Two Way Speakers: Is That All There Is? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Two Way Speakers: Is That All There Is?



MasterBlaster
06-29-2012, 08:00 PM
I mean, I'm old school and all that, being over fifty. I was raised on big boxed speakers, all having at least three speakers... a woofer, midrange, and tweeter, with various numbers each of the last two.

Now, all I see are the monitor or tower types... and for bass they might have a dedicated subwoofer.

Am I just outta the loop?

Where did the midrange speakers go???

Poultrygeist
06-30-2012, 03:38 AM
For me it was about getting the passive crossover out of the signal path. I left passively crossed-over multi-drivers for full range drivers that had no crossover. Now I'm hooked on full range multi-drivers which are either actively crossed-over, use a cap filter or use no crossover at all.

One of the strongest attributes of full range speakers is the midrange.

JohnMichael
06-30-2012, 06:00 AM
I am a fan of two way and two and a half way speakers. Most of my listening rooms have been on the small to medium sized. In my listening experiences the more drivers and crossovers the greater distance is needed for the sound to integrate. During my early days in this hobby I could not understand why the Dahlquist DQ10 was so popular. I could hear changes in wide multiple octave instruments as parts of the sound was produced by different drivers crossed over multiple times. On the other hand I liked the Snell Type A which was like a small two way sitting on a large woofer enclosure.

Crossovers are difficult to design and I would prefer one done right compared to two with compromises. Of course with a cost no object speaker the point is moot. A speaker I enjoy is the Reference 3A Dulcet and de Cappo and the mid/woofers are connected directly to the binding posts with the crossover only filtering out the lows for the tweeter.

Henry Kloss who designed the Original Advent and Smaller Advent felt that a two way is all that is needed for home use. A three way will have greater power handling capabilities but I have never needed that level of volume.

JoeE SP9
06-30-2012, 06:02 AM
One way speakers plus a sub are where I'm at. That would be els's and sub woofers. I have totally coherent sound from 85Hz up because there is no crossover where it counts the most. The midrange is "to die for".:yikes:

Welcome to AR MB!
Some of the facts are::idea:
1. The number of speakers in the box has nothing to do with the quality of the sound.
2. There are plenty of three way speaker systems out there. They may be in a budget category you haven't investigated.
3. A new pair of small 2-ways and a good sub woofer will usually have better bass than a pair of 10" or 12" three ways from the past.
4. Full range drivers (of any type) usually do the midrange better because there is no crossover.

thekid
06-30-2012, 07:46 AM
I tend to agree with Joe on this though I have some very good 2-way speakers.
It has been my (admittedly limited experience) that a quality two way can do mids and highs well but often struggle on the low end. This I think in part is because of limitations imposed by a traditional box set. Now I am restricting my comments at a price level which most audiophiles would consider budget or at best mid-fi. Speakers like OLA's, Dynaco 25's and other two way speakers from that era did a reasonably good job on the lower end but cannot compete with most moderately priced quality subs. I think it was often considered a sin to have a sub take over the lower end but that thinking is starting to fade. With better quality sources and subs available I think you can be pretty success with a 2.1 system in getting avery full sound that fills the room at all levels.

Poultrygeist
06-30-2012, 08:16 AM
Conventional 2 way or 3 way speakers use passive crossovers as that is what mainstream audio dictates. Most people would not want to invest in individual amps to drive individual sets of speakers but that is by far a superior approach toward achieving better sound.

Lets assume that a common multi-driver speaker of today has an efficiency rating of 86 dbs with one watt. To achieve a flat frequency response a complex passive crossover is required. The problem here is that the complex passive crossover will burn off in heat much of the sound from that magical first watt before it ever reaches the drivers. But with a high efficiency driver and no crossover you can hear all of what is contained in that first watt. Nothing is lost to heat and what you hear becomes the epitome of coherency, detail and realism.

JM mentioned a half way which in the case of a 1 1/2 way implies a full range main driver with only a cap on the tweeter to filter out the lower frequencies. This is the simplest of all networks and is what Zu and Tekton use to get the most from their full range drivers.

Feanor
06-30-2012, 09:50 AM
...
Some of the facts are::idea:
1. The number of speakers in the box has nothing to do with the quality of the sound.
2. There are plenty of three way speaker systems out there. They may be in a budget category you haven't investigated.
3. A new pair of small 2-ways and a good sub woofer will usually have better bass than a pair of 10" or 12" three ways from the past.
4. Full range drivers (of any type) usually do the midrange better because there is no crossover.
This is all true, I'd say.

