going to build a set of speakers but before I do, been thinking about this:
2 way speaker vs 3 way speaker
- 1" metal dome tweeter in both, no horn load of any sort
- 6.5" woofer in both
- 3way has a 3" mid ( or whatever size is "optimal" so the directivity is matched to the woofer and tweeter )
- same volume of enclosure for woofer
- same baffle size
- same THD
- identical in-room frequency response at the listening position in a typical size living room (if that's possible)
Do they sound the same? If not, how is the sound different?
2 way speaker vs 3 way speaker
- 1" metal dome tweeter in both, no horn load of any sort
- 6.5" woofer in both
- 3way has a 3" mid ( or whatever size is "optimal" so the directivity is matched to the woofer and tweeter )
- same volume of enclosure for woofer
- same baffle size
- same THD
- identical in-room frequency response at the listening position in a typical size living room (if that's possible)
Do they sound the same? If not, how is the sound different?
the main difference wll be the fact that your woofer, in the 2-way, will need to do, and the bass, and the midrange, resulting when listening in higher volume, less clarity, more distortion, ect.
but really, your question is too broad, we ca not tell you anything. If your real question is if a 3-way is really worth the effort., now that may result in more interesting answers...
but really, your question is too broad, we ca not tell you anything. If your real question is if a 3-way is really worth the effort., now that may result in more interesting answers...
The 3 way will have "better" off axis response and less noticeable distortion when driven beyond linearity.
Typically, if you are going to go through the trouble of the 3-way, then there should be more "return on investment" than these slight advantages. The point of increasing the complexity of a system to a 3-way design is typically to get more bandwidth, or output, or both.
Typically, if you are going to go through the trouble of the 3-way, then there should be more "return on investment" than these slight advantages. The point of increasing the complexity of a system to a 3-way design is typically to get more bandwidth, or output, or both.
If the "listening position" is on-axis, then I think that at the listening position both the two-way and the three-way would sound very much the same. This is assuming that you properly design and build the three-way system, which is more difficult than the two-way.
By limiting yourself to the same 6.5" woofer in both systems, you are defeating the purpose behind implementing a three-way, which is to get greater bandwidth and/or increased distortion-free SPL, as mdocod has said.
By limiting yourself to the same 6.5" woofer in both systems, you are defeating the purpose behind implementing a three-way, which is to get greater bandwidth and/or increased distortion-free SPL, as mdocod has said.
Right. With 6.5 inches I will mostly want a 2-way.
Some drivers can produce wide spectrum well, some can't. So there is option to limit the spectrum so each driver can perform better. But another issue arrives. You need those 3 drivers be in phase (which is the most critical issue imo).
If the woofer cannot produce high enough frequency and the tweeter cannot produce low enough frequency, 2 way is probably not a good option. But 3 way is not the only option left, because you can find more suitable drivers for the job.
my first speaker build was a 'sp95' by troels.
my second build was the 'ekta' by troels.
I used the exact same bass and tweeter drivers in both builds.
(Actually pulled them from the first system to reuse in the second)
just added the midrange, new crossover, new cabinets.
The 3 way slaughters the 2 way in so many ways.
driver integration, clarity, sound stage, smoothness.
the bass driver is a 6-7" driver for reference..
If your doing a full proper diy approach, go for a two way, much easier to do the crossover.
my second build was the 'ekta' by troels.
I used the exact same bass and tweeter drivers in both builds.
(Actually pulled them from the first system to reuse in the second)
just added the midrange, new crossover, new cabinets.
The 3 way slaughters the 2 way in so many ways.
driver integration, clarity, sound stage, smoothness.
the bass driver is a 6-7" driver for reference..
If your doing a full proper diy approach, go for a two way, much easier to do the crossover.
thanks for the interesting responses!
I should have been more specific with my question. It's not really about what I should build, which is easier, cost less, has more/less distortion.
I'm interest in hearing about the effect of the directivity on the sound given all other parameters between the two systems are equal.
There's all this talk about how the woofer directivity needs to match up to the tweeter so use a tweeter loaded horn with a big woofer or use a smaller woofer with an wide dispersion tweeter.
But if I can get the on-axis in-room frequency response at the listening position to be the same, is the sound any different?
I've measured several 2 way bookshelf speakers in rooms. With some of the better speakers, I do not see the off-axis dips in the my on-axis listening position measurement. Some of the 2 way speakers measure surprisingly well (almost no peaks/dips) above the Schroeder frequency.
So is it snake oil or can a 3 way sound better taking into account the assumptions I've listed?
I should have been more specific with my question. It's not really about what I should build, which is easier, cost less, has more/less distortion.
I'm interest in hearing about the effect of the directivity on the sound given all other parameters between the two systems are equal.
