How do standmounts differ from floorstanders?

[blakey72]

Hi all. I'm just wondering what peoples opinions are on the differences between standmounts and floorstanders? Obviously bass can be a big difference but what else does one do better/worse than the other? ie. soundstage/imaging etc.

 

Blake.

[Chill3]

IMO it's not a floor stand v stand mount thing. Other than the one obvious difference that stand mounts need a good stand at extra cost.

I have owned stand mounts with 12 inch drivers and internal volumes more than most stand mounts, and floor stands with small bass drivers and relatively low internal volumes

[acg]

Someone like Mike Lenehan will say that a well constructed standmount with low resonance will outperform a floorstander of similar dollar value for dynamics, tonal accuracy and sound-staging.  If you want to go below 30Hz just add subs.  One of the important points for Mikes speakers is cabinet construction and the little ones are just easier to get right than the big ones, not to mention much less expensive. 

 

Of course this does not apply to all speaker builders.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

[blakey72]

I've seen some people say imaging and soundstage is generally better in standmounts. Do you think this holds true?

[Cafad]

Well the thing about stand mounts is that they are a smaller speaker so the drivers are closer together, so they should image better/tighter than a larger speaker with more drivers that are mounted further apart.  

[andyr]

Someone like Mike Lenehan will say that a well constructed standmount with low resonance will outperform a floorstander of similar dollar value for dynamics, tonal accuracy and sound-staging.  If you want to go below 30Hz just add subs.  One of the important points for Mikes speakers is cabinet construction and the little ones are just easier to get right than the big ones, not to mention much less expensive. 

 

Of course this does not apply to all speaker builders.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

 

Stand mounts are generally "small" speakers - so I very much doubt they deliver good response to 30Hz!

 

By "good" I mean less than -3db down ... I would say most might be able to deliver 45Hz at -3dB, at best.

 

But that's no problem - you simply kick in the sub at, say, 45Hz.

 

 

Regards,

[henry218]

its the principle and the holistic of the design that makes a speaker image better, where their crossover design to its drivers, spacing and baffle design creates a coherent sound.

then the electronics, just the other day we tried audio-gd master5 pre and conrad johnson pre PV5. the CJ was very sweet, warm and quite delicious , but the master5 just create much bigger soundstage and details.

[henry218]

its just harder to create a 40hz freq on higher spl >85db for a typical 4-6" midwoofer, the cone will travel more, when the cone travels more then the distortion may rise (depends on how good the motor, magnet, suspension and rigidity of the cone)

just imagine when you are driving uphill with a 100kw car than a 180kw car, both can climb at certain speed reasonably, but if you want to go faster then you'll need that extra kw.

[Boots-n-All]

Hi there,

 

I found that the biggest difference was

 

 

                   BASS!

 

Boots.

[Guest Misterioso]

Stand mounts are generally "small" speakers - so I very much doubt they deliver good response to 30Hz!

 

By "good" I mean less than -3db down ... I would say most might be able to deliver 45Hz at -3dB, at best.

No rule without exception: Genelec 8260A, 26Hz @ -3dB (one of my favourite speakers)

[henry218]

No rule without exception: Genelec 8260A, 26Hz @ -3dB (one of my favourite speakers)

well its a 3way with 10" woofer

[emesbee]

I've seen some people say imaging and soundstage is generally better in standmounts. Do you think this holds true?

 

Its far too broad a statement, really depends on the design of the speakers in question.

 

I have a pair of VAF DCX gen4 mkII floorstanders, and also a pair of their i91 stand mounted speakers.

 

In this case, I would say that the i91's imaging and soundstaging are definitely better than the DCXs. Bass performance of the i91s is also very good for their size, but doesn't have the extension of the DCXs.

 

The drivers are quite different though. Each i91 has a concentric woofer/tweeter driver, whereas the DCXs have two bass/midrange drivers and twin tweeters. I suspect the relative simplicity of the concentric driver arrangement and cabinet design in the i91s has a lot to do with their excellent imaging and soundstaging. Although these are standmount speakers, they are still quite good sized cabinets. Rather larger than bookshelf size, really.

