Jump to content

2 way vs 3 way


Recommended Posts



On 12/12/2020 at 12:18 PM, Dirkgerman said:

Coverage pattern becomes a thing if the system being listened to caters for and that plays to a multi seat

listening area.

 

uh uh  ;)   People often say this, and it is quite wrong.

 

The coverage pattern is the most important thing, even for a single seat.

 

Sound which doesn't hit you directly from the speaker (ie. sound ejected at some other angle) .... reaches you with a delay, vs the directly arriving sound.

 

Your brain compares this delayed sound with the sound which arrived milliseconds prior (directly from the speaker).   If they are not of the same frequency balance  (eg. it has more of less bass, mid, treble, etc.)  then your hearing interpret the sound differently than it otherwise would..... resulting in a large loss of clarity.  Essentially jumbling up the auditory cues which were part of the recording.

 

On 12/12/2020 at 12:18 PM, Dirkgerman said:

The 5 way Cinema system will better in all practicality any 2 way

Probably, but not necessarily.

 

On 12/12/2020 at 12:18 PM, Dirkgerman said:

Interestingly though from a sweet spot listening seat front and center (90% of all audiophile systems)  both systems should sound very similar (and do)

That depends on their coverage pattern.

 

If they have wildly different coverage patterns.... either in level, or in frequency response flatness..... then they'll sound quite different.

 

Using a larger number of drivers is an opportunity to get a narrower and/or more even coverage pattern.... but you could also do the reverse with a 5 way (wider, and/or more lumpy)

 

 

 

On 12/12/2020 at 12:18 PM, Dirkgerman said:

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

??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

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.

 

Sooo... only responses indicating preference are acceptable, but no reasons are allowed to be given?

My current L/R have 3 drivers, a midbass that covers ~50Hz to 2+kHz, a ribbon that does above that and a bassbox that does a reasonable job for below. All have their own amplifier channel. From experience, active speakers are the way to go - which obviates the 1/2/3/4/5-way argument.

And have a Merry Nondenominational Winter Solstice Holiday and a Happy Gregorian New Year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/12/2020 at 2:51 PM, Cloth Ears said:

Sooo... only responses indicating preference are acceptable, but no reasons are allowed to be given?

 

That's not at all what I meant.

 

I mean if you're going to give a reason which is a giant generalisation (ie. if you say "2way are always like this") ... then you might (ahem) be misleading people.

 

On 18/12/2020 at 2:51 PM, Cloth Ears said:

From experience, active speakers are the way to go

Yes, they offer a lot of opportunities for advantage..

 

On 18/12/2020 at 2:51 PM, Cloth Ears said:

- which obviates the 1/2/3/4/5-way argument.

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

 

The size, shape, number and position of the drivers is of exactly the same importance in an active and a "passive" speaker.  (ie. critical).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/12/2020 at 2:51 PM, Cloth Ears said:

Sooo... only responses indicating preference are acceptable, but no reasons are allowed to be given?

My current L/R have 3 drivers, a midbass that covers ~50Hz to 2+kHz, a ribbon that does above that and a bassbox that does a reasonable job for below. All have their own amplifier channel. From experience, active speakers are the way to go - which obviates the 1/2/3/4/5-way argument.

And have a Merry Nondenominational Winter Solstice Holiday and a Happy Gregorian New Year!

 

Whilst I am definitely a proponent of active spkrs ... I have to say that I consider your chosen XO frequencies are not optimal.  :|

 

3-way spkrs generally have one big advantage over 2-ways ... in that you can keep an XO out of the vital 300-3kHz range.  But in your case, whilst your woofer/mid XO is admirable at 50Hz (you could increase this quite happily to, say, 250Hz) - the XO to the ribbon, at 2kHz ... is too low.  250Hz and 3,500 or 4kHz would be more desirable.

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 hours ago, andyr said:

 

Whilst I am definitely a proponent of active spkrs ... I have to say that I consider your chosen XO frequencies are not optimal.  :|

 

3-way spkrs generally have one big advantage over 2-ways ... in that you can keep an XO out of the vital 300-3kHz range.  But in your case, whilst your woofer/mid XO is admirable at 50Hz (you could increase this quite happily to, say, 250Hz) - the XO to the ribbon, at 2kHz ... is too low.  250Hz and 3,500 or 4kHz would be more desirable.

 

Andy

 

OK. 2+kHz is 2.8 kHz - is that close enough? And having a crossover in the 80-300Hz range is what makes a lot of speakers sound weird in the lower areas of both voice and other instruments. The old telephones used to emphasise 300-3000Hz for intelligibility, but I am not necessarily looking at that. I'd prefer to have most of a male vocal or a cello come from the same 'place' or it starts to spoil the imagination. I mean, middle C being played by the woofer?

