3-way vs 2-way speakers. Can 2-way speakers sound just as good as or better than 3-way speakers?

[Sokel]

I think it applies to the whole range the subs will play.

I added another sentence regarding not being able to separately delay and EQ the sub bass drivers in the speakers. You have two emitters of very long wavelengths. The sub bass really does need to be separated in space, time, and signal to not be compromised.


Right, that just makes things worse, for the reasons stated above.

My problem with that is the classic "as intended by the artist" .
Traditionally artist's intentions are defined by what they hear at a classic control room, fairly large, soffit-mounted mains monitors, etc, the works.
And not always very well treated acoustically.

That's stereo down to 20Hz, no chance of localization, etc.
Very different from 3-5 sources emitting from different points, often summed to mono , most often (by restrains of placement) not perfectly done.
Different set of compromises.

 

[EJ3]

If you know how LLM work you will not be surprised at all. The way a LLM answers highly follows your question and may drill in the wrong direction especially with the recent updates where answers come from both the web and the LLM internal database. To validate the information, you may use triangulation and improve the way you write your questions or prompts. Finding and validating information with the use of AI or without requires critical skill known in education critical thinking.

Yes, finally, you said something correct. (Or just more fully stated what you where thinking).
But before it seemed that you were inferring that AI could not be wrong.
That AI was the final validation.
At least, that is how I took it.
Which, of course, is not scientific.
It is unfortunate that critical thinking is severely lacking in that many just don't do it,
just accepting things that are said, without thinking (and/or researching some for themselves).
Maybe they were not taught how to learn but how to shill for good grades by rote memorization,
to be forgotten soon after the exam is over.

 

[boxerfan88]

A comparison of intermodulation as requested. Same driver in same box same tuning, for one as a two way, second as a three way, guess which is which.

View attachment 476472
It's a bit unfair, because the driver is the same. In case of a two-way the driver would have changed to a more costly one, compensating for the (little) extra for the mid-driver. But the bass used isn't particularly bad to begin with.

Just to confirm my understanding -- is that chart the Neumann KH150 vs KH310 comparison? Or some other brand/model?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Agreed 100% about lows (lower than 40Hz or so) .

And it's also hard to correct room passively there.
However, at the charts we see all the time the main problems (audibly and physically too) are much higher, at the 100-150Hz range where all the energy is.
If we combine that with stereo bass as AE suggests things get tricky.

Why 40hz? it's very common to have significant peaks or dips all the way up to 100hz. And it's hard to correct the room passively up to 100-150hz too, not just below 40hz.

And yes, 100-300hz often has issues too, normally best resolved by pushing the speakers as close to the walls as possible.

 

[Chromatischism]

My problem with that is the classic "as intended by the artist" .
Traditionally artist's intentions are defined by what they hear at a classic control room, fairly large, soffit-mounted mains monitors, etc, the works.
And not always very well treated acoustically.

That's stereo down to 20Hz, no chance of localization, etc.
Very different from 3-5 sources emitting from different points, often summed to mono , most often (by restrains of placement) not perfectly done.
Different set of compromises.

I suppose it will depend on the end user's speaker positioning. How far they are from walls and how far they are from each other.

 

[Heinrich]

Just to confirm my understanding The graph is part of my -- is that chart the Neumann KH150 vs KH310 comparison? Or some other brand/model?

Neither, nor, and yes, it is result of a personal investigation. Some work done w/o scientific or marketing rigor. I only think that info has to be gained, decidedly if not readily available. Of course it was presented on the DIY board, but people logically focussed on the looks of the proof of concept speaker, and were talking "KEF" in all directions even after the headline was changed to not carry the brand's name on urgent request. Yes, it was an experiment, practically successful, on the question raised by the OP. Let's see where this thread is going to ;-) (It's coming down now to positioning more or less against some wall.)

 

[Sokel]

Why 40hz?

Because any chance of localization is eliminated to the extreme down there (some say that goes even lower for AE but Lund's advice is about there for mono sub) and secondly it's because it's far more easier to correct there having the mains loose too unless you have pros make it for you or you have the time, the means, the space and more importantly the knowledge to do it on your own as an end-user.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

Yes, finally, you said something correct. (Or just more fully stated what you where thinking).
But before it seemed that you were inferring that AI could not be wrong.
That AI was the final validation.
At least, that is how I took it.
Which, of course, is not scientific.
It is unfortunate that critical thinking is severely lacking in that many just don't do it,
just accepting things that are said, without thinking (and/or researching some for themselves).
Maybe they were not taught how to learn but how to shill for good grades by rote memorization,
to be forgotten soon after the exam is over.

