2 way vs 3 way

[almikel]

 

 

On 28/11/2020 at 4:18 PM, dcathro said:

I can't say that I am a fan of DSP for crossovers. I have never heard a DSP implementation I have liked. If your happy with it, then that's what matters!

 

On 28/11/2020 at 5:26 PM, andyr said:

 

As you are in Melbourne ... now that lockdown has ended, I'd be delighted if you would come over and have a listen to my DSP-based active spkrs: 3-way + subs.

 

Then again, you might not like the way Maggies present music - which might cloud your opinion of how my DSP system performs.    IMO, they sound much better now than they did, pre-DSP (ie. with analogue active XOs).

 

PM me if you're interested.

 

Andy

 

I also went from analog active to DSP active - with a big improvement to my ears...I've never listened to Andy's setup...but I'd sure like to.

 

On 28/11/2020 at 4:18 PM, dcathro said:

If your happy with it, then that's what matters!

 

On 03/12/2020 at 8:41 AM, Peter the Greek said:

Terry at Bathurst runs what a 4 way? and many (most) people who hear his set up think is the best they've every heard. That's a fairly telling testament that it can be done. I'm in this camp too - really high quality mid range drivers, to me, just sound better....presumably done well.

 

Pretty sure Terry's system runs active DEQX DSP...my point being that DSP crossovers and EQ can work very well when setup well.

 

Mike

[almikel]

 

On 30/11/2020 at 8:14 AM, Steve M said:

In terms of directivity, I prefer speakers that beam directly at you with a narrow sweet spot - producing a clear rock tight central image. A fuzzy soundstage spoils the illusion of stereo music for me.

Hi Steve,

Unfortunately multiple baffle mounted drivers can't provide a directivity pattern that "beam directly at you with a narrow sweet spot" through the crossover region - physics gets in the way.

A baffle mounted tweeter will always have a widening directivity pattern down to crossover, and the baffle mounted mid it's crossing to will always have a narrowing directivity pattern up to crossover (called "beaming").

Same for a baffle mounted mid crossing to a baffle mounted woofer.

 

If you're listening near field, or in a semi-anechoic environment (say outdoors) - the on-axis response of a speaker dominates what you hear - and it's "relatively" easy to design/implement a speaker with a smooth "on-axis" response.

 

In typical listening rooms with the room boundaries bouncing the sound around, you also hear the speakers' "off axis" response - and if it's different to the on-axis response - that helps to create a fuzzy soundstage.

 

IMHO you want a speaker system that manages directivity/pattern control down to the transition zone of the room (say 200-300Hz) - from there down room resonant behaviour takes over and speaker directivity becomes irrelevant.

No box speaker with baffle mounted drivers can achieve this.

 

cheers,

Mike

[dcathro]

2 hours ago, almikel said:

I would expect that mixing always needs to consider what the final listener will be listening through, but with an accurate playback system to mix on.

I've heard that the BBC ran ESL57's in their mixing rooms for years - could be BS

 

I meant on headphones. If you mix on headphones you cannot tell relative loudness of instruments. You get a surprise when you listen to the mix on speakers

[almikel]

On 04/12/2020 at 10:08 PM, dcathro said:

 

I meant on headphones. If you mix on headphones you cannot tell relative loudness of instruments. You get a surprise when you listen to the mix on speakers

I get that there would be a difference between mixing on headphones vs speakers...but with good headphones (eg like your Stax in the photo above), I'd be surprised if you couldn't hear the relative loudness of the instruments...

...agreed it would have a different presentation to how it sounds on loudspeakers, but perfect for "binaural" listening through headphones...which a lot of music gets listened to these days...

 

...I remember a Lou Reed record I bought several decades ago had been mixed for "binaural"/headphone listening - it still sounded fine on my speakers...and I can't remember ever trying it through headphones...nor would I attempt to explain what the mixing differences would be between mixing for headphone listening vs speaker listening.

 

I do know Siegfried Linkwitz would demo/test his speakers against good headphones. I bought my Etymotic ER4P IEM/headphones based on his recommendation - amazing sound.

