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

[Sokel]

Let's say we have a perfect small two-way and couple of subs, ok?

We have a given room with it's modes, etc.

Crossing high we first have to correct the speaker, anechoically that is. And when I say speaker I don't mean the 2-way but the 2-way with its sub so it follows the rules, 1/4 wavelength max distance, etc, the works.
And then correct for the room.
Cross low to a capable speaker (don't care about ways, there are two ways going to 40's easy, they are just bigger) and all the above are far easier.

 

[bmc0]

I use REW, that distributes the components with equal weight over all the spectrum.

As far as I'm aware Erin uses a pink multitone stimulus for his measurements. REW also has an option for this:

 

[Heinrich]

Let's say we have a perfect small two-way and couple of subs, ok?

We have a given room with it's modes, etc.

Crossing high we first have to correct the speaker, anechoically that is. And when I say speaker I don't mean the 2-way but the 2-way with its sub so it follows the rules, 1/4 wavelength max distance, etc, the works.
And then correct for the room.
Cross low to a capable speaker (don't care about ways, there are two ways going to 40's easy, they are just bigger) and all the above are far easier.

What you're saying is, crossing low to a real (80Hz) sub would be easier than crossing high to a wider bandwith woofer, but the former (low) would need a 3-way as the mains, or a bigger 2-way. The latter (high) allows for a small 2-way. Well, it depends ...

You're addressing room integration. First, where is the listener to be seated, far or close? Second, how loud? The lame comment reiterated, there's always a compromise. So, what's the target? With that defined (engineering's first) it all unravels.

Lower volume up close: room interaction is minimal, don't worry much about HD, Doppler, IM, dispersion, just extend the roll-off to where it's reasonable, mostly 30Hz and you're done with slight corrections to taste (!)

High volume up close: no fun

Lower volume farther away: consider room interaction in bass mostly, cross low for convenience and flexibility, dispersion is not elementary, but clearly a nice to have, HD, Doppler, IM not that crucial

Higher volume, farther away: same as with lower volume (tonality), but HD, IM will shift into focus, especially Doppler as its perceptibility depends strongly on room interaction (by phase shift and resonances, see also Linkwitz), and Doppler cannot be avoided by "better" drivers, they simply and solely have to be larger OR chose a three-way to break it down; the latter rules out small two-ways pretty fast as awkward, go for bigger if narrow directivity is your preference

So, the problematic case is high volume at farther away. High volume, maybe 86dB in not too short peaks at 3m distance? The quite costly example I gave previously would, alas, fail. A three-way, while larger, would easily deliver at half the price. (Three-ways are actually way under represented, maybe one could have it even cheaper.)

The Purify drivers are fantastic, but cost, and the remaining need for a midrange--of similar qualities of course, let me seek out for alternatives. Some psychoacoustic trickery included.

 

[Mike123]

Why is everyone talking about subwoofers? I thought this tread about a 2-way speaker system without subwoofers versus a 3-way speaker system without subwoofers.

 

[Sokel]

What you're saying is, crossing low to a real (80Hz) sub would be easier than crossing high to a wider bandwith woofer, but the former (low) would need a 3-way as the mains, or a bigger 2-way. The latter (high) allows for a small 2-way. Well, it depends ...

You're addressing room integration. First, where is the listener to be seated, far or close? Second, how loud? The lame comment reiterated, there's always a compromise. So, what's the target? With that defined (engineering's first) it all unravels.

Lower volume up close: room interaction is minimal, don't worry much about HD, Doppler, IM, dispersion, just extend the roll-off to where it's reasonable, mostly 30Hz and you're done with slight corrections to taste (!)