There are plenty of 3-way speakers out there. Of course, they will be more expensive than 2-way all else equal.

I've given a lot of thought to building some speakers, and the design I'd go with would be 2-ways plus one or two subs.

Poultrygeist
06-30-2012, 11:43 AM
Here's a link to a speaker system on the Bottlehead forum using two inexpensive subs and single driver full rangers. No doubt it sounds nice and for less than $500.

great speakers for S.E.X. (http://www.bottlehead.com/loosep/S.E.Xy%20speakers.html)

YBArcam
07-01-2012, 12:58 PM
For me it was about getting the passive crossover out of the signal path. I left passively crossed-over multi-drivers for full range drivers that had no crossover. Now I'm hooked on full range multi-drivers which are either actively crossed-over, use a cap filter or use no crossover at all.

One of the strongest attributes of full range speakers is the midrange.

I'm curious how would you rate those three options? No x-over, a cap, or an active x-over? Or do they all sufficiently overcome the problems posed by passive x-overs?

I'm going to start dabbling in all of these options anyways I think, and see what I like. I'm about to start using a pair of active speakers. Biamped, fully active x-over, I may even run a tube pre. It will be interesting and should be quite a contrast to my current setup (PMC use a fourth order x-over - they sound superb though).

Thinking of the Decware DM945 as a high efficiency one cap speaker to try out with a SET amp. And then a full range driver like the one in your last link. Something like that would be a really great project to try. Perhaps with better subs and a better cabinet and driver (assuming of course that's possible). Or just get the Brines B18-T772. And then finally open baffle. Lots of stuff to try over the next 10-20 years!

Poultrygeist
07-01-2012, 03:02 PM
I try to avoid crossovers altogether and the simpler the better and yes they do result in better sound. I hope to try minidsp which is all the rage at diyAudio for actives.

Decware is known for their excellent amps but not so much for their speakers. At $995 the DM945 seems over priced for what it offers. The Bottlehead SEX speakers with their high quality Fostex drivers at half the price would seem a better choice. For a $100 less than the 945 you could pick up a pair of Stereophile rated Hornshoppe Horns which are really outstanding. I know Ed and he loves to get calls from anyone getting the inch for SD FR. He's down to earth and will talk your ears off. His horns have their own forum and cult-like following.

Bob Brines is a true master of full range single driver design and is highly revered. I believe he mainly sells kits and plans but I got a email from him recently that he's clearing out some of his house speakers at some good prices.

Here's a link to an easy build using a Fostex driver and a beautiful cabinet from Parts Express. This bass reflex would be a great way to see what all the fuss is about with full range single drivers. It uses baffle step corrections to work in that cabinet.

Fostex FX120 DIY Bass Reflex Bookshelf Speakers (http://diyaudioprojects.com/Speakers/Fostex-FX120-Bass-Reflex/)

After trying all the different builds using HE FR drivers, OB's have become my favorite but I wish they didn't take up so much real estate.

YBArcam
07-01-2012, 09:42 PM
Thanks...that Parts Express cabinet looks fantastic! I think the DIY route might be the way to go. So many possibilities and it would be a real learning experience. I am not handy at all so I'm not sure if I'm up to even what some would consider an easy build, but I might be able to learn what I'll need to do or just get help from someone who is capable. It'll be a while before I go down this path but it's nice to see the options.

To the OP - I think the current flavour of speaker design has a lot to do with incorporating them into the domestic living space. Nevertheless, those 2 driver narrow baffle designs can and often do sound great...especially when you break the thousand dollar mark.

Poultrygeist
07-02-2012, 02:14 AM
The DIY route allows one to try so many combinations. My wife gave me a closet in the guest bedroom which is now full of different drivers. No way could I store more than a couple of pair of speakers in there. No suspicions are aroused when a small box of drivers arrives in the mail but when a freight van drops off some hundred pound floostanders it would be a different story for many of us.

My DIY skills are very limited. I wish I had taken shop courses in high school but college prep didn't allow for that. I did take a one day course in building kitchen cabinets a few years ago which was a huge help. Building a kitchen cabinet is not unlike building a speaker cabinet. I learned to use a Kreg jig to drill pocket holes and join plywood together at strong right angles. I still struggle with precision cutting and usually have Home Depot make my cuts which they do for free. I learned to use a router to cut driver holes by watching Youtube.

