Technically, crossing below 2kHz is better for blending a 6" to a 1", but this may not be easy for a tweeter. A smaller woofer may not be good for bass. 3-way is one option. A larger tweeter is another option.
I think the crossover has a lot to do with the differences.
For example, even if the summed frequency responses overlay each other, it is difficult to line up acoustic phase.
Measurable differences can create noticeable differences in the sound quality.
As others have mentioned, the on-axis and off-axis responses can be quite different as well.
In addition to how the crossover affects on/off-axis, the driver location and spacing on the baffle can affect on/off-axis response.
For example, even if the summed frequency responses overlay each other, it is difficult to line up acoustic phase.
Measurable differences can create noticeable differences in the sound quality.
As others have mentioned, the on-axis and off-axis responses can be quite different as well.
In addition to how the crossover affects on/off-axis, the driver location and spacing on the baffle can affect on/off-axis response.
For sure, the crossover where more tricky to get right for the 3-way then for the 2-way, and i am not convinced that the added compexity with a third driver gained me anything, which was what i hoped for
If you're not increasing the size gap between the drivers, then you're also throwing away some of the possible advantages, like deeper bass with a big woofer for instance. Then there's subtle interaction, like the woofer shaking the other drivers and vice versa, which adds to the cost side of things.
Jeah two and three way speaker makes different set of compromises.
Extra ways provide possibility to separated concerns. If its still single enclosure small speaker with square baffle I don't see much difference between two or three ways, I don't see possibility for separated concern utilized, and not much benefit.
Number of ways in itself has no value. If one wants to make a problem free speaker system without any particular design limitations targeting just for great sound quality and start iterating set of compromises I bet one would with a 3 or more way system.
Extra ways provide possibility to separated concerns. If its still single enclosure small speaker with square baffle I don't see much difference between two or three ways, I don't see possibility for separated concern utilized, and not much benefit.
Number of ways in itself has no value. If one wants to make a problem free speaker system without any particular design limitations targeting just for great sound quality and start iterating set of compromises I bet one would with a 3 or more way system.
I once planned on building 3-ways with a 6.5", 2" and 1". Never happened. The tweeters broke in my parents' system (from too many on/off thumps without adequate protection) so I retrofitted the 2" mid-tweets. Years later I got 10" woofers, and I built a different 3-way which I had for a short while, but with my active XO ambitions it never really came together.
Using a 6 channel sound card was cool, but it was tiresome and flaky. Something was always breaking. So that's another thing to consider: the ability to make a well-rounded system that's just plug and play.
Using a 6 channel sound card was cool, but it was tiresome and flaky. Something was always breaking. So that's another thing to consider: the ability to make a well-rounded system that's just plug and play.
Often the midrange can provide a smooth response through the region where "typical" ears are most sensitive. This also coincides with the range of human voices. Some problems can show up through the crossover region. Voices need to sound "right". Two-ways most often have a crossover frequency in that sensitive region, so a 3-way with a midrange can avoid that problem.
I also made a compact 3-way with a similar complement of drivers (1" dome tweeter, 3" cone mid, 6.5" woofer). Crossover frequencies were around 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz, with 2nd and 3rd order (electrical) slopes. I agree it was a bit difficult with the roll-offs crowded together. Sounded great. Unfortunately, I did not build a 2-way with the same tweeter, woofer, and cabinet, so nothing to compare.
If I had to do it over, I would have used an 8 or 10 inch for the bottom end, and maybe a bit larger (4" or 5") midrange.
Wait a minute . . . that's what I'm working on now!
😉
I also made a compact 3-way with a similar complement of drivers (1" dome tweeter, 3" cone mid, 6.5" woofer). Crossover frequencies were around 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz, with 2nd and 3rd order (electrical) slopes. I agree it was a bit difficult with the roll-offs crowded together. Sounded great. Unfortunately, I did not build a 2-way with the same tweeter, woofer, and cabinet, so nothing to compare.
If I had to do it over, I would have used an 8 or 10 inch for the bottom end, and maybe a bit larger (4" or 5") midrange.
