sub+satellite or full range?


what are the advantages/disadvantages of full range speaker opposite to subwoofer + a good quality speaker? for example, a wilson WP against a pair of cubs + subwoofer.

Im asking because subwoofers are in almost all houses now and this maybe let us rise the WAF with smaller and less obtructive spakers without loosing quality?.
Thnaks in advance
jorsan
i have both and i think the smaller the room, more the sub/sat setup and the bigger goes to full range. however full range single drivers often need a sub to fill out the bootom end, but can be used in almost near field listening to great effect.I would say that a dual use music/home theater requires more dynamics than single drivers generally do. for value...bang for the buck, i would go the sub/sat system if the room is not too large.
Bass does not load in a room in the same plane as the mids/highs. I have a large room and always used sub/sat systems. Now I use Magenpan 3.5Rs with SVS powered sub. It's awesome
A Sat+sub is a great WAF friendly option. If you wall mount the small satellite speakers the wife may be even happier. They can sound very good but integration can be a challenge/headache so I'd recommend you go with one manufacturer for sub and satellites.
Thanks to all; more or less your responses pointing the same way: we can build an equivalent quality with sub/sat if takes care of integration between sub and sat mainly.
Thanks
Monitor Audio R90 sats with the R360 sub are quite good, affordable, beautiful in Rosenut (both sat & sub) and have a very high WAF. Nothing to sneeze at.