Why "bookshelf" sspeakers?

I have mentioned before that so called full range speakers really are not! The salesman claims:  "Sir with these full rangers you will never need subs"

This is, in it's most innocent form, a misunderstanding or ignorance but probably a simple lie.

Get those full range jobs home and position them for good sound stage and imaging and have compromised bass as has been mentioned earlier in the thread. To set them up for their bass potential would then ruin their imaging qualities. Result is dissatisfaction and money wasted. Those expensive jobs will work but need subs.

Many times, and I can't think of any right now, some high-end speaker manufacturers have a model or two below their 'full range" flagship speakers that use the identical mid range and tweeters, which they boast of, in a smaller cabinet with smaller woofers and the considerable $$$ saved will comfortably buy 2 good subs to augment the bass and if properly positioned and set up will handily outperform the flagship imposters 😜 

IME it depends on what your musical preferences are. I think a 3 way “bookshelf” with a sub can get you pretty close to a tower. With 2 ways the single mid driver is trying to do all the bass, vocals etc and they struggle with upper bass articulation. 

If you want and value "scale", then as they say, "there is no replacement for displacement." But not everyone has large living rooms that can do justice to big floor standers. I found it slightly amusing that Paul McGowan of PS Audio just recently did a video on why they had to supplement the FR-30 with subwoofers: Imaging. In their demo room they have placed the speakers for the best imaging, however, their room has a bass mode that kills lower bass from the FR-30, so yep, as relatively expensive as the FR-30 are, they still required some subs to get bass to the listeners in the sweet spot. Ah, every room is different. We do what we have to do.

@tweak1 - I don't know about 'all' - indeed, most sound better with space around them, but there are some speakers that are designed to be set close to the wall.

I have a house cat with his front claws trimmed but intact.  Who knows what he’s doing when I’m not home, but I know he’s not stretching his claws on the grill or woofers.  My Buchardt S300’s sound great. I put a square and slightly crumpled sheet of aluminum foil on top of each one to mitigate any tendency to jump up on them.  WAF is not applicable in my home.  

I agree with Wharf, as I also "slung" hi-fi gear in the late 60's/early 70's: if was great an "SAF" problem - "Spousal Acceptance Factor." Lots of homes back then had built-in bookshelves in the living room and the wife liked the idea that the speakers could be shoved into a bookshelf and pretty much ignored visually. Of course, some of the "bookshelf" speakers were ginormous: a few years ago at a thrift store, I found a pair of Wharfedale W60E's, which are roughly 24" by 14" by 13" and weigh about 45 lbs. apiece. Never saw a free-standing bookshelf that would fit or support a pair of those!

Yamaha describes my NS-5000 speakers as bookshelf speakers although with 12" woofers and their size and weight they are of course floorstanders.  I think Yamaha, and others, are just describing a traditional style of speaker, mostly 3-way, that are boxy and originally were sealed so could be used on home or apartment bookshelves, unlike ported speakers.  Standmounts, for the most part, are smaller speakers often not reaching lower bass, thus often use subwoofers, while floorstanders tend to be taller and narrower, which fit better into most rooms, but also can get heavier and larger up to massive sizes.  Of course, the descriptions here can get blurred.  So unless someone is offering a vintage looking sealed speaker actually meant for a bookshelf, it's probably more appropriate to describe today's bookshelf speaker as "bookshelf style" or "traditional bookshelf style".

I think you’re asking some REALLY good questions here.  You can pair some good monitors with a couple subs and arguably get better sound than two tower speakers.  Lotta variables in there, but a lot of the cost of tower speakers goes into th cabinet and managing the bass.  And then, you could argue that, depending on your room, going with a couple subs can better integrate the bass in your room.  So Ithink you make a great point, but again depending on your rom, going with some monitors and 2 — not 1 — subs could be the best solution and potentially save u a lot of $$$.

All speakers will benefit from being 3ft away from walls (side and back) Ditto subwoofers. A lot depends on room size

They are really easy to box up and sell. We live in a world of convience and space saving.

