We had a 1st gen Echo in our master bathroom for listening to music in the morning ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxABghAEkaIDGZfHRBH3D3rBrlraNmnC71 and while in the shower. I didn't realize how tinny and awful the sound output on the original Echo was until we replaced it with the Studio. It was a sonic upgrade far beyond what I was expecting. Just wow. I love it because it's like having speakers IN the shower. My friend likes it because the music is so loud that she can no longer hear me singing. So that's a win-win.
On 2-way versus 3-way I just wanted to paraphrase Andrew Jones comments on his new Uni-Fi series of speakers: 3-way is better when done right. Yes, more complex, but I like complexity when well-implemented. The woofer doesn't have to struggle producing the midrange frequencies and the bass frequencies.
It's cheaper to buy four of the same exact driver, It comes down to price. I'm sure that they could go three way but the speaker would probably cost a heck of a lot more.
To my experience it depends how close or far you are from the loudspeakers. Closer you are, you will like a 2-way over a 3-way. When listening over a distance you end up liking a large 3-way. It is about the angle between the ear and the individual drivers. If you consider a 3-way for near field listening then the difference between angles between the woofer, midrange and tweeter and our ears becomes considerable. You feel like you are listening to individual drivers. Things become worse when you move your head ir shift in this near field situation. Such anomalies become minimal when you listen the same system at far off distance. So 2-way for near field and 3- or 4-way for mid/far field. Arrangement of drivers plays an important role in a 3-way. What you do with it is more important than just the quality.
I agree if the speakers are designed that way. My Elac uni-fi 2.0 are a 3 way and I listen nearfeild and they sound amazing. I will have a hard time going back to a 2 way design.
I was always of the understanding that the real problem with a 2-way crossover system was that the crosser point is at the point where our hearing is most sensitive. So any crossover distortion is most noticeable with a 2-way, whereas with a 3-way the crossover points can be placed at much lower frequencies and also much higher frequencies than our most critical hearing ability.
👍👍 That's it ..... 3 way is batter than 2 way .... But mostly use full range as ..... Mid range ...... Xover @ 250 - to 4k 5k ...... Woofer Midrange ( full range speaker ) Ribbon / planner tweeter ....
This can be a very good approach but you have to be mindful of the tendency of the low pass filter to interact in undesirable ways with the woofer reactance as the crossover frequency gets within a few octaves of fs.
2 Way seems better than 3 way because 2 ways seems to integrate the sound better. Also, 3 way seem more sensitive to height positioning etc. However, I picked up some high end 3 way for a song hence this is why I have them.
I think the sound quality "yield" actually is greater from a competently designed 3 way with complicated crossovers rather than a less complicated 2 way or even a full range with no crossover. Good bass *and* high frequency extension is crucial for experiencing the entire song and it's only possible if you have dedicated drivers in those areas that don't have to work too hard..
I'm so confused. I thought that a 3 way design would give you a more detailed sound stage. It now seems that a 2 way design is better, if I'm correct? I've only had a 2 way setup and was looking to get a pair of 3 way towers to replace my 2 way bookshelves for my fronts and use the 2 ways for my rear speakers. To answer your 1 question, I choose price and performance.
+V Juliano No it depends on the design. You can still have a 3-way MTM by having a 2 way MTM on top and a side firing or multiple bass drivers below it. Sorry for the confusion. Basically the importance of more cone area in the midrange can't be understated.
the speaker system that is ideal to me is one that has high quality, clear and high definition sound where you can distinguish one sound from another even at the lowest levels, and its not just a collision of sound at every volume level low and high. Hence I have been interested in the Klipsch Reference premier line of floor standing speakers particularly the RP-280F for front right and left and the RP-440C center channel speaker with a klipsch R-12SW subwoofer for a 3.1 system.
the only reason that companies make 2 way speakers nowadays is the cost. 3 drivers cost more than two and require more complex crossovers and research. on the other hand most high end speakers are 3 way, but they cost much more.
Interesting discussion. Ideally I would want to go with two way. However, The itty bitty mid-woofs so popular today just don't cut it. If you are going to use a proper woofer you really need to be crossing at or below 1KHz which puts big demands on the upper driver. Some such as Altec Lansing have used a very wide range compression horn. This allows for good dynamics but can be very tricky to get proper tonality. Another approach is to use a full range cone driver for the upper range. In my experience this works very well if the room size is not too large. Another approach that I haven't tried is a larger full range to cover bass through midrange to upper midrange crossing to a tweeter above. This is probably harder than using the smaller full range on the top because of the problems of beaming and cone breakup. For high sensitivity and high SPL for large rooms I think it is probably best to bite the bullet and go three way.
Translation: 2ways are better because inconsistent drivers make 3ways too much trouble for us to deal with.Next time, bring in someone who has nothing to gain by doing the show...
I was sold on 2 ways until I tried to think about how to build a satisfactory one. Now I think 3way is the way to go with current tech. Having a sub or woofer covering the low and a super tweeter covering the very high with a great midrange covering as much of the mids as possible I think now is the way to go
depends on the engineering. I've found some one ways that are better than some 3 or 2 ways simply because it is sloppily configured and calibrated. if cymbals hiss like a gas leak and bass rattles you have a cheapo with 3 way stuffed in and not true engineering.
The problem with crossovers in 2-way designs is that they are typically set in the 1 kHz - 3kHz range. This area of the midrange is critical for vocals and many instruments in a mix. All crossovers create some degree of phase distortion. With 3-way systems, the two crossovers are usually set outside of this critical range. So any phase distortions introduced, are in less significant ranges.
I don't know about crossovers, but I have ears and I prefer a three way. With cds, it seems like the midrange is too dominant or too weak with two ways - though I'm not into loud listening. I like more consistant mids and the mids can't adjusted.
3 way speaker is better than 2 way speaker. The work is distributed among the three. And all three focus on there work so in end the sound will be better than 2 way speaker
Yes you are right there is a big difference when you have a 3way bass, mid and tweeter with a good crossover there is no comparison it is something magical ...
I have both 2-way and 3-way speakers, and I find 2-way are good when there is limited space, such as compact speakers on an office desk, which I have. But they can't even begin to compare to my $7000 3-way floorstanders. There are very good 2-way speakers out there, sure, but I doubt any of them go down as low as the 20's hz range (audibly at least), like my 3-way speakers do. So you'll need to complement with a sub, and that comes with a whole new set of challenges. As long as I have room, I will always prefer a 3-way design over a 2-way, having listened extensively to both.
That went off the rails into a lot of other stuff pretty fast and they never really went back to it indeed. - Well, they didn't lie about not knowing where it would go. - But the only thing I can take from it is that on one end they said it's better to not have many speakers in one box. Then again, they were all on about how they made it work with like 4 or 5... - In my opinion, I've always liked 3-ways best. But then definitely a Woofer of significant size, like at least 8-10", a Mid-range that's really versatile and a good Tweeter of course. - If it's not "thick" enough, add a Sub-woofer that is slightly larger than the Woofer in the main speakers. - Like I have speakers with 10" Woofers, but I've added a 12" Sub to complement them, and definitely turn down the cross-over so it doesn't cause booming and droning and such. But which is better... Experiment and find your preference. I just think you need a good distribution among speakers. But too many for home use is pointless.
You're right! As usual there was a lot of talk and no real answers. A good explanation of a topic will give yo the ability to walk away with information that you can act on. That information would be a way to check to see what works better for you, maybe a specific listening test or some fret technical test that you can perform on your own and the explanation should also teach you how to recognize the correct answer to the question under a variety of situation s(that might not have been specifically covered in the video). This turned out to be more of a marketing video for the guest.
In short: 2 way design has advantage with having only one crossover point, less crossover distortion. Also consider that there are a lot of fans on full range drivers where there is no crossovers at all - less distortion, all sound comes from one driver. It depends what you listen and how loud.
+Atis R. Nah, never an advantage, just made up fancies, often involving malarky citing 'phase'. Crossover distortion --- what would that be with any competent parts?
I have a set of vintage Magnavox with 12" drivers in full range and a horn tweeter with a simple capacitor. They are very, very loud, but they has a sweet spot/range on the volume knob and they sound beautiful
Tannoy had this licked with the DC3000's, which I still use as my main speakers. A 3 way that thinks it's a 2 way. Listened to a lot of other speakers, tried to upgrade them about 4 years ago with 2,500 to spend, and gave up :). The wife's been told to use them to make my coffin ;).
I believe the answer was given. They are saying that any time you add a crossover, you potentially create a false soundstage as either certain ranges of sounds can be duplicated or "loped" which I think of as missing. If the goal is to have natural sound, the full range must be heard. They also mention the issue of assigning all of one frequency to a smaller added midrange speaker using the center channel as an example. Finally, they talk about reflective versus direct sound and mention the idea that it is not how many speakers you have as much as it is the quality- SO, that would sum up as a good two way system can actually be better sounding than a 3-way; HOWEVER, they do not rule out all 3 ways- just warn that crossovers can create over-heavy or missing frequencies per se. Be mindful as you listen.
Finally someone answered the question! And you're right, because 2-way speakers inevitably position the crossover frequency right in the middle of the musical information band.
