does 2.0 systems sound better than 2.1 AT SAME TOTAL COST (4 high quality drivers vs 5 lower quality drivers)

[amanieux]

we all have a finite budget for hifi, we all know that mids are curcial because that is where our sensitivity is higher (frequency of human voice) but low frequencies are crucial for an enjoyable music experience (everybody like warm sound) so what is the better compromise: better mids (money spent on 4 drivers) or added bass(money spread over 5 drivers as the cost of the sub reduces the price of the 2.0 speakers) ?

i notice that this question was already answered between 3.0 and 2.0 systems (6 drivers vs 4 better quality drivers) as today 90% of speakers are 2.0 and i also notice that 2.0 are more common than 2.1 sytems but my little experience (i only owned 7 systems) shows me that 2.1 seems a better compromise, so why are 2.1 less common than 2.0 ?

 

[ZolaIII]

Cost of good healthy size active subwoofer isn't exactly small (more so out of US). If you compromise going with a rather deacent mid size (6.5~7" woofer's) two way bookshelf speakers which sound and measure good and supplement them with one or two deacent sub's you will get there for not so high price (with lot of work and some learning of course). Most folk's don't have space for big floor stand salon's (nor money for them) and putting such in even mid sized room won't sound best. Of course you can go and with very good on the larger size (8~10 or even more " woofer's) three way bookshelf/floor stand speakers but even such will benefit from added sub's. Woofers used for sub's are made with higher excursion and linear excursion limits in order to be able better to reproduce low tones and with less distortion while doing so. Another advantage of using sub's is ability to place them better, fight room dependencies and better even the bottom end (including self concealing and patching each other hole's in case of multiple sub's used). So ideally it's a 2.2 setup and depending on space even more sub's. In case of bothering why so much fuss regarding only 20~30 Hz more bottom extension (compared with deacent ported speakers) answer is simple you can have only so much octaves in enter hearing range and their (for entire octave) FR is rather small at bottom so when you look at it as one or two octaves more it was a perfect sense. Future more using sub's enable you to use sealed or plugged port speakers and reclaim accurate reproduction of bottom end and now we are talking about 60~80 Hz range (from 20 to 80~100 Hz).
Anyway that's my look at it at least, best regards, have fun and enjoy yourself.

 

[amanieux]

Cost of good healthy size active subwoofer isn't exactly small (more so out of US). If you compromise going with a rather deacent mid size (6.5~7" woffer's) two way bookshelf speakers which sound and measure good and supplement them with one or two deacent sub's you will get there for not so high price (with lot of work and some learning of course). Most folk's don't have space for big floor stand salon's (nor money for them) and putting such in even mid sized room won't sound best. Of course you can go and with very good on the larger size (8~10 or even more " woffer's) three way bookshelf/floor stand speakers but even such will benefit from added sub's. Wafers used for sub's are made with higher excursion and linear excursion limits in order to be able better to reproduce low tones and with less distortion while doing so. Another advantage of using sub's is ability to place them better, fight room dependencies and better even the bottom end (including self concealing and patching each other hole's in case of multiple sub's used). So ideally it's a 2.2 setup and depending on space even more sub's. In case of bothering why so much fuss regarding only 20~30 Hz more bottom extension (compared with deacent ported speakers) answer is simple you can have only so much octaves in enter hearing range and their (for entire octave) FR is rather small at bottom so when you look at it as one or two octaves more it was a perfect sense. Future more using sub's enable you to use sealed or plugged port speakers and reclaim accurate reproduction of bottom end and now we are talking about 60~80 Hz range (from 20 to 80~100 Hz).
Anyway that's my look at it at least, best regards, have fun and enjoy yourself.

about sub price, we can find really affordable used ones, so for you ( at the same total price ) 2.2>2.1>2.0 ?

 

[ZolaIII]

Not at the same price but going with a good affordable and reliable components if it's me and definitely 2.2.

 

[amanieux]

Not at the same price but going with a good affordable and reliable components if it's me and definitely 2.2.

ok got it but "AT SAME TOTAL COST" is an important part of the question as it is all about making the best compromises, throwing more money at a problem is a less interesting and elegant way of solving a problem

 

[ZolaIII]

Well you can't expect that much more separate stuff will cost the same compared to minimal all in one combo. Then there is no need to exaggerate. You can get very deacent pasive bookshelf's or active near field monitor's that will do the job at 2~3 m distance for about 400 $/€. For example Elac DBR62 and Kali LP 6 V2's.
If you need or want one's that can go louder or a little better or at bigger distance you will have to get bigger ones and naturally they cost more. For example Wharfedale Linton's. Same applies to sub's. In small to medium sized rooms you can go with 10~12" one or two for not that much money. If you want to go with closed enclosure one's you will again need larger ones. If you are making a really far field stage setup guess what you will need very big multiple setup one's and so on.
I used budget examples which will certainly get you there where you need to be and will pass regular proper calibration at mentioned distance. So it's all what you want/need to accomplish.

 

[LTig]

Having listened to two 2.2 systems this vacation, sporting Yamaha subs with small bookshelves (4" and 5" woofers) I prefer those over similar priced 2.0 systems. So for example instead of going for a Genelec 8x30 go for the 8x20 with 1 or 2 cheaper subs.