Open baffle speaker builds are IMO the best sounding and by far the easiest of all as you are often using flat boards in one dimension. Enclosures OTOH require Bondo and lots of sanding to fill in any spaces where sides don't meet perfectly.

What is probably hard to accept by those who spend megga bucks on commercial designs is that with DIY you are almost always assured of better drivers. Zu speakers can sell for many thousands yet I can buy those same drivers retail for under $100 each. My Tang Band drivers retail for as much as $500 a pair but to find a speaker with a driver of that quality could easily cost over 20K.

The main cost of commercial speakers is in the cabinet and not in the drivers. Companies built to a price point and can not afford the drivers I can afford to use in DIY. OB speakers will always be a niche as there's no bling to market in so basic of a design.

Any of you guys who are getting older ( and we all are ) should consider DIY audio as a hobby. If you love music you're half way there. To build something with your own hands that sounds shockingly good is just amazing. You can't experience this feeling behind a desk pushing papers in corporate America.

YBArcam
07-02-2012, 08:53 AM
I've come to realize that you are right about most of the cost being in the cabinets. This is why some studio monitors retail for shockingly low prices. They don't put much money into a nice wood veneer finish.

I think I'll do like you and take some sort of 1 day cabinet building course, or maybe something a little more broad than just that, before I get into this.

Obviously the argument for multi driver speakers would be that each driver is allowed to operate in it's ideal range. You need a really great driver to operate full range (and maybe a sub of some sort to fill in the lows).

E-Stat
07-02-2012, 09:26 AM
Where did the midrange speakers go???
I see two very different factors at work:

1. Increased tweeter power handling

Tweeters were especially fragile in the 60s and 70s. Bozaks used multiple tweeters primarily for power handling. Another approach to prevent damage was to run the crossover to the tweeter at a high frequency to minimize their excursion at the lowest end. The ever popular JBL L-100 crossed over the 5" midrange to the tweeter at 6 khz! While that gave the tweeter better power handling, it resulted in peculiar imaging. The 5" cone was asked to produce 2.5" wavelengths at the top of its response. Naturally, it started beaming long before that transition and created an hour glass sort of image at a frequency range very sensitive to our hearing. The woofer and tweeter both had wide dispersion while the midrange was hard pressed to match the polar response.

Advents, for example, were originally designed for 20-50 watt amps. When folks drove them with Phase LInear 400s, they tended to smoke the tweeters. In the late seventies, along came ferro fluid cooled tweeters that could handle much more power.

Result? Today, most speakers crossover to tweeters around 2 kHz.

2. Fashion changed

Most folks today really don't want big "bookshelf" boxes in their living rooms. With the rise of HT, the trend has moved towards much narrower cabinets necessitating smaller woofers. Having a subwoofer or two isolated from the mains is considered more acceptable. Those smaller woofers can now easily meet the tweeters directly without the pinched image issue. So, for many speakers the midrange has been obviated because of these two factors. The "woofer" has in a sense become the midrange.

A very common configuration today is what I use in the HT system. You can see the details if you're interested by clicking my System link below. I use small two-and-a-half ways augmented by powered subs.

Enochrome
07-02-2012, 05:30 PM
Big bookies come back in style!! HT must die!!! Seriously, I got some vintage Snell Type Jll's and they are larger than bookshelfs but smaller than floorstanders and they got good tight bass and the midrange kicks arse. Some people hate them because they are super flat in frequency, which some people think is boring. I think of it as a good dry wine.

The Zen Druids and other tweeter packed fullranges cross the tweeter over at like 6 or 10khz; that's a lot of midrange goodness. Also, the old Triangle Titus 202 crossover at 6khz and that thing is tinneeee. It also was rated Stereophile Class "B" so it had much midrange appeal.

RGA
07-03-2012, 04:37 PM
Most people still buy a three way - they've merely changed the look by taking the big woofer and putting it in its own box and calling it a subwoofer. I've never liked the term because Sub implies to me sub sonic or at least "more bass than floorstanding speaker) which while true sometimes is not true all the time.

But if you buy a two way speaker and add a sub; then, you sir have a three way speaker.

There is a good argument for this in that the best placein a listening room for the midrange and treble may not be the best place for the bass - by being able to move the bass section around - the theory goes - you can get the best bass and the best midrange and treble. Unfortunately, a lot of audiophiles complain that they can never get the sub to mesh properly. To be fair though I've heard very few three way (in one cabinet) speakers mesh properly either.

