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

Any time you have woofers covering a less strenuous or broad frequency range then there is an opportunity for better clarity and lower distortion

To give the relief to the mains you mention; doesn't this always necessitate sending the signal through the added stage of the crossover in the sub's amplifier section? Would that also not pose some risk of somehow affecting that signal by sending it through added cables and circuits? The alternative is to send the pre-out to both amp and sub amp (requiring two pre-outs or a splitter), but then wouldn't that negate the effect you are describing of taking some of burden off the main speakers to push the lower frequencies? I'm just curious, because I've heard this very supposition before and wondered about it.

Marco

Thanks for clearing that up for me Bob! Sounds like something I should give that a try at some point.

Duke - I'm interested in your input here too. Rather than reiterating it on this thread, would you post a link to the other thread you posted your viewpoints on? TIA.

Marco

As options are truly what I seek now I sure appreciate that one.

Why not climb the Von Schweikert ladder? There's a pair of VR-10's that just came up here on A'gon. You can save $55K on the price of new and get lows down to 10hz and .01% distortion. They oughta' make you real popular with your neighbors. Should be fun to move around and tweak your soundstage too :-)

Seriously, I've been intrigued by a local (to me) independent builder's designs. I've read some good input on his speakers and have corresponded with someone who bought a pair of his smaller speaker, the T-7's. He is Stuart Chapman, and the company is Chapman Speakers. Website sucks, but from what I've read the product is worth looking into as a very coherent full-range design for a reasonable price. Having not heard either these, or your speakers, I'm only suggesting this from the things I've read and nothing more. From direct experience I'd point you to Silverline. Alan Yun cannot seem to do anything wrong in speaker design. I've heard Sonatas, Sonatinas and SR17's. All three are marvelous choices in their own right, and are known for being on the 'warm' side. The Sonatas are most like what you already own in their range and specs. I don't know how they might differ from the VR4 Jr's in sound though. Sonatinas may sound a tad thin compared to what you are used to - they are a more midrange focused floorstander to my ears. SR17s are suberb monitors. I've owned three pairs over the past five years. They do everything a great monitor should: disappear like ghosts, and image like virtual reality. Disclaimer: I am currently selling a pair, though you can read my comments about them in many threads long before this. The DiCapo suggestion is a good one too for monitors. Someone mentioned the Gallo 3.1's, I think. I went and listened to a pair of those for an hour or two at a local dealer, pushed by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1's and a good front end. I brought my music. Didn't float my boat - too clean and analytical for my tastes. Could have been the SS amps though. They certainly did get the lows, even without their sub-amp attached (I heard it both ways). Very neutral sounding speakers.

Just so you know where I'm coming from with my comments: My tastes tend to run toward tubes + horns, and towards what could be considered to be a "colored" sound by some. I tend to like a midrange-centric, warmer presentation I guess. Musical preferences are largely in more simple arrangements of accoustic and vocals. Alt, folk, jazz and classical, and lots in between. Not a big listener of orchestral or heavy rock, or anything heavily layered or complex for that matter - not to say I don't listen to any of that kind of music - it is just a minority in my library.

Marco

Thanks for the link, Duke. Looks like an interesting debate. I'd tried out a pair of subs from TBI that my friend loaned me for a month. They seemed to integrate into the system better than the only other single sub I've tried, but the input was very subtle to my ears, and when I managed to get it to be more authorative, it did not seem to integrate as well. It certainly sounded more natural, which perhaps supports your argument. Could be a whole lot of factors contributing as far as my results are concerned, but it was a better solution as a subtle boost, than was the single sub I've tried (can't recall the brand/model right now, but it had a good reputation as a 'musical' sub). Still, it didn't make me want to go out and buy subs, even though I do have a yearning for a fuller range at times. Perhaps I just didn't know how to best integrate them at the time.

Marco