High volume up close: no fun

Lower volume farther away: consider room interaction in bass mostly, cross low for convenience and flexibility, dispersion is not elementary, but clearly a nice to have, HD, Doppler, IM not that crucial

Higher volume, farther away: same as with lower volume (tonality), but HD, IM will shift into focus, especially Doppler as its perceptibility depends strongly on room interaction (by phase shift and resonances, see also Linkwitz), and Doppler cannot be avoided by "better" drivers, they simply and solely have to be larger OR chose a three-way to break it down; the latter rules out small two-ways pretty fast as awkward, go for bigger if narrow directivity is your preference

So, the problematic case is high volume at farther away. High volume, maybe 86dB in not too short peaks at 3m distance? The quite costly example I gave previously would, alas, fail. A three-way, while larger, would easily deliver at half the price. (Three-ways are actually way under represented, maybe one could have it even cheaper.)

The Purify drivers are fantastic, but cost, and the remaining need for a midrange--of similar qualities of course, let me seek out for alternatives. Some psychoacoustic trickery included.

I'm high volume (when I want and because my music has high CF) , big-ish room (about 250m³ volume) at about 3m listening distance.

Anything smaller than a big-ish 150-200 lt speaker (no matter the ways) in here is like a candle in the dark to me, sounds thin and strident, not even a hint of impact, etc.
Subs can add rumble but not dry, fast chest punch, nor fill the room at mid-bass.

So, no, the above is not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that we get to choose the set of compromises that suits us, that's all.

 

[Flaesh]

matrix enclosure and the stiffness of the B&W drivers can take 1000 watts of peak power

I would like to supply 1 kilowatt of power there 20 times per second.

 

[teashea]

Hello everyone,

I want to discuss something.
I'm biased toward 3-way speakers. I've always felt that on average 3-way speakers will sound better than 2-way speakers, because each driver will have a narrower range and it should be easier to play this narrower range with fewer distortions.
Am I wrong to have this bias?
Can 2-way speakers have amazing and reference sound and make me feel they don't need a 3rd driver?

Feeling don't count.

Study the measurements of the Neumann KH 150's and KH 120 II's. They are two way monitors and are superb. I have both and also have KH 310's in my studio. The KH 310's are no better.

 

[teashea]

3 way should be better. Less bandwidth per speaker, 3 speakers can handle more power than 2, 3 way makes driver design more suitable for the job (woofer that doesn’t have to play mids).

But then, is four way even better? (Playing with the Kef LS60 with subwoofer)

Not necessarily.

 

[melomane13]

Take a tweeter with a waveguide and a 6.5-inch woofer with a crossover at 2500 Hz.
Add a third way, the same woofer, in the same volume filtered at 350 Hz.
Will the sound be the same, better, or worse?

Certainly, the power handling will be higher, and the intermodulation reduced on the mid-channel (since it receives half the power).
So, it will certainly sound louder without distortion, but the timbre and response will be the same.

So, is this 3-way speaker better than the other 2-way speaker? I would say yes, if it's done well, if the addictive cost is possible, and if you need more volume.

 

[Heinrich]

... the intermodulation reduced on the mid-channel (since it receives half the power).

And for other reasons likewise. In connection to post #148 I might add two other examples, "bigger" two way speakers.

Some 8" woofer plus horn, watch the nasty IM around 1kHz again:

JBL 4329P Studio Monitor Speaker Review

JBL 4329P Studio Monitor Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

And an actually big 2-way, mitigating the usual prob/ significantly by sheer size, obviously w/o fancy tech involved:

Power Sound Audio MT-110-M Speaker Review

Power Sound Audio MT-110-M Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

What's forgotten, a large 2-way will dictate directivity to be narrow, a small 3-way conversely will show a wide directivity pattern.

What else to say? The audio scene, for the time being, actively ignores intermodulation in speakers. Especially logical and practical aspects of Doppler induced AM (amplitude modulation) are dismissed w/o thinking, as it appears to me. To me as a former DIYer the means to get into the topic are available, though. It's easy pleasy, actually. One might test themselves in regard to perceptibility of IM using a software tone generator (or two) and a mediocre headphone. I gave some proof of work, your turn.

H

'Sealed mini speaker, 3-way'

Apr 1, 2025

There is a little box that nobody can believe in.

It's supposed to be a real shelf box, and therefore no deeper than 22 cm and no higher than 30 cm. At least that's how plus/minus European shelves are built. This means that a size of 30x30*22 cm^3 would still be pretty reasonable, resulting in a maximum internal volume of around 15 liters.

