BS vs FS

[Flash]

A BS + stand + Sub will cost a lot more than a FS.
lets use your example

40K PSB B6 and a 60K PSB T5

PSB B6 - 40k
Stands - 7k
Subwoofer - 25k -50k

========================
Rough estimate would be around - 72k- 100k

So yes it does work out more expensive than a FS. However there are several aspects which need to be considered

========================

1.. A BS can be powered with a lower powered amp as compared to a FS.
So yes there would be some savings . However a higher powered integrated can also work wonders with a BS

2. In terms of SQ compare a 60K BS with a 60k FS . Price being similar the BS would sound better. reason is lesser drivers and more money put into the driver and less on cabinet and mulitiple drivers

3. A Sub cab be used to augment the low end that is missing in a BS . however it is not easy to integrate and a 20k sub will not cut it.
A very good sub from the likes of HSU, Rythmik, Velodyne, Epik, Rythmik Audio, REL integrated with a BS can outperform a FS
But then again the cost of acquisition comes into play as well as know how of sub integration is key

4. If the above point is too much of a hassle or too costly a proposition sticking to a FS makes more sense besides saving some precious dough it will also save you trouble of integrating a sub as well as the trouble of narrowing down on a Sub for stereo duty.
However keep in mind that a FS would need decent amplification to the tune of 70watts and above in order to make it sing

 

[Vishal]

Flash - this is exactly what I was thinking ... If budget is the only factor that was making me lean towards a BS, I should consider the additional costs of stands and a subw too.
Plus add the hassle of cables and integration..

For a budget of say 60 K I can get same quality from:

1. A fs for 60 k
2. A BS of 40k + subw + stands

 

[manoj.p]

Vishal,

let's understand this objectively. There is a reason a floorstander sounds fuller, richer. Its the size of the floorstander, compared to the bookshelf. Now, where the size will help most?
Tweeter? No.
If its a three way, then mid-range driver? No. Because the mid range has its own sealed enclosure inside the big floorstander housing.
then what's left is the woofer. Yes. The woofer has a big volume, can move that easily, moves more air and bass is rich. Thats what makes the floorstander sound fuller, richer. It's actually the bass.

On the contrary, the bookselfs will not move that much air. But that does not mean they are lacking in bass so much. May be below 80 Hz. But above 80 Hz, the bookshelf has quite good output. In fact, I like the output of bookself because the bass coming out of these sound more clean, sharper. Below 80 hz, you can add a subwoofer, place it at the best suited location in the room and get the best of both. If you are into music, then go with a sealed sub. It will give you a very clean, tight bass compared to a FS setup.

Many people tend to overlook the BS by comparing it to a FS without a sub. We perceive more bass means more quality. same goes with loudness. But if you compare these two side by side, you can do better objectively. Its wrong to compare just in terms of FS vs BS. we need to compare individual speakers with similar setups and budgets.

I personally like to choose BS + sub setup. Even when I had FS, I still used a subwoofer below 80 hz even though the speakers could go upto 45 hz. My current monitors have 10" woofers and go upto 37 Hz. I still use crossover at 80 and use the subs below it. Only for one reason - I want better bass, flat response and better seat to seat consistency.

 

[Flash]

Well said Manoj

 

[Vishal]

Thanks a bunch manoj. It will take me some time to fully comprehend the technicality of your post.

The point I was making to myself is that the total cost of BS system should include the price of a subw and stands n if budget is a factor then total cost of bs system should be compared to the fs cost.

 

[manoj.p]

yes, we always compare the prices and the prices are always a factor in comparisons. That's why we say "for the money" Now, 'for the money', I believe you can get very good quality from BS+Sub combo compared to FS. Off course, you need to choose the speakers carefully and then compare.

My whole post was to counter this belief.

What I've gathered and concluded so far based on the posts here and my auditions is that a FS speaker (generally speaking) sounds better, richer, fuller than a BS speaker. This is primarily due to the design - a larger area in a FS allows the sound to be reproduced better etc etc.

and this -

Here is my question - If one adds in the price of a pair of Floorstands and a subwoof to a BS (say PSB B6), the price comes to about the same as a FS (T5). So, isn't the price difference eliminated?

If space and acoustics are not an issue, isnt the price difference eliminated and hence an FS a much more attractive option? I was comparing the costs of a 40K B6 and a 60K T5. Both sound very good so was naturally it came to budget .. but now it seems .... the total costs are similar.

 

[Vishal]

point well taken. thank you. i need to listen more and in detail.

 

[Vishal]

I personally like to choose BS + sub setup. Even when I had FS, I still used a subwoofer below 80 hz even though the speakers could go upto 45 hz. My current monitors have 10" woofers and go upto 37 Hz. I still use crossover at 80 and use the subs below it. Only for one reason - I want better bass, flat response and better seat to seat consistency.

