Home HiFi: 3-Way VS 2-Way Bookshelf Speakers? (+Recommendations)

[CT007]

I've been researching speakers for my next upgrade(from Ascend Sierra-1v2), and I can't forget how insane and amazing the imaging and phantom center was on the 3-way Kali IN-8 V2 I tested during my previous speaker upgrade shootout. So, I absolutely want to test more 3-ways for my next upgrade, but of course there are also some spectacular 2-ways that also seem worth trying, not to leave that stone un-turned. (Previously tested speakers: Sierra-LX, Sierra-2EX V2, AsciLab C6B, Philharmonic BMR Monitor V2, Kali IN-8 V2. Not interested in any of these brands except Kali)

I want to keep the perfect, natural tonality of the Sierra-1v2, while adding the incredible imaging+center & technical mastery of the Kali. The most awesome, realistic, spatial experience as possible. Bass should be less than 8", as the Kali IN-8 V2 was too overpowering for my small-ish room. Will dabble with room EQ if needed, but of course prefer a great sound out of the box. (Kali IN-8 V2 was too harsh/sharp, and I am definitely sensitive to treble peaks/spikes/elevation)

Passive or active. It seems a wide waveguide is essential, to achieve the imaging/phantom center I'm after. (But, oval or circle shaped..?)

Room size = ~15'x15'x8' LxWxH

Here's what's on my mind, for Upgrade Shootout Candidates:

Kali SM-5 (3-way coax) - circular waveguide
Genelec 8331A (3-way coax) - circular
Neumann KH 120 II (2-way) - oval
Neuman KH 150 (2-way) - oval
Genelec 2-way 5-6.5" (8030/8330/8040/8340) - oval

 

[Doenerkunde]

So you really liked the imaging of the Kali IN-8 V2 (many say this about coaxes), but the treble was too hot for you and the bass was overpowering in your room.

Sounds like the KEF Q Concerto Meta checks all your boxes: Three way coax for great imaging, somewhat recessed on axis treble, falling slope below 100hz but with good low frequency extension.

Review by Erin: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_concerto_q_meta/

Square rooms are very challenging when it comes to bass modes, so EQ could be a game changer and you probably should look into it.

 

[Jiraya369]

Ascilab C6B is your best bet at a relatively cheap price. If your budget goes up to the 8331A's level (4500 USD), then the Ascilab A6B can be considered. But really, unless you need the additional loudness or the bass extension, the C6B is good enough.

If you want some other coaxial that'll allow you to move around the room without losing much of the midrange like the Kali, there's the KEF Q Concerto and R3 Meta. Both excellent.

2 way vs 3 way does not matter if you sit in the vertical sweet spot. The wave guide and dispersion characteristics do. What makes you uninterested in the Ascilab btw?

 

[Ktacos]

Kali IN-8 V2 was too harsh/sharp, and I am definitely sensitive to treble peaks/spikes/elevation

Bass should be less than 8", as the Kali IN-8 V2 was too overpowering for my small-ish room.

So two problems that EQ can solve, did you not try it?

 

[No_hair_left]

2 way vs 3 way does not matter if you sit in the vertical sweet spot. The wave guide and dispersion characteristics do. What makes you uninterested in the Ascilab btw?

I don't think that is right is it.

 

[Jiraya369]

I don't think that is right is it.

why not? the kef q concerto meta is a 3 way design and the ascilab a6b is a 2 way design. Yet the A6B digs deeper in the low end, holds composure better there and has better distortion characteristics. If you want another comparison, the Ascilab C6B has similar compression performance to the IN-8 V2 and lower distortion in all but frequencies below 120 hz. Another one is Neumann KH310 3 way vs Ascilab A6B 2 way showing similar distortion characteristics and low end extension, maybe a6b having a bit of a win here as well. There's also the Mofi Sourcepoint 8 and 10 vs the KEF R3 Meta.

Typically you expect a 3 way to be better but it all just depends on the engineering man.

 

[CT007]

So you really liked the imaging of the Kali IN-8 V2 (many say this about coaxes), but the treble was too hot for you and the bass was overpowering in your room.

Sounds like the KEF Q Concerto Meta checks all your boxes: Three way coax for great imaging, somewhat recessed on axis treble, falling slope below 100hz but with good low frequency extension.

Review by Erin: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_concerto_q_meta/

Square rooms are very challenging when it comes to bass modes, so EQ could be a game changer and you probably should look into it.