True. Today most people are hesitant as we see in our daily life how knowledge is less and less valued. I have been trying to learn all my life. That is my source of enjoyment in addition to music and I hope to learn more from others and exchange knowledge. In my PhD we did a good amount of work on scientific research methods and thought processes to avoid bias and aim for the truth. Nice meeting people like you.

 

[boxerfan88]

Neither, nor, and yes, it is result of a personal investigation. Some work done w/o scientific or marketing rigor. I only think that info has to be gained, decidedly if not readily available. Of course it was presented on the DIY board, but people logically focussed on the looks of the proof of concept speaker, and were talking "KEF" in all directions even after the headline was changed to not carry the brand's name on urgent request. Yes, it was an experiment, practically successful, on the question raised by the OP. Let's see where this thread is going to ;-) (It's coming down now to positioning more or less against some wall.)

Ah ok, got it. Thanks.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Because any chance of localization is eliminated to the extreme down there (some say that goes even lower for AE but Lund's advice is about there for mono sub) and secondly it's because it's far more easier to correct there having the mains loose too unless you have pros make it for you or you have the time, the means, the space and more importantly the knowledge to do it on your own as an end-user.

Any number of processors from any number of brands do a pretty decent job of automatic correction below 100hz these days. If you do it manually, yes, then it requires some time and skill.

 

[EJ3]

True. Today most people are hesitant as we see in our daily life how knowledge is less and less valued. I have been trying to learn all my life. That is my source of enjoyment in addition to music and I hope to learn more from others and exchange knowledge. In my PhD we did a good amount of work on scientific research methods and thought processes to avoid bias and aim for the truth. Nice meeting people like you.

Pleased to meet you also.
Happy that you did not consider my statements to be an attack.
Some people say that I am too brusque. I just think that I am more direct to the point than some.
Perhaps less eloquent than I ought to be.

 

[Newman]

However good the crossover design is you'll have two drivers both emitting the same frequencies around that crossover point and are therefore going to get unwanted interference patterns from them.

By that logic a line array, comprising many cone drivers (not just two) all emitting their entire bandwidth of frequencies (not just the crossover region), would be a living nightmare of badness. And yet, they work just fine when done well.

That's why threads like this are susceptible to overgeneralisation: loudspeaker design involves balancing numerous compromises and non-ideal realities in a way that works well to the human ear. No loudspeaker is a perfectly pulsing sphere cut by the number of planes on which it rests, radiating 20-20kHz at up to 150 dB SPL with no non-linearities. So, from that point onwards, every non-ideal aspect has to be balanced with other non-ideal aspects and tested against the key criterion in italics above.

Hence, it is pointless to say that crossovers aren't ideal. Lots of things about loudspeakers are not ideal! One crossover will only be better than two if the consequences of making two drivers handle ten octaves are really well resolved. And so on. That's why my previous post asked so many questions.

cheers

 

[Chromatischism]

By that logic a line array, comprising many cone drivers (not just two) all emitting their entire bandwidth of frequencies (not just the crossover region), would be a living nightmare of badness. And yet, they work just fine when done well.

Line arrays are curved which mitigates a lot of it.

 

[Heinrich]

However good the crossover design is you'll have ...

It's a pretty open thread title so expect a wide-ranging discussion. ...

The original question was, no policing here: "Can 2-way speakers have amazing and reference sound and make me feel they don't need a 3rd driver?"

To begin with, the question addresses a subtly different decission, not adding a third way, but what was lost with omitting the mid driver going two-way. Read it again?

Of course many defend the two way as sufficient or even superior. It is the way to go since decades for middle-of-the-road hifi with limited budget and tight real estate, let alone the roommate's commentary. The two-way was set as standard by the BBC in the 70s, if my recollection holds. It was, back then, the logical consequence of having new cone materials, plastic.

Yada, yada, ...

To tell that the x/over of a three-way is close to impossible to do is questionable. It was done before, and today we have digi/ devices that do it in a nearly ideal fashion.

