Sorry I stole this from another site. But, would this not be true and accurate.

I think that's called Bass Management. And Bass Mangement is the key to this discussion.

If you have a receiver/pre/pro with a modern Bass Mangement scheme, and you have satellite speakers with sufficient mid-bass capability, (i.e., 60 Hz or so), then a system comprised of satellites and subwoofer(s) can sound at least as good, and often, better than a system comprised of "full-range" mains. Why is this??? Several reasons:

1. Most "full-range" mains are not really full-range. In order to be full range for HT purposes, the mains need to have sufficient output at 20 Hz. Very few large, floorstanding speakrs have any output at 20 Hz. Most are limited to the low 30's or high 20's, at best. So, what happens when you send them a "full-range" signal? The deepest notes are.......

LOST!

Let me re-iterate... they are not reproduced.

However, if you use Bass Mangement to "filter the low frequencies from the main channels and send them to the subwoofer", (and presumably the subwoofer has deeper extension than the mains), they
WILL be reproduced...
by the subwoofer.

2. (Sanjay's point") The best location for bass reproduction in any room is rarely the best location for the main speaker for the purposes of imaging and soundstage. For the main speakers to do their best at presenting the audio image locked up with the video image, the mains should usually be well away from boundary walls. However, bass is reinforced by boundary walls, and often the best location for bass reproduction takes the main speakers out of their best location for imaging and soundstage.

Siphon the bass off to the subwoofer and you free up the mains to be placed where they provide the best audio/visual "image". You can then place the subwoofer(s) where they interact best with the room and the listening position to provide flat, deep, clean bass.

3. Amplifier efficiency. When you use BM to re-direct the bass frequencies to the subwofer(s), you filter it out before the amplifiers. Since bass frequencies are the most power hungry part of the audio spectrum, removing them from the main channels and re-directing them to the sub(s), frees up the main amps to do a better job of powering the frequencies they are asked to reproduce. This allows the entire system, (speakers, amps and subwoofer(s)) to play louder and with less distortion.

Bottom line, if you have a system that consists of:

...true, full-range, 20 Hz to 20 kHz speakers...

...AND those speakers can be placed where they provide a perfect soundstage AND excellent bass reproduction,

...AND you have HUGE amplifier capabilty that can power those full-range speakers to limitless SPL's without clipping,

...then you don't need Bass Managment.

OTOH, if you're like the rest of us, Bass Management will be the best thing since sliced bead.

What I don't get and it was posted in another forum is

your subs may not be up on the front stage, your sub woofers maybe best in another location than the towers to produce the best bass. So there for why would I want deep bass coming from my tower mains up front, if it is better produced by a sub and that sub is in the side wall. And if I have two subs to even out the Bass, then wouldn't this have a negative effect on the low frequencies, coming from M80's up front and two subs on the side.

Would for movies it really be better to have great positioning soundstage and imaging from great bookshelf speakers and place the low frequency subs where bass is best produced ?

and then this guy shoots it all to H 3 dbl hockey sticks lol

Craig John posted a good argument for monitor + sub. In theory that would be correct, but as someone else already mentioned though, IMHO it's more of a personal preference. In my experience, I have started with a good monitor and sub system (Revel + Velodyne). The sound was good, but I had to spend a lot of time with integration. The bass from subwoofer would not blend very well with the sound from monitors. That's even with the aid of room correction software built into Velodyne, in addition to the bass management system from the processor. There is no problem with the amount and quality of bass. It's just that it wouldn't blend very well. The sound from bottom to top wouldn't sound very coherent. That's when I started looking for full range speakers. When I finally got a pair of Focal, they sounded much more coherent across the frequency spectrum.

In theory the subwoofer placement is much easier than the speaker placement. In practice, it depends on the cross over frequency and slope of the cross over. With typical installation with 80Hz cross over, the subwoofer may reproduce enough midbass and it will lose the advantage of being unidirectional. You will be able to point out where the subwoofer is located. That was the case for me at least, with 80Hz cross over. I ended up crossing over at 50Hz with better results.