Yes, it would be fun to get the Kali(IN 8 or 5) again, and see what I can do with it with EQ. Though tonally, it didn't sound as natural as the Sierra-1 V2. I have an XLR room mic, mono USB interface, and sound meter for EQ, but just haven't messed with it yet. It would be hilarious if you could actually EQ an 8" bass driver down enough to match a 5-6" driver, and still sound correct blending in with the treble, haha. Maybe possible!

 

[CT007]

KEF Q Concerto and R3 Meta. Both excellent.

What makes you uninterested in the Ascilab btw?

The recent KEF models I've heard have tonally just sounded a little too dead/lifeless to me, though very accurate/neutral. Did not hear enough to have any conclusions about imaging, but I did test a Q100 or Q150 years ago.

For AsciLab, I didn't like the choice of the bass driver in the C6B(too weak, just like the BMR Monitor V2; same driver, I believe), the tonality was a bit plasticy/artificial/off compared to Sierra-1 V2, and the rough, plastic cabinet was quite goofy. It was also quite a headache dealing with returns with them, being in the US. The C6B is a very solid speaker overall, but I didn't feel it sounded any better or more natural/correct than Sierra-1, except for decently better imaging & phantom center(though, nothing close to the Kali).

Mofi Sourcepoint 8 and 10

This is one I haven't heard yet! Though the bass on those will be pretty huge If they made a SourcePoint 6/6.5, I would likely try it!

 

[Ktacos]

I feel like practically every complaint you have with every speaker can just be solved with EQ....

 

[Doenerkunde]

Yes, it would be fun to get the Kali(IN 8 or 5) again, and see what I can do with it with EQ. Though tonally, it didn't sound as natural as the Sierra-1 V2. I have an XLR room mic, mono USB interface, and sound meter for EQ, but just haven't messed with it yet. It would be hilarious if you could actually EQ an 8" bass driver down enough to match a 5-6" driver, and still sound correct blending in with the treble, haha. Maybe possible!

The thing that is bothering you probably isn't "too much general bass", but a very narrow and strong single peak room mode in the bass region that could be dialed down with EQ. One very easy thing you could do to get an immediate first understanding of the issue is to play around with an online tone generator. I think it's likely your problem is somewhere around the 40-60hz region. Play around, generate sine tones and see at which frequencies things get boomy. When you found the boomy frequency move around the room and see how it changes. Very easy thing to do and it helps to gain general understanding of the speaker room interaction.

www.onlinetonegenerator.com

 

[kemmler3D]

Have a look at the Audio First Cadentia, it's a little pricey but it's a 3 way "bookshelf" with pretty undeniable performance.

 

[ScottySmallsMom]

The recent KEF models I've heard have tonally just sounded a little too dead/lifeless to me, though very accurate/neutral. Did not hear enough to have any conclusions about imaging, but I did test a Q100 or Q150 years ago.

For AsciLab, I didn't like the choice of the bass driver in the C6B(too weak, just like the BMR Monitor V2; same driver, I believe), the tonality was a bit plasticy/artificial/off compared to Sierra-1 V2, and the rough, plastic cabinet was quite goofy. It was also quite a headache dealing with returns with them, being in the US. The C6B is a very solid speaker overall, but I didn't feel it sounded any better or more natural/correct than Sierra-1, except for decently better imaging & phantom center(though, nothing close to the Kali).

This is one I haven't heard yet! Though the bass on those will be pretty huge

Do you think these descriptions like ‘plastic’ and ‘weak’ are some how represented by the data? Can I see these in frequency response?

I try to keep Sighted listening in mind when I’m forming judgement of a speakers sound.

 

[Jiraya369]

The recent KEF models I've heard have tonally just sounded a little too dead/lifeless to me, though very accurate/neutral. Did not hear enough to have any conclusions about imaging, but I did test a Q100 or Q150 years ago.

For AsciLab, I didn't like the choice of the bass driver in the C6B(too weak, just like the BMR Monitor V2; same driver, I believe), the tonality was a bit plasticy/artificial/off compared to Sierra-1 V2, and the rough, plastic cabinet was quite goofy. It was also quite a headache dealing with returns with them, being in the US. The C6B is a very solid speaker overall, but I didn't feel it sounded any better or more natural/correct than Sierra-1, except for decently better imaging & phantom center(though, nothing close to the Kali).

