Full range or sub/sat ?

Which give you what you want.I feel the best dedicated stereo only came from a pair of spica TC-50's and a vandersteen sub.The amp was a Musical fidelity B-1 or a B-2 I seem to have forgotten ( about 35 watts per ch. ).I felt the monitors got out of the way better than a full range with it's large baffle.
Too many variables to judge; if you have the space, a floorstander could be better. I have seen/heard many (even with wide baffles) show great soundstage and imaging.

I think the room plays the most important part in the decision, with personal (spouse/family/visual) constraints obviously up there, too.

BTW, the system you describe sounds sweet :-) I used to have a British/Musical Fidelity A1, small, hot class A 25 watt integrated. ANYTHING I hooked up to it just sounded real sweet. One of my favorite combo's was this driving a pair of Acoustic Research M1 monitors (the one's TAS liked), along with a Systemdek turntable. Simple system, and made music so well !
Kg, what kind of music do you listen most often? If mostly amplified jazz, blues or rock i would suggest monitor-sub combo.
If your room is big, sat-sub tandem is not for you
Sounds like you have made your decision...find a speaker you like...such as Spicas(which I used to own)...and if you crave lower end extension...get a good sub...I would opt for no sub vs. a cheap one...but hey...thats me...happy holidays...

Also...on pure cost...the Vandersteen model one floorstander is a great deal...and goes deep enough that one doesnt feel they are missing much....
As rediculous as it may sound. I actually would do floorstanders WITH a pair of subwoofers.
Ditto above, Ritteri, when speaking about "normally" priced speakers. Either that, or stratospherically priced full-ranges (i.e. $+25k).
Gregm: I didnt get your comment or what you mean by "normal" prices speakers.I run a pair of Revel Salon's and will be adding a pair of B15's to them(even though they are flat down to 18hz), even for speakers such as these powered subs can be a good thing if implemented correctly. I would do Subs and full range speakers together regardless. Having full range speakers just means your subs have less work to do and can be crossed over at a much lower frequency which is a good thing. At the same time(assuming were talking a powered sub)the amplifier driving the main speakers now can run limited bandwidth potentially and can improve dynamic headroom(and dynamics)to the main speakers. But anyway, having a pair of subs to put in the corners of the room behind the main sattelites can be a huge bang for the buck upgrade.

An example. Take a cymbal crash. Its handled mostly by the midrange and tweeter right? Wrong! A good hard cymbal crash/impact actually starts at around 15-20hz, no kidding. When I auditioned a pair of Revel B15's in conjunction with my Salon's I was floored at the remarkable difference. Midrange and treble also were greatly improved by the harmonic ability of the subs. It was a night and day difference even with $19k floorstanding speakers.
I agree with Ritteri on two counts,if I understand him correctly. 1. You need a full range speaker to properly implement a pair of subwoofers and 2. the most perceived improvment in sound from adding powered subwoofers comes in the midrange and highs. Might seem conterintuitive, but IMHO is correct.
Yep, thats basically what I said in a nutshell. =)
Sorry Ritteri, I just got on to yr post. "Normally" priced commercial speakers are under the 22-25K mark. Indeed, these prices are anything BUT normal, but given the proliferation of full-range models OVER and above these prices, I chose this level arbitrarily -- I admit. Some of the more expensive offerings are accompanied by subs anyway (bigger Genesis, A-Physic, etc), even though the
So, again, not only do I agree with your concept -- speaker manufacturers do, too.
Full range,and a strong amp.Like Gryphon, for example. Most have no idea what a great amplifier can do to those 8 inch drivers. But if your mind is set on sub, REL then, of course.