As pointed out earlier, true full range speakers should reproduce down to 20Hz. Many of the floor standers do not reproduce 20Hz, thus technically are not full range speakers. But that is a technical definition, and not an indication of inferior sound as it may incorrectly infer. My Focals go down to 33Hz in anechoic chamber, and technically they are not full range speakers. The in room response probably extends to 25-30Hz. But the overall coherency from the treble all the way down to whatever low frequency it can reproduce is much much better than monitors + subwoofer system.

I would say the floor stander speakers will have an edge in overall sound coherency in most cases. It's possible to configure a pair of monitors and a subwoofer to sound better than comparable floor standers. But it is not as easy as it seems. You would probably end up putting in dozens of hours tweaking the cross over frequency and other bass management system before you reach that state. For most people, who wouldn't spend more than 30 minutes to an hour for initial set up of the speakers, I bet the floor standers would sound better than monitors and a subwoofer.

as do a few others who made the case for floorstanding.

If you're watching movies, why on earth WOULDN'T you have a sub? I have M80s and use a sub for music and movies. Yeah, the M80s can get a lot of the bass, but not all of it. So that makes the argument moot.

I do have a sub actually Two subs.
For music it is 2 channel, no sub

Yes, Troy; what you quote in the first post is for the most part "true and accurate". The size of a speaker enclosure affects the bass tuning. It has no effect on the mid-range or treble, and if those drivers are the same in both, the performance above the bass will be the same, assuming that the crossover is the same. If a good sub is handling the low bass, the advantage of a larger enclosure in that area is a moot point.

The part that isn't entirely accurate is the comment in paragraph 3. about bass frequencies being "power hungry". There's no such thing, since power requirements are a function of loudness, not frequency. For example, 40Hz, 400Hz and 4000Hz at 80dB require the same power, and 4000Hz at 90dB requires 10 times the power needed by 40Hz at 80dB. It's true, of course that whatever power does happen to be needed for the bass handled by the sub doesn't have to be supplied by the amplification for the speakers.

I have heard people here say that low frequencies produced by subs may not be best up front. I may end up with the subs behind me or on either side wall or one up front and one in the rear. They say 80hz or so give or take a few. Yet, they also say the M80's produce great lower bass. So, why is it that 80hz coming from a sub is better elsewhere, but it is oh so great from the M80's in the front.
Such contradiction,
Yet, I am told you cannot hear the localization of lower frequencies, yet that it is best to have the M80's over Satelites because it give better bottom from the mains up front and fills the room.
Don't two great subs .... EP500/600's if place properly fill the room ? if you have two great subs, do you really notice the bass coming from the M80's that much ?
I thought if the sats and subs blended well you shouldn't notice any seperation ?
I thought if you had great detail, imagining, soundstage, clarity coming from the three up front then that's all you need. Everyone says low bass and crossing over at around 80hz to subs which can be placed anywhere, in a location that sounds best. where ever it is will fill the room and given it is unidirectional your not going to notice where it comes from, yet I am told well M80's give great bass up front.

Ok ....

I thought one of the biggest reasons people go with the M80's or floorstanding , is that you kill two birds with one stone.

Mainly so you don't need to seperate systems.
They are not neccessary the best for music but do a good job for movies to.
Saves you from buying a bunch of speakers.

SO, if you have two rooms same size side by side. One you go to wath movies and one to listen to music. What I am hearing is get the M80's for both rooms ?
For Movies the M80's and VP180 and two subs is the best you will get.
For Music M80's
Except, with the music room don't get subs

Sound is sound. If the music happens to contain frequencies that are better reproduced by a sub than by the main speaker in question, then the music needs the sub. There should be no artificial distinction made between music and movies.

I think you’ve been confused by the way things are being said. It is generally correct that in a room the direction of frequencies below about 80 Hz are difficult to discern becoming increasingly more difficult the lower the frequency, the farther from the source and the smaller the room. When people like me say that the M80s give you more “midbass” punch we’re talking about mostly the 50 Hz to 80 Hz range not the bottom end or below 50 or 40 Hz going down to slightly below 20 Hz.