This is one I haven't heard yet! Though the bass on those will be pretty huge

i truly dont know how something is dead, plasticky and all the other things you're saying. And ofc the ascilab isnt more correct than the sierra 1, both are neutral speakers.

I feel like you just want someone to nudge you towards the IN-8, i mean if you want it then sure it's not bad but again, i dont get how 1 speaker is plasticky and the other isnt lol. Kinda seems to me you either kept what others said about the speakers in mind (how kef speakers sound "dead") or you're more biased towards the speakers you like

 

[Beave]

I've been researching speakers for my next upgrade(from Ascend Sierra-1v2), and I can't forget how insane and amazing the imaging and phantom center was on the 3-way Kali IN-8 V2 I tested during my previous speaker upgrade shootout. So, I absolutely want to test more 3-ways for my next upgrade, but of course there are also some spectacular 2-ways that also seem worth trying, not to leave that stone un-turned. (Previously tested speakers: Sierra-LX, Sierra-2EX V2, AsciLab C6B, Philharmonic BMR Monitor V2, Kali IN-8 V2. Not interested in any of these brands except Kali)

I want to keep the perfect, natural tonality of the Sierra-1v2, while adding the incredible imaging+center & technical mastery of the Kali. The most awesome, realistic, spatial experience as possible. Bass should be less than 8", as the Kali IN-8 V2 was too overpowering for my small-ish room. Will dabble with room EQ if needed, but of course prefer a great sound out of the box. (Kali IN-8 V2 was too harsh/sharp, and I am definitely sensitive to treble peaks/spikes/elevation)

Passive or active. It seems a wide waveguide is essential, to achieve the imaging/phantom center I'm after. (But, oval or circle shaped..?)

Room size = ~15'x15'x8' LxWxH

Here's what's on my mind, for Upgrade Shootout Candidates:

Kali SM-5 (3-way coax) - circular waveguide
Genelec 8331A (3-way coax) - circular
Neumann KH 120 II (2-way) - oval
Neuman KH 150 (2-way) - oval
Genelec 2-way 5-6.5" (8030/8330/8040/8340) - oval

Your observations are remarkably similar to those described in this rather bizarre youtube video:

Care to admit that you made the video?

 

[CT007]

I feel like practically every complaint you have with every speaker can just be solved with EQ....

Well, I think that tonality is a special thing, that can only be achieved by certain components. So, if I could bass boost the BMR Monitor, that would just mean it has more bass; the treble and tonality would still sound the same. If I took out the treble peak(s) in the IN-8, then it would sound smoother, but tonally the same. I don't think you can take the Sierra-LX or 2EX and EQ them to have the same tone as the Sierra-1, because of different components. EQ can do some cool things, but I don't think it can solve everything.

 

[CT007]

Do you think these descriptions like ‘plastic’ and ‘weak’ are some how represented by the data? Can I see these in frequency response?

No, I don't. Listening tests are required, to determine tonality, bass density, bass texture, warmth/coldness, imaging depth/width, and how much of a phantom center image there is. Then, you take these speakers into your own, one-of-a-kind room, and it will sound/measure differently than in lab tests. Tonality and imaging are huge ones for me. Behind the Sierra, I thought the IN-8 had the most natural tone(and of course was FAR more detailed and spacious).

Especially with headphones and IEMs, what you actually hear often differs from what the graphs show.

 

[CT007]

Care to admit that you made the video?

Making videos is a crime..? I guess I'm sorry, or something, for offending you. (not really)

 

[ScottySmallsMom]

it's gotta be the same guy.

The C6B is the most transparent speaker I've ever heard. I've tried for weeks to pin down some kind of tonal signature, like I can with other speakers and I just fail lol. Whenever I hear something off in a song I can attribute it to the recording and/or my room.

These things just do a phenomenal job of getting out the way between you and the music

 

[Beave]

Making videos is a crime..? I guess I'm sorry, or something, for offending you. (not really)

OK, so it was you. Not a crime, for sure, but some very odd observations in the video that contradict the measurements.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Will dabble with room EQ if needed, but of course prefer a great sound out of the box. (Kali IN-8 V2 was too harsh/sharp, and I am definitely sensitive to treble peaks/spikes/elevation)

The IN-8v2 and IN-5 even have a DIP switch setting called "HF Trim" that may well do the trick for mitigating any perceived "harshness" -- but of course PEQ would be much more precise.