 

cheers

Mike

[aussievintage]

30 minutes ago, almikel said:

...I remember a Lou Reed record I bought several decades ago had been mixed for "binaural"/headphone listening - it still sounded fine on my speakers...and I can't remember ever trying it through headphones...nor would I attempt to explain what the mixing differences would be between mixing for headphone listening vs speaker listening.

 

 

You are only ever listening to the  interpretation of the guy on the mixer in these situations.  You won't always like it the way he did either, and may even prefer it the way it happens to sound on your different system.   As it is artificial to begin with, there is no correct reality, so kick back and just enjoy it when it sounds good to you.

[almikel]

14 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

You are only ever listening to the  interpretation of the guy on the mixer in these situations.  You won't always like it the way he did either, and may even prefer it the way it happens to sound on your different system.   As it is artificial to begin with, there is no correct reality, so kick back and just enjoy it when it sounds good to you.

yeah agreed...the whole recording process through to reproduction has no standard "baseline" to work from - what Toole and Olive talk about as the audio "circle of confusion"...http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html#:~:text=Audio's “Circle of Confusion” is,a standardized%2C calibrated monitoring environment.

 

The best we can do as "consumers" of music is to have "reasonable" reproduction - and some EQ available to tweak recordings doesn't hurt either

 

I have an interest in recording techniques/mixing - the gear nut in our band records lots of the stuff we play live, and he spends loads of time mixing our recorded stuff - I've sat with him tweaking many times...once he's done he'll go and listen in the car, then air pods, then someone else's system...and I watch him tear his hair out as they all sound different

 

Mike

[sfdoddsy]

Didn’t want to quote the full response to my earlier  comment about good 3 ways being better than good 2 ways, but do want to mention that the response was nonsense.

 

The whole purpose of creating a good three wY is to overcome the dispersion issues of crossing a big woofer to a small tweeter.

 

Waveguides are a band-aid attempt to make two wrongs (woofer beaming/tweeter blooming) a right.

 

Far better for controlled directivity is to cross from a woofer to a midrange before the woofer starts beaming, and then from the midrange to the tweeter before the mid starts beaming.

 

Check the superb off-axis performance of 3 ways such as Revel, KEF, Neumann and Genelec.

 

And show us the two way with a big woofer and wave-guided tweeter that matches them.

 

 

 

 

[sfdoddsy]

On 27/11/2020 at 11:55 PM, Steffen said:

 

I’ve heard this trope a million times over the last 30 years or so, alas, it is still nonsense to me. None of the “better bass” and “more full range” speakers I’ve heard could ever bring music to life like the Ls3/5a does. The lack of bass extension is commonly dealt with (if you desire) by subwoofers crossed over at 80Hz or bass extenders like the AB/1. 

 

Ls3/5a owners tend to keep this to themselves, after all, supplies are limited

So we come down to objective versus subjective.

 

The LS3/5a is objectively not a very good speaker. Subjectively many swear by it.

 

Neither is necessarily right or wrong. 
 

It depends on what you are after.

 

I prize accuracy, and thus the LS3/5a is not a good speaker to me.

 

But It is very enjoyable, so I completely understand why so many love it.

 

It’s like my hypocritical love for my open baffles.

 

I know they are wrong. But they are so enjoyably wrong I forgive them.

[almikel]

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

Didn’t want to quote the full response to my earlier  comment about good 3 ways being better than good 2 ways, but do want to mention that the response was nonsense.

 

you mean my response to your post below?

On 27/11/2020 at 9:36 PM, almikel said:

The dispersion/directivity control of a well designed 2 way with a waveguide loaded tweeter crossing to a large mid woofer (eg Econowave, Geddes, some of the Red Spade designs) will be superior to any box 3 way.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I didn't think my response was nonsense - the designs I mentioned specifically include "directivity control" as a design criteria for the speaker - and have reasonable (but variable) success in meeting that criteria.