Not necessarily. I got a set of speakers from an old respected speaker manufacturer in my country that made mostly hi-end two ways. And their crossovers are set quite high. The woofers they used were very very versatile and could play down from 35 hertz up to 6000 hertz flat to 3 db. Their tweeters are crossed at 4500. the crossover is also very smooth and man do they sound clean and natural.
@@michaelconrad9457 You must have missed the bit where he literally says "I have just answered my own question"... shame :) But you are not alone, half the people here are on board with you.
Quality of drivers too. Example: Axiom uses cheap metal drivers. Upper mids are rolled off and the titanium tweeters are bright to compensate. Triad uses scan-speak, which are exponentially better than axiom, and the two-ways are seamless.
I'd like to see a comparison of traditional vs. electrostatic vs. planar magnetic. I personally own Martin Logan electrostatics and love the channel, but don't see much content related to these different speaker technologies.
It depends on the quality of the drivers, obviously, but (inherently) a 3-way is way better for several reasons. Transient response, resonance is less for med on a small driver with upper med, and you haven't got the "doppler effect" on the voice etc. cos the med driver is so "still". My speakers are 3-way with 2-way time-aligned coaxial plus woofer. I home hacked the coaxials out of the lightest speakers I could find, ran with a 6" woofer, beneath. They are lounge speakers, not PA.
I am looking for speakers that have a very wide dynamic range and that have sound that is clear, crisp, HD Sound, and even the most nuanced sounds are audible even at the lowest volumes and is not distorted at high volumes, and eliminates the need for sound compression modes on a receiver.
LOL @2:36 I have those speakers in that video clip I had to pause and make this comment. Those are Criterion Model 6 (Roman numeral) VI. I have since painted the cabinets black.
personally I miss the days of using 12 and 15 inch wolfers in a three-way design. always felt that there was more warmth and a well-designed three-way using a larger diameter paper cone wolfer. honestly and I'm not talking about home theater use I'm strictly talking about 2-channel listening we rely too much on the subwoofer. this of course is in my humble opinion. I could never grasp the idea of spending so much money on a pair of speakers and an amplifier only two succumb to a class D Amplified subwoofer. I know there are designs out there that use larger woofers. but mainstream wise I'm not sure why he moved away considering the Material Sciences available today making that wolfer more efficient warmer sounding and less harmonic distortions
+LIFT4POWER Multiple smaller woofers can be as effective as one larger woofer if surface area and excursion are equivalent. The advantage then is a more narrow baffle for improved dispersion.
+Audioholics In my trials and errors of building different custom speakers I have to disagree with you on that and agree with Lift4power in that the sound of a 3 (or 4 way) speaker with a single larger woofer is more pleasing. I found that with speakers with multiple small drivers that detail tended to get muffed and lost. The bass was muddy, not tight and powerful, especially at higher volume levels and the sound became generally uncomfortable to listen to as where with a pair of larger speakers each having a single 15 inch woofer a 6-7 inch midrange and a cast horn tweeter and 2 dome tweeters (crossed at 12-15khz) that sound was very detailed and life like, the bass was tight and deep, had depth to the sound. They had a thunderous punch not a whifty boom, the midrange stayed clear and crackle free and the tweeter didnt try to tear out your ear drum even at louder levels than normal. You felt immersed in the sound with the larger drivers than with the smaller drivers, you felt pushed and uninvited. But thats just my experience. I believe that fewer larger drivers are more likely to agree and work in harmony than lots of small drivers fighting and the slight timing loss and difference that lies with in the nature of capacitive draw from the multiple drivers wanting to take all the power and you end up with one driver moving more than the other and distortion is eminent. I currently have an interesting set up, I have 2 pairs of matching speakers stacked 2 in each corner facing at about a 52 degree angle. The bottom pair are being powered as the upper pair are not and I have the tweeters on top of the the stack facing in the same direction that are wired in to the lower speakers and the current tweeter are unhooked(due to the 2 of the voice coils have died and these are the best sounding and closest replacement i have found and they don't fit the area in the housing). With having this setup in this way i have found that with the chambers are ported but not connected they act as passive radiators and the imagery is absolutely superb with extra height. in the sound. yet with powering all 4 speakers it gets cluttered and unappealing.
I dont remember off hand. that was twelve years ago. I have built, owned, and sold my fair share of speakers. I have been enthused by audio for about 15.5 years at this point.
very nice. I am sure they sounded great. what tweeter did you use? I currently have Technics sb-g920 speakers. The biggest difference you would notice would be the full depth of the bass the 15inch woofer provides. the floor shaking door rattling deep powerful bass even at low volume. Now if you couple your Two way speakers with a decent sub woofer you will have the missing low end. a 5.25 woofer simply cant produce low or sub bass. It is only capable of mid bass and up. The discussion was of the use of multiple small woofers to replace a single large woofer.
2 way sound better while put on a solid stand at ear level, coupled with a decent subwoofer all balanced. I have dali ikon 1 mk2 on the front a vocal centre and zensor 1 to the rear. Using a tanoy sfx subwoofer. powered by a sony str-dh540 all for quite cheap and it sounds better than it cost. I used to have floorstanders at the front which where 3.5 way and they sounded very closed. now the music is very rich and wide sound stage. The sub perfectly reaches the lows and all speakers are set to small 80hz so the sub carrys the really low. Sounds great with all mediums
+David Vasquez Thanks for asking David! I was tied up with business the day that our friends from RBH came to town so as a result I was unable to show up and do videos. As you will see in the video that we will post tomorrow however, I'm back! :) Thx again for the support!
I'm new to the audio world and am trying to repair an old set of 3 way floor speakers, that weren't built properly to begin with. What combination of drivers will give an overall 8 ohm impedance? And how do you choose, or build, a proper cross over?
Well,it all depends,right ? Mostly on the listening habbit and the listening room. In small rooms the typical 2way or even a compact 3way will do just fine,if those are well constructed and can be placed correctly. In larger rooms,a mature 3way will outperform a usual 2way or a MTM. And i mean a 3way that doesnt need a sub for the basskick in your stomach. Anyway,multiple mids always lead to lobbing. Thats why they speak of sound rather than hifi. But hey,everyone as they please.
I have 2 speakers that look kind of like 2:36 only with just a woofer mids and a tweeter in-line. They are 2ft wide almost 3ft tall and then less than a foot thick, but weigh like 70 lbs. I put subs in them, but they don't make sense in a lot of ways. A church threw them out according to the friends that hauled them over when I was a kid. Anyone know what those heavy ass types of speakers are called?
Thanks for the clarification on the center channel 3 versus 2 channel. That was really helpful. Value and performance are my top preferences on a speaker. Something that plays both music and movies.
So, are you saying that a 3 way design like the NHT Classic 3 speakers are inferior to 2 way designs? Just trying to learn and make the best purchase for my money.
Fella's, it don't matter. There are extremely good two way and three way designs. Theory says you need a large woofer for deep bass, not so. My vented Ohm Acoustics model L's have an 8" woofer in a box 20"X12"X10" and have good bass response to below 40hz. A properly designed three way design CAN give a higher level of performance than a two way design. Heck, the Electro Voice Interface D systems are two way and have bass response down to 28hz at 106db all day (given sufficient amplifier power). Really, it ain't that important if it's two or three way.
Thanks for the point about speaker crossovers and lobbing in the center channel. I had been convinced that 3-way was inherently better than two-way but that's not necessarily so. Performance and cost, in that order, are my two priorities so long as the cost is not exorbitant meaning 5 figures and higher for a pair of speakers.
8 років тому+3
I agree completely with the "artificially large vertical soundstage" comments. I can't handle "ten-foot high guitars", either. It just sounds overwhelming and unnatural.
I currently have zero speakers, and I'm planning my set up for 2 channel. Of the 3 options you mentioned I would pick price and performance. In my setup it will be mainly for music but some movies and tv too, so I want something that when my friends that swear by Bose walk in and think I have live music in my house
It really depends upon your ear; it is entirely subjective. But I have noticed, on my humble JVC MX-KB30 (3-way), that there are deficiencies at the crossover cutoffs... two of them, of course. By that, I mean it gets muddy on either extreme from the mid-range (most probably would not pick up on it, but I do. Its most apparent when playing LOSSLESS music, not so much lossy which already sounds like mud lol). I've also had the pleasure of the Yamaha NS-A3500 since I were a toddler... 3-way when done VERY well, you don't hear that. Although, I do believe it was redundant and even racketeering to toss another pair of 8's below the first pair of 8's (they are 3-way, not 4-way. Those four 8's are on the same leg). That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with a well-designed 2-way and a BALANCED powered-sub riding piggy-back. You derive true full-range, and for a hell of a lot less money (especially these days) than with a 3-way or greater. And no, I'm not talking about these mass-manufactured jokes for i-whatever. These days, you build it yourself, buy used, else you're listening to trash. And stay the hell away from "theater" receivers. They are entirely inappropriate for 2-channel music playback. No, it is NOT the same (no, I don't care if there's a "2-channel mode", it is STILL not the same). If needs must (for you see, there are only about a dozen STEREO receivers available to buy new today without dropping several thousands of dollars), an Stereo AMPLIFIER and a PC with 3.5mm > RCA auxiliary will do the job (no AV "receiver" required. Your PC *is* your logic board/processor. Hell, it is also your EQ... I find a much better EQ than a physical stack EQ).