Limited mass, moderate girth, electro-mechanical acoustic transducers?

Seems the main advantage in a mid to small room is the ability to own multiple monitors that can be rotated and stored much easier than floor standers.

“High” end audio is a niche for sure. Bookshelves are more feasible to ship and move on from. Other than that, yeah they take up just as much space as a floorstander. I will say when it comes down to a really good monitor vs a mid grade tower I’ll take the monitor every time. A lot of times they are even more coherent but IME monitors even with subs won’t do certain types of music the greatest. Passable but not quite there. 

I have speakers that are designed to be soffit mounted or flush mounted. In the speaker world there are a lot of ways to mount a speaker. Whatever size speaker you prefer, Hofmann’s Iron Law will always be...Article 😎

Mike

@phusis

“actually, if your mains reach down into the 40Hz range you could experiment with running them full-range, and thus placing subs at a proper, minimum distance would add to the number of bass sources (mains + subs) for an effective DBA and smoother acoustical response.”

That is exactly what I do, upon the recommendation of the manufacturer, and the result sounds great. I also tried a fairly high-end, balanced high-pass filter, but I like the sound better with the mains run full out. I cross over to the subs at 45Hz. The trick is to go easy on power to the subs.  A little bit is probably just enough in many cases. My main amps provide a lot of juice, which probably helps reduce any negative effects of having the amps driving the main speakers through the full frequency range.

I prefer 2 way stand mounts period. Sonner, Sf, RF, Martin Oscars, F&R....

@hilde45  yes, there are quite a few more  :)

@grislybutter just to add one....

Devore 0/96 are 725mm 

You can only make a small speaker so big, which is to say that a stand-mounted speaker is usually just that: small.

However some larger speakers, albeit mostly pro segment, aren’t shaped like towers - like ATC’s pro, active monitors SCM150 and 300 models - and so need stands. The Meyer Sound X-10’s (big speakers) needed short stands, if not flush mounted in the wall, to be at proper ear level. The S.P. Technology Timepiece speakers I owned +10 years ago were fairly bulky, weighed over 60 pounds per cab and needed taller stands to be lifted to ear level.

Obviously such speakers don’t qualify to be placed in the typical category of stand-mounted speakers, but being there are a range speakers that defy that category as stand-mounted items, why not just call their typical segment for what they are, i.e.: smaller speakers? So, why smaller speakers vs. bigger dittos?

I would say that if you’re high-passing your main speakers - be they small, medium or larger sized - then adding subs makes very good sense to find the better placement both for what the mains are supposed to do best, as well as the subs for their range of reproduction (I mean, you’re hovering on either side of the Schroeder frequency). Not to mention that you’re freeing up the mains from LF-signals, with all that entails of advantages. Ideally you need what’s essentially the same amps top to bottom, including subs, but that’s for another thread..

EDIT: actually, if your mains reach down into the 40Hz range you could experiment with running them full-range, and thus placing subs at a proper, minimum distance would add to the number of bass sources (mains + subs) for an effective DBA and smoother acoustical response. That’s two scenarios (vs. high-passed mains) that could be looked into and compared, and depending on the circumstances I guess could go either way with regard to preference here.

There are several points I don't understand:

1. "Bigger floor-mounted boxes may have coloration from cabinet vibrations and resonance which can impact the coherence and detail of the midband."

It seems to me that any poorly designed cabinet can have issues, small or large. For a comparison to matter I think we'd have to compare well designed towers vs well designed bookshelfs.

2. The point keeps getting made that stand mounted speakers and subs are easier to position in a room to optimize room acoustics. Why would this be any different from floorstanders. The Aerial Acoustics 5Ts on heavy stands were no easier to move  or position than the 6T towers. And subs aren't exclusive to stand mount systems so they can be used with towers too.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not in the market for speakers and this was just something that puzzled me.

@grannyring    Yes, exceptions always exist. The Seawave Acoustic AM 23($20K) might exceed the Totem Element Metal V2($18.5k) but I have not heard a better allrounder for < $20k regardless of speaker size or type. In general the consumer is getting more value/sound for his money with a tower speaker.