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

The whole purpose of creating a good three wY is to overcome the dispersion issues of crossing a big woofer to a small tweeter.

I don't think many commercial 3 way box/flat baffle speaker manufacturers consider directivity/dispersion control much at all.

IMHO most commercial 3 way speaker manufacturers of box/flat baffle speakers would design their speakers for a reasonably flat "on axis" response, with reasonable bass extension, with low distortion, and reasonable power handling - rather than considering directivity/dispersion control "off-axis".

Most speaker manufacturers only publish their "on axis" speaker responses...they would publish their off-axis/polar response if they thought it was important and if their speaker's off-axis response wasn't rubbish.

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

Far better for controlled directivity is to cross from a woofer to a midrange before the woofer starts beaming, and then from the midrange to the tweeter before the mid starts beaming.

 

Dynamic drivers (woofers/mids/tweeters) don't "start" to beam - their directivity pattern starts wide at their lower frequency of operation and narrows as frequency increases from there in a predictable way based on their size.

Every dynamic driver will have the below pattern of directivity (sourced from Geddes: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/directivity.pdf )

 

In my posts above where I mention "box" speakers, maybe I should have been more specific - I meant box speakers with multiple drivers mounted on a flat rectangular baffle - ie the vast majority of commercial 3 way speakers.

Different sized drivers mounted on a flat rectangular baffle in a box can never have matching directivity between drivers - this is not nonsense - it's physics.

 

A "controlled directivity" speaker implies matching the directivity between drivers through the crossover region...

...a speaker with multiple different sized drivers mounted to a flat rectangular baffle can never be considered as a speaker that achieves "controlled directivity"

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

Check the superb off-axis performance of 3 ways such as Revel, KEF, Neumann and Genelec.

In one of my posts above in this thread I called out Revel as a manufacturer that cares about their "off axis" response...hence they tend to mount their tweeters in waveguides...

 

...from Revel's website on their F206 speaker ( https://www.revelspeakers.com/products/types/floorstanding/F206-.html?dwvar_F206-_color=Black-GLOBAL-Current ), "The tweeter’s integrated acoustic lens waveguide is based on a breakthrough mathematical approach that accurately matches the tweeter’s dispersion to that of the midrange transducer in the crossover region. This gives the loudspeaker very smooth sound far off-axis – an important contributor to overall sound quality, providing consistent sound over an exceptionally wide listening area."

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

And show us the two way with a big woofer and wave-guided tweeter that matches them.

In my post earlier in this thread (linked above in this post) I showed the polar pattern of the Geddes Abbey ( http://www.gedlee.com/Loudspeakers/Abbey.aspx ) - a big woofer crossed to a wave guided tweeter - shown again below:

 

Here's the polar pattern of the Redspade HE2 (http://www.redspade.com.au/audio/HE2.php), another example of a 2 way speaker with a woofer crossing to a tweeter in a waveguide.

 

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, sfdoddsy said:

Check the superb off-axis performance of 3 ways such as Revel, KEF, Neumann and Genelec.

 

Please post their "superb off-axis performance" in this thread so we can compare...

 

On 09/12/2020 at 8:49 PM, sfdoddsy said:

It’s like my hypocritical love for my open baffles.

Well designed open baffle speakers can achieve a very good "controlled directivity" speaker response (unlike flat baffle box speakers) - I've never headed down the path of open baffle, so I've no direct experience - but other members on SNA such as @gainphile have had great success with open baffle designs.

 

cheers

Mike

Edited December 11, 2020 by almikel
clarification

[davewantsmoore]

This thread is full of waaay too many generalisations.

 

If you speaker has reasonable frequency response vs angle ... and low enough distortion for the SPL you want.... then it will be good.

 

You can do that with any number of drivers .....  it just depends on what is done to address the important things.

[Dirkgerman]

Imagine a large 12 x 5 x 3m room with a 5 way Cinema grade JBL Screen  system with a curtain right across the room so as the behemoth beast resides out of plain site. In front of this place a pair of good stand mount 2 way Speakers.