I Like 3 or 4 way. I have been a guitar player for a number of years, and I can tell when a speaker sounds good , and also, others players may agree, as if they can tell if 1st 2nd or 3rd cord positions are played on a acoustic guitar neck.
I have these old Wharfedales, from the late '80s I think they were, and they're 3-ways, but it has the Woofer at the bottom, the Tweeter above that, and then a Mid-speaker at the top. - But more specifically I wonder why they've put them in this way. I mean, that that like "balance" the mix of frequencies better in terms of projection?... Like not all the highs are just thrown out at the top (if you were to put them up straight as normal), or some such thing. Or, does it just have to do with the construction on the inside?... Maybe there's some separation needed between the Woofer and Mid or something... I don't know.
I am behind you guys on this whole bass trap thing. I have also had problems with UA-cam. It is clear as day that your in the right on this one with fair usage and educational use plus you own the picture. I'm sure UA-cam will see it your way. Shame on you Bass trap guy who I will not mention because I would hate to give your company free press.
Ok, I am in the process of building a new home that will have a dedicated room that will do double duty at 2 channel and theater. Room dimension will be 24 ft long, 15.6 ft wide wit 9 ft ceiling. It is replacing my current room that is a bit smaller. My current room has old NHT towers and center, I'm looking for hight quality 2 channel and clear center when used in theater mode. Not sure if I will go with Atmos or stick with 7.1. I'm currently looking at Dali Opticon for the system. I'm open to suggestions.
+Gary Sedlack i have kef r speakers r500 & could not be happier amazing speakers driven by yamaha rxa 1040 reciever if i was to upgrade & could afford would go for new reference kefs as think some of best speakers in world regardless o price but then would be on slippery slope as would probably need reciever upgrade suggest you listen to these before dali though kef need at least 100hrs on them to loosen up down to uni q & metal midrange i think so if do listen to them raw as it were might not like-- see if can find dealer who has been using for some time have a look at specs you might be surprized at frequency range of these kefs though for your size of room would need r 700/900 i think.
The one thing that the digiholics cannot overcome as they cram more and more digital junk down our throats is that speakers are not digital, they are analog! It takes an analog sine wave to move the voice coils back and forth.
I would expect the D'Appolito arrangement, aka., "MTM", with the nulls aimed 45 degrees, towards floor and ceiling, would give very good listening experience in the typical urban/sub-urban setting. Also, consider that your average person will use an AV receiver and not dedicated amps. Not needing to suppress the tweeter to match the woofer sensitivity is an awesome benefit. IMHO, it must be manufacturer cost vs profit margin. In these race to the bottom days, why would a manufacturer add the cost of a second woofer, a few extra crossover elements. (Remember, we're talking your average consumer, someone to whom a HTIB may be extravagant.) Last but not the least, a MTM (bigger speaker), jeopardizes the room's feng shui more than MT (typically, smaller than MTM). Now why MTM's have not gained favor in the enthusiast circles is quite the conundrum. Interestingly, several "expensive" speakers are MTM.
I have a chicken and egg problem. Price and performance are tied as to importance. I usually set a price point, and audition candidates within that range, looking for the speakers that sound best to me. Currently, I have an accidental speaker system. I had to replace a 28 year old NEC projection TV in December (I know, I don't give up on old technology) and replaced it with a 60" Vizio. I bought a pair of Definitive Technology Monitor 800's instead of a sound bar for the new TV thinking they would provide overall better sound. Subsequently, I bought a pair of Def Tech BP-8020-ST's to use primarily for Music listening. Well, one thing lead to another, and I hooked the TV audio up to my primary music system. After running 25 feet 8 WAG speaker cable, and RCA terminated twin coax cables through the ceiling and back to the preamp (Parasound P-5) and the Parasound A-23 amp, I started to listen to both music and the TV through the BP-8020's. The Monitor 800's were sitting there unused and lonely. One day, I placed the 800's on top of the BP-8020's, ran both pairs of speakers through an Adcom speaker switch, engaged the impedance protection, and ran everything through the music system. Suddenly the Def Techs took on an entirely new persona. Superb mids and highs, nice base through the internal subs in the 8020's, although I run an M&K amplified sub to augment the base. Although the 8020's by themselves were very satisfying, the addition of the 800's placed on top rounded out the sound beautifully. I have $1100 invested in the speakers, and I have not heard anything I like better in the price range. The configuration looks sleek, but aesthetics are of no real consideration to me, it's all about the sound.
+Hunter Ellington Try powered speakers. You are wasting your money on cables and receivers. I produce music and I have a selection of powered speakers. At the price you have paid you could have got Fostex PM8.4.1speakers. www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul13/articles/fostex-pm841.htm
Well, I'm currently using Proac EBTs in the spare room. So I guess their a pair of MTMs. Old but sound great. Seems to me that if you go 2 way, you will need a sub, so basically a larger 3 way anyway. So what the heck full range tower has the same floor plan anyway and if it incorporates a powered sub, then you have a 2 way up top, so no phasing issues.
What is a great 5" speaker for side surrounds for home theatre and listening to music. I was thinking about the klipsch 500 M, Any other suggestions. I would also like a good mid range speaker
Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting video. I have a question. Let's consider a 3-ways speaker ... better one with cone midrange or dome midrange ? i mean ... which could be the best frequency to cross the woofer over to the midrange ? i see different solutions about this issue but i do not know which one could be the best. Thanks a lot, gino
i have a SP-93-V speaker selector with volume control, which i hooked up to my receiver in the the A terminal but when i use a set a speaker in my B terminal the volume controller turns both my A and B down please help
i have a pair of Klipsch KLF 20 three way towers with a harman kardon avr 1700 driving them--also klipsch center , sub=woofer and rear surrounds--i listen to music with 2 channel and movies in surround. i havent heard anything in that price range that would beat the sound out
I bet that is a great system! I have a pair of Klipsch F-30's (obviously not nearly as nice as your towers, but hey, I don't have much spending money), and they also sound great. They're driven by a H/K AVR 5, which gets them going on only 45W apiece!
2 way are generally better value. Crossover components add up, and you have 1 more driver (unless MTM) so there's less money for each individual drivers.
Save a few hundred on the 2-ways, spend a few hundred on a sub. With bigger three ways a sub isn't necessary, though a nice compliment. With any 2-way I've heard a sub is a must to sure up bass and add some punch
Quick question based on your comments. I have SVS ultra towers, should I go with a ultra center or an ultra bookshelve single speaker? Super curious!!!!
I am currently looking into buying electrostatic speakers and ribbon tweeters speakers. Can you give me your most honest opinions of those technologies?
If you're in to two channel music they can be amazing. I used to love them for some music and like them for other. Definitely worth checking out. Huge soundstage, fun toys for sure. Maggies are the best for the dollar in my opinion. Had a guy trade in a pair of B&W 804d's for the 1.7's. (804's were 7 grand and the 1.7's are under $2k)
I avoided the entire question by building my own speakers which have a line array of 8 small full range speakers and a large subwoofer in a separate bandpass enclosure in each cabinet, I may be crazy but they sound good to me
Those can sound good but also have limitations mostly in high frequencies due to the large cone area trying to produce high frequencies with uniform dispersion.
it will be fine at low volume, at higher volumes it will struggle with heavy bass and will distort and sound crappy. get a 500+ watt amp and you will be amazed at all volume levels
I don't agree on the two way design. They can sound very good that is true but you cannot get the low end a three way delivers. A two way cannot contain a big woofer since its midrange response does not go high enough to crossover into a tweeter without introducing distortion. Try listen to the Yamaha NS 1000's . A good recording can be a very emotional experience.
@@bh69videa you would require a tweeter that can cross over that low , extend to 20000hz without beeming and have adequate power handling. The lowest I have crossed over a 1" tweeter is about 1200hz with a 4th order and that's pushing it. A full range driver is not really that. It cannot reproduce the entire human range of hearing effectively.
@Marten Dekker i didn't say a two way can't sound good. My point was that a small mid/woofer cannot deliver the lower octaves or impact of a bigger driver. Sound quality is always subjective and debatable but there are laws of physics you cannot break.. Depending on the your musical preferences a minimalistic two way can be quite pleasing and accurate with very low distortion but its bandpass will be limited at the top end or low end. I have owned, listened to , designed and built several two way designs. If I haven't heard a well designed two way then you haven't heard a well designed three way.
you got all the way through that without once mentioning Joseph D'Appolito! And did I hear correct? 2 large bass drivers and just one mid is wrong? You mean like the WATT PUPPY?
+happylemon666 Yes D'Appolito is the originator of the MTM but MTM is NOT always a D'Appolito array. Joe has very specific requirements for this and you're right we should have mentioned it. NO we are NOT saying speakers with a single mid are wrong. However ,we feel that more cone area should be dedicated to the midrange, NOT just the bass drivers if you want lifelike dynamics and realism.
@@Audioholics this guy gave me these MTX C12 floorstanders with a sub and EQ I had bought off him. I know they are low end party speakers, fairly weak bass for a 12" "600w" speaker. These things had 6.5" mids and standard tweeters on top of 12" woofers. Man those mids are right in your face spitting at you. Seemed like too much, could be just a bad design. That explains why the guy had an EQ maybe. My point is a 6'5" mid seams like too much for that 12" bass w/o a little mid scooping with the eq.