I believe a more compelling reason is that bookshelves can be arranged in space for improved imaging and soundstage. Additionally, the option to add subwoofers allows for flexible placement to avoid peaks and valleys, ensuring more uniform bass.

FWIW I would never consider even a small HEA speaker a "bookshelf" speaker. A stand mount speaker is often more advantageous to the manufacturer than consumer. Why? Shipping/manufacturing costs/stands and even pushing subwoofer(s) are all additional profit makers. Is a Tower speaker more difficult with room placement? Probably, but most of the Audiophile community accept room acoustic treatments are a necessity thus eliminating most(all?) advantages that a stand mount speaker might possess.

For sure there is acoustic differences between bookshelf and Stand-mounted and Tower speakers ...

As there is difference between different speakers types too and not only about their sizes...

Acoustics taught us that there is a trade-off for each size and each types in relation to each room geometry and size and in relation to specific needs ...

Then debating what is the best does not means much ...

Acoustics taught us that we can use any types or speakers sizes optimally or not ...

The soundscape perception can be created by acoustic knowledge from any speakers...There is a trade off for sure between the acoustics factors in relation between types and size... But the good news is that we can create a relatively good High Fi soundfield with any speakers well embedded ...

My personal ultimate criteria is not size or types, more S.Q. levels/ price ratio...Because i dont have a big room now nor a unlimited budget ,...

But i dont mind, i use acoustics knowledge to shorten the distance between the best S.Q. possible and the optimal one for a price level ...

And it is not only enough to be acoustically happy, it is enough to smile at the astronomical prices paid by some compared to my own speakers value ... But for sure without modifications my active speakers are not good at all for me...Acoustics knowledge is way more than buying panels ...

We are all different in goal and tastes and needs... This is why i am very proud of my 150 bucks active speakers which modified gave me 50 hertz from their 4 inches woofer and a soundscape that made me smile with pride not envious at all but in the opposite almost taking pity of those who had invest way more for sometimes way less ...😁

You will pay a lot of money for that bottom octave done right with a pair of large floorstanders.  It is easier, and typically less noticed, for designers to cut corners with how the lowest frequencies are handled (i.e., driver size and quality, cabinet size and bracing, and design, e.g., bass reflex vs. acoustic suspension) to achieve a predetermined speaker price point.

As others have pointed out, “stand-mounted” is probably a more accurate description of most of today’s non-floor standing speakers.  If you can find a pair that righteously extends down to about 50Hz, or a little lower, then you can roll in a pair (or four) subs that have been purpose-built to handle the lowest two octaves with speed and power.  Other benefits of using subs include placement flexibility and relieving your main amplifier from the duty of driving the lowest frequencies.

I just picked up a pair of Omega Super Alnico Monitors, a  rear ported single driver speaker for my bedroom.   Perfect with a 10" REL sub.    

There are no rules....  trial and error

I have in the past switched it up from floorstanders to bookshelves due problems with the room.  It was easy to get really good performance with a pair of stand mounts and a sub

I now have floorstanders in a different setting and would never go back.    Most small speakers can't really deliver in that region where the sub should roll off , 50- 60Hz leaving out a lot of info

fun fact: here is a list of speakers that are too tall to be bookshelf and too short to be floorstanding:

I think you have to go back in history, at least in the U.S., hi-fi was larger speakers, often adapted from large high efficiency speakers--think of JBL or Altec, Bozak, EV, or kits of drivers/crossovers that required the end-user to build a cabinet. Ed Villchur developed the acoustic suspension speaker, which was meant to deliver bass in a smaller cabinet (with the drawback of lower efficiency), but the design allowed for ease of placement in the "living room" without dominating the space.

I have not researched the first use of the term "bookshelf" for speakers but suspect it coincides with this development. Obviously, there are also ported speakers that are smaller, but the acoustic suspension speaker, originated by AR, followed by KLH and then Advent (Henry Kloss being part of all this) set the pattern in the U.S. Most people did not want the intrusiveness of big hi-fi in their home. I base this on my experience slinging hi-fi back in the era, circa 1969-72.