 

Question I have for this thread is "Which system would be preferable to listen to, the behemoth Cinema 5 way active or the stand mounts ?"

 

Personally would have thought this was a doddle no brainer type thing. Would anyone pick the 2 way over the 5 way after a good afternoon of listening to both ? Get real

 

(This imagined room does actually exist) 

EDIT, yes it's a 2 way vrs 3 way thread, but the 5 way is something else altogether.

my 20c

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Dirkgerman

[davewantsmoore]

15 minutes ago, Dirkgerman said:

Personally would have thought this was a doddle no brainer type thing. Would anyone pick the 2 way over the 5 way after a good afternoon of listening to both ?

 

They'll sound very different due to the diffrence in coverage pattern (wide vs narrow).... this will persist no matter what (EQ, placement, etc.)

 

 

You pick an extreme example.... (narrow(er) vs wide).     You could have a 5 way which was also wide.... and then would sound much more like a similarly EQed 2-way, assuming a fair SPL (not too high for the 2 way).

 

 

 

 

[Dirkgerman]

Hey @davewantsmoore very true. 

Coverage pattern becomes a thing if the system being listened to caters for and that plays to a multi seat listening area. The 5 way Cinema system will better in all practicality any 2 way, no matter what way you look (listen to) this scenario and from all listening positions in the room including being well off axis. 

Interestingly though from a sweet spot listening seat front and center (90% of all audiophile systems)  both systems should sound very similar (and do) until the actual dynamic limit of the 2 way were linear distortion, dynamic range and actual frequency response differences become audible.

I would have suggested that the 2 way system would have to be of an extreme and excellent design for mainly 2 attributes,   actual frequency response and lowest frequency crossover point to be anywhere close to the listening quality of a good 3 way.

 

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

 You could have a 5 way which was also wide

I do and it's an insane thing the novelty has never worn off, even after many years of operation, never fails to please unlike the  2 way.

It's all about compromise and some may only  have the room for a midget 2 way, but should never think or attempt to justify it'll sound better a 3 or more way unless there is something dramatically wrong with the 3 or more way system. The 2 way may sound better, may on particular types of music, but there is a suggestion that the more than 2 way will sound better for many more types of media, not locked down to particular genres.

A Mate of mine reckoned his  unicorn poo pulp wizzer coned alnico motored  horn loaded speaker system was the absolute best until a really nice 2 way speaker system was connected in the same room and we were playing highly dynamic classical, I think you get the rest of the story.

 

2 ways have their place, like on a table with a PC

Have a nice day Dave, sun would burn your eyes out here today up NW 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Dirkgerman

[Satanica]

On 11/12/2020 at 10:03 PM, almikel said:

Please post their "superb off-axis performance" in this thread so we can compare...

 

Dutch & Dutch 8C ?

 

 

From: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/dutch-dutch-8c-loudspeaker-review-r739/

 

[Tony Martello]

I love music and have owned many different configurations of stereo equipment over the years. 
Ive spent many hours in hifi shops  listening to the latest gear and of course  hifi shows.

I was considering downsizing to two way and auditioned all of the prize winning, big reputation two way speakers on the current market ($1000-$4000).
None of them come close to a well made three way or 4 way. 
Most have a unique, nice sound but don’t kid yourself, they are inferior (when comparing apples to apples).
I’d put my three ways up against any two way speaker out there and it wouldn’t even be close. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Tony Martello

[almikel]

3 hours ago, Satanica said:

 

Dutch & Dutch 8C ?

 

 

From: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/dutch-dutch-8c-loudspeaker-review-r739/

 

that really is superb

[almikel]

5 hours ago, Satanica said:

 

Dutch & Dutch 8C ?

 

 

From: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/dutch-dutch-8c-loudspeaker-review-r739/

 

I've just finished reading the review in the link - a very very impressive speaker, with loads of engineering.