Does anyone know why there are those pillar/tower speakers (or boxes, actually) with many of the same sized speakers in them?... I mean, are they actually all for the same frequencies and they're intended to give more spread or something, or are they assigned to their own frequencies or something? Like you might have one of those that have like 6 in them. I could assume that maybe every pair does a frequency-range, like a 3-way costruction, but I'm not sure if that's what happens.
Also; Has anyone ever seen the Eltax Terminator speakers?... Those things are insane. - Very '80s and over the top, but crazy. - It's not the type I meant before, but it's another one that makes me go "With what reasoning was this designed?".
1. More drivers = more air motion; important for bass. 2. Tweeters more likely level with ears. 3. Transmission line and/or passive porting takes advantage of taller space within enclosure. 4. Some 2-1/2 way speakers address your question differently
The usual 2 ways have huge comprimises about bass, and if they scale woofer bigger then directivity suffers, I guess horn can be crossed lower so woofer could be bigger but then you got narrow dispersion pattern which might sound smaller.
I'm a believer that unless you're buying artwork, the product should do well, whatever it claims to do. Performance should always be first, price, then aesthetics. While we're talking about performance, can the Audioholics recommend any great muti-channel amplifiers, to drive an 11.2 system and two 7.2 systems, old or upcoming, just need them to perform?
A well executed three way will sound better than a well executed two way. The only problem is that many three way speakers are not well designed and just add another driver to charge more. As mentioned above, the problem is with the crossover. It is easier to build a good two way than a three way. The AR 3a was a great three-way of yesteryear and the Avid 103 was no slouch. The NHT C3 (a speaker in the AR tradition) is a great three way available today.
Add subs and the ideal 2 way and 3 way are not that far off from each other. And a 3 way can cost up to 10 times as much as a 2 way from the same model and brand.
hi very interesting -There are many design approaches but i personally think given a decent sized room the Quality 10 ,12,15 inch drivers just give an overall ease to the music that smaller drivers just do not excluding Dali Megalines etc. I was almost waiting for you Gene to trot out the bigger bass drivers are slower myth -which i hear from every second so called Audiophile -you know the ones that claim they can hear the difference between 25 types of capacitors -yet blind testing fail miserably. Bass guitar,drums etc just rocks on the larger drivers assuming once again proper design - and where it counts the imaging is just superb. Anybody who doubts this needs to listen to for example JBL 4350B assuming proper setup in a decent room they shame nearly any speaker out there -twin 15,crossed to a 12 mid etc just hearing the start of Hotel California or John Bonham's drum kit in any classic Zeppelin song that large driver efficiency about 100 db just is astonishing the music has a power and majesty that thin multi driver speakers just don't I should add i am a multi speaker owner and of course have owned many types
Been building a dedicated listening room with a nice sound stage/acoustics in it (Dampened and flattened sonically from 40Hz up to 6800Hz) Hate to spend money on equipment that can't perform at it's optimum. I don't know if I'm a Hifi nerd or just a exited enthusiast. But I'm doing what is affordable to me right now and what makes me happy. (Couldn't afford all this 30 years ago when it was brand new) 2-Way vintage stereo equipment and with 2-way I mean 2 Speakers ;) Dahlquist DQ20 paired up with, Luxman MB3045 (Acctually a Luxkit A3000) Luxman CL32. Systemdek XII with a Special Edition Rega RB300 arm. MC cartridge maybe a... Sumiko Blue-Point Special Evo3 (haven't decided yet) and some nice DIY cables to connect everything with. Nothing "Pseudo scientific" in this build I hope. Expensive? ... everything is relative.
Its strange that you alwyas hate this idea of atmos enabled speakers. Is is option for people. Not everyone can install celling speakers and for them it a good solution, better this then nothing. Good show.
Awesome talk guys, much appreciated, even though it was not as much measured results orientated or a bit more confusing then normal. That said I wish I was in the room with the McIntosh system, with the 15' sound stage, even though I agree with you completely about accurate sound reproduction, but there in lies the issue of reproduction of the digital master's short comings too. Then there is electrostatic speakers, how would they fall in this discussion, and not to mention something like the new 44 speaker center channel by Yamaha? Again thanks for the Videos!
The chief 2 v 3 difference will be in radiation pattern (frequency response by angle), which --- even when we sit close --- is to first order what governs how a speaker sounds in an enclosed domestic listening space. Not enough attention paid to this anymore. Interesting. Jensen in the '40s, Villchur in the '50s, Allison in the '60s and '70s, MDavis in the '70s and '80s, Toole in the '80s and '90s and since, and Olive most recently, all have addressed the matter directly and made conclusive demonstrations and conclusions with increasing refinement. Weird how little detailed attention is paid to it by so many designers and audio journalists.
What is the Pass Labs power amp driving, the subs only? I had the X350.5 and that was the worst highend amp i ever pay'd for. Slash price - i'll pick the 2 other options. I only need 2 speakers and i'm not into movies and you need separate systems anyway to get great 2 channel or home cinema sound. I would still have my tv in the middle in my setup as i dont have a house this big and i dont have a separate room for this hobby, but first thing i would do is fix the room, then speakers! This talk about choosing your speaker will get more problematic if the room acoustics are crap.. Agree on 2 way is the holy grail almost because of the crossover and the "lower" the point the better. A lot of ppl should actually start with a way smaller "highend" speaker, and really listen to what this form factor really can do, and most rooms at least in europe are quite small and small rooms demand small speakers and WAF is not what i'm talking about..
+Hemshemsems We ditched the Pass Labs amp. It had a hard time driving our reference speakers with bass intensive music. WE now use a pair of the much superior Emotiva XPR-1 Monoblocks which are FAR more powerful and only a fraction of the price.
+Audioholics I can believe that, Pass Labs does have decent amps in their line up, but the X350.5 is not one of them, it's big and heavy, but has no brute bass at all, very thick and slow sounding on big speakers. I had the XP10 preamp and that was more neutral, but the X350.5 dragged the sound in the wrong direction.. I know Emotive and for sure a brand with a lot of power for your dollar..
I agree on starting with the room and getting smaller good speakers, a lot of people never heard good speakers and think cervin wega AL1000`s are the holy grail lol..
That's not something I ever hear when people see them in person but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't care as much about the looks as the sound.
Wow, too bad 2 qualified guys rambled on and drifted off subject and we didn't benefit from their collective knowledge very much. I get it that a well designed speaker is better than a poorly implemented speaker but, technically, which is a superior design ? Is the answer any different if you consider the roles of front L & R speakers vs the role of a center channel for example ?
We had a 1st gen Echo in our master bathroom for listening to music in the morning ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxABghAEkaIDGZfHRBH3D3rBrlraNmnC71 and while in the shower. I didn't realize how tinny and awful the sound output on the original Echo was until we replaced it with the Studio. It was a sonic upgrade far beyond what I was expecting. Just wow. I love it because it's like having speakers IN the shower. My friend likes it because the music is so loud that she can no longer hear me singing. So that's a win-win.
The answer is: It depends.
On 2-way versus 3-way I just wanted to paraphrase Andrew Jones comments on his new Uni-Fi series of speakers: 3-way is better when done right. Yes, more complex, but I like complexity when well-implemented. The woofer doesn't have to struggle producing the midrange frequencies and the bass frequencies.
It's cheaper to buy four of the same exact driver, It comes down to price. I'm sure that they could go three way but the speaker would probably cost a heck of a lot more.
These types of experts never answer any question. I wished he did.
I prefer a dedicated tweeter, dedicated (small) midrange and woofer vs a midbass driver and a tweeter.
To my experience it depends how close or far you are from the loudspeakers. Closer you are, you will like a 2-way over a 3-way. When listening over a distance you end up liking a large 3-way. It is about the angle between the ear and the individual drivers. If you consider a 3-way for near field listening then the difference between angles between the woofer, midrange and tweeter and our ears becomes considerable. You feel like you are listening to individual drivers. Things become worse when you move your head ir shift in this near field situation. Such anomalies become minimal when you listen the same system at far off distance. So 2-way for near field and 3- or 4-way for mid/far field. Arrangement of drivers plays an important role in a 3-way. What you do with it is more important than just the quality.
I agree if the speakers are designed that way. My Elac uni-fi 2.0 are a 3 way and I listen nearfeild and they sound amazing. I will have a hard time going back to a 2 way design.
I was always of the understanding that the real problem with a 2-way crossover system was that the crosser point is at the point where our hearing is most sensitive. So any crossover distortion is most noticeable with a 2-way, whereas with a 3-way the crossover points can be placed at much lower frequencies and also much higher frequencies than our most critical hearing ability.
👍👍
That's it ..... 3 way is batter than 2 way ....
But mostly use full range as ..... Mid range ......
Xover @ 250 - to 4k 5k ......
Woofer
Midrange ( full range speaker )
Ribbon / planner tweeter ....
This can be a very good approach but you have to be mindful of the tendency of the low pass filter to interact in undesirable ways with the woofer reactance as the crossover frequency gets within a few octaves of fs.