 

8 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

 

The size, shape, number and position of the drivers is of exactly the same importance in an active and a "passive" speaker.  (ie. critical).

And I'd agree here. But by "same importance" I would indicate "very little". I choose to have one driver do most of the work. The others are great, they are icing on the cake, but not as important as the one ('there can be only one' - Highlander). And while I'd like to have a pair of Apogees, I have neither the room, nor the money to do so. So the mid-bass (because I don't like a crossover in the lower mid) is important and the rest are 'nice to have'.

Edited by Cloth Ears
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cloth Ears said:

 

OK. 2+kHz is 2.8 kHz - is that close enough?

 

 

Better - but no cigar, as the great man said.  :)

 

3500Hz (minimum!) would be better, IMO.

 

My current Maggie setup has XOs (which I define as the frequency that the low pass slope & the high pass slope intersect) @ about 330Hz & 3300Hz.  (So, yes - higher than ideal for the lower XO.)

 

I'm planning some new dipoles which will have these XO frequencies set @ 80Hz & 4kHz.

 

2 hours ago, Cloth Ears said:

 

And having a crossover in the 80-300Hz range is what makes a lot of speakers sound weird in the lower areas of both voice and other instruments. The old telephones used to emphasise 300-3000Hz for intelligibility, but I am not necessarily looking at that. I'd prefer to have most of a male vocal or a cello come from the same 'place' or it starts to spoil the imagination. I mean, middle C being played by the woofer?

 

 

'Middle C' - 262Hz - indeed comes from my Maggie bass panels.  As does the C an octave lower.  But the C an octave higher comes from the mid panels.  I'd be very interested if you would come and have a listen ... and tell me whether you think it sounds 'weird'.  :)

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, andyr said:

Better - but no cigar, as the great man said.  :)

 

3500Hz (minimum!) would be better, IMO.

We will have to disagree, then. 2000, 2800, 3500, still less than an octave. And almost irrelevant from the major notes point of view. Definitely relevant to the feel of some of the sounds and their (I don't really know the words) attack, structure, like the point where the stick hits the cymbal, rather than the actual sound of the cymbal.

 

2 hours ago, andyr said:

'Middle C' - 262Hz - indeed comes from my Maggie bass panels.  As does the C an octave lower.  But the C an octave higher comes from the mid panels.  I'd be very interested if you would come and have a listen ... and tell me whether you think it sounds 'weird'.  :)

Possibly not, as your Maggies have the same type of driver for bass and midrange. And, they're probably right next to each other. But often the sound of a pistonic midrange and a pistonic bass driver are not only a bit different, but they're also located in different places. And we're talking more than two octaves of difference where you prefer your crossover to where I prefer mine. We may also have to agree to disagree on this point.

If I had the room (and the wife) than I might be able to have Magnaplanars or Apogees...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Cloth Ears said:

 

We will have to disagree, then. 2000, 2800, 3500, still less than an octave. And almost irrelevant from the major notes point of view. Definitely relevant to the feel of some of the sounds and their (I don't really know the words) attack, structure, like the point where the stick hits the cymbal, rather than the actual sound of the cymbal.

 

 

I find it a vexing question, CE - what are the optimal frequencies to cross over at?  You stated earlier that you wanted to "have most of a male vocal or a cello come from the same 'place' ".

 

According to a well known frequency chart:

  • the male voice's fundamental range is 100Hz to 900Hz.  So a driver whose high pass filter's '@ frequency' is 80Hz - and which crosses over to the tweeter @ 4kHz ... will be fine (except for the highest voice harmonics).  And a 4kHz XO is better than a 2800Hz XO, when we take harmonics (which are important in that they make up the unique tone of an instrument) into account.
  • the female voice's fundamental range is 240Hz to 1100Hz.  So the above mid-range driver will again be fine ... except for the higher voice harmonics.
  • the cello's fundamental range is 60Hz to 500Hz.  So a 50Hz XO is required to keep the one driver producing its full (fundamental) range.
  • however, when we look at the bass ... an XO between woofer & mid @ 50Hz is not low enough to cover all its range!
  • and for a standard 88-key piano ... you need a range of 25Hz to 4500Hz, to cover its fundamentals with a single driver.  Which is pretty much impossible to achieve!

So it seems that, both:

  • a 50Hz - 2800Hz range, and
  • an 80Hz - 4kHz range

... are inadequate!  :(

 

52 minutes ago, Cloth Ears said:

 

If I had the room (and the wife) than I might be able to have Magnaplanars or Apogees...