To balance the books on DIY
The DIY argument is a good one but also remember manufacturers are buying drivers in massive bulk. The DIY buys say 2 woofers at full retail (say $300 pair) - you can be assured that a big driver manufacturer is likely paying 1/5 to 1/10 ($30 to $60) what the DIYer is paying. Further - manufacturers often purchase exclusive to them drivers that can't be purchased by any DIYer. Further still - manufacturers often design a driver and have the big speaker makers make it for them.

My speakers for example use SEAS woofers and Foster/Tonegan tweeters - they can't be purchased from either of those companies and there is no driver in their "to the public" catalogs.

Further still, DIYer never factor in their own labour, overhhead(cost of electricity, materials, the space they use to build). As a tutor I make $50US per hour - that's my labor rate. Lawyers on this board what $1,000 an hour?

Kits are a halfway measure and I like the idea of building one of those. You really don't need a lot of tools (soldering iron, screwdriver) and it's probably a hoot to build. Depends what it is though. Some designs like the AN E rely heavily on pair matching and tuning the cabinets during and after the build with a sophisticated computer program not available to the public. Which is why the kit version of the speaker made by a even a very knowledgeable very good Diyer/designer had results that were good but nowhere near at the same level the manufacturer puts out. Despite having the drivers/plans and "better" cabinet materials. Devil is in the details. now granted most designs are not like that cabinet. Most are deaden the hell out of the box so stuff it to the hilt more the better.

An OB is different - the cabinet is used to basically hold the drive up to a desired height - it's not nearly as critical to the overall sound.

And I agree with E-Stat.

Small Two ways can sound quite good but they give up bass, efficiency, dynamics, and volume and tend to be limited to small rooms - perfect here in Hong Kong - not so perfect in a big American living room.

If you've got the space then generally IMO bigger is better.

Poultrygeist
07-03-2012, 06:23 PM
I wish I still had the link for a commercially built bass reflex with my Parts Express Tang Band full range, single driver selling for 20K. Interestingly enough the ad made no mention of the driver brand as they cetainly wouldn't want anyone to know that the price of the cabinet was $19,700 or probably more as they could buy TBs in bulk

Fostex makes incredibly good drivers but rarely will you find them in commercial speakers just like you won't find Festerex or Lowthers in other speakers although they'll sell their drivers to any smoe with the dough.

Omega and Tekton used Fostex drivers in the beginning but not anymore. It's too hard to make a profit even on inexpensive Fostex drivers when you can spend much less for a lesser driver. The 10 inch guitar Eminence driver in the Lores retails for right under a $100. Care to guess what a large Fostex costs?

I can call Eminence or Misco today and they'll build 500 proprietary speakers to my specs for a low price point but they won't have exotic banana paper or hemp cones nor will they be Alnicos or Neodymiums with cast frames and you can forget field coils.

Driver companies design drivers and speaker companies buy them in their specified flavor of the month or trick them out with phase plugs or dope so you have no idea how the driver began life. Few consumers would know how to judge the quality of a driver and fewer still would bother to pull them out of their cabs for a once over. The great majority of the time you're buying a pig in a poke.

We spend all our time on forums discussing speakers and far too little time discussing drivers. It's like a Mustang forum which never gets around to discussing engines.

The Seas drivers are available to anyone in all types and not expensive save for the Exotic which is a full ranger. Check out the Seas lineup at Madisound.

Don't delude yourself RGA, there is no way in hell commercial speaker companies can afford expensive drivers and make a profit on the precious few they sell. It just ain't happening.

How can you factor in payment when it's a hobby? I don't know anyone who charges for their time playing 18 holes. All you have for an afternoon of golf is a memory but spending that afternoon in the garage can produce something that keeps on giving and satisfies the creative spirit we all have.

tube fan
07-03-2012, 08:07 PM
Conventional 2 way or 3 way speakers use passive crossovers as that is what mainstream audio dictates. Most people would not want to invest in individual amps to drive individual sets of speakers but that is by far a superior approach toward achieving better sound.

Lets assume that a common multi-driver speaker of today has an efficiency rating of 86 dbs with one watt. To achieve a flat frequency response a complex passive crossover is required. The problem here is that the complex passive crossover will burn off in heat much of the sound from that magical first watt before it ever reaches the drivers. But with a high efficiency driver and no crossover you can hear all of what is contained in that first watt. Nothing is lost to heat and what you hear becomes the epitome of coherency, detail and realism.