Once the "high end" took hold, which was really a small segment-- KLH 9, Infinity Servo-Statik, the Wilson Wamm (original), the early Magneplanar,  all concerns about size seemed to be irrelevant. AR even got into the act with the LST, which was a pretty cool speaker, but a beast--and notoriously inefficient.

My perspective. What was going on in the UK may be a different story. I bought my first pair of Quads in 1974. Sort of British industrial-- not exactly something that blended into the decor of the "lounge" but there it is. The BBC monitors have a different origin, don’t they?

Bigger floor-mounted boxes may have coloration from cabinet vibrations and resonance which can impact the coherence and detail of the midband.

Thanks for all the replies. A couple of thoughts:

I know the term "bookshelf" my be antiquated or inaccurate but looking around I do see several high end makers that call their own "small" speakers "bookshelf speakers" and some claim they will work against a wall.

Aerial Acoustics calls their 5Ts "small" speakers. "Small" being relative of course. With their sand filled stands they were no smaller or lighter than the 6T floor standers and with the stands not a bit more flexible in terms of positioning.

As for adding subs to bookshelf speakers on stands, I personally don’t see how that is any better than medium towers with subs. Same size, same space, same flexibility.

I do understand that cost can be a factor with small vs floorstanding speakers but when you add the cost of high end stands and the necessity of subwoofers then the savings aren’t as big as they seem.

So for me, unless a small speaker will perform well on a shelf or a table and not absolutely require subs, I don’t see a great appeal.

But some of that can be chalked up to my inexperience. If you have bookshelf speakers on stands with subs and you are happy with how they sound then the form factor is irrelevant.

OP, for many reasons stated above: easier to move around, easier to store when not in use, less expensive, easier to place as they are usually "two way" speakers, seem to pair well with subwoofers.

I'd also add they are better at imaging and soundstage, and maybe that is because of their flexibility at placement.....because I didn't have to worry about one box providing deep bass, vocals, and highs

So lets call them standmount speakers instead.  Hardly anyone puts them on a bookshelf.

Reminds me of the study a few years ago that concluded: "DUCT TAPE NOT GOOD ON DUCTS!"

So, now: "BOOKSHELF SPEAKERS NOT GOOD ON BOOKSHELVES?"

I have bookshelf with ribbons and like it.sometimes I put them on top of my 8 feet tall speakers and the feel better almost like it's there safe space.i put some on my usher d2 and made it into a d3 saved alot of cash there.i stack speakers all the time with antivibrational material between them.i hope they have babies and I can get more speakers.i have delivered a few babies in this life but never a baby speaker yet. Enjoy the music stay healthy, relax,humor and the literature medical is full on how humor helps the immune system. Dr. Carson who separated the first conjoined twins said music helped him study and focus. Great documentary watch it.as surgens low music in the background help in the operating room.it relaxes the staff.

Interesting thread. I moved from standmounts to towers, but there are standmounts that I still thought were uniquely special -- Fritz Heiler's Carbon 7 Mk 2 SE, to be precise.

That leads me to one reason to prefer a standmount -- it’s made with special talent and attention and there is no equivalently good tower in the line or perhaps just none at all.

It’s like that one particular menu item at a restaurant that is exceptional -- but not a main course.

Or that short song that is just a "gem." (Think: "Blue, Red, and Grey" by the Who. Short, perfect, unique.)

Question for anyone interested in commenting: Name a standmount speaker which was special even though a tower from that same maker/line was not. I’ll start:

Dynaudio Evoke 10 and 20 sounded special to me. Dynaudio 30, the Tower, was "meh."

@james633 Wrote:

Lower cost at the expense of dynamics. Monitors/book shelves are not for me. I value big dynamics above all things in audio. Dynamics is what make music sound real. 

I agree!