Manoj - I have a very elementary question:
How will I drive a Subw using an Integrated Amp? I was debating between an IAmp and AVR to drive a BS+Subw OR FS speakers. However, suddenly realized that the Amp would only have Stereo outputs (i.e 2.0).

How in the world does one drive a subwoofer in a stereo setup?

 

[Flash]

Manoj - I have a very elementary question:
How will I drive a Subw using an Integrated Amp? I was debating between an IAmp and AVR to drive a BS+Subw OR FS speakers. However, suddenly realized that the Amp would only have Stereo outputs (i.e 2.0).

How in the world does one drive a subwoofer in a stereo setup?

I know this is intended for Manoj but let me chip in.

I guess you are talking about Active subwoofer as opposed to Passive Subwoofer


Yes a Stereo Amp has 2 channel outputs however most of them also have preouts. The subwoofer would connect to the preouts of the Integrated.

However in this mode you will not have control over the crossover . and you would need to integrate the sub with the bookshelves depending on the roll-off freq of the the BS.
Example if your BS rolls of -3db at 45hz you would need to set the crossover on the Sub to play from 45hz and below.


Another option is - Again purely depends on the subwoofer used is to use the line-level and or speaker level high-pass filters built into the subwoofer plate amp.

Well with this you can set the sub to play from 80hz and below as well as stop your BS from playing 80 hz and below

Again it boils down to the sub being used and the features it has to offer

 

[dillihifi]

Well let me put in my views which were formed after umpteen listening sessions.

Bookshelves definitely will sound much better than floorstanders because of many factors like these generally have a much simpler design and are easier to implement. The BS have much more transparency and detail than the equivalent FS which tend to introduce colorations in the sound signature. Well exceptions do exist and i do believe that the freq response of most bookshelves extend upto 50-45Hz which allows most of the music to be reproduced accurately and you do not need a sub but rather should invest in pair of good stands.

 

[Vishal]

I know this is intended for Manoj but let me chip in.

I guess you are talking about Active subwoofer as opposed to Passive Subwoofer

and how does one drive a passive sub from an integrated amp and BS speakers?

 

[Flash]

and how does one drive a passive sub from an integrated amp and BS speakers?

You would need a Power Amp to drive the sub. Either a monoblock or a 2 channel bridgeable amp

 

[Hari Iyer]

=======

1.. A BS can be powered with a lower powered amp as compared to a FS.
So yes there would be some savings . However a higher powered integrated can also work wonders with a BS

I do not agree with this as this depends fully on how well the BS is designed. I have seen may BS that require higher power to drive than a FS. It depends upon the sensitivity of the drivers and how much of compensation circuits are used in the cross-over and has nothing to do with BS or FS. Atleast i can confidently say that my designs are not like that.

=======
2. In terms of SQ compare a 60K BS with a 60k FS . Price being similar the BS would sound better. reason is lesser drivers and more money put into the driver and less on cabinet and mulitiple drivers

I dont agree with this statement either. As the cost and the SQ has nothing to do with the design. Some FS can be cheaper than a BS and can sound better than the BS and vice-versa. If the same drivers / cross-overs are used in the BS and FS, and if the BS is a vented enclosure and the FS is a TL then the cost of a FS will be little higher and will also sound better. Usually the cost cannot be same between the same manufacturer and is a subjective matter. I would rather say its better to buy a good quality BS than a poor quality FS.

=======
However keep in mind that a FS would need decent amplification to the tune of 70watts and above in order to make it sing

Do not agree with this statement too. It completely depends upon the technology used in the FS. If the FS is a TL then it can be driven even by a 20 watts amplifier without any strain. The major reason being the enclosure tecnhology and the cross-over technology. If the enclosure is vented then the impedance curve is not constant and its high at the resonating freq of the woofer and also at the enclosure tuning frequency. Since the impedance is high at these frequency you need more power to drive them. In an Aperiodic, TL design, open baffle design or a Horn enclsoure design, the impedance curve is quite stable and is very flat and linear. Hence you do not require more power to drive them and the power transfer is very good between the amplifer and the speaker. Since the load to the amplifier is constant the amplifer also do not overheat as it would do in a vented or a sealed enclosure. Please study the impedance curve of the speaker systems with different enclsoure types and you should be convinced.

 

[Flash]

I do not agree with this as this depends fully on how well the BS is designed. I have seen may BS that require higher power to drive than a FS. It depends upon the sensitivity of the drivers and how much of compensation circuits are used in the cross-over and has nothing to do with BS or FS. Atleast i can confidently say that my designs are not like that.