JM mentioned a half way which in the case of a 1 1/2 way implies a full range main driver with only a cap on the tweeter to filter out the lower frequencies. This is the simplest of all networks and is what Zu and Tekton use to get the most from their full range drivers.
My Dunlavy SCIVs are as efficient as an Audio Note E, but have flat frequency response and virtually perfect coherence (they measure better than the Quad 63s). Then there are my mighty Fulton J speakers: perfectly coherent, flat from 18 to 30 hz, and able to load a large room with 20 or so tube watts! Despite the Dunlavy's almost perfect measured response, I prefer the Fultons for most of my listening. They are more liquid, effortless, and seemingly more coherent.

RGA
07-04-2012, 01:36 AM
The problem is the drivers are NOT the most important aspect of a loudspeaker. This is a reason why very ordinary driver technologies (silk and dome) that have been around forever find themselves in serious speaker company line-ups while fashion design speakers like to point to Be, Diamond, Kevlar, etc.

It's also not terribly surprising that many of the speakers I like even at $3k and $5k beat $20k+ designs - even if those speakers are using woofers that are TEN times the price it has to be implemented well. Certainly a better driver could help assuming you can also mate it to the tweeter and cabinet reactions. As noted - you can't buy AN's woofers from SEAS or any of their resellers - if you can show me the link to the SEAS 8 inch Hemp woofers I'd be interested to see them.

Tube-fan - I would like to hear the Fulton J modulars as they seem interesting and Peter Q greatly respected the designer (indeed they very much resemble in design the Snell Type A which Peter uses as his reference). I was less enthused by the Dunlavey IV floorstanders - I like the big power and dynamics and scale but didn't like them as much at medium low levels which is the level I would listen to them at 95% of the time nor was I big fan of the treble. I remember back then that I preferred a similarly priced speaker from a company called Hales (not sure where they went).

Florian
07-04-2012, 01:59 AM
In my opinion, it all comes down to implementaton. My personal speaker uses no special materials at all, as a matter of fact it is just aluminium and kapton tape. No exotic materials anywhere, not even the magnets are exotic, there are just a ton of them (literaly) :o

Active and Passive Crossovers have advantages and disadvantages. I like my passive Apogees very much and love my active ones as well. Active multi-driver systems are expensive to build and require a large amount of amplification which is why few companys have products like this. There is a too limited customer base.

I generally agree that a two way speaker with no subwoofer, or a one way speaker has much better coherency than a multi-way system. But this still does not tell an absolute truth about the sound quality because there are a lot more factors which play a role. Driver quality (the actual sound), crossover design, speaker design, room acoustics, equipment, cabling, power lines and my biggest enemy of them all "recordings".

RGA mentioned the Hales speakers, the Hales Transcendent 8 are till this day a speaker i would buy for a second system within a second. They are really very special. One of the very vew speakers using the "box" design that i really like :)

thekid
07-04-2012, 03:06 AM
I prefer the Fultons for most of my listening. They are more liquid, effortless, and seemingly more coherent.

Tube

My experience with FMI speakers is limited to my pair of FMI 80's which are used as the midrange I believe in the Fulton J set-up. Just based on the sound of the 80's I would agree with your assessment of the Fulton's. The Fulton J's are really almost a speaker system rather than a single speaker but they kind of represent RGA's point that simple drivers executed properly are the key to any speaker design.

BTW-I don't know if you are a member of Audiokarma but there was just a recent thread on Fulton J's over there.

Poultrygeist
07-04-2012, 03:41 AM
Drivers are absolutely the most important component of any speaker. It is the driver that dictates everything else.

Here's a helpful link for anyone interested in an explanation of the thiele small parameters.

Page Title (http://www.speakerplans.com/page89.html)

Passive crossovers can literally ruin the mid-range where the ear is most sensitive to phase mix ups. If you've heard a great full ranger playing with no crossover ( and few here have ) then you'd understand my disdain of passives.

thekid
07-04-2012, 04:03 AM
Drivers are absolutely the most important component of any speaker. It is the driver that dictates everything else.

Here's a helpful link for anyone interested in an explanation of the thiele small parameters.

Page Title (http://www.speakerplans.com/page89.html)

Passive crossovers can literally ruin the mid-range where the ear is most sensitive to phase mix ups. If you've heard a great full ranger playing with no crossover ( and few here have ) then you'd understand my disdain of passives.

I don't think we disagree.
By using the word simple I was implying a basic good driver. As RGA pointed out there are a lot of speakers out there using exotic materials that do not produce great sound. I have seen more than a few threads here and elsewhere that bash a particular speaker because they use (gasp!) paper cones.