Furthermore, the frequency response should reach well down, 40Hz is the minimum. After a lot of back and forth, it is not possible to set up a bass reflex in this small volume. The port is always either too long or too narrow - resonances...

• Heinrich
• Replies: 85
• Forum: DIY Audio Forum

• 

 

[teashea]

Take a tweeter with a waveguide and a 6.5-inch woofer with a crossover at 2500 Hz.
Add a third way, the same woofer, in the same volume filtered at 350 Hz.
Will the sound be the same, better, or worse?

Certainly, the power handling will be higher, and the intermodulation reduced on the mid-channel (since it receives half the power).
So, it will certainly sound louder without distortion, but the timbre and response will be the same.

So, is this 3-way speaker better than the other 2-way speaker? I would say yes, if it's done well, if the addictivest is possible, and if you need more volume.

There are many factors involved. The results are what count. There is no 3 way monitor that is as good as the two way Neumann KH150. Study Amir's measurements here on ASR.

 

[Chromatischism]

There are many factors involved. The results are what count. There is no 3 way monitor that is as good as the two way Neumann KH150. Study Amir's measurements here on ASR.

This is true but it is definitely DSP corrected to achieve that result.

 

[teashea]

This is true but it is definitely DSP corrected to achieve that result.

exactly....................

It will be interesting to see what the KH310 does. I suspect Neumann has had a challenge in making it better than the KH150. The larger woofer size means that one can expect a lower bass profile, but that may be all. The KH150 has already reached virtual perfection above its bass limitation.

 

[dfuller]

There is no 3 way monitor that is as good as the two way Neumann KH150

That is literally untrue and you know it.

The 150 is good. It's still a 2 way and has that doppler distortion peak.

 

[teashea]

That is literally untrue and you know it.

Name one. There are none. none

 

[Sokel]

There are many factors involved. The results are what count. There is no 3 way monitor that is as good as the two way Neumann KH150. Study Amir's measurements here on ASR.

At what level?

 

[dfuller]

Name one. There are none. none

- KH420
- KH310
- 8341, 51, 61
- Kali SM5C
- Kef R3 Meta
- Kef Ref1 Meta
Need I go on?

 

[dfuller]

Just for the sake of it, I have IMD measures of two Neumann speakers thanks to @Nuyes (thanks, Seyun!). The KH310 is arguably a worst-case scenario for 3-way IMD (small sealed box + relatively small woofer + lots of bass extension via EQ)... and it's still got less IMD even in the woofer/mid crossover band where it would be worst.

 

[boxerfan88]

Nice charts!!
Wow, quite a difference that 800-2k area.
The 3-way is performing so well, maybe that’s why Neumann is taking their own sweet time upgrading it.

 

[Heinrich]

Wow, quite a difference that 800-2k area.

People ignore amplitude modulation, but with more vigor the Doppler induced amplitude modulation. The latter as such might not be objectional. E/g a test file issued by Purify shows a huge difference AM versus Doppler (kind of)--when listened over headphoones as suggested. But over speakers the difference depends a lot on where you are in the room. Even decidedly non-hifi people hear that. I tested it. It is proven, scientifically (because I've got the paper works, as you might have already guessed ;-)!

Background for the pros/: not hearing it depends on phase relations, which latter get messed up in-room. Also that many room reflections are quite narrow in frequency, changing frequency (Doppler) alters the actual amplitude a lot. Linkwitz said that. I recalculated his figures: correct.

Sidenote: it is not your speaker doing the weee--uuu stuff; the test file doen't contain the modulationg freq/ anymore!

That's where my previous recommendation comes from: in near-field, don't mind too deeply. In-room, for leisure, at louder levels, it may make a difference.

Not the least, reiterated, test yourselves. Two tones, one at frequency X at level A, the other below X, say Y = X minus 50..100.200 at a lower amplitude B, at which B do you detect Y? Use headphones of halfway decent quality. Isn't that a breeze to do today, really?!