2 Way seems better than 3 way because 2 ways seems to integrate
the sound better. Also, 3 way seem more sensitive to height positioning
etc. However, I picked up some high end 3 way for a song hence this is
why I have them.
David Walker a 2 way speaker is great for running active sound through the subwoofer then out to left and/or right.
I think the sound quality "yield" actually is greater from a competently designed 3 way with complicated crossovers rather than a less complicated 2 way or even a full range with no crossover.
Good bass *and* high frequency extension is crucial for experiencing the entire song and it's only possible if you have dedicated drivers in those areas that don't have to work too hard..
well, i can't say i have seen a ton of hi-fis in my life, but the best one that i've used have 3 way speakers
I'm so confused. I thought that a 3 way design would give you a more detailed sound stage. It now seems that a 2 way design is better, if I'm correct? I've only had a 2 way setup and was looking to get a pair of 3 way towers to replace my 2 way bookshelves for my fronts and use the 2 ways for my rear speakers.
To answer your 1 question, I choose price and performance.
+V Juliano No it depends on the design. You can still have a 3-way MTM by having a 2 way MTM on top and a side firing or multiple bass drivers below it. Sorry for the confusion. Basically the importance of more cone area in the midrange can't be understated.
Dadliest conversation ever. I love it.
the speaker system that is ideal to me is one that has high quality, clear and high definition sound where you can distinguish one sound from another even at the lowest levels, and its not just a collision of sound at every volume level low and high. Hence I have been interested in the Klipsch Reference premier line of floor standing speakers particularly the RP-280F for front right and left and the RP-440C center channel speaker with a klipsch R-12SW subwoofer for a 3.1 system.
the only reason that companies make 2 way speakers nowadays is the cost. 3 drivers cost more than two and require more complex crossovers and research. on the other hand most high end speakers are 3 way, but they cost much more.
No really, there are many high end expensive electrostatic speakers with only 2 way
@@privacyhelpI would say electrostatic is exception to the rule
2x subwofers, 2x12" woofers, 2 x 5-6" mids, 2 x tweeters sound just great :D
JBL 4319???
SPL guy
Interesting discussion. Ideally I would want to go with two way. However, The itty bitty mid-woofs so popular today just don't cut it. If you are going to use a proper woofer you really need to be crossing at or below 1KHz which puts big demands on the upper driver. Some such as Altec Lansing have used a very wide range compression horn. This allows for good dynamics but can be very tricky to get proper tonality. Another approach is to use a full range cone driver for the upper range. In my experience this works very well if the room size is not too large. Another approach that I haven't tried is a larger full range to cover bass through midrange to upper midrange crossing to a tweeter above. This is probably harder than using the smaller full range on the top because of the problems of beaming and cone breakup.
For high sensitivity and high SPL for large rooms I think it is probably best to bite the bullet and go three way.
Translation:
2ways are better because inconsistent drivers make 3ways too much trouble for us to deal with.Next time, bring in someone who has nothing to gain by doing the show...
I was sold on 2 ways until I tried to think about how to build a satisfactory one. Now I think 3way is the way to go with current tech. Having a sub or woofer covering the low and a super tweeter covering the very high with a great midrange covering as much of the mids as possible I think now is the way to go
depends on the engineering. I've found some one ways that are better than some 3 or 2 ways simply because it is sloppily configured and calibrated. if cymbals hiss like a gas leak and bass rattles you have a cheapo with 3 way stuffed in and not true engineering.
2 way for two channel audio. 3 way for home theatre
why ? is't more logical rights the opposite ? 2-way + sub for HT, fullrange 3-way with clear mids for stereo ?
The problem with crossovers in 2-way designs is that they are typically set in the 1 kHz - 3kHz range. This area of the midrange is critical for vocals and many instruments in a mix. All crossovers create some degree of phase distortion. With 3-way systems, the two crossovers are usually set outside of this critical range. So any phase distortions introduced, are in less significant ranges.
I don't know about crossovers, but I have ears and I prefer a three way. With cds, it seems like the midrange is too dominant or too weak with two ways - though I'm not into loud listening. I like more consistant mids and the mids can't adjusted.
Get to the point and answer the question please!
3 way speaker is better than 2 way speaker. The work is distributed among the three. And all three focus on there work so in end the sound will be better than 2 way speaker
Conclusion: two-way speakers are neither better nor worse than 3-way speakers, but quite the contrary.
There is something magical about a good 3way speaker-- a great balance of bass, mid and high.
Yes you are right there is a big difference when you have a 3way bass, mid and tweeter with a good crossover there is no comparison it is something magical ...
I have both 2-way and 3-way speakers, and I find 2-way are good when there is limited space, such as compact speakers on an office desk, which I have. But they can't even begin to compare to my $7000 3-way floorstanders. There are very good 2-way speakers out there, sure, but I doubt any of them go down as low as the 20's hz range (audibly at least), like my 3-way speakers do. So you'll need to complement with a sub, and that comes with a whole new set of challenges.
As long as I have room, I will always prefer a 3-way design over a 2-way, having listened extensively to both.
you always need sub(s) as the low frequency is a mess and placement is crucial here
You didn't answer the question!!
I agree!
yes he did im now confused
That went off the rails into a lot of other stuff pretty fast and they never really went back to it indeed. - Well, they didn't lie about not knowing where it would go. - But the only thing I can take from it is that on one end they said it's better to not have many speakers in one box. Then again, they were all on about how they made it work with like 4 or 5... - In my opinion, I've always liked 3-ways best. But then definitely a Woofer of significant size, like at least 8-10", a Mid-range that's really versatile and a good Tweeter of course. - If it's not "thick" enough, add a Sub-woofer that is slightly larger than the Woofer in the main speakers. - Like I have speakers with 10" Woofers, but I've added a 12" Sub to complement them, and definitely turn down the cross-over so it doesn't cause booming and droning and such.
But which is better... Experiment and find your preference. I just think you need a good distribution among speakers. But too many for home use is pointless.
😂😂😂
You're right! As usual there was a lot of talk and no real answers. A good explanation of a topic will give yo the ability to walk away with information that you can act on. That information would be a way to check to see what works better for you, maybe a specific listening test or some fret technical test that you can perform on your own and the explanation should also teach you how to recognize the correct answer to the question under a variety of situation s(that might not have been specifically covered in the video). This turned out to be more of a marketing video for the guest.
In short: 2 way design has advantage with having only one crossover point, less crossover distortion. Also consider that there are a lot of fans on full range drivers where there is no crossovers at all - less distortion, all sound comes from one driver. It depends what you listen and how loud.
+Atis R. Nah, never an advantage, just made up fancies, often involving malarky citing 'phase'. Crossover distortion --- what would that be with any competent parts?
I have a set of vintage Magnavox with 12" drivers in full range and a horn tweeter with a simple capacitor. They are very, very loud, but they has a sweet spot/range on the volume knob and they sound beautiful
Tannoy had this licked with the DC3000's, which I still use as my main speakers. A 3 way that thinks it's a 2 way. Listened to a lot of other speakers, tried to upgrade them about 4 years ago with 2,500 to spend, and gave up :). The wife's been told to use them to make my coffin ;).
I believe the answer was given. They are saying that any time you add a crossover, you potentially create a false soundstage as either certain ranges of sounds can be duplicated or "loped" which I think of as missing. If the goal is to have natural sound, the full range must be heard. They also mention the issue of assigning all of one frequency to a smaller added midrange speaker using the center channel as an example. Finally, they talk about reflective versus direct sound and mention the idea that it is not how many speakers you have as much as it is the quality- SO, that would sum up as a good two way system can actually be better sounding than a 3-way; HOWEVER, they do not rule out all 3 ways- just warn that crossovers can create over-heavy or missing frequencies per se. Be mindful as you listen.
Thank You!
3 way hands down
Finally someone answered the question! And you're right, because 2-way speakers inevitably position the crossover frequency right in the middle of the musical information band.
Not necessarily. I got a set of speakers from an old respected speaker manufacturer in my country that made mostly hi-end two ways. And their crossovers are set quite high. The woofers they used were very very versatile and could play down from 35 hertz up to 6000 hertz flat to 3 db. Their tweeters are crossed at 4500. the crossover is also very smooth and man do they sound clean and natural.
Three-way towers with a subwoofer. So, technically… four-way. That's how I rock.
@@michaelconrad9457 You must have missed the bit where he literally says "I have just answered my own question"... shame :) But you are not alone, half the people here are on board with you.
Price performance aesthetics pick two? Lol but all three are so important
It's the implementation that matters, not the number of drivers.
Quality of drivers too. Example: Axiom uses cheap metal drivers. Upper mids are rolled off and the titanium tweeters are bright to compensate. Triad uses scan-speak, which are exponentially better than axiom, and the two-ways are seamless.
Agreed. These are things I've learned over the past few years.
If these guys said it people on the comments wouldn't get so confused
I'd like to see a comparison of traditional vs. electrostatic vs. planar magnetic. I personally own Martin Logan electrostatics and love the channel, but don't see much content related to these different speaker technologies.
+Cameron Collins I was thinking about electrostatics how they would be discussed in this video too.