I think you can take good drivers and if placed in a good design with a good x-over you will get a pretty good speaker everytime. Expensive drivers in a poorly executed design for the most part will not be able to overcome the problems inherent in the set-up.

E-Stat
07-04-2012, 05:53 AM
In my opinion, it all comes down to implementaton. My personal speaker uses no special materials at all, as a matter of fact it is just aluminium and kapton tape.
Mine use sandwich wrap. :)

JohnMichael
07-04-2012, 06:22 AM
When I listen to box speakers even back to the days I listened to the Wilson Watt I have never forgotten the contribution or lack of contribution of the cabinet. Yes I think you need quality drivers, simple crossovers above the critical midrange, and a rigid enclosure.

Some speakers are designed to have cabinets made from resins, metal or internally braced. The rigid dead cabinets allow you to hear just the drivers. On the other hand companies like DeVore and Harbeth design cabinets to play along with the music. I would like to hear either of those two brands to discover if I might like them.

I think any discussion of a two way or more way box speakers should include the enclosure as part of the system. Quality drivers in poorly built enclosures will not sound as good as mid level quality designs in solid cabinets. They all have to play together well.

Florian
07-04-2012, 08:05 AM
Mine use sandwich wrap. :)

I like sandwiches :smilewinkgrin:

E-Stat
07-04-2012, 09:36 AM
I like sandwiches :smilewinkgrin:
A most wonderful European invention!

JohnMichael
07-04-2012, 12:29 PM
Cheers to the 4th Earl of Sandwich.

Poultrygeist
07-04-2012, 05:24 PM
Here is a link to the free Edge software which is a baffle diffraction simulator commonly used in the DIYaudio community to determine driver/enclosure behavior.

Home of the Edge (http://www.tolvan.com/edge/help.htm)

GMichael
07-05-2012, 12:44 PM
Mine use sandwich wrap. :)

Pretty much.

E-Stat
07-05-2012, 02:06 PM
Pretty much.
I'm actually quoting something that Dr. West mused about when he addressed the Chicago Audio Club some years ago. Something to the effect of "I've spent my life making music with sandwich wrap". The local dealer invited me to dinner the night before where I spent more time with his wife and him. I helped him assemble what were then the brand new Majestics at the meeting.

He is a delightful, soft spoken gentleman who is a musician himself.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/DrWest.JPG

I really enjoy meeting the designers of my audio gear. Others whom I've met are Luke and Bea Manley of VTL, Bill Z. Johnson of Audio Research, and Jim Strickland of Acoustat. It really provides you a deeper perspective of the product when you are able to speak with them face to face.

tube fan
07-08-2012, 08:27 PM
My list of two ways I love:

JohnMichael
07-08-2012, 09:02 PM
I would love to hear the Magico two ways. I also think the YG Acoustics Carmel Speaker might be a two way worth hearing. The Reference 3A Veena should be a musical speaker from what I have heard from their other speakers. The Totem Hawk would also be a contender.

RGA
07-09-2012, 05:03 PM
The Veena is quite nice - not a big fan of the Totem stuff unless looks are important.

tube fan
07-09-2012, 08:17 PM
My list of great two-ways:

JohnMichael
07-10-2012, 04:37 AM
I would love to hear a pair of LS 3/5A's and some of the other British monitors. The new Proac Super Tablette, Spendor or Harbeth mini monitors are of interest. I want to hear a pair of speakers that have that pinpoint imaging and great depth I have read about.

Of course I eventually miss the bass so the Monitor Audio RS6's a 2 1/2 way design is brought out to rock.

RGA
07-10-2012, 06:23 PM
The LS-3/5a is very good - but suited for smaller rooms. With the subs you can place them in larger rooms. Bass remains important.

As for inexpensive speakers I would highly recommend the AN AX Two. It has some interesting traits that I think people will respond to. I'd like for people to do some direct comparisons between this $650 loudspeaker and the usual highly rated stand-mount suspects in the $1k-$3k price range.

An illustration of two rather plain Jane VIFA driver compliment in a quasi T-line, quasi horn box loaded box made out of chipboard.