• Their own take on a custom waveguide as the "old school" oblate spheroid wasn't good enough (oblate spheroid waveguides are known for their dip in the on-axis response - one of the reasons Geddes recommends large toe-in on his speakers
• Cardioid pattern for the mids to reduce SBIR - that's ingenious

 

Somewhere on a hard disk I've got a bunch of old scanned PDF papers written by Roy Allison - he designed speakers with woofers on multiple angled baffles to deliberately engage room boundary effects...which these days we mostly try to ameliorate...I need to dig them out to review Allison's work.

 

I'd be very happy with a pair of these...but unfortunately way above my pay grade ...and very clearly a 3 way speaker well beyond a flat baffle 3 way box speaker...

...I'd love to hear them...

 

cheers,

Mike

Edited December 14, 2020 by almikel
formatting

[almikel]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:48 AM, davewantsmoore said:

This thread is full of waaay too many generalisations.

 

If you speaker has reasonable frequency response vs angle ... and low enough distortion for the SPL you want.... then it will be good.

 

You can do that with any number of drivers .....  it just depends on what is done to address the important things.

Hi Dave - OK I'll bite - what do you regard as the "important things"?

 

Mike

[Satanica]

18 hours ago, almikel said:

I'd be very happy with a pair of these...but unfortunately way above my pay grade ...and very clearly a 3 way speaker well beyond a flat baffle 3 way box speaker...

...I'd love to hear them...

 

For sure, certainly something progressed well beyond the ordinary design.

I heard them at the 2018 HiFi show as demonstrated by Bill Mclean (http://www.mcleans.info/home-entertainment/home.do) and they sounded truly excellent.

The highs might be thought of by some as lacking "sparkle" and\or "air" and I think that's because with them there is less of it bouncing around the room like normal speakers produce.

This trait and the way they generally remove so much of the normal "cluttered" sound in room made the sound so appealing and non-fatiguing.
I would still want to use sub-woofer(s) with them though for at least the last octave (< 40Hz), maybe the last two (< 80Hz).
 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Satanica

[Cloth Ears]

On 12/12/2020 at 7:48 AM, davewantsmoore said:

This thread is full of waaay too many generalisations.

 

...

Well, the OP was asking "...what do members prefer" in regards to " 2 way and 3 way speakers". I'm a bit confused as to how you can respond without generalising, let alone how you could have waaay too many.

[Tony Martello]

I am Mr Generalisation.

 

While I’m here I’d like to say what I think are the ‘important things’. 
Pretty simple really, good filtering. Eliminating the noise in between vocals, instruments etc.  

Generally speaking the better the gear the less you hear. 
 

[almikel]

6 hours ago, Tony Martello said:

I am Mr Generalisation.

 

While I’m here I’d like to say what I think are the ‘important things’. 
Pretty simple really, good filtering. Eliminating the noise in between vocals, instruments etc.  

Generally speaking the better the gear the less you hear. 
 

I can see why you regard yourself as Mr Generalisation

 

6 hours ago, Tony Martello said:

Pretty simple really, good filtering. Eliminating the noise in between vocals, instruments etc.

What is "good filtering"?

• steep crossovers that reduce "out of band" content for drivers?
• sensible parametric EQ that doesn't make the room sound worse at different listening positions?

What do you mean by eliminating the noise in between vocals, instruments etc.?

• I completely accept that reducing distortion is a worthwhile goal in any playback system
• and that when the "off-axis" response of speakers bounces off walls to combine with the direct sound at the listening position, if the "off-axis" sound is different to the "on-axis" sound then they won't combine very well at the listening position - but this wouldn't be regarded as noise

6 hours ago, Tony Martello said:

Generally speaking the better the gear the less you hear. 

Generally I would agree - better gear sounds better - but with audio the $ spent doesn't always equate with "better" gear.

And there's areas where money is best spent...IMHO the priority should be:

1. the room
2. the speakers
3. everything else

Mike

[stereo coffee]

History of the 3 way

The 3 way appears to first commercially available  with the Acoustic Research AR3 in 1958, it featured the worlds first dome midrange, and still stands up today, ( subsequently revised as the AR3a in 1969) ,   as a very good loudspeaker. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Research

 

 

"In 1958, AR once again pioneered loudspeaker technology with the introduction of the landmark model AR-3, which used the AR-1’s acoustic-suspension woofer in conjunction with the first commercially available hemispherical (“dome”) mid-frequency midrange unit (squawker) and high-frequency tweeter.