It depends on the quality of the drivers, obviously, but (inherently) a 3-way is way better for several reasons. Transient response, resonance is less for med on a small driver with upper med, and you haven't got the "doppler effect" on the voice etc. cos the med driver is so "still". My speakers are 3-way with 2-way time-aligned coaxial plus woofer. I home hacked the coaxials out of the lightest speakers I could find, ran with a 6" woofer, beneath. They are lounge speakers, not PA.
is RBH a direct market company like Legacy?
I am looking for speakers that have a very wide dynamic range and that have sound that is clear, crisp, HD Sound, and even the most nuanced sounds are audible even at the lowest volumes and is not distorted at high volumes, and eliminates the need for sound compression modes on a receiver.
LOL @2:36 I have those speakers in that video clip I had to pause and make this comment. Those are Criterion Model 6 (Roman numeral) VI. I have since painted the cabinets black.
LOL my brothers all had Criterion speakers living in NY back in the day (2002+ models).
LOL, it's funny I wanted the 2002+ model that I seen at the local thrift store many years ago. How did they sound?
phase aligned coax = hell yeah.
proud genelc 8351 owner here
personally I miss the days of using 12 and 15 inch wolfers in a three-way design. always felt that there was more warmth and a well-designed three-way using a larger diameter paper cone wolfer. honestly and I'm not talking about home theater use I'm strictly talking about 2-channel listening we rely too much on the subwoofer. this of course is in my humble opinion. I could never grasp the idea of spending so much money on a pair of speakers and an amplifier only two succumb to a class D Amplified subwoofer. I know there are designs out there that use larger woofers. but mainstream wise I'm not sure why he moved away considering the Material Sciences available today making that wolfer more efficient warmer sounding and less harmonic distortions
+LIFT4POWER Multiple smaller woofers can be as effective as one larger woofer if surface area and excursion are equivalent. The advantage then is a more narrow baffle for improved dispersion.
+Audioholics In my trials and errors of building different custom speakers I have to disagree with you on that and agree with Lift4power in that the sound of a 3 (or 4 way) speaker with a single larger woofer is more pleasing. I found that with speakers with multiple small drivers that detail tended to get muffed and lost. The bass was muddy, not tight and powerful, especially at higher volume levels and the sound became generally uncomfortable to listen to as where with a pair of larger speakers each having a single 15 inch woofer a 6-7 inch midrange and a cast horn tweeter and 2 dome tweeters (crossed at 12-15khz) that sound was very detailed and life like, the bass was tight and deep, had depth to the sound. They had a thunderous punch not a whifty boom, the midrange stayed clear and crackle free and the tweeter didnt try to tear out your ear drum even at louder levels than normal. You felt immersed in the sound with the larger drivers than with the smaller drivers, you felt pushed and uninvited. But thats just my experience. I believe that fewer larger drivers are more likely to agree and work in harmony than lots of small drivers fighting and the slight timing loss and difference that lies with in the nature of capacitive draw from the multiple drivers wanting to take all the power and you end up with one driver moving more than the other and distortion is eminent. I currently have an interesting set up, I have 2 pairs of matching speakers stacked 2 in each corner facing at about a 52 degree angle. The bottom pair are being powered as the upper pair are not and I have the tweeters on top of the the stack facing in the same direction that are wired in to the lower speakers and the current tweeter are unhooked(due to the 2 of the voice coils have died and these are the best sounding and closest replacement i have found and they don't fit the area in the housing). With having this setup in this way i have found that with the chambers are ported but not connected they act as passive radiators and the imagery is absolutely superb with extra height. in the sound. yet with powering all 4 speakers it gets cluttered and unappealing.
I dont remember off hand. that was twelve years ago. I have built, owned, and sold my fair share of speakers. I have been enthused by audio for about 15.5 years at this point.
very nice. I am sure they sounded great. what tweeter did you use? I currently have Technics sb-g920 speakers. The biggest difference you would notice would be the full depth of the bass the 15inch woofer provides. the floor shaking door rattling deep powerful bass even at low volume. Now if you couple your Two way speakers with a decent sub woofer you will have the missing low end. a 5.25 woofer simply cant produce low or sub bass. It is only capable of mid bass and up. The discussion was of the use of multiple small woofers to replace a single large woofer.
i was able to find an old invoice but it isnt for the old builds. the tweeters i mentioned using as a replacement for the sb-g920 are a Pyle PDBT78
2 way sound better while put on a solid stand at ear level, coupled with a decent subwoofer all balanced. I have dali ikon 1 mk2 on the front a vocal centre and zensor 1 to the rear. Using a tanoy sfx subwoofer. powered by a sony str-dh540 all for quite cheap and it sounds better than it cost. I used to have floorstanders at the front which where 3.5 way and they sounded very closed. now the music is very rich and wide sound stage. The sub perfectly reaches the lows and all speakers are set to small 80hz so the sub carrys the really low. Sounds great with all mediums
Where's Hugo Rivera?
+David Vasquez He's in the back room drinking protein shake and pumping iron.
+David Vasquez Thanks for asking David! I was tied up with business the day that our friends from RBH came to town so as a result I was unable to show up and do videos. As you will see in the video that we will post tomorrow however, I'm back! :) Thx again for the support!
+Buho Best regards to you as well! (Explanation of where I was above). Thx!
+Mike Cees LOL! Good one!
I'm new to the audio world and am trying to repair an old set of 3 way floor speakers, that weren't built properly to begin with. What combination of drivers will give an overall 8 ohm impedance? And how do you choose, or build, a proper cross over?
Visit a forum like AudioKarma or AudioCircle and pose your questions. Experts hang out there.
Well,it all depends,right ? Mostly on the listening habbit and the listening room. In small rooms the typical 2way or even a
compact 3way will do just fine,if those are well constructed and can be placed correctly. In larger rooms,a mature 3way will
outperform a usual 2way or a MTM. And i mean a 3way that doesnt need a sub for the basskick in your stomach.
Anyway,multiple mids always lead to lobbing. Thats why they speak of sound rather than hifi. But hey,everyone as they please.
I have 2 speakers that look kind of like 2:36 only with just a woofer mids and a tweeter in-line. They are 2ft wide almost 3ft tall and then less than a foot thick, but weigh like 70 lbs. I put subs in them, but they don't make sense in a lot of ways. A church threw them out according to the friends that hauled them over when I was a kid. Anyone know what those heavy ass types of speakers are called?
15 sub-5 1/2 and tweeter old school speakers are the way to go
If I could give you one million thumbs up for your comment I would!!!!
CERWIN-VEGA!
Thanks for the clarification on the center channel 3 versus 2 channel. That was really helpful. Value and performance are my top preferences on a speaker. Something that plays both music and movies.
For me
it will be price and performance. Great video guys, keep up the good work!
Another informative video. Thanks. Shane and RBH are great to work with. All my speakers are from them including my new headphones. Awesome stuff!
So, are you saying that a 3 way design like the NHT Classic 3 speakers are inferior to 2 way designs? Just trying to learn and make the best purchase for my money.
+Ben Stern No we are NOT. It's just a point that 3-way, 4-way, etc isn't always better than a well designed 2-way. NHT makes good stuff.
Fella's, it don't matter. There are extremely good two way and three way designs. Theory says you need a large woofer for deep bass, not so. My vented Ohm Acoustics model L's have an 8" woofer in a box 20"X12"X10" and have good bass response to below 40hz. A properly designed three way design CAN give a higher level of performance than a two way design. Heck, the Electro Voice Interface D systems are two way and have bass response down to 28hz at 106db all day (given sufficient amplifier power). Really, it ain't that important if it's two or three way.
Thanks for the point about speaker crossovers and lobbing in the center channel. I had been convinced that 3-way was inherently better than two-way but that's not necessarily so. Performance and cost, in that order, are my two priorities so long as the cost is not exorbitant meaning 5 figures and higher for a pair of speakers.
I agree completely with the "artificially large vertical soundstage" comments. I can't handle "ten-foot high guitars", either. It just sounds overwhelming and unnatural.
I currently have zero speakers, and I'm planning my set up for 2 channel. Of the 3 options you mentioned I would pick price and performance. In my setup it will be mainly for music but some movies and tv too, so I want something that when my friends that swear by Bose walk in and think I have live music in my house
+Colby B Check out Elac B5 and B6. Pair them with either a SMSL Q5 Pro or a used Denon or Yamaha AV receiver.
CERWIN-VEGA!
there is a big difference when you have a 3way bass, mid and tweeter with a good crossover there is no comparison it is something magical ...
What kind of speakers are modern cars like mercedes and bmw using? 2 way or 3 way?
It really depends upon your ear; it is entirely subjective.
But I have noticed, on my humble JVC MX-KB30 (3-way), that there are deficiencies at the crossover cutoffs... two of them, of course. By that, I mean it gets muddy on either extreme from the mid-range (most probably would not pick up on it, but I do. Its most apparent when playing LOSSLESS music, not so much lossy which already sounds like mud lol). I've also had the pleasure of the Yamaha NS-A3500 since I were a toddler... 3-way when done VERY well, you don't hear that. Although, I do believe it was redundant and even racketeering to toss another pair of 8's below the first pair of 8's (they are 3-way, not 4-way. Those four 8's are on the same leg).