 

 

If you come and listen to some Maggies ... you might dispell that lingering regret - and be entirely happy with what you have!  (You may find you simply don't like the way Maggies present the music.)  xD

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, andyr said:

If you come and listen to some Maggies ... you might dispell that lingering regret - and be entirely happy with what you have!  (You may find you simply don't like the way Maggies present the music.)  xD

 

I do like the way that 'panel speakers' present music. Electrostatic, ribbon and magnetostatic are the examples I know fairly well. The afore mentioned Apogees, some large Metaxas Emporer electrostatics and some smaller Magnepans all are nice to listen to. And I'm definitely interested in Tectonics DML speakers - I still haven't heard them yet...

 

But I'll take an opportunity to listen to a new set-up anytime (maybe next year).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 17/12/2020 at 3:43 AM, stereo coffee said:

For nearly ten years after its introduction, the AR-3 was widely regarded as the most accurate loudspeaker available at any cost

that's a good bit of history there...

At least any speaker made in the USA :) - I'm sure Peter Walker (founder of Quad and inventor of the ESL57) would have disagreed that the AR-3 was better than the ESL57

 

What's amazing is the AR-3's came out before Theile/Small's work for modelling woofers in boxes.

It must have been hard to design speakers back then.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, almikel said:

that's a good bit of history there...

At least any speaker made in the USA :) - I'm sure Peter Walker (founder of Quad and inventor of the ESL57) would have disagreed that the AR-3 was better than the ESL57

 

What's amazing is the AR-3's came out before Theile/Small's work for modelling woofers in boxes.

It must have been hard to design speakers back then.

 

Mike

Peter's  words were :   On no. No, we think our loudspeaker very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer! But not all of them, no. the others have really unproved their loudspeakers a tremendous amount in the last 21 vents. When we first brought out ours people said, "It's a dreadful thing, it shows up all the buzzes on [lie records, the sensitivity's way below anything else, and it has no bass." We don't get these complaints now because all the others have become low sensitivity: all the others have got extended frequency range that shows up tile tracing distortion and the buzzes. And all the others now sound more like ours! That sounds awfully arrogant, but they've got very much closer. You can now put a good moving coil loudspeaker and an electrostatic side by side and there's much less difference now than there was 20 years ago. Our ESL's are thought more of now than they were 20 years ago.     http://quadesl.org/index.php/home/interviews/audio-amateur-1978

 

The AR3 approached audio reproduction as full range, with outstanding bass and upper frequency reproduction,   so has very different approach to the ESL57, which arguably has the best mid-range of any loudspeaker.

 

It is interesting to observe each loudspeakers position,  as reviewed here:   https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-12-most-significant-loudspeakers-of-all-time

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

Peter's  words were :   On no. No, we think our loudspeaker very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer! But not all of them, no. the others have really unproved their loudspeakers a tremendous amount in the last 21 vents. When we first brought out ours people said, "It's a dreadful thing, it shows up all the buzzes on [lie records, the sensitivity's way below anything else, and it has no bass." We don't get these complaints now because all the others have become low sensitivity: all the others have got extended frequency range that shows up tile tracing distortion and the buzzes. And all the others now sound more like ours! That sounds awfully arrogant, but they've got very much closer. You can now put a good moving coil loudspeaker and an electrostatic side by side and there's much less difference now than there was 20 years ago. Our ESL's are thought more of now than they were 20 years ago.     http://quadesl.org/index.php/home/interviews/audio-amateur-1978

great link, but they should edit the transcription - it's a shocker...plenty of obvious errors...ie not what Peter actually said.

 

3 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

The AR3 approached audio reproduction as full range, with outstanding bass and upper frequency reproduction,   so has very different approach to the ESL57, which arguably has the best mid-range of any loudspeaker.

I would argue not a very different design goal to AR3s, but I accept the 57's lack low bass response (easily fixed with a well integrated sub) but obviously a very different approach.

These days most would want to add a sub underneath AR3's also.

 

I have a colleague that's a Quad nutter - he has at least 3 pairs of ESL57s, a pair of ESL63's, many Quad amps etc.

 

He has 1 room setup for 57's (with a well integrated sub) and another room with 63's.

 

I like the sound of the 57's best, but unfortunately the stereo image collapses remarkably quickly as you move laterally out of the sweet spot.

He also never let's me turn it up - they arc too easily...and he's way too much of a purist to tolerate "stacked" 57's.

 

I found the same very narrow sweet spot with Martin Logan electros.

 

Just amazing for solo listening (and let's face it, most of our serious listening is solo), but the sound is not great across the listening couch :(

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

It is interesting to observe each loudspeakers position,  as reviewed here:   https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-12-most-significant-loudspeakers-of-all-time

 

That list ignores so many earlier important contributions such as Wester Electric, Klangfilm, Altec Lansing, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



17 hours ago, almikel said:

one day I'd love to get down to Melbourne and listen to Andy's setup

 

You will be very welcome, Mike.  :)

 

('Xept that interstate travel is not advisable, at this stage.  :( )

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/12/2020 at 7:05 AM, Cloth Ears said:

OK. 2+kHz is 2.8 kHz - is that close enough?

