MTM vs. two-way.........

[dantwomey]

What are the theoretical pluses and minuses of a MTM versus the traditional two-way? To expand on this topic even further.......what about the MTM versus a two-way with dual, matched bass/mids? The only thing I can find so far is a blurb about the MTM saying, "The main advantage of the MTM configuration is the control it gives the designer over the polar response behaviour."

Dan

 

[Super]

If you have the chance to go for an MTM, do it.

-Increased efficiency when wired in parallel (higher SPL)
-Tighter, cleaner, faster bass (each driver only has to do half the work)
-Better dispersion characteristics (debatable)

Although they say its important for the tweeter to be at ear level, I feel its equally important for your midrange drivers to be just as close. (For a standard two way, I prefer my mid mounted above the tweets). The MTM tends to sound far more balanced in my opinion, whereas a TMM can tend to sound too "forward" in the midrange.

I know there are countless more advantages to an MTM, but these are the ones I've experienced for myself.

 

[dantwomey]

MTM vs. two-way.............

Actually, I'm intrigued by Wayne Jaeschke's MTM Eros as seen on:

http://www.speakerbuilder.net

Dan

 

[SteveG]

I would have to say that if you go for the MTM, keep your drivers in tight to the tweeter, and cross over fairly low. I'm experiencing a little combing effect in the midrange on my mtm's (2-P17wj's and a Morel MDT33) However, when you are at just the right listening position horizontally, the imaging is pure magic. I've never had a pair of speakers that have the singer so well centered between and slightly <I>in front of</I> the speakers! I have been wondering lately if a TMM would not have been a better choice. I have heard that smaller mini-monitor types of speakers often image better than mtm's. Recently I have heard that the image is much more stable in a standard TM setup than with the MTM, and I would lean toward believing it. Food for thought.
Steve

 

[jwv3]

So the consensus seems to be for the MTM.

What if you consider spending the same money for either config.? Thus allowing a more expensive mid on the MT over the MTM?

 

[blu_line]

Hello All,

I'll throw in another question !
What about an WMTMW ????

grtz

Simon

 

[SteveG]

OK, let's take it a little further-
How about a

W-W-MW-M-T-ST-M-MW

Sounds like a code or something!

Seriously though, why not? I guess the only thing you would have to consider as you add more drivers is that they are not spaced too far apart in the range that you plan on operating them in.

 

[jwv3]

Seen this design?

More complicated than I care for, but sure looks impressive.

 

[sandro]

Ok,

if you like the 'vertical' projects, have a look at this one:

it is the last 'top' design of the guy who developed the DSR (distributed spectrum range) concept that is now evolved in NPS (natural perspective system).
That is in 2 words a way to combine speakers diffusion behavior, speaker geometric position and x-over phase+frequency design to recreate the correct vertical and horizontal ambience and soundstage in a very wide listening area.

http://www.audiocarpet.it/artdesigfm/aedon_audio_nps_1000.htm


the site of Renato Giussani (the designer) is

http://www.mclink.it/personal/MC0004/

Those who can understand Italian could learn more than one trick about speaker's design!


bye
sandro

 

[Kravchenko_Audio]

MTM Caveats

The MTM can be a better performer than a standard two way speaker but the crossover is very critical. Must be 3rd order or higher odd order and must crossover befor the Mids begin to beam. This puts some serious demands on your tweeter choices.