1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Floor/tower speakers

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by baba, Jan 20, 2004.

  1. I've been looking for a new pair of floor/tower speakers for my stereo. I need something in the $400-$600/pr range. 3 way ideally.

    Infinity Primus 360, JBL E80, and Yamaha 777(I think) look good for the price so far.

    Any other suggestions? I need a fat bass presence (go figure)for music as well as articulate highs and mids for DVD special effects, etc. I also prefer a slim/tall tower shape purely for aesthetic purposes.

  2. I have a pair of Bose 501 V tower speakers. They're two way, and they sound great. To put it plainly, they sound very natural and balanced.

    They go for about $550/pair. 7.25 inch footprint. About 30 inches tall.

    I'd write more, but I'm busy at the moment.

    More later.

  3. DigMe


    Aug 10, 2002
    Waco, TX
    I havn't tested them but I always see some Polk towers for an awesome price at Fry's Electronics. I've had good results with Polk products in the past. Might be worth checking out if you have a Fry's in your area.

    brad cook
  4. Thanks guys.

    Paradigm Legend v3 is now topping my list. I may need to toss in another hundred or so but evidently this is an incredible speaker for the money. My ears will be the judge of that this weekend.
  5. I've never heard a three way cabinet sound better than a two way.

    I built myself these:


    It's a transmission line system.
  6. DigMe


    Aug 10, 2002
    Waco, TX
    You need to get one of those egg-shaped pedestal chairs. No bachelor pad is complete without it.

    brad cook
  7. Interesting. I simply assumed 3 is better than 2. It would seem that you'd get better separation of sounds in different frequencies if they are handled by different and specialized speakers.

    Am I off base here? Any other opinions? I don't want to spend extra $$ for 3 way if 2 way is potentially equal or better.
  8. Yeah, I'm thinking I may need a sub. Not sure how much thump the towers will provide. Many people recommend adding a sub if you use the tall slim tower profile speakers. I'll let my ears be the judge.

    Killer deal on your sound system.
  9. Concerning this 2 versus 3 way systems, I agree with Joris 100%. Most of the 2 way systems I've ever heard, whether in an audio showroom, or someone's home sounded better TO ME.

    By saying they sounded better, I basically mean that they sounded smoother and more natural. I think the general rule is: Judge with your ears, not your eyes.

    Also, the type of music you listen to may sound better to you through a different speaker than I would like.

    Good luck.

    Mike ;)
  10. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    I'm going with this setup.

  11. DigMe


    Aug 10, 2002
    Waco, TX
    Hey Baba...if you decide to go with an active sub I highly recommend this one:


    They occasionally go on sale for 99 bucks and that's what I paid for mine. I originally found it recommended as a budget sub in several audiophile forums and I've been very happy with it. I was demonstrating it to my neighbor while my wife was in the apt. next door and she honestly thought it was thundering outside at first. It's got all the features that you need on an active sub and I think one would be hard pressed to find better quality for the money. I would put this up against some much more expensive subs any day.

    brad cook
  12. Tough subject.

    I think the midbass and midrange are best handled by a single speaker, maybe because of phase issues usually connected to crossovers. In 3-way systems the low-to-mid-crossover is somewhere between 400 and 800 Hz, which is a pretty sensitive range. Drop down the x-over freq to 100 Hz (by using a sub), where the human hearing is uncapable of much detail, and the midrange doesn't suffer as much.

    Although I must say I never auditioned high class 3-way systems, where the crossover design is as engineered and fine tuned as the cabinet itself, i.o.w. "done right". I do know that the most respected studio monitors are 2-way. I have medium budget, active 2-way studio monitors, and they're the best sounding speakers I have ever had. Much better than any 3-way system I heard. Which leads me to believe one doesn't need a 3-way system to have really good sound. I firmly believe more isn't always better.

    It's just all in my humble opinion.
  13. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    Joris, by adding a sub, your system is now effectively splitting the signal 3 ways anyway isn't it?

    The reason I ask is because I'm planning to build a home Hi-Fi and theatre system. The original design was for 5litre (small) bookshelf speakers (4" + 1"tweet) and a seperate 2x10 sub - the prototypes have been built and I'm happy with the sub. I'm still playing with the bookshelf speaker, specifically the level of attenuation of the tweeter.

    However, I'm now toying with the idea of building a couple of floor standers that each have a 10" sub for lows as per the design mentioned above, a 6" for mid-bass, and a 1" silk dome teeter. No Sub. It shouldn't need it. I was then going to add 3 smaller satelite speakers to complete the 5.1 system (without the .1 but not without low frequency drivers). Commercial offerings don't seem to make speakers in this configuration too often and I'm wondering why?

    The way I see it, the floorstanding speakers have a similar driver configuratioon, the same crossover points, but eliminates the need for speaker stands around the room.

    Your thoughts?
  14. Well, of course. But my point is: a sub has a much lower crossover frequency (or should have). So the crossover is in a frequency range where the human ear is uncapable of hearing much detail. BTW, I don't consider a 2-way+sub a 3-way system.

    So, in my opinion, your setup would work perfectly, if you would crossover the woofers at an as low as possible frequency. So you'd have built in subs, effectively.

    Again, this is how I see/hear it, there's no reason whatsoever to accept this as fact. It's my opinion.
  15. Petebass


    Dec 22, 2002
    QLD Australia
    I value your opinion, that's why I asked :)

    I agree with your theory on sub crossover frequencies. I aim for 90Hz or lower. The problem with small commercial 5.1 systems is the satelites cant hande 90Hz, so they raise the crossover point. The result kills the effect of the sub IMO.

    As I type this I'm listening to my sub and 4" bookshelf speaker and I think I've finally got it right. That tweet ended up needing 10dB of attenuation, even though it's only 1dB more efficient on paper. Is that unusual?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.