 

[bodhi]

so why are 2.1 less common than 2.0 ?

Mostly because lack of knowledge in what subwoofer brings to the table. There is still widespread misconception that subwoofers are only for movies, reinforced by people most often hearing subs in rooms without correction, resulting in boomy sound.

Otherwise it should be obvious that a 2.1 system is better as long as you meet some minimum requirements for speaker quality. You can get some very nice bookshelves for 500€ which mostly lack bass extension and ability to play loud. Spending 4x as much you get a bit more flat response, a bit better extension, but both problems still exist. Spending 10x as much for floorstanders with 8" drivers you can get most out of music but now you run into issues with possible nulls you can do nothing about.

Now, adding a sub or two to your 500€ DBR-62:s or the like you can get rid of all these problems and end up being very far into diminishing returns.

But again, if your budget is limited to the 500€ then it's of course better to leave the sub out and still get very decent experience. Most people, who are not audiophiles, fall into this category.

 

[LTig]

ok got it but "AT SAME TOTAL COST" is an important part of the question as it is all about making the best compromises, throwing more money at a problem is a less interesting and elegant way of solving a problem

It depends on budget and what you already own. If you have an AVR you can add a cheap sub with just a line in, otherwise you need a sub with highpass output for the mains or an external crossover; both will cost you more and influence the break even point.

Anyway, below a decent budget one should not think about a 2.1 system. With a budget which buys you a pair of JBL 305 or similar I don't think it's possible to find a 2.1 system of comparable sound quality.

 

[amanieux]

It depends on budget and what you already own. If you have an AVR you can add a cheap sub with just a line in, otherwise you need a sub with highpass output for the mains or an external crossover; both will cost you more and influence the break even point.

Anyway, below a decent budget one should not think about a 2.1 system. With a budget which buys you a pair of JBL 305 or similar I don't think it's possible to find a 2.1 system of comparable sound quality.

i own jbl 305 who's only downside is the tweeter hiss, i preferred eris 4.5 (who also hiss)+polk psw10 ($135+$150) over jbl 305($260) at the same total cost but i want to hear from you guys

 

[voodooless]

Price rarely has any bearing on quality, so also in this case. There are good and bad systems in any price bracket for both concepts.

 

[abdo123]

Bass extension >>>>>>>>>>>> everything else.

Unless the system with the lower bass extension is literally broken or something.

 

[amanieux]

Price rarely has any bearing on quality, so also in this case. There are good and bad systems in any price bracket for both concepts.

by same price , i of course implied, the best sounding speaker you can find for the same given price

 

[popej]

I'm sure you won't get an universally true conclusion. Both approach are valid and depends on details, which would work better.

Let make it simpler: what would sound better: 2-way speaker or 3-way speaker at the same cost? My experience suggest, that it depends on budget. You better go for 2-way with low budget and for 3-way with high.

You haven't restricted speakers to active or passive solution. You can get 2.0 with active speakers and passive 2.1, including passive subwoofer. You said "system", which means we should include amplifier or preamp too. I believe that it would depends on budget even more than in example above.

That said, I like the idea of 2.1 build with AVR, with proper bass management and maybe usable room correction.

 

[amanieux]

I'm sure you won't get an universally true conclusion. Both approach are valid and depends on details, which would work better.

Let make it simpler: what would sound better: 2-way speaker or 3-way speaker at the same cost? My experience suggest, that it depends on budget. You better go for 2-way with low budget and for 3-way with high.

You haven't restricted speakers to active or passive solution. You can get 2.0 with active speakers and passive 2.1, including passive subwoofer. You said "system", which means we should include amplifier or preamp too. I believe that it would depends on budget even more than in example above.

That said, I like the idea of 2.1 build with AVR, with proper bass management and maybe usable room correction.

i did not mention active or passive but it of course implies you have to add an amp in the total price if you compare passive and active,

i also did not notice that system configuration varies with price segments ( are best high budget speakers all 3 ways ?)

 

[popej]

IMHO 3-way is a better construction, easier to get lower bass and less distortion. I'm sure there are good 2-way speakers with expensive components, but this is always a compromise. Either no bass or low efficiency or distortion at high volume.

 

[voodooless]

by same price , i of course implied, the best sounding speaker you can find for the same given price

Even then, there are so many different compromises with both setups that’s it’s not really that easy.

And then there is the definition of “best”… there isn’t one.

 

[amanieux]

Even then, there are so many different compromises with both setups that’s it’s not really that easy.

And then there is the definition of “best”… there isn’t one.

and again sorry for trying to simplify, by "best" i mean "best compromises overall considering major aspects of a balanced sound reproduction"

 

[ZolaIII]

and again sorry for trying to simplify, by "best" i mean "best compromises overall considering major aspects of a balanced sound reproduction"

Deacent not expensive speakers and good cheap sub's. If you catch some on sale you have a bingo.

 

[voodooless]

and again sorry for trying to simplify, by "best" i mean "best compromises overall considering major aspects of a balanced sound reproduction"

What is the best compromise? There is no single answer to this question.