Wait a minute . . . that's what I'm working on now!
😉
What frequency do you plan to xover Dave R?
You could go 12" with not so much issue ( depend on the 5").
Celef i definitely prefer 3 ways over 2ways ( for the reason given by Dave R, it cleans up the vocal range if done 'right' and reveal more details imo). But next will be 4 ways (active filtered, and one more way needed because of acoustic design i choose).
You could go 12" with not so much issue ( depend on the 5").
Celef i definitely prefer 3 ways over 2ways ( for the reason given by Dave R, it cleans up the vocal range if done 'right' and reveal more details imo). But next will be 4 ways (active filtered, and one more way needed because of acoustic design i choose).
Last edited:
If the driver/crossover/cabinet budget is on the low side, a modest size 2 way (6.5" + 1") with modest priced drivers in a rectangular box is hard to beat. Combining a $60 midwoofer, a $40 tweeter, and $35 in crossover parts can result in a very good speaker. I don't see how a 3-way can be made for the same cost.
On the other hand, if the budget is higher, the 3 way option has some advantages.
I am disregarding the large format 2-ways with 12" - 15" drivers + CD/Horns. They are a different class of high performance speaker which are (I feel) outside of the scope of the original question.
A modern high-end 2 way may use a waveguide tweeter to control directivity and allow a lower crossover. I can imagine combining a high performance 7.5" - 9" driver with a high performance tweeter in a waveguide, with crossover in the 1.4k - 1.6k range... this kind of speaker can achieve pretty high performance. Figure $350 for the woofer, $350 for the tweeter+waveguide, and $80 in crossover parts
For the same budget, and with the same cabinet volume, it should be possible to design a 3 way which equals or exceeds the performance of the above 2-way. If the cabinet volume is allowed to grow a bit, it should be possible to exceed the performance. The bass driver can be selected based solely on low frequency performance up to 500 Hz, and it need not be limited to 8"-9" size, and it need not cost $300+. If the tweeter does not need to reach down to 1.6k, there are many excellent options in the $75-$150 range. Combined with the appropriate 3d printed waveguide (thank you @augerpro) and a crossover in the 2.5k range... this enables us to select from a number of very capable midrange drivers. The 3 way design helps minimize IM distortion and big changes in directivity
But the execution of either design is the most crucial aspect. Skilled design and quality craftsmanship are probably the most important aspect.
j.
On the other hand, if the budget is higher, the 3 way option has some advantages.
I am disregarding the large format 2-ways with 12" - 15" drivers + CD/Horns. They are a different class of high performance speaker which are (I feel) outside of the scope of the original question.
A modern high-end 2 way may use a waveguide tweeter to control directivity and allow a lower crossover. I can imagine combining a high performance 7.5" - 9" driver with a high performance tweeter in a waveguide, with crossover in the 1.4k - 1.6k range... this kind of speaker can achieve pretty high performance. Figure $350 for the woofer, $350 for the tweeter+waveguide, and $80 in crossover parts
For the same budget, and with the same cabinet volume, it should be possible to design a 3 way which equals or exceeds the performance of the above 2-way. If the cabinet volume is allowed to grow a bit, it should be possible to exceed the performance. The bass driver can be selected based solely on low frequency performance up to 500 Hz, and it need not be limited to 8"-9" size, and it need not cost $300+. If the tweeter does not need to reach down to 1.6k, there are many excellent options in the $75-$150 range. Combined with the appropriate 3d printed waveguide (thank you @augerpro) and a crossover in the 2.5k range... this enables us to select from a number of very capable midrange drivers. The 3 way design helps minimize IM distortion and big changes in directivity
But the execution of either design is the most crucial aspect. Skilled design and quality craftsmanship are probably the most important aspect.
j.
But, if you run the "woofer" as a widebander and use the tweeter mostly as a "supertweeter" you gain the advantage of no crossover in your music.
I don't know that a 2 way and a 3 way can be so compared... there are too many other variables. All things being equal, I would prefer to get the crossover out of the way of the music as much as possible.