While you still can’t hear the direction the midbass is coming from you can often feel it just like in the real world outside you can feel the direction an explosion comes from. I say often because it’s very dependent on the room size and shape and the seating distance from the source. Again generally the closer you are to the source of the midbass the more you feel the directionality. This is why HSU’s midbass modules are designed to be placed near the listener. So in reality the “ideal” system would have monitors for the mids and highs placed for best sound field, midbass modules placed near the listener for midbass punch and subwoofers placed for best bass response.

While I agree with John’s statement that sound is sound and that no artificial distinction should be made between music or movies I find in reality that isn’t always true because much of the action in movies overemphasizes the midbass frequencies even when you expect that the sound associated with the on-screen action should be a much lower frequency. I surmise this is partly because the movies being mastered for the average person are not expected to have a very good subwoofer so the keep them up above 40 Hz where they can actually be reproduced by someone’s home theater in a box. Also that many people associate punch with bass rather than the rumble you feel from truly deep bass which my Buttkicker tells me is not as prevalent as most people (waterfall graphs aside) would like to think. In most movies I have to turn the crossover on my Buttkicker up to 55 Hz or higher to get anything out of it at all even in movie scenes where there are earthquakes and other action that should shake and not punch.

What is best is very much room dependent. Some people here have experimented with having the M80s at large as well as having a sub or two and found that gave them the best results.

In my room, it doesn't matter where the sub is, I get more or less the same room response.

I personally bought the M80s because I heard a difference in the mid range and treble.

You can drive yourself crazy with this stuff.

Low frequencies are more power hungry than high frequencies for a number of reasons. The peak demands are much greater in the low and midrange frequencies (below 300hz) because simply there is more content in the source material than content at 1000hz, 3000hz, 5000hz 10000hz etc. The most important aspect to look at is peak content in the source material below 200hz. When you look at impedance graphs of speakers its also very common this is where impedance minimums range (they can even dip in the 2-3 ohm range with some speakers. So running the speakers large this is where the majority of the current demand will be coming from.

Part of the reason for the persistence of the Music vs Movies distinction is that very little music (especially popular music) has significant content below the low "E" on a bass guitar, which is around 40 hz. Maybe some portions of the kick drum spectrum. Maybe some outrageously low synthesizer notes. Otherwise there's just not much there. That's why the midbass modules mentioned above came about. Most of the visceral, chest-thumping impact that is associated with bass is in that region.

Anyway, tower speakers that adequately address the regions where music really resides tend to provide a coherent stereo soundstage for music. OTOH, subwoofers are better suited to capturing the low frequency effects so popular in movies. Thus the debate.

The real challenge is trying to build a single system that does both well (cause you're on a limited budget and your wife really isn't up for two separate rooms dedicated to music).

Whip, you're certainly correct that most music has relatively little content in the area handled by subs(say below 100Hz). The IEC 268-1 power spectrum standard(shown in the power rating section here ), formulated based on an analysis of recordings of all types of music, shows an essentially equal requirement in the area from about 100Hz to 2000Hz. Both the bass area below 100Hz and the treble area above 2000Hz generally have a lower requirement. This of course isn't because upper bass and mid-range frequencies are inherently "power hungry"(see my above reply re this sort of misconception), but simply because there's more content and/or louder content in that frequency range.

Neither in theory nor in personal practice, however, have I experienced a "real challenge" in having a system that does an excellent job with both movie LFE(essentially all below about 80Hz)and the typically higher music frequencies. As long as the main speakers(whatever their size may be, whether termed a "tower" or "bookshelf")have good response to below the crossover with the sub, a smooth, continuous presentation results. With quality sub and mains(if they meet the required frequency response)both music and movie sound are enjoyed equally well.

That's the best part, I don't have a wife or GF.
SO I can build two systems.