With all due respect Hari, I don't think you have read the previous posts and basing it on a single post. I have specifically mentioned in earlier posts that there are exceptions to the rule. I am living with one I have a pair of bookshelves being powered by 180watts per channel monoblocks and my FS is being powered by a 100 watt amp...Amplification quality and power play a very vital role. or else we would have all had TL / Hiorn speakers and powered it using a Topping amp

Anyway getting down to brass tax.
As you know a completed loudspeaker is part drivers, part cabinet and part crossover.
FYI Quarter wave transmission line is not the final word in loudspeaker design. (no disrespect meant to you or your design philosophy

I dont agree with this statement either. As the cost and the SQ has nothing to do with the design. Some FS can be cheaper than a BS and can sound better than the BS and vice-versa. If the same drivers / cross-overs are used in the BS and FS, and if the BS is a vented enclosure and the FS is a TL then the cost of a FS will be little higher and will also sound better. Usually the cost cannot be same between the same manufacturer and is a subjective matter. I would rather say its better to buy a good quality BS than a poor quality FS.

First of all this is not based on your TL designs. I based my argument on 95% commercial speakers available.
Basically buying a FS from the lower range offered by a manufacturer or buying a BS from the higher end series same manufacturer at the same price.

 

[kanwar]

There is no harm in using a Studio Monitor at home for listening to music. However it may not be pleasant to the ears as the sound would be flat (uncolored). Pls note uncolored sound is not always pleasant to ears. Many times it is harsh. Mostly the Studio monitors frequency would be towards HF and Hi-mid and less LF to get the nuances of every instrument distinctly.

Normally in recording monitors are used for mixing (mixing is the process by which frequency of each instrument track and voice track is tweaked and some effects are added to get the best output) . If the music sounds good in Studio monitor ideally it should sound good in all types of systems (Car stereo, small Hi-Fi, Home theatre etc). Poorly mixed audio might sound good in few audio system and might sound bad in other systems.

I use Yamaha MSP5 monitor (Active speaker) for home studio recording. However I use a different system for listening to music (Yamaha AS500 + WF 10.2). I have tried using Yam AS500+WF 10.2 for recording. The challenge I faced was that what sounds good in my setup does not sound good in other systems (which is the very purpose of Studio monitor).

The point that I want to make it clear is that Studio Monitors are meant for critical listening especially for mixing the music post recording. If you use Studio monitors for listening to music at home you might get disappointed with the harsh sound. Little coloration (tweaked freq) is required for pleasant hearing experience which is what you get in any BS or FS speakers though the degree of coloration differs from speaker to speaker.

Seriously, Little knowledge is really dangerous .............

Studio monitors are best available devices which allows the discerning listener to get the essence of uncolored music. Having them at home means you have the capability to allow yourself to taste real music as close as its reproduction. Monitors tend to sound flat and highly transparent, which simply means you have access to uncolored music which you can enjoy for endless hours[Provided that you have chosen a right monitor].

I am amazed to see how some people in the audio industry and also members/mods here on this forum have incorrect understanding about the finest pro-audio level gear which act as the basis of mastering and recording a.k.a Monitors. The name itself speaks alot.

If coloration is the goal then why after the pursuit of pure sound.


Kanwar

 

[kanwar]

There is too much mis-information here about studio monitors. I think most of it is coming from Google and not first hand listening.

Studio Monitor is a term used for speakers used in Studios, for mixing. The no 1 specification for these speakers is to sound natural, without coloration, distortion and flat frequency response. The next spec is that these should take extended hours without problem. That means robust drivers and solid electronics. Since these are used in Industrial setup, the cabinets will not be very attractive.

Now, the recording engineers use these speakers to tweak the sound and come to the right quality. Now, if these are sounding screeching or real bad, how do you think the audio engineers come to the conclusion that the recording is adequately tweaked? The fact is - these speakers will output the source as it is. You feed it crappy, distorted source, it will sound that way. Feed it good signal, all is good. If you want reference quality speakers, then its the studio monitors because these are the ones that are used in studios and against which all the audio is tested. That's the way the recording engineer intended the music/movie to be sounded. Period.

About extended listening: These speakers are indeed used for longer hrs per day. so they are designed to have longer life of drivers and other electronics and are built to very tight quality norms. They are supposed to sound the same all the time. Another example of speakers designed for extended hrs is Cinema hall speakers. do they sound screeching? Do we get fatigued by extended listening? Perhaps is the loudness is too much. But then every speaker will sound fatiguing if ran at high decibels anyway.

As for near field vs mid-field. There is truth to that. Some monitors are near field and are meant to be used nearby. But there are mid field studio monitors as well. I have JBL monitors and I use those at 15 ft away without problem. The ones that I have are mid field.

I have listened to both active vs passive studio monitors. They are very high quality speakers for the money. They easily outperform the consumer speakers which cost few times over. If possible, go to musician store and listen to these speakers. That's the only way to get the right idea about these.

Nice work....!!!

 

[kanwar]

Dear HFV Experts,

I have a very basic Q - What factors determine whether to buy a BS or FS speaker set?

Thank you.

Simply put:


If money and space is not a problem, go for a set of 3-way active monitors as FS, else a pair of 2-way active monitors will do as BS.


my 2 cents
Kanwar