 

The idea to avoid a crossover in the "critical region" assumes that the crossover has problems which should b avoided.

 

Just another example of the "generalisations" ;) 

 

There's no inherent reason why your choice of crossover frequency at 2khz (or whatever it is) isn't the perfect choice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/12/2020 at 7:05 AM, Cloth Ears said:

And I'd agree here. But by "same importance" I would indicate "very little".

No, the directivity of the drivers is the most critical thing by a country mile.... as it cannot be "EQed" out, as it is a property of the physical shape and position of the transducers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/12/2020 at 3:00 PM, Cloth Ears said:

I do like the way that 'panel speakers' present music.

 

It is largely due to their much higher directivity index in the 300 to 3000 Hz range  (than other typical speakers which are comparatively very wide dispersion in that region)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

It is largely due to their much higher directivity index in the 300 to 3000 Hz range  (than other typical speakers which are comparatively very wide dispersion in that region)

So a good speaker has nothing to do with anything, except it's directivity?

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The idea to avoid a crossover in the "critical region" assumes that the crossover has problems which should b avoided.

BTW. I wasn't worried about the crossover as such - it's the movement of the sound from one driver to another that is more the issue than the crossover itself.

Edited by Cloth Ears
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 hours ago, Cloth Ears said:

So a good speaker has nothing to do with anything, except it's directivity?

of course not - low distortion at the SPL required of the driver is also critical

 

4 hours ago, Cloth Ears said:

BTW. I wasn't worried about the crossover as such - it's the movement of the sound from one driver to another that is more the issue than the crossover itself.

agreed - which is where the directivity of the drivers at the crossover frequency (and throughout the crossover region) is important - ie how they acoustically combine on and off axis.

Active crossovers are generally steeper than passives, so with a steeper active crossover you can reduce the frequency band of interaction between drivers, but matching driver directivity is still important for a speaker to provide a smooth "on and off axis" frequency response.

 

A smooth "on and off axis" frequency response with low distortion are the metrics put forward by Toole/Olive for "good sounding speakers" and validated by their tests with both trained and un-trained listeners - ie both trained and un-trained listeners prefer speakers with a smooth "on and off" axis response with low distortion.

 

cheers

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cloth Ears said:

So a good speaker has nothing to do with anything, except it's directivity?

?

 

The biggest (by a country mile and then some) difference for those speakers is their directivity.

It's the major reason why they sound different to other speakers  (even when EQed to identical axial response)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, almikel said:

low distortion at the SPL required of the driver is also critical

I don't think so.   The distortion cannot be "too high".... but low distortion is not critical.     For a relatively well designed driver not being asked to play unfair SPL .... distortion can basically be ignored.

 

4 hours ago, almikel said:

Active crossovers are generally steeper than passives, so with a steeper active crossover you can reduce the frequency band of interaction between drivers, but matching driver directivity is still important for a speaker to provide a smooth "on and off axis" frequency response.

Indeed.  Using very steep slopes can exacerbate the "step" in directivity that might exist between two drivers.

 

4 hours ago, almikel said:

A smooth "on and off axis" frequency response with low distortion are the metrics put forward by Toole/Olive for "good sounding speakers" and validated by their tests with both trained and un-trained listeners -

Check point 1 and 3 in his blog post here:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-loudspeaker-specifications-are.html

 

The NLD distortion got done.... and it says mostly not audible (with caveats).   People just don't want to believe it as it contradicts what audiophiles have been dogwhisting about for decades (both the "pleasant distortion" camp, and the "super low distortion" camps..... both are wrong.  It just not audible for most intents and purposes).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered about the audibility of distortion in the situation where a woofer is operating in areas of cone break-up.  This is probably more likely to occur in a 2-way speaker where the woofer is forced to cover more of the spectrum.  Is the issue more about frequency response aberrations than distortion?  So with judicious use of EQ you can operate the woofer into this area? Or will it still sound bad, no matter how well designed the speaker is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/12/2020 at 10:00 AM, RoHo said:

I've wondered about the audibility of distortion in the situation where a woofer is operating in areas of cone break-up.  This is probably more likely to occur in a 2-way speaker where the woofer is forced to cover more of the spectrum.  Is the issue more about frequency response aberrations than distortion?  So with judicious use of EQ you can operate the woofer into this area? Or will it still sound bad, no matter how well designed the speaker is?

I would expect cone breakup distortion would be quite “high” order , so I would expect it to be more audible than other non linear driver distortion which is typically “low” order

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top