That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with a well-designed 2-way and a BALANCED powered-sub riding piggy-back. You derive true full-range, and for a hell of a lot less money (especially these days) than with a 3-way or greater. And no, I'm not talking about these mass-manufactured jokes for i-whatever. These days, you build it yourself, buy used, else you're listening to trash.
And stay the hell away from "theater" receivers. They are entirely inappropriate for 2-channel music playback. No, it is NOT the same (no, I don't care if there's a "2-channel mode", it is STILL not the same). If needs must (for you see, there are only about a dozen STEREO receivers available to buy new today without dropping several thousands of dollars), an Stereo AMPLIFIER and a PC with 3.5mm > RCA auxiliary will do the job (no AV "receiver" required. Your PC *is* your logic board/processor. Hell, it is also your EQ... I find a much better EQ than a physical stack EQ).
I Like 3 or 4 way. I have been a guitar player for a number of years, and I can tell when a speaker sounds good , and also, others players may agree, as if they can tell if 1st 2nd or 3rd cord positions are played on a acoustic guitar neck.
I have these old Wharfedales, from the late '80s I think they were, and they're 3-ways, but it has the Woofer at the bottom, the Tweeter above that, and then a Mid-speaker at the top. - But more specifically I wonder why they've put them in this way. I mean, that that like "balance" the mix of frequencies better in terms of projection?... Like not all the highs are just thrown out at the top (if you were to put them up straight as normal), or some such thing.
Or, does it just have to do with the construction on the inside?... Maybe there's some separation needed between the Woofer and Mid or something... I don't know.
I am behind you guys on this whole bass trap thing. I have also had problems with UA-cam. It is clear as day that your in the right on this one with fair usage and educational use plus you own the picture. I'm sure UA-cam will see it your way.
Shame on you Bass trap guy who I will not mention because I would hate to give your company free press.
What is that big speaker on the table? NHT?
yamaha 8390 is 3 way and polk T50 is 2 way. which is better in sounds?
Ok, I am in the process of building a new home that will have a dedicated room that will do double duty at 2 channel and theater.
Room dimension will be 24 ft long, 15.6 ft wide wit 9 ft ceiling. It is replacing my current room that is a bit smaller. My current room has old NHT towers and center, I'm looking for hight quality 2 channel and clear center when used in theater mode. Not sure if I will go with Atmos or stick with 7.1. I'm currently looking at Dali Opticon for the system. I'm open to suggestions.
+Gary Sedlack i have kef r speakers r500 & could not be happier amazing speakers driven by yamaha rxa 1040 reciever if i was to upgrade & could afford would go for new reference kefs as think some of best speakers in world regardless o price but then would be on slippery slope as would probably need reciever upgrade suggest you listen to these before dali though kef need at least 100hrs on them to loosen up down to uni q & metal midrange i think so if do listen to them raw as it were might not like-- see if can find dealer who has been using for some time have a look at specs you might be surprized at frequency range of these kefs though for your size of room would need r 700/900 i think.
The one thing that the digiholics cannot overcome as they cram more and more digital junk down our throats is that speakers are not digital, they are analog! It takes an analog sine wave to move the voice coils back and forth.
I would expect the D'Appolito arrangement, aka., "MTM", with the nulls aimed 45 degrees, towards floor and ceiling, would give very good listening experience in the typical urban/sub-urban setting. Also, consider that your average person will use an AV receiver and not dedicated amps. Not needing to suppress the tweeter to match the woofer sensitivity is an awesome benefit. IMHO, it must be manufacturer cost vs profit margin. In these race to the bottom days, why would a manufacturer add the cost of a second woofer, a few extra crossover elements. (Remember, we're talking your average consumer, someone to whom a HTIB may be extravagant.) Last but not the least, a MTM (bigger speaker), jeopardizes the room's feng shui more than MT (typically, smaller than MTM).
Now why MTM's have not gained favor in the enthusiast circles is quite the conundrum. Interestingly, several "expensive" speakers are MTM.
+Rohit Agarwal Excellent points!
I have a chicken and egg problem. Price and performance are tied as to importance. I usually set a price point, and audition candidates within that range, looking for the speakers that sound best to me. Currently, I have an accidental speaker system. I had to replace a 28 year old NEC projection TV in December (I know, I don't give up on old technology) and replaced it with a 60" Vizio. I bought a pair of Definitive Technology Monitor 800's instead of a sound bar for the new TV thinking they would provide overall better sound. Subsequently, I bought a pair of Def Tech BP-8020-ST's to use primarily for Music listening. Well, one thing lead to another, and I hooked the TV audio up to my primary music system. After running 25 feet 8 WAG speaker cable, and RCA terminated twin coax cables through the ceiling and back to the preamp (Parasound P-5) and the Parasound A-23 amp, I started to listen to both music and the TV through the BP-8020's. The Monitor 800's were sitting there unused and lonely. One day, I placed the 800's on top of the BP-8020's, ran both pairs of speakers through an Adcom speaker switch, engaged the impedance protection, and ran everything through the music system. Suddenly the Def Techs took on an entirely new persona. Superb mids and highs, nice base through the internal subs in the 8020's, although I run an M&K amplified sub to augment the base. Although the 8020's by themselves were very satisfying, the addition of the 800's placed on top rounded out the sound beautifully. I have $1100 invested in the speakers, and I have not heard anything I like better in the price range. The configuration looks sleek, but aesthetics are of no real consideration to me, it's all about the sound.
+Hunter Ellington Try powered speakers. You are wasting your money on cables and receivers. I produce music and I have a selection of powered speakers. At the price you have paid you could have got Fostex PM8.4.1speakers. www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul13/articles/fostex-pm841.htm
+Bill white The Fostex PM8.4.1's are three way. Other top class speakers worth considering are Adam A7X's. Two way. You'd never look back.
What are your thoughts on the monster eleganza line that was made for a short time?
Well, I'm currently using Proac EBTs in the spare room. So I guess their a pair of MTMs. Old but sound great. Seems to me that if you go 2 way, you will need a sub, so basically a larger 3 way anyway. So what the heck full range tower has the same floor plan anyway and if it incorporates a powered sub, then you have a 2 way up top, so no phasing issues.
What is a great 5" speaker for side surrounds for home theatre and listening to music. I was thinking about the klipsch 500 M, Any other suggestions. I would also like a good mid range speaker
should make a pros and cons of each woofer/ sweeter placement
Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting video. I have a question. Let's consider a 3-ways speaker ... better one with cone midrange or dome midrange ? i mean ... which could be the best frequency to cross the woofer over to the midrange ? i see different solutions about this issue but i do not know which one could be the best. Thanks a lot, gino
i have a SP-93-V speaker selector with volume control, which i hooked up to my receiver in the the A terminal but when i use a set a speaker in my B terminal the volume controller turns both my A and B down please help
sound to me like the A+B contact is stuck closed, may be a bad switch
i have a pair of Klipsch KLF 20 three way towers with a harman kardon avr 1700 driving them--also klipsch center , sub=woofer and rear surrounds--i listen to music with 2 channel and movies in surround. i havent heard anything in that price range that would beat the sound out
I bet that is a great system! I have a pair of Klipsch F-30's (obviously not nearly as nice as your towers, but hey, I don't have much spending money), and they also sound great. They're driven by a H/K AVR 5, which gets them going on only 45W apiece!
17 minutes and at the end which is better!!!???
2 way are generally better value. Crossover components add up, and you have 1 more driver (unless MTM) so there's less money for each individual drivers.
Save a few hundred on the 2-ways, spend a few hundred on a sub. With bigger three ways a sub isn't necessary, though a nice compliment. With any 2-way I've heard a sub is a must to sure up bass and add some punch
What kind of speaker do you have on the table?
+Starmixologist I do believe that is an RBH SX-61/R
Great show! I can only suggest to use basic language and not so much technical terminology.
Quick question based on your comments. I have SVS ultra towers, should I go with a ultra center or an ultra bookshelve single speaker? Super curious!!!!
I am currently looking into buying electrostatic speakers and ribbon tweeters speakers. Can you give me your most honest opinions of those technologies?
If you're in to two channel music they can be amazing. I used to love them for some music and like them for other. Definitely worth checking out. Huge soundstage, fun toys for sure. Maggies are the best for the dollar in my opinion. Had a guy trade in a pair of B&W 804d's for the 1.7's. (804's were 7 grand and the 1.7's are under $2k)
I find you need a large range graphic equaliser
I avoided the entire question by building my own speakers which have a line array of 8 small full range speakers and a large subwoofer in a separate bandpass enclosure in each cabinet, I may be crazy but they sound good to me
Those can sound good but also have limitations mostly in high frequencies due to the large cone area trying to produce high frequencies with uniform dispersion.
i'm sure you are crazy, but that shouldn't effect the sound
I just have a quick question. What will happen if i use a 500 watts speaker in a 60 watts amplifier? Hope you can advise me.
it will be fine at low volume, at higher volumes it will struggle with heavy bass and will distort and sound crappy. get a 500+ watt amp and you will be amazed at all volume levels
I don't agree on the two way design. They can sound very good that is true but you cannot get the low end a three way delivers. A two way cannot contain a big woofer since its midrange response does not go high enough to crossover into a tweeter without introducing distortion. Try listen to the Yamaha NS 1000's . A good recording can be a very emotional experience.
