While the above points about sub integration are valid, they fail to mention one of the biggest advantages of the sub/sat approach: the ability to site the sub to optimally deal with standing wave problems, and to site the sats to image optimally. No full-range speaker can do this as well unless you happen to be incredibly lucky. I would add that the only subs I would consider are the RELs, which are designed to cross over extremely low and come in under the natural rolloff of the sats. I am not a dealer or otherwise affiliated with REL, but in my experience all other subs have problems integrating seamlessly with the sats, probably mostly because they cross over much higher and/or put the sat signal through a crossover. Until REL came along, I would have said that sub/sat systems were hopelessly flawed, but not anymore. Lastly, try to find a reasonably sized full-range speaker with flat extension to 10Hz. On balance, I would say that properly done, a sub/sat system will significantly outperform a full-range system of equal cost.
Does subwoofer + bookshelve=full range speaker?
I am sort of new to this hobby so this may seem like a dumb question.
I always wonder if add a good sub to a bookshelve speaker do you get a same performance as the large full range speaker.ie if you add a subwoofer( assuming a good one) to B&W 805 or Martin logan entry level model . do you get the same performace as N801 or prodigy or more because the subwoofer in many instance will go even deeper than the full range speaker?
if not why not?
I always wonder if add a good sub to a bookshelve speaker do you get a same performance as the large full range speaker.ie if you add a subwoofer( assuming a good one) to B&W 805 or Martin logan entry level model . do you get the same performace as N801 or prodigy or more because the subwoofer in many instance will go even deeper than the full range speaker?
if not why not?