2-way vs 3-way

[2MuchRiceMakesMeSick]

I am new to home audio (came from car audio background using mostly focal) but I'm curious the advantages/disadvantages of 2-way vs 3-way.

Lets assume you have a subwoofer that will take you from 10-100 hz. Is it really worth the extra cost and complexity of 3-way? I was thinking 8" - 4" and tweeter.

[planet10]

Don't ignore that there are lots of excellent 1-ways too. With that woofer you are really asking 3-way or 4-way. IMO, the fewer XO points the better, i'm a fan of a FR acting as a mid-tweeter with woofer support on both sides. XO 80-400 Hz.

dave

[bobodioulasso]

IMO
Classical three ways crossed at about 300hz and 3000hz ( and no sub) is preferable to 2 ways + sub.

The midrange has little excursion, producing less intermodulation distortion, so clearer sound.
The sound of a plain woofer in the 100-300hz range has more authority/weight than the sound of a midwoofer which has to show a lighter cone (compromise) for good mids.

[jerome69]

Originally Posted by 2MuchRiceMakesMeSick

I am new to home audio (came from car audio background using mostly focal) but I'm curious the advantages/disadvantages of 2-way vs 3-way.

In the car audio world, the minimum of ways is 3 (for HiFi).
In home audio, 3 ways is better than 2 ways but sometimes bigger. I don't see any advantages of 2 ways, perhaps the size ?
Focal is a good choice, i have Focal for mid tweeter and audax aerogel for bass in my car.

Originally Posted by 2MuchRiceMakesMeSick

Lets assume you have a subwoofer that will take you from 10-100 hz. Is it really worth the extra cost and complexity of 3-way? I was thinking 8" - 4" and tweeter.

No if well done ie with a crossover for the satellite like in car audio. I recommend 2 subs, one per channel.

[weskoki]

''I don't see any advantages of 2 ways, perhaps the size ?''

Jeah but what about coherence and sound stage? Good two way monitor can pull out the disappearing act better than big speakers.

[_henry_]

room and how loud u want to play i think its important to consider.

if u want live music presentation, definitely not 2 way.

cheers
henry

[rob g]

A typical Three way tends to suit larger listening spaces where the listener needs to sit further from the speaker for the sound to integrate as convincingly as a two way in a smaller space.

There is no one simplistic answer to this question.
When cost is no object, an excellent designer working on the design and you have reasonable space with good listening distance from the speakers, tolerant neighbours and a taste for higher volumes then three way is often better in many cases.
However you can have beautifully refined sound from 2 way, 2 way D'appolito and 2.5 way systems too, even some 1 way designs can sound nice in close quarters, usually at modest volumes.

Three way typically means more refinement in the midrange when a loud bass note is playing, however you could have a design like the Gedlee speakers which uses large drivers, a low crossover point and carefully designed waveguides for controlled output. If you like to play REALLY, REALLY loud and sit a good distance from the speakers these will be relatively refined way beyond typical hifi speakers, at least for big homes.

A mediocre three way is typically inferior to a mediocre two way. Very few three way designs compare favourably to the Linkwitz Pluto's for instance but you need to listen relatively close to the speaker if you want pin point imaging.

Basically you have to work out what is best within your budget, what space you have to fill, listening distance and in the case of a passive design if your amp is up to the job. To a certain extent you may want to consider what type of music you listen to, if you enjoy Classical and acoustic maybe you will want to listen to open airy sounds of a dipole design.

[_henry_]

i second the dipole. bass from 15" dipole sounds beautiful.

cheers
henry

[RockLeeEV]

Originally Posted by 2MuchRiceMakesMeSick

I am new to home audio (came from car audio background using mostly focal) but I'm curious the advantages/disadvantages of 2-way vs 3-way.

I think both do have their advantages with the ::right driver selection::, so it depends on the drivers you choose.

I mean if you're crossing a 15" woofer to a compression driver in a 15" horn near 1khz, that 2-way will probably have superior power handling/output in the midbass when crossed to a sub, and a narrow controlled polar response. If you're crossing a 7" midwoofer to a ribbon near 3khz then obviously it's a different scenario altogether. Make it an MTM and you've improved you power handling and reduced your vertical dispersion in the midrange (which is often desirable)

Likewise for the 3-way - it really depends on a ton of factors.

The one thing I will say is that the crossover parts cost for a 3-way is going to be more expensive most likely. The big advantage is that you can have a distribution of power so that you get a more wide polar response.

Lets assume you have a subwoofer that will take you from 10-100 hz. Is it really worth the extra cost and complexity of 3-way? I was thinking 8" - 4" and tweeter.

Well, how much sensitivity and throw does the 8" driver have? You can't generalize! I do like that combination of driver sizes though, as it should give a wide, even horizontal off axis response and done right you can have the 8" driver handle all of the baffle step transition.

The first question you need to answer, though, is how far do you sit?

[cersepn]

I've always believed that all the drivers in a 3 way won't sum up and integrate properly if the listening distance is too near aka. room is too small, but at the same time i want to have a dedicated driver for the midrange, so what should i do? No FRs for me; i cannot live with the trade-offs