[DoggieHowser]

I am not sure one can make generalizations like these any more.

 

I recently sent a coax driver from my Thiel floorstanders back to the US for RMA so I swapped in the ML2 Limiteds with a pair of borrowed S2 stands from Mike. I was living with the standmounts for a few weeks before I got the coax back earlier this week and I managed to test them side by side.

 

I would say the Thiel's coax provides very good imaging - in some ways I think it presents a more cohesive and coherent image but the bass on the ML2 Limited is quite something. You would not expect that amount of bass to come from a small 6.5" woofer. 

Edited October 25, 2013 by DoggieHowser

[Kaynin]

By design, can you get standmounts further into a corner than a rear ported floor stander - or - is it relevant to the size of the drivers?

[henry218]

corner loading (assisting the lower freq of bass) is possible, depends on the tuning of the port and the amount of baffle step applied to the speakers.

inherently it wont remedy the ability of the midwoof to reproduce 40hz on the same spl, it may help that in a sense it will sound louder, but then this may or may not intrude the midrange

[Kaynin]

Yeah, overpowering or 'boomy" bass is my concern because a future speaker purchase will require them to be in corners.  I've been considering front ported floorstanders, but if standmounts can go further into the corners then they may be on the radar.  Seems it may just come down to speaker design, rather than a black/white categorisation of SM vs FS.

[henry218]

audionote speakers?

[Kaynin]

Yeah, they're beautiful, no doubt.  I've put them on the list to look at closer since the Hi-Fi Show.  Not sure of their product range, but if something was in budget then I'd certainly consider.

[henry218]

definitely one of the most beautiful sounding speakers with audionote system.

obviously the passive xo design intended for the use of speakers on the corners, some horn by pispeakers (klipsch for that matter also) specifically for corners.

[blakey72]

I ask this question because I am considering moving my PMC's to another room and getting nice sized floorstanders. I think I want that full range depth that the standmounts lack and I really don't want to go to a sub. I love the imaging and soundstage the PMC's create and I'm a little worried I won't be able to achieve the same result in a floorstander.

[henry218]

whats your definition for a good imaging and soundstage?

have you heard the PMC floorstander? or any floorstander that image well?

i dont have any problem with imaging with my 2

box, where the MT sits on the bass bin.

[Paul Spencer]

Blakey,

 

Let's suppose that a very similar floorstanding version of your speaker were made and it simply had the same box extended downwards, giving it a larger volume but the same drivers and crossover. It would be more expensive and have greater bass extension. Baffle edge diffraction would be altered as the sides extend down further and the bottom edge of the speaker is extended down to the floor. This would result in measurable changes and I suppose it could have some effect on imaging, but in essence we'd expect the speaker to sound very much the same, except with more extension.

 

In other words, you have little to fear.

 

As a general rule, in a speaker these things are linked together:

 

1. Box size

2. Sensitivity

3. Bass extension

 

Pick two and the third becomes a given. So when you move from a stand mount to a floorstander, you have the choice to increase sensitivity or bass extension, or a combination of both.

 

Personally I don't find a strong correlation between speaker size and imaging. People are surprised when a really big speaker images well. One needs to think in terms of acoustics rather than intuitive logic, which so often in audio leads people to conclusions that are easy to understand myths.

[buddyev]

Hi Blake

I think the problem comes when you overload small rooms with big speakers so the bass boom seems to clog up the space and light in the music (highly technical language, that). But I can't see why you wouldn't get great imaging and staging from larger speakers as long as they are in a good-size room and have a decent amplification. My b&ws do both very well. Matching speakers to the room is the main thing.

Edited October 26, 2013 by buddyev

[blakey72]

Thanks for that guys. I guess it's a case of sorting the truth from the myths. I guess what could be said is getting an equivalent floorstander is going to hurt the bank more   

[cheekyboy]

I guess what could be said is getting an equivalent floorstander is going to hurt the bank more 

 

Having built plenty of both over the years, blakey72, I don't think that statement is necessarily true. An equivalent floorstander will quite possibly be cheaper and usually doesn't occupy anymore real estate than does the standmount, with a similar if not a smaller footprint.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith