Is a three ways speaker always better than a two way speaker?

[tinkyred]

JBL E60 is a three way VS Mission M73i (two way)...dont know w/c one is good.

 

[markw]

That's two questions with three answers.

First off, never assume "always" on anything. There are always execptions.

Second, usingthe axiom quoted above, there are excellect two way speakers and lousy three way speakers. Conversly, there are excellent three way speakers and lousy two way speakers.

Third, they are both "good" in the traditional sense that they are well made and backed by reputable manufacturers. It's all a matter of personal preference. You have to listen to those speakers to determine which you prefer.

 

[tinkyred]

nuff said...that's why i ask. barely two months on my hi-fi journey.

- Limited knowledge by asking is humble, boastfulness is grandstand pride.
-plato

 

[hammong]

The modern tweeter designs of today are capable of some pretty good midrange reproduction, and it's possible to get very nice full-range sound from a 2-way speaker.

Back in the day, most consumer speakers were comprised of 3-way paper-coned speaker elements, and each element was rather good at reproducing a small range of frequencies. It made better sense to have more elements and crossover tuning than it did to design elements that had a wider frequency range with big dips in response here and there.

Many multi-element speaker systems now have multiple drivers of the -same- size that work in parallel and provide a sound pressure level and frequency response similar to that of a larger driver.

Greg

 

[rschleicher]

One concept to keep in mind is that smaller main speakers and use of a subwoofer for bass (under 80 or 100 Hz, say), is essentially using a 3-way design, in that there are two sets of crossover frequencies.

Also, you might view the port (or passive radiator) on speakers that have these design features as being a pseudo- third "driver" as they will each have their own frequency response that needs to be well-integrated with the mid-bass speaker (albeit without an electrical cross-over circuit).

Given that modern drivers are capable of pretty broad frequency response, I am tending to lean to the "fewer crossovers is better" school of thought, but clearly there are good and bad sounding speakers in both camps. I think it can also be important to avoid crossovers in the "low to medium" midrange area where there are a lot of fundamentals (say from 100 Hz, or maybe a bit higher, on up to maybe 1000 Hz.). Most 2-way and 3-way designs have the mid-bass to tweeter crossover somewhere around 2 kHz. or maybe as high as 3 kHz., where you are already dealing with harmonics (not to say that these aren't important!)

 

[markw]

Given today's technology,

I'd lean towards a nice two way with no larger than an 8" (smaller is better) that can navigate cleanly down to somewhere below 60 -70 hz. This can be easily accomplished with a fairly narrow tower design.

This should raise the crossover to a fairly high number to minimize the mid range interactions and anything below the low end of tge system can be channeled to a sub.

 

[WmAx]

I think it can also be important to avoid crossovers in the "low to medium" midrange area where there are a lot of fundamentals (say from 100 Hz, or maybe a bit higher, on up to maybe 1000 Hz.). Most 2-way and 3-way designs have the mid-bass to tweeter crossover somewhere around 2 kHz. or maybe as high as 3 kHz., where you are already dealing with harmonics (not to say that these aren't important!)

By far greater importance is the symmetry of behaviour at the crossing frequencies of two drivers. Are the two drivers operating virtually identical in all relevant aspects, a primary one being polar radiation pattern? If the drivers varies signficantly in the regard from one another, within this frequencin crossing envelope, the power resonse(summed polar response) will not be linear.

I have performed DBT tests on headphones of source signal vs. a summed simulation of 3 way 4th order L-R network applied to that source. It was transparent on general musical content, with subtle audible differences(leading to positive scoring) on very sharp, high amplitude transient components in the musical signal sample(s). This difference was *minor*, and I suspect it could not be identified without a direct A-B comparison.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

JBL E60 is a three way VS Mission M73i (two way)...dont know w/c one is good.

Generally speaking, it seems that a two way speaker is unable to produce full range, low distortion sound with a good polar response (and) simultaneously have sound reproduction qualities of a superb level. There exists exceptions, but these are not conventional designs. The standard 2 way high quality devices that can be purchased that uses 6-7" midwoofers, should not generally be operated below approx. 80-100Hz, if the best sound reproduction is desired. A subwoofer is required. However, use of a subwoofer now makes it a 3 way.

-Chris

 

[tinkyred]

thanks to all....all your comments i will take in consideration. Very insightful and honest. But is UK made speaker slight better than american/canadian counterpart? i ask because a friend of mine who is deep into hi-fi UK made influence to buy all UK made as this is the truly "hi-fi" component. I've gotten azur 540D for my source and returned my onkyo dvd player to c.city.

 

[zumbo]

I prefer a 2 & 1/2 way. Either 2x7" with a tweeter, or 2x6.5" with a tweeter.

As far as the UK, B&W are some of the finest speakers I have ever heard. Monitor Audio are also a solid contender.

Canada is also turning out great speakers such as Paradigm and a few others.

But, I will take my German MB Quarts.

 

[Yup]

Even though this might be OT, here's related question:

How would a 2 1/2 way design fit into all this ? I am considering a 2 1/2 design with 4 X 6'' woofers and a tweeter that has 2 (?!?) cross-over frequencies (700 Hz and 3kHz, 24 dB/octave). Can anyone with insight in 2 1/2 way (d'Appolito design) care to comment ?

Thanks.

 

[mustang_steve]

The only thing to remember, is the more crossover points you have, the more complex the design becomes...and it's not exactly a linear scale as far as difficulty goes.

The other is Cost...a 3-way speaker will cost more than a 2-way speaker since more components go into it...OR...they cheapen the speaker by using cheaper crossover designs to offset having another crossover.

That said, if you are on a small budget (<$500), 2-way speakers will give more bang for the buck than a 3-way model in those price ranges.

 

[sjdgpt]

thanks to all....all your comments i will take in consideration. Very insightful and honest. But is UK made speaker slight better than american/canadian counterpart? i ask because a friend of mine who is deep into hi-fi UK made influence to buy all UK made as this is the truly "hi-fi" component. I've gotten azur 540D for my source and returned my onkyo dvd player to c.city.

Hmmmm, that would be comparable to saying the only good cars are made in Italy.

I can think of a few German companies that make some pretty nice cars.

Then again, the UK has a strong history with automobiles.

And what about the American cars? Or Japan?


Bottom line, the source of the speaker is not as important as your own opinion of the sound of the speaker.

I will say this, our friends in the UK have produced some very nice speakers, and because the typical home in the UK is physically small, the typical UK speaker manufacturer has spent a lot of time and $ in the designs of their small bookshelf speakers.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

My 4-way kicks all of your butts!