I contemplated the LS-3/5a because it sounds great but the AX Two is right there but offers at least 20hz more in the bass is 90db sensitive and can play a lot louder. The AX Two is basically an Audio Note E (mini-me) version

I was playing Tiesto Club life vol 2 Tiësto Club Life, Vol. 2 - Miami - Walls (feat. Quilla) [Original Mix] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u94VpYq0RIw) at pretty high levels the other night and was rather startled just how the speakers could play so effortlessly in the midbass and not lose the plot or doubling or really showing signs of distress and offering up a very solid 50hz bass line. They get dumped on for making products that are deemed too expensive - this one is at least $1500 too cheap.

emaidel
07-11-2012, 12:00 PM
In my listening experiences the more drivers and crossovers the greater distance is needed for the sound to integrate. During my early days in this hobby I could not understand why the Dahlquist DQ10 was so popular. I could hear changes in wide multiple octave instruments as parts of the sound was produced by different drivers crossed over multiple times. .


I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this one go by without commenting. I have two systems in my house: one with a pair of B&W 802F Specials, and the other - my main system - with my beloved Dahlquist DQ-10's. The B&W's cost four times as much as the DQ-10's, weigh a ton, and are superbly built, but with my current setup are simply outclassed by the Dahlquists.

In the many years since I purchased them (in 1977), and since my retirement after a little more than 30 years working in the industry, I've heard many different comments about the DQ-10. While the overwhelming majority were positive (just note the exceptionally enthusiastic reviews on the speaker on this website), there were a few that found the speaker "thin," "screechy," and the most common, "lacking bass." The first two were often the result of poor placement, or under-powered amplifiers all but hemorrhaging trying to drive these highly inefficient speakers. The bass issue was instantly solved with the addition of a good subwoofer.

Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers. I certainly don't, and after reading your comment, I actually tried to hear such a phenomenon, but couldn't.

Within the past few years, a number of dedicated audiophiles with super-expensive, exotic equipment have heard my system and were astonished at how good these DQ-10's still sound. All I've done to them is have the woofers rebuilt by Regnar, and replaced both the upper bass drivers and the supertweeters.

About two years ago, a good friend of mine, who is a professional musician as well as a college professor of voice and the conductor of the Spartanburg Festival Chorus, happened to come across an old pair of DQ-10's sitting around in one of the classrooms. They were covered in a layer of dust, and not surprisingly, had woofers whose surrounds had rotted.

I suggested that he purchase new woofers (actually, upgraded Advent replacements), which I installed for him. I also found a super "deal" at J&R Music World on a subwoofer which he purchased too.

Though my system tromps his in terms of associated equipment, his "free" DQ-10's sound terrific and still present a coherent, stable and amazingly wide and deep stereo image.

That was a mouthful, but as you can see, I quite like the DQ-10's. Apparently you don't, and you're entitled to like or dislike them, or any other speaker, and to say so. So too am I entitled to like them, and to say so (which I think I did!).

E-Stat
07-11-2012, 01:58 PM
Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers.

Wellllll, I'm gonna have to agree with him with provisos. First of all, I have always been a fan of the DQ-10. I worked for a hi-fi shop in the 70s and we sold lots of them. I've heard them stacked in an inverted configuration, too. A very popular amplifier used with them was Bongiorno's Ampzilla. While Jon Dahlquist was the chief designer, he had an assistant who worked on later designs and now has his own company - Nola. That is Carl Marchisotto. I've heard a range of his current products up to and including the Grand Reference and have great admiration for the legacy that began with the DQ-10.

The design was certainly ground breaking in the day with separate baffles for each driver to minimize diffraction and carefully selected crossover points to minimize changes in directivity. The only gotcha was that the Motorola piezo could be "spitty" with the wrong amp like a Crown. Where the JBL L-100 used a 5" midrange all the way up to 6 khz, where it noticeably beamed and created a weird soundstage, the DQ-10 ran its 5 incher only to 1 khz before transitioning to the dome midrange. Each driver was used in its optimum range.

On the other hand, we also sold Magnepan, Dayton-Wright and Acoustat. As my moniker suggests, I have always been drawn to the coherency of full range electrostats and have owned various models for the past 35 years. I will never forget hearing JWC's Dayton-Wrights for the first time back in '76. Truly, I find there is no substitute for a full range design when it comes to coherence. I hear the same issue to varying degrees with modern 4-5 ways as well. The range of the human voice spans three of the drivers while a piano spans them all.

However magically Jon "sewed" the drivers together, seams still exist - at least when compared to a speaker with similar bandwidth that has no seams. The Dahlquists, however, remain an excellent speaker in today's world.

JohnMichael
07-11-2012, 05:48 PM
I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this one go by without commenting. I have two systems in my house: one with a pair of B&W 802F Specials, and the other - my main system - with my beloved Dahlquist DQ-10's. The B&W's cost four times as much as the DQ-10's, weigh a ton, and are superbly built, but with my current setup are simply outclassed by the Dahlquists.

