Monitors + sub or Floor standers?

Due to a potential domestic situation I may have to move my system into a small den (10x10). I love my Usher BE10 speakers and my initial inclination is to try and make them work in a small room by using a lot of room treatments. But being an incurable audiophile I quickly realized that this could an opportunity to try something new. I figure my options are to keep my speakers, get smaller floor standers, or get monitors + sub. I am partial to the last option. Because the room is small, I want to keep the visual and physical impact of my speakers down to a minimum. I also "think" that monitors will work better in a small room. So my question is if people had their choice, would they get a floor stander or monitors + sub? It dont listen at high volume and prefer detail and imaging over explosive dynamics. I listen to mostly acoustic female vocals.
With your Ayre Acoustics MX-R and MBL preamp I would get a killer two-way monitor that images like crazy with ultra details and the ability for low extension.

The right two-way monitor will allow you to setup on shortwall, place 10" from the back and side walls and be able to disappear.

If you get a montior with 6.5" woofer or larger the MX-Rs will control the woofer and provide good low extension of bass for the room size.

Dali Helicon 300MK2
Focal 1007BE
AudioNote AN-E
nearfield positioning of a floorstander
Exactly the situation I found myself in. I went from 16 x 22 to 11 x 14. I bought a pair of Ultimate Monitor's by Audiomachina and later added a subwoofer. Nearfield listening plus detail and imaging in spades. I think a narrow dispersion design (albeit highly focused) is something that you want to consider in very small rooms.
John Marks in a recent Stereophile "5th Element" wrote about the inherent difficulty in designing a floorstanding speaker because of the resonant frequency of floorstanders at typical height. True or not, its an interesting analysis and may explain the peaks and valleys of some floorstanding speakers. All the same issues of positioning hold true for both. His contention was that under $5000, monitors are better by design. I like both, but with a stand mounted monitor I need a sub to provide the bottom octaves. Small room? Monitors + small sub would be my choice. You can buy very nice monitors and a sub for very reasonable prices leaving money for a great source and amplification. Have fun!
Get a pair of small Magnepans and if needed add a powered sub
Monitors + sub in all cases except where the room is too large for 2-way monitors. Floorstanding speakers, as John Marks pointed out as noted above, have way too many compromises. A smaller box costs less so more dollars are available for the drivers and crossover parts. The majority of floorstanding speakers (especially narrow baffle ones) can not produce clean bass, plus placement is always a compromise between smooth bass or smooth mid/treble.
Thanks guys. I am definitely leaning towards the monitors + sub. Linkster and Lapierre bring up interesting points about dispersion and imaging. I am going to have to research speakers that have these characteristics. Tgrisham and bob_reynolds, I read that article as well and it makes some sense to me.

This should be fun!
Dear Tboooe: Very good choice ( monitor plus subs that btw is very good choice in large rooms too. ).

You could " think " on the own Usher monitors, are really good. The sub's choice is also very important subject and IMHO Velodyne could be a good alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Tboooe found this in another post regarding small room speakers:

I would suggest a pair of Manger Swings with a Zerobox subwoofer. The Swings do not play below 100Hz, hence a small room like yours will not affect it much. Below 100Hz just dial-in the amount of bass you require for your room, on the subwoofer.

Manger Swing


Zu Presence