Floorstander or Sub/Sat

I'm agaonizing over whether to get, for music, floorstanders or bookshelfs+sub.

To my thinking, the ability to eqalize the frequency response of the sub(for as little as $100 with a BFD), would confere the biggest advantage.(I'm only allowed a minimum of accoustical treatments i.e no bass traps).
Standmounts also tend to sometimes image better that their floorstanding counterparts.

I'm hoping someone can point out something in defence of floorstanders that I may be overlooking.


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.

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".
My exprience first with KEF 102/2 monitors then with KEF 104/2 floor standing speakers is that the KEFs sound more open and transparent when frequencies below 80 Hz are shunted to the Velodyne HGS-15. I've heard people say this about other speakers as well. In my system, the sub integrates seamlessly with the mains, and does not seem to be a source. So even if I had a pair of Sophias, which I do like, I'd still cross over to the sub at 80 Hz. BTW, listen to the Bach Toccata and Fugue in D minor etc. before discounting content below 40 Hz.

big sound means big speakers, alot of floor standers have the mid and tweeter just as high as if a mini was on a stand, so why bother? Get the floorstanders and enjoy. It is extremely hard to get a sub to work right with mini monitors, plus the bass is from a mono point, with floorstanders the bass is in stereo and has better soundstage and depth imo

I had floorstanders (Paradigm Studio 100 V 3) that sounded much better with a sub-bass unit (Rel Storm 3), but it was vital to have the Rel meticulously adjusted by a trained salesperson. I now have Intuitive Design Summit Loudspeakers which would technically be considered a monitor, but which are on heavy, sand-filled stands, and the stands are on 75 lb granite surface plates, so the footprint and overall dimensions of this assembly are actually larger than the Paradigms'. I have kept the Rel, but the crossover is set quite low, at 28 hertz. The Paradigms had very good bass for a 2300 dollar speaker. The Summits have even better bass, I think.

However, several other variables in the system have changed, including the replacement of the Rotel RC995 preamp with an Odyssey Tempest Extreme and the addition of a Dodson 217 D Mark II DAC with upgraded 218-like software. Since the front end components are now better, the above comparison is not completely fair.

Importantly, I have not perceived any significant problems in terms of being able to localize the bass to the Rel, which sits in the corner. That has been the case with both the Paradigms and the Summits. It may be wise (or at least fun) to read the "Velodyne Digital Drive Series subwoofer in stereo" thread about this, however, where some of our fellow members get into a pretty amusing argument over the merits of one versus two subwoofers.
good size floorstander with Sub is the best for $$$/performance ratio, I think.

Getting a real full rage speakers cost too much...
You don't want the sub to work in the Mid base area - sounds boomy boxy... integration not easy...

My setup is JM Lab 926 floorstander with REL Strata III hooked up at high level and crossed over at 38Hz.

I didn't know what I was missing until I got the two working together.