In the many years since I purchased them (in 1977), and since my retirement after a little more than 30 years working in the industry, I've heard many different comments about the DQ-10. While the overwhelming majority were positive (just note the exceptionally enthusiastic reviews on the speaker on this website), there were a few that found the speaker "thin," "screechy," and the most common, "lacking bass." The first two were often the result of poor placement, or under-powered amplifiers all but hemorrhaging trying to drive these highly inefficient speakers. The bass issue was instantly solved with the addition of a good subwoofer.

Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers. I certainly don't, and after reading your comment, I actually tried to hear such a phenomenon, but couldn't.

Within the past few years, a number of dedicated audiophiles with super-expensive, exotic equipment have heard my system and were astonished at how good these DQ-10's still sound. All I've done to them is have the woofers rebuilt by Regnar, and replaced both the upper bass drivers and the supertweeters.

About two years ago, a good friend of mine, who is a professional musician as well as a college professor of voice and the conductor of the Spartanburg Festival Chorus, happened to come across an old pair of DQ-10's sitting around in one of the classrooms. They were covered in a layer of dust, and not surprisingly, had woofers whose surrounds had rotted.

I suggested that he purchase new woofers (actually, upgraded Advent replacements), which I installed for him. I also found a super "deal" at J&R Music World on a subwoofer which he purchased too.

Though my system tromps his in terms of associated equipment, his "free" DQ-10's sound terrific and still present a coherent, stable and amazingly wide and deep stereo image.

That was a mouthful, but as you can see, I quite like the DQ-10's. Apparently you don't, and you're entitled to like or dislike them, or any other speaker, and to say so. So too am I entitled to like them, and to say so (which I think I did!).




Just think if we all heard reproduced music in the same way we would only need one speaker design to please everyone. Since we are sensitive to different aspects of sound we all have our likes and dislikes. I am glad you enjoy your DQ10's.

emaidel
07-12-2012, 03:46 AM
. The only gotcha was that the Motorola piezo could be "spitty" with the wrong amp like a Crown.


On the other hand, we also sold Magnepan, Dayton-Wright and Acoustat. As my moniker suggests, I have always been drawn to the .


Sorry, but I didn't mean to cut off all of what you said.

I have to agree with you too. While I preferred Magneplanars and Magnepans to my DQ-10's, there was a considerable difference in cost. While placement of the DQ-10 can radically alter its sound and imagining properties, the placement of electrostatic panels presented even greater obstacles, which, in my living environment, couldn't be overcome.

Insofar as the piezo tweeter, the "spitty" characteristic often did disappear with a better amplifier. Jon Dahlquist himself said that, since they only start to work at 12,000HZ, most people wouldn't hear any difference anyway. I replaced mine because one failed, and and feel that the replacements sounded better, but trying to actually define what it was that was better was a bit difficult.

I know I don't hear anything above 12,000HZ, and that little if any musical material even exists at such frequencies, but there's that elusive character - "air" - that can't be dismissed. With the replacements, there was a decided improvement in the "air" surrounding certain instruments, which made the speaker more musical.

There's another website - sa-cd.net - on which members post their comments on the SACD medium, players and recordings. Some of those members adored certain recordings by a label - BIS - until they learned of the manner in which BIS started out their recordings (actually PCM, and then converted to DSD in post-production) and all of a sudden, the previously hailed-to-the-heavens discs were now alll but unlistenable. Those members have been regarded by others on that site as those who "listen with numbers, and not their ears." I think a similar comparison could be made to the use of the piezo in the DQ-10: simply knowing that it was there, and knowing how awful a piezo sounded when used as a regular tweeter in a cheaper speaker, was enough to claim that it was a poor choice and had to be replaced.

Mark of Cenla
07-27-2013, 05:59 PM
I prefer 2.1 systems that use one full-range driver and a subwoofer. In our living room we have tower speakers with a Goldwood 8" full-range driver in the front driven by our Yamaha AVR. In the back of the towers are Dayton Acoustics Reference 8" woofers driven my a Sherwood stereo receiver and crossed over at 100hz by the Yamaha receiver.

In our bedroom, where I do most of my listening, the speakers are 4" Pioneer drivers in homemade boxes. It is driven my an Audiosource Model Amp One/A power amp. The subwoofer is a Sony. I really like the open quality of full-range single drivers. Peace and goodwill.