A subwoofer is almost always accompanied with two ways.
it can be done as woofer and fullrange, crossed at low freq (under 500Hz), can't be a solution ?
@@bh69videa you would require a tweeter that can cross over that low , extend to 20000hz without beeming and have adequate power handling. The lowest I have crossed over a 1" tweeter is about 1200hz with a 4th order and that's pushing it. A full range driver is not really that. It cannot reproduce the entire human range of hearing effectively.
@Marten Dekker i didn't say a two way can't sound good. My point was that a small mid/woofer cannot deliver the lower octaves or impact of a bigger driver. Sound quality is always subjective and debatable but there are laws of physics you cannot break.. Depending on the your musical preferences a minimalistic two way can be quite pleasing and accurate with very low distortion but its bandpass will be limited at the top end or low end. I have owned, listened to , designed and built several two way designs. If I haven't heard a well designed two way then you haven't heard a well designed three way.
@@gamebent there are fullrange driver like Fostex, Dayton, Voxative and others they cover most of frequencies (sure there is a question how good)
GoldenEar uses MTM. Any plans to review any of them?
+J Herberger Yes we have some in for review now.
you got all the way through that without once mentioning Joseph D'Appolito! And did I hear correct? 2 large bass drivers and just one mid is wrong? You mean like the WATT PUPPY?
+happylemon666 Yes D'Appolito is the originator of the MTM but MTM is NOT always a D'Appolito array. Joe has very specific requirements for this and you're right we should have mentioned it. NO we are NOT saying speakers with a single mid are wrong. However ,we feel that more cone area should be dedicated to the midrange, NOT just the bass drivers if you want lifelike dynamics and realism.
@@Audioholics this guy gave me these MTX C12 floorstanders with a sub and EQ I had bought off him. I know they are low end party speakers, fairly weak bass for a 12" "600w" speaker. These things had 6.5" mids and standard tweeters on top of 12" woofers. Man those mids are right in your face spitting at you. Seemed like too much, could be just a bad design. That explains why the guy had an EQ maybe. My point is a 6'5" mid seams like too much for that 12" bass w/o a little mid scooping with the eq.
Does anyone know why there are those pillar/tower speakers (or boxes, actually) with many of the same sized speakers in them?... I mean, are they actually all for the same frequencies and they're intended to give more spread or something, or are they assigned to their own frequencies or something?
Like you might have one of those that have like 6 in them. I could assume that maybe every pair does a frequency-range, like a 3-way costruction, but I'm not sure if that's what happens.
Also; Has anyone ever seen the Eltax Terminator speakers?... Those things are insane. - Very '80s and over the top, but crazy. - It's not the type I meant before, but it's another one that makes me go "With what reasoning was this designed?".
1. More drivers = more air motion; important for bass. 2. Tweeters more likely level with ears. 3. Transmission line and/or passive porting takes advantage of taller space within enclosure. 4. Some 2-1/2 way speakers address your question differently
I want to replace my Bose 601 speakers with mtm speakers where can I get them?
The usual 2 ways have huge comprimises about bass, and if they scale woofer bigger then directivity suffers, I guess horn can be crossed lower so woofer could be bigger but then you got narrow dispersion pattern which might sound smaller.
I'm a believer that unless you're buying artwork, the product should do well, whatever it claims to do. Performance should always be first, price, then aesthetics. While we're talking about performance, can the Audioholics recommend any great muti-channel amplifiers, to drive an 11.2 system and two 7.2 systems, old or upcoming, just need them to perform?
Awesome!! Thank you for this information, as I am still in the market for an amp.
A well executed three way will sound better than a well executed two way. The only problem is that many three way speakers are not well designed and just add another driver to charge more. As mentioned above, the problem is with the crossover. It is easier to build a good two way than a three way. The AR 3a was a great three-way of yesteryear and the Avid 103 was no slouch. The NHT C3 (a speaker in the AR tradition) is a great three way available today.
Add subs and the ideal 2 way and 3 way are not that far off from each other. And a 3 way can cost up to 10 times as much as a 2 way from the same model and brand.
hi very interesting -There are many design approaches but i personally think given a decent sized room the Quality 10 ,12,15 inch drivers just give an overall ease to the music that smaller drivers just do not excluding Dali Megalines etc. I was almost waiting for you Gene to trot out the bigger bass drivers are slower myth -which i hear from every second so called Audiophile -you know the ones that claim they can hear the difference between 25 types of capacitors -yet blind testing fail miserably. Bass guitar,drums etc just rocks on the larger drivers assuming once again proper design - and where it counts the imaging is just superb. Anybody who doubts this needs to listen to for example JBL 4350B assuming proper setup in a decent room they shame nearly any speaker out there -twin 15,crossed to a 12 mid etc just hearing the start of Hotel California or John Bonham's drum kit in any classic Zeppelin song that large driver efficiency about 100 db just is astonishing the music has a power and majesty that thin multi driver speakers just don't
I should add i am a multi speaker owner and of course have owned many types
u should do more vdeos
Been building a dedicated listening room with a nice sound stage/acoustics in it (Dampened and flattened sonically from 40Hz up to 6800Hz)
Hate to spend money on equipment that can't perform at it's optimum. I don't know if I'm a Hifi nerd or just a exited enthusiast.
But I'm doing what is affordable to me right now and what makes me happy. (Couldn't afford all this 30 years ago when it was brand new)
2-Way vintage stereo equipment and with 2-way I mean 2 Speakers ;)
Dahlquist DQ20 paired up with,
Luxman MB3045 (Acctually a Luxkit A3000)
Luxman CL32.
Systemdek XII with a Special Edition Rega RB300 arm.
MC cartridge maybe a... Sumiko Blue-Point Special Evo3 (haven't decided yet)
and some nice DIY cables to connect everything with.
Nothing "Pseudo scientific" in this build I hope. Expensive? ... everything is relative.
excited enthusiast. if you were a hifi nerd you'd find a way to afford it
Its strange that you alwyas hate this idea of atmos enabled speakers. Is is option for people. Not everyone can install celling speakers and for them it a good solution, better this then nothing. Good show.
Awesome talk guys, much appreciated, even though it was not as much measured results orientated or a bit more confusing then normal.
That said I wish I was in the room with the McIntosh system, with the 15' sound stage, even though I agree with you completely about accurate sound reproduction, but there in lies the issue of reproduction of the digital master's short comings too. Then there is electrostatic speakers, how would they fall in this discussion, and not to mention something like the new 44 speaker center channel by Yamaha?
Again thanks for the Videos!
2 way or 3 way for a 2001 Lexus is300?
The chief 2 v 3 difference will be in radiation pattern (frequency response by angle), which --- even when we sit close --- is to first order what governs how a speaker sounds in an enclosed domestic listening space. Not enough attention paid to this anymore. Interesting. Jensen in the '40s, Villchur in the '50s, Allison in the '60s and '70s, MDavis in the '70s and '80s, Toole in the '80s and '90s and since, and Olive most recently, all have addressed the matter directly and made conclusive demonstrations and conclusions with increasing refinement. Weird how little detailed attention is paid to it by so many designers and audio journalists.
What is the Pass Labs power amp driving, the subs only? I had the X350.5 and that was the worst highend amp i ever pay'd for. Slash price - i'll pick the 2 other options. I only need 2 speakers and i'm not into movies and you need separate systems anyway to get great 2 channel or home cinema sound. I would still have my tv in the middle in my setup as i dont have a house this big and i dont have a separate room for this hobby, but first thing i would do is fix the room, then speakers! This talk about choosing your speaker will get more problematic if the room acoustics are crap.. Agree on 2 way is the holy grail almost because of the crossover and the "lower" the point the better. A lot of ppl should actually start with a way smaller "highend" speaker, and really listen to what this form factor really can do, and most rooms at least in europe are quite small and small rooms demand small speakers and WAF is not what i'm talking about..
+Hemshemsems We ditched the Pass Labs amp. It had a hard time driving our reference speakers with bass intensive music. WE now use a pair of the much superior Emotiva XPR-1 Monoblocks which are FAR more powerful and only a fraction of the price.
+Audioholics I can believe that, Pass Labs does have decent amps in their line up, but the X350.5 is not one of them, it's big and heavy, but has no brute bass at all, very thick and slow sounding on big speakers. I had the XP10 preamp and that was more neutral, but the X350.5 dragged the sound in the wrong direction.. I know Emotive and for sure a brand with a lot of power for your dollar..
I agree on starting with the room and getting smaller good speakers, a lot of people never heard good speakers and think cervin wega AL1000`s are the holy grail lol..
5:00 pretty sure that's the ugliest speaker I've ever seen..
I emphatically agree.
That's not something I ever hear when people see them in person but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't care as much about the looks as the sound.
theyre definitely the ugliest speakers ever built.
Wow, too bad 2 qualified guys rambled on and drifted off subject and we didn't benefit from their collective knowledge very much. I get it that a well designed speaker is better than a poorly implemented speaker but, technically, which is a superior design ? Is the answer any different if you consider the roles of front L & R speakers vs the role of a center channel for example ?
If you have say at least 4 speakers in a surround configuration with at least 2 subs you can get epic results
2way!
best of both worlds : a 3-way with a coax mid-tweeter !