I appreciate the advise of all, just havin a hard time figuring it out. I love really love the MK 750 for the clarity, imagining (Don't even need a centre channel ), mid-bass is surprisingly good, detail is unsurreal. However, as good as they are musically they are to, but just do not go low enough. 80hz is it. I can tell you I can her piss hitting the wall, if a guy was pissing like it was in the room. I own these now and am told the 950's are much better

Just I want the Axiom towers too and not sure yet the 60's or 80's.
I am having a set of 80's someday next year, but in either Sorel Pear or Beech in viynl or I may go for the real wood Cherry. I so wish they still had HG Cherry. But, not sure the extra 500$ is worth it.
There is a nice set of Oak 60's on Auction I may just go for them.
Thing is I only want black in the movie room. I have $1300 to spend now if needed.
So, I am grabbing something next week whether it's the 950's ,black M80's or 60's or say hell and get the b-stock 60's in the oak. Then again if I get the Oak I may like it alot and use it as my stereo system up in the living room.

Maybe it was because we are talking about things like sound dispersion or maybe it's because I hadn't put my glasses on yet but I read the above quote as....
"That's the best part, I don't have a wide GF."

HAHA this is the part I was referring to from whippersnapper ....
and no I don't have a boyfriend either lol
single dad of a 12 yr old daughter don't need any other women drama. Plus I get to buy all my toys before a GF moves in. Figured it out this time, get my toys first

OK so down to my low level. ... . What I think you are saying is ..... regardless of BS or FS speakers if the systems cross over interlaps or blends well then both maybe good. The only issue with BS is that the lower frequencies tend to drop off higher up, so therefore the subs need to produce at a higher frequency. Hense maybe 100hz, then that's where I run into localization of the sub.
Whereas, ( I am sounding like a lawyer ) if I have FS, say M80's then they will drop off at 40hz , so I can crossover at 60hz and I should have no localization of the sub(s).

I just don't get where Miller an Kreisel suposably started this whole Sat/Sub Home Theatre craze say a Sat/Sub system is better

I think you've got it Troy. That is the similar issue I had when building my system. I have to use in or on wall speakers due to room configuration, but trying to find on wall speakers that play solidly down to 80 Hz or below in a reasonable price range is what led me to purchase Axiom (and the excellent QS8's). I was trying to avoid sub localization as much as possible with this type of setup. I am a very happy camper with the results I got!

Cheers,

Hi Whip, Axiomman, JohnK and all,

I will tell you that I have both the M22v3s and M80v2s operating with an EP500 sub in a living room that's about 20 x 13 x 9 ft (L, W, H) with the bookshelf 22s and M80s on an A/B switcher. I think the Miller & Kreisel theory is perhaps based on the fact that because bookshelf speakers are small and also have narrower front baffles (hence fewer interference effects from the cabinetry), they can be positioned for an ideal soundstage more easily than can large floorstanding speakers.

That's certainly true in my setup: the M80s are NOT ideally positioned, whereas the M22s are. Consequently I'm able to achieve a wider more spacious soundstage with the M22v3s than with the M80s. Now, there is another factor here as well. I find the M22v3s just an itsy-bitsy bit smoother than the M80v2s on well-recorded female vocals, both pop and operatic, and on brass instruments. We're talking nuances here, but they're audible with critical listening. I suspect that if I replaced the M80v2s with a v3 pair, which are more linear and smoother through the mids than the v2, those differences would disappear.

Yes, the M80s are a bit "fuller" in the upper bass with certain music than the M22s (both are crossed over at 80 Hz to the EP500), but I don't find any audible sacrifices watching movies with the M22s and the sub (and QS8s) or listening to music in 5.1 (I rarely listen to music in 2-channel stereo, except for testing).

In a much larger room than mine with ideal setup, a pair of M80s can sound spectacularly good. However with the compromises inherent in setups in many smallish living rooms, the sat/sub setup with very good bookshelf speakers and a sub can yield wonderfully fine reproduction with movies or music.

Regards,
Alan

Thanks Alan
and all.

Boy, you'd think Ian would offer a 5% employee discount or sumptin'!

Ooooh! that sounds much better than similarly fine.