Mike

For smaller spaces and near-field listening, I usually prefer a good bookshelf speaker. With a pair of stereo subs dialed in properly, you may wind up with a better experience than the tower equivalent in the same line.

I have some 11 pair on-hand currently. Much easier to rotate and store than towers!

I think purely for space saving (small apartments, Dorms).  There are some that sound really good (Dahli)

viridian: How are big speakers = big problem? I’ve had big speakers all my life and they have traveled with me all over the world during my numerous moves. Big speakers= big sound if you ask me, and there is just no substitute for what they can do.  If you don't have to why compromise? It's the equivalent of buying a mini refrigerator versus a full size one.

I currently have 4 sets of stand mount speakers that I rotate in my system. Storage of the ones I am not using is a breeze and I just could not have floor standers taking up all my living space, if I had that many sets. A small house problem. Book shelf speakers are generally cheaper, so I can collect more! I do run 2 REL subs with them and simply enjoy the swapping of the speakers on a regular basis. 

Lower cost at the expense of dynamics. Monitors/book shelves are not for me. I value big dynamics above all things in audio. Dynamics is what make music sound real. 

"Bookshelves" were a compromise at one time. They were cheaper and easier to position for people living in small spaces, easier to move, and were compared to standard speakers themselves which were wide baffle boxes with either three-way or hybrid horn designs. College students could afford a pair of Bose 301s, but big JBLs, Klipschorns or Cornwalls were out of the question. Bookshelf speakers were compared to "monitors" which were understood at that time as meant for professional installations  and had industrial finishes. "Tower" speaker designs did not really come into common popularity until the late1980s with high-end companies like Boothroyd Stuart Meridian. The design leaders of the time included Bang & Olufsen whose small cabinet models combined fine design and materials with excellent sound. Popularity of sat-sub arrangements came even later once passive subwoofers were replaced by reliable and affordable powered subs that were available. So "bookshelves" weren't really displacing tower speakers or floorstanders as they are known now.

Because of place...

Small room now...

But i need one with a porthole because when they are modified they sound nearer to bigger speakers ... So much i dont need subs...

The soundscape encompass my listening position with imaging more than good and a soundstage outside of the speakers plane encompassing my listening position ...

So much even it it is not as good as in my past listening dedicated room with big speakers i dont miss them too much ...I appreciate their qualities and anyway my circonstances had changed and i enjoy headphone at their top level also in my listening post ...

Better to have headphone and speakers than just one choice...For sure bigger speakers in an acoustic room will beat all headphones ... But my K340 are not far from top speakers even for bass...

I will never own a bigger room after 72 years old ...I must had decrease my house size...

It is better to own small bookshelves acoustically optimized than big speakers not optimized... I say it by experience ...Then it is not so much about the size as about how you use them ...

For sure they differ optimized or not but small optimized one may be  way better than many big speakers right out of the box...Choose them well ...

The term bookshelf speaker is now an anachronism in a hi-fi context. Even back in the day there were plenty of "bookshelf" speakers that were never designed to be used close to a wall  -e.g. LS 3/5a's etc.

Bookshelf speakers is a term that was used 50 years ago. Many large speakers of that era including JBL , Advent, KLH, ADS, AR, etc. used that label for any speaker that could be placed on a shelf. Your 5Ts are called stand mount not bookshelf speakers.  Using the word bookshelf speaker a misnomer!

Agree with comments so far. Also bookshelves are easier to sell/ship. 
I was a convert since a friend brought me back a pair of LS3/5a in 1975 - wish I still had them! Had some towers in between but back to stand mount now.  Availability of good/inexpensive subs now also helps. 

Becoz bookshelves are not only for books first of all.

My “bookshelf” speakers are made by Aerial also, but they weigh 105 pounds each and have dual 9- inch woofers in a sealed box. Sitting on 70-pound Sound Anchor stands and paired with two Aerial SW-12 subs, the system offers flexibility of placement that allows optimal SQ in a variety of rooms and purposeful placement of the two subs provides impactful bass without the boominess I have previously experienced from certain full-range speakers.  The only change I would make would be to add one or two more subs.