Monitors vs Full Range

other than room constraints,what would be the reasons to choose a Monitor speaker over a full range floor standing type? As much as I try to find things better in my Monitors,(Acoustic Energy ae2, Sci Fi Crown Joules, Sonus Fabers, etc etc) they cant stack up to my Duntech floor standers. A monitor just lacks that mid bass that gives recordings a live real feel.
better imaging, & soundstaging - especially that holographic disappearing-speaker effect is usually possible w/monitors. if the bass isn't good enuff, use subs - i like 'em a lot, w/subwoofers. but, i like subwoofers - i even ran my full-range -2db@20hz thiel 3.5's to good effect w/subwoofers. look at the retail $135k genesis speakers currently f/a here on a-gon - they're monitors w/subs! ;~)

doug s.

price constraints.

Dollar for dollar a monitor will give better sound (midrange, imaging, transparency) (minus the bass). When finances and room space free up add a sub for the bass.

I too prefer floorstanders, but I'm fortunate to have the money and the room at the moment. Most floorstanders are not full range, and also benefit from a sub.
There is no replacement for Full range (down to 20 Hz) Phase,time and pulse coherent speakers, no matter how good the monitors are! In my opinion. My Dunlavy V's stops me to even consider smaller alternative!
In addition to better soundstaging, a monitor pair with subwoofer(s) offers the opportunity to locate the subwoofer optimally in the room. The best location for the monitor is usually not the best for the subwoofer. A full range floor standing system ties the woofer location to the mid and treble driver location. Usually, we place the system to optimize the mids and treble, resulting in a sub-optimal (forgive the pun) location for the woofer. Nilthepill makes a good point that compatibility between monitors and subwoofers is important but difficult to attain. Of course the best set-up might be a well-matched set of monitors and subwoofer, properly located in your room.
As an apartment dweller, my living room is my music room. Apart from the other good points mentioned above, monitors integrate with a space better, both visually and psychically, than floorstanders do. With monitors and tasteful (no exposed hardware) two pillar Target stands it ALMOST looks like a normal human being might be living here. Sometimes I miss the tangible bass wave my last floorstanders rolled out but not too much.

The other point worth mentioning and which may be monitors' primary raison d'etre: monitors are more socially responsible, that is, more neighbor friendly due to their restrained bass response.
i pretty-much agree w/what everyone's said here. that's why i think even nilthepill's set-up could be improved w/a pair of great subs flanking his "monitors"! :>)

doug s.

I think Nilthepill's answer is based on price range. If you look at the monitors suggested by justlisten they are $1000 or less. Finding a full range floorstander which also has subtlety and finesse is almost impossible in this price range. However subtlety and finesse are abundant in monitors of this range (Ls3/5, Epos M12 just as a couple of examples).
If I had $5k for my speakers and a detached house then I certainly wouldn't bother with monitors. But with a budget of $1k or less (for new speakers) I think you end up having to trade off bass response for precision.
Seantaylor99's points well noted. I guess one of the answer to Justlisten question will be to have limited budget as a reason to choose betweem monitors and full-range floor standers. Since he mentioned his Duntechs, I just agreed his original statement with reasons. I am sure you could get good floor standers in all price range. e.g Vandersteen 2Ci
Nilthepill ... agreed. I got Spica Angelus for $500 used several years ago. Even though they're floorstanders they're definitely not full range.
I agree you need real low base and monitors lack that. Thats why you had a couple of Rels and have the best of both worlds. The mid base in some would suprise you and my rels go to 18hz (I think).

It also allows the speaker encolsures to be more custom built for their specific needs by seperating them. Youre amps dont need to move that large woofer and can concentrate on the rest of the frequencies better. Its a more effecient system.

You have to go far up the line of products to get there but I always pefered ther sound of high quality monitors and subs to full range speakers.
It all comes down to what you like and listen for in music reproduciton. I have a Kinergetic sub system (2 10" woofers per side driven by passive crossover and 150 watt amp) which offers extreme flexiblity in speaker choice and placement. When using original Quad ESL's the woofers can flank each speaker or the option of many speaker stand arrangments can be used. The Kinergetics also have a dedicated speaker stand for the subs which allow one to use Spica TC 50 optimilly. Their are many excellent chioces for monitors available now as opposed to when the Kinergetics subs were new. The amp in the Kinergetic crossover can be by-passed to allow even ,more flexability for driving the subs ( one which I appreciate as the Kinergetic amps hum a little, I have owed two). My point is, examine how you listen to music (loud? Loud often?) Where (apartment etc.) If you have a restricted listening area I would suggest a good sub system as you can recreate the dynamics better by driving the subwoofers and the monitors with seperate amps. If you have all the room in the world then maybe a full range system is for you. But if you tire of the mids in a full range system you will replace the entire system to correct what you don't like. But then you might find something else amiss with the replacement. In the last ten years I have experiemented with a few speakers as monitors. I find the fewer changes made the better. All of the speakers you mention in your inquiry are good ones. I think what you need is a sub system to make them better.