There's all this talk about how the woofer directivity needs to match up to the tweeter so use a tweeter loaded horn with a big woofer or use a smaller woofer with an wide dispersion tweeter.
But if I can get the on-axis in-room frequency response at the listening position to be the same, is the sound any different?
I've measured several 2 way bookshelf speakers in rooms. With some of the better speakers, I do not see the off-axis dips in the my on-axis listening position measurement. Some of the 2 way speakers measure surprisingly well (almost no peaks/dips) above the Schroeder frequency.
So is it snake oil or can a 3 way sound better taking into account the assumptions I've listed?
The directivity of a 3-way and 2-way is the same if the crossover point in the 2-way is low enough. The 3-way only sounds better because of its dedicated midrange and dedicated woofer. The 6.5" midbass required for the 2-way tends to lose definition in the upper midrange. I never realized this until I started using true midranges with very light cones. It is another level of clarity and dynamics, at the expense of bass.
In the case that the 2-way has a high 4kHz crossover, then even if on-axis response is flat, there would be less room gain at the 2kHz-4kHz region due to directivity. It would be fine in a large room, but not in a small room unless one prefers a laid back sound. You have to think about having the same total energy at all audio frequencies.
In the case that the 2-way has a high 4kHz crossover, then even if on-axis response is flat, there would be less room gain at the 2kHz-4kHz region due to directivity. It would be fine in a large room, but not in a small room unless one prefers a laid back sound. You have to think about having the same total energy at all audio frequencies.
Last edited:
There is no way to say that a 2 way or 3 way in general sounds better than the other, driver matching, box design, even the mid enclosure, crossover points and slopes all matter, but a 3 way allows to keep the crossover out of the vocal range, but if time alignment, phasing in the crossover and frequency peaks and dips are dealt with, either is excellent and they can sound equal if attention to detail is given, but never sound exactly the same.
It comes down to execution. Driver choice is a big factor. We are always working within a budget. 2 drivers + 1 XO point, vrs 3 drivers + 2 XO points.
For me a 2-way has an XO between 150-400 Hz, 3 way adds an XO point at 50-60 Hz (i feel it is important that C-C is not greater (or much greater) than a 1/4 wl at the XO point).
If you follow the work of Toole & Geddes, mains should reach to ~80 hz, below that you use multiple separate woofers pkaced to give smooth in-room response.
dave
I don't post here often, so sorry, I don't know everyone, but I understood the op to be crossing a 1 in dome to a 6 1/2 compared to a 3 way.
Quote: "a 2-way has an XO between 150-400 Hz, 3 way adds an XO point at 50-60 Hz"
I would take that statement quoted as working with pro parts or a full range adding a very low frequency driver below the full range, but I do agree that Execution is everything.
Quote: "a 2-way has an XO between 150-400 Hz, 3 way adds an XO point at 50-60 Hz"
I would take that statement quoted as working with pro parts or a full range adding a very low frequency driver below the full range, but I do agree that Execution is everything.
Yes. Because what you are talking about is just the magnitude in decibels of the sound. You are completely missing the TIME response.
Example: speaker A has an on-axis dip -3dB at 2 kHz, but off-axis output is very high. Measures 0 dB at the listening position.
Example: speaker B is flat on-axis at 2 kHz, but off-axis output is none.
The two speakers measure the same at the listening position, but the ratio of direct to reflected sound will be quite different as will the time arrival and smearing of said sound.
As for 2-way versus 3-way, if done very well, the 3 way *could* offer a nicer midrange, by having a driver dedicated to that and taking some load off the woofer and tweeter. But it has to be executed very well.
Cone & dome is the typical way of doing it. It puts an XO right where the ear is most sensitive. Pushing the XO way down moves the XO to where the evils it brings can be diminished.
dave
Have you measured IMD performance of tweeter in this speaker setup? Multi tone including 300Hz component?
Crossover point selection based on human vocal range rather than driver performance is recurring theme, and is poor design compromise.
Tweeter claiming performance down to <300Hz is classifiable as full range, and will be replete with IMD and break up issues.
Regards,
Andrew
Crossover point selection based on human vocal range rather than driver performance is recurring theme, and is poor design compromise.
Tweeter claiming performance down to <300Hz is classifiable as full range, and will be replete with IMD and break up issues.
Regards,
Andrew
+1 . . .
Which I took to be dave's "tongue-in-cheek" point . . . there are a number of surprisingly (as in WTF??? surprising) good sounding and cheap 3-4" "full range" (not really, but that's what they call them) drivers which, for a given (low) price point, will outperform the "traditional" cone-pushed-too-high-to-dome-pushed-too-low introductory 2-way when combined with any of a number of inexpensive "woofers".
Typically what one "gives up" is "quality" in the range from 10 to 20 kHz. . . . but that has to be the most overpriced and under-delivering frequency band in all of audio . . .
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.