Chez moi, I have a collection of 2 and 3 ways. The 2 ways tend to be the cleanest sounding. But then, I tend to go for small speakers... I do have the large towers in the den, they are "3 way" but they run the 10" woofer as a "subwoofer" and it's placed down low. So the crossover to the 6" midrange is very low, that driver does most of the lifting. The tweeter kicks in a bit higher, but the "midrange" is the workhorse of the speaker.
I also have a pair of small 3 ways with a coax tweeter/midrange and a 6' woofer. the imaging is great, but for the money, I think a two way could use the better drivers.
BTW, the midrange is my prejudice. I don't necessarily need deep bass... I do have servo controlled woofers if I want t0.
Hmm.. I guess that makes it 3 way, huh?
Last edited:
What does “better” mean?
We have a huge set of compromises in any loudspeaker.
Execution, design, drivers, CONTEXT alll play significant roles.
More ways means more XO. XOs tend toeards evil. Especially if there is significant (ie much greater than quarterwave centre-to-centre distance at the XO) pysical separation of drivers.
And then often forgotten is budget. One really good driver in a good box can ceratiny trump a collection of 6 drivers and XO parts for the same cost in the appropriate context.
But fewer drivers means the driver has to work harder and the task of designing the actuall driver is harder.
To me a 3-way has XOs at something like 40-60 Hz and 250-350 Hz. At least biamped. Likley triamped. I have trouble imagining a 4-way without all the issues of standard tweeters available today, maybe an ambiance tweeter firing up or back. All depends on context.
dave
We have a huge set of compromises in any loudspeaker.
Execution, design, drivers, CONTEXT alll play significant roles.
More ways means more XO. XOs tend toeards evil. Especially if there is significant (ie much greater than quarterwave centre-to-centre distance at the XO) pysical separation of drivers.
And then often forgotten is budget. One really good driver in a good box can ceratiny trump a collection of 6 drivers and XO parts for the same cost in the appropriate context.
But fewer drivers means the driver has to work harder and the task of designing the actuall driver is harder.
To me a 3-way has XOs at something like 40-60 Hz and 250-350 Hz. At least biamped. Likley triamped. I have trouble imagining a 4-way without all the issues of standard tweeters available today, maybe an ambiance tweeter firing up or back. All depends on context.
dave
5way IME 😉 based on W.E.'s 755A mechanically XO'd 3 way ~'full range' driver (circa 1936 IIRC) for high speech intelligibility general purpose PA, small 'HIFI'/studio monitor apps. One piece ~70-13 kHz diaphragm
Is that a typo? That's a pretty low crossover for a tweeter, huh? Did you mean 2500-3500 Hz?
I don't decide how many ways before designing. I consider the needs of the system and work through it from one end to the other. The number of ways is discovered along the way. If you don't know what these specific needs are, it will all just seem optional to choose one or the other.
I've always thought we're doing this all wrong.
Instead of having speakers all over the room.. how about building a very large box with the listening chairs inside and the drivers pointing inside?
No need for two, three, four, etc.. ways... just build 100 4" wideband drivers along the front/sides/rear.. maybe some on the ceiling too?.
Instead of having speakers all over the room.. how about building a very large box with the listening chairs inside and the drivers pointing inside?
No need for two, three, four, etc.. ways... just build 100 4" wideband drivers along the front/sides/rear.. maybe some on the ceiling too?.
Last edited:
Oh, I accept them, but have learned the hard way like Tom Danley and others that within their significant materials/manufacturing/time frame limitations they left little for those that followed to invent/improve, just pretty much only take advantage of emerging technology of all appropriate types.
Regardless, I just present facts for consideration as I understand them, not stand on a 'soapbox' to preach the Gospel according to 'xyz' audio guru as too many already do, only to educate.
Regardless, I just present facts for consideration as I understand them, not stand on a 'soapbox' to preach the Gospel according to 'xyz' audio guru as too many already do, only to educate.