Full range or sub/sat ?

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.

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.

Yep, thats basically what I said in a nutshell. =)

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.

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.

Ditto above, Ritteri, when speaking about "normally" priced speakers. Either that, or stratospherically priced full-ranges (i.e. $+25k).

As rediculous as it may sound. I actually would do floorstanders WITH a pair of subwoofers.

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....

If your room is big, sat-sub tandem is not for you

Kg, what kind of music do you listen most often? If mostly amplified jazz, blues or rock i would suggest monitor-sub combo.

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 !