mostly.