 

For nearly ten years after its introduction, the AR-3 was widely regarded as the most accurate loudspeaker available at any cost, and was used in many professional installations, recording studios, and concert halls. Many well-known professional musicians used AR-3 loudspeakers because of their excellent sound reproduction. In the early 1960s, AR conducted a series of over 75 live vs. recorded demonstrations throughout the United States in which the sound of a live string quartet was alternated with echo-free recorded music played through a pair of AR-3s. In this “ultimate” subjective test of audio quality, the listeners were largely unable to detect the switch from live to recorded, a strong testament to Acoustic Research's audio quality.^[5]

 

The company also established music demonstration rooms on the mezzanine of Grand Central Terminal in New York City and on a street corner of Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the public could stop by and listen to its products, but no sales were made there. This low-key marketing innovation caused a major increase in the company's business.

 

The AR-3 was subsequently replaced by the AR-3a in 1969, with a new dome midrange and tweeter reduced in dimensions, for even better mid and high frequency dispersion. On September 13, 1993, an AR-3 was placed on permanent display in the Information Age Exhibit of National Museum of American History at The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.

 

The AR-3a was subsequently replaced by the AR-11 and AR-10pi in 1977, which both shared the same improved tweeter and midrange domes. The 10pi even had woofer/bass response adjustment switches to allow for a variety of room placements. The new tweeter used in the AR-11/10pi had notably brighter high-frequency response partly to compensate for less dispersion than the tweeter of the AR3a.

 

AR went on to introduce many other notable designs, and by 1966 the company had grown to hold 32.2% of the U.S. domestic loudspeaker market, based on the IHFM and High Fidelity surveys statistics for that year. This was the largest product market share ever held by a loudspeaker manufacturer since statistics have been kept in the industry."

[Tony Martello]

On 17/12/2020 at 12:05 AM, almikel said:

I can see why you regard yourself as Mr Generalisation

 

What is "good filtering"?

• steep crossovers that reduce "out of band" content for drivers?
• sensible parametric EQ that doesn't make the room sound worse at different listening positions?

What do you mean by eliminating the noise in between vocals, instruments etc.?

• I completely accept that reducing distortion is a worthwhile goal in any playback system
• and that when the "off-axis" response of speakers bounces off walls to combine with the direct sound at the listening position, if the "off-axis" sound is different to the "on-axis" sound then they won't combine very well at the listening position - but this wouldn't be regarded as noise

Generally I would agree - better gear sounds better - but with audio the $ spent doesn't always equate with "better" gear.

And there's areas where money is best spent...IMHO the priority should be:

1. the room
2. the speakers
3. everything else

Mike

Hey Mike. 
Im not capable of talking tech about how components filter out noise to create a blank background, I don’t even understand how caps work.
All I know is the better the gear, the blanker the background. It’s as if you pay up to eliminate unnecessary sound. it’s what you don’t hear that makes music beautiful.

I have a Belcanto Dac2.5 going into a Michi RHB-10 that feeds my ATC scm40 speakers. I’ve never heard the music I like presented better.

Tony

Edited December 17, 2020 by Tony Martello

[davewantsmoore]

On 15/12/2020 at 2:31 PM, Cloth Ears said:

Well, the OP was asking "...what do members prefer" in regards to " 2 way and 3 way speakers".

Indeed.   People can say "I prefer X" without generalising.

 

OTOH... when they say "all 2 ways are like this.... and all 4 ways are like that.... etc."   Then that's often not helpful for peoples understanding ('cos they're wrong).

 

Eg.  I like 3 ways because they have lower distortion ... or more bass.... or more even coverage pattern.... (or whatever) ...... than a 2-way (or single driver) speaker.

 

That is a generalisation, which isn't always true.