• On the myth of x/over to be bad in general, well, it goes back to the early days again. For starters, we are talking about an x/over in the range of say 250Hz to 600Hz for the midrange--no probs/ with wavelength/interference, directivity and so forth, while the x/over of the mid to tweeter should keep its position at 2kHz or so . Modern tweeters would swallow the load with ease. Speaking of which, in the dark ages tweeters were hardly capable of doing anything below 4kHz. KEF addressed the topic in a white paper on the 'Calinda' model to some extent, 3rd order Butterworth etc.

• On the original question reiterated, "Yes", there is two-way capable of. But it is necessarily huge (JBL's) compared to a three-way of same capabilities, and directivy will be narrow due to technical limitations.

Hope this helps

 

[gwing]

By that logic a line array, comprising many cone drivers (not just two) all emitting their entire bandwidth of frequencies (not just the crossover region), would be a living nightmare of badness. And yet, they work just fine when done well.

They say a picture is worth 1000 words ...

 

[Heinrich]

They say a picture is worth 1000 words ...

... namely that some sim/ tool would spit out nasty things. Q/ is: what "Line Array"?! And what is the comparison in the huge graphical pesentation above meant to be?

Proof granted: You can do (very) wrong.

One may defend 2-ways as a practical solution for many probs/ the hifi enthusiast is confronted with, also granted, as said before in all humanly possible clarity. Don't long for ear shattering levels, relax demand on ultra deep and loud bass, allow for standard directivity, embrace the music rather than technical specs, respect your roommates' needs too. Consumers leave speaker design to those who know, just evaluate the outcome as it is on preference level.

Guess what, if you're a magazine author and need something important-ish to talk about, you invent things, problems, caveats--mhh-mmh here and oh-oh there. Impress the readers, get your salary. That's what all these discussions are based on, reflecting the depth of technical insight the magazine provide.

 

[Mart68]

Of course many defend the two way as sufficient or even superior. It is the way to go since decades for middle-of-the-road hifi with limited budget and tight real estate, let alone the roommate's commentary. The two-way was set as standard by the BBC in the 70s, if my recollection holds. It was, back then, the logical consequence of having new cone materials, plastic.

Not quite - the first speaker to use the new cone materials was the BBC LS 5/5 which was a three-way design from 1967. That soon fell out of favour due to limited SPL - the paper is here https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf

I don't think the 2 way was ever a 'standard'. Obviously for monitoring broadcasts in vans the much smaller 2 way LS3/5a was developed and continues to have a following today, the reasons for which are difficult to ascertain other than it is not a challenging speaker to listen to, especially compared to some of the very crude 2 way speakers that became popular due to heavy marketing - at least in the UK - in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

 

[Heinrich]

Not quite - the first speaker to use the new cone materials was the BBC LS 5/5 which was a three-way design from 1967. That soon fell out of favour due to limited SPL - the paper is here https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf

I don't think the 2 way was ever a 'standard'. Obviously for monitoring broadcasts in vans the much smaller 2 way LS3/5a was developed and continues to have a following today, the reasons for which are difficult to ascertain other than it is not a challenging speaker to listen to, especially compared to some of the very crude 2 way speakers that became popular due to heavy marketing - at least in the UK - in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

I meant, the BBC pioneered the use of plastics. Then KEF took over and popularised it, as a two-way mostly. No details covered, the yada yada, there's to much story-telling, interesting, but not quite on topic. (Material science was catchy, psychoacoustics not so much.)

What to lose if the midrange driver was omitted? Can excellence be restored by other means?

 

[gwing]

Not quite - the first speaker to use the new cone materials was the BBC LS 5/5 which was a three-way design from 1967. That soon fell out of favour due to limited SPL - the paper is here https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf

I don't think the 2 way was ever a 'standard'. Obviously for monitoring broadcasts in vans the much smaller 2 way LS3/5a was developed and continues to have a following today, the reasons for which are difficult to ascertain other than it is not a challenging speaker to listen to, especially compared to some of the very crude 2 way speakers that became popular due to heavy marketing - at least in the UK - in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The 2 way was of course never a formal standard but back in the day it was pretty much the standard way to build a reasonably decent sounding speaker at a price the average household could afford. Single driver speakers were viewed as cheap and inferior by the public, three (or more) driver boxes would have to be either much more expensive or built to even lower quality levels resulting in sometimes truly awful sound - which didn't stop some folks buying them of course.

 

[Cogito]

I heard/owned countless speakers over my lifetime and have experienced great and not so great 2-way and 3-way designs. As it stands now, the best speaker I've ever heard is a 2-way. The overall design of a speaker far outweighs how many crossover points there are.