Which is better: 2 way, 3 way or 4 way speaker??

[paulspencer]

Unfortunately things aren't as simple as we'd like them to be. A 3 way may not be better than a 2 way. To a point the 2 way has a better chance since it's simpler to design and will have better quality drivers. If the 3 way has the same quality drivers and more attention is paid to the design then it has the potential to be better, but it's not a given.

What is a 2.5 way? It's essentially a 2 way where one of the two midbass drivers has the mids filtered out. The other midbass driver will cover midrange and the bass. With a 2 way using two midbass drivers, bafflestep compensation is required, but the 2.5 way is an alternative way to do it. If you see a floorstander with a TMM arrangement then it's probably 2.5 way, and if it's an MTM then it's probably a 2 way, but not always. It's not a major difference, and not the basis for choosing one over the other.

If crossovers were perfect, and driver quality a given, then more drivers would be better. But there are many different simultaneous trade-offs. In a nutshell, you can't say 3 ways are better. As with many things "it depends ..."

[Poultrygeist]

I'm sold on OB FR one ways which have no life sucking crossovers and box coloration. They sound real to me.

[K-High-Fi]

May i ask whats the best brands/manufactures (high quality build up and performance) for one-way speaker around the world including Japan and Germany? And how Lowther drive and their speaker sound compare to modern manufacture?

Anyone care to answer.

Thanks.

[RGA]

This also a reply to you on the other thread. A crossover is not necessarily a problem if it's done properly and the two drivers being crossed over have very similar characteristics (something that is not looked into very often and which may be blamed on the crossover)

Every driver has a sonic signature - A ribbon produces a given frequency differently than a metal dome or paper or silk or diamond etc. And that also applies to the woofers. There is a "handoff" or point where the woofer and tweeter are reproducing the same frequencies. You could have terrific crossovers and measurements but it doesn't mean you won't hear that step as annoying. The appeal of two way speakers is that there is only one crossover - in a 3 way you have two crossovers and it's very difficult to get it all to mesh.

So you might say - buy a single driver and avoid the whole porblem by not having a crossover. That's fine it solves one problem but adds other problems. The one driver now has to be able to create the nuance and subtle shadings of microdynamics and also has to produce bass at level with impact and finer subtleties of the treble band from a single driver. Generally the good ones like Teresonic have a rather large cabinet that can extend the bass frequencies in some sort of Transmission Line or Quasi Transmission Line. The Teresonic Ingenium does a terrific job and extends into the lower regions very well. Treble is extended and the midrange is fantastic. The compromise is the bass dynamics of rock is thinned out because at high volumes the speaker is still trying to do it all. So there is a slight slowness to the bottom end that basically compresses. This is a minor quibble if you listen at moderate volumes and music suited for it. Heavy rock you would want something else.

Crossovers and boxes are not the problems - the fact is most (the VAST MAJORITY) speakers are multi-way and use crossovers. And the thing is most people hear bad examples of these and conclude that all boxed speakers and all speakers using crossovers are bad. It's not unlike people who rail against American movies. All American movies open in theaters in North America - and msot of them are terrible. And it seems like the import films from Russia, France, Germany etc are so much better - yes but the films that get imported here are the "best" of the films from those countries - we don't get the piles and piles of abysmal films they put out - we get their Cannes award winners and academy award nominees in the foreign film department.

There may 5% of boxed speakers with crossovers that sound very good. It's very possible that people have not heard a single boxed speaker that falls in the 5% "great" camp.

[Ajani]

This also a reply to you on the other thread. A crossover is not necessarily a problem if it's done properly and the two drivers being crossed over have very similar characteristics (something that is not looked into very often and which may be blamed on the crossover)

Every driver has a sonic signature - A ribbon produces a given frequency differently than a metal dome or paper or silk or diamond etc. And that also applies to the woofers. There is a "handoff" or point where the woofer and tweeter are reproducing the same frequencies. You could have terrific crossovers and measurements but it doesn't mean you won't hear that step as annoying.

Well said... I've never been a fan of using dramatically different materials for tweeters and woofers... All the examples I've heard doing that, call too much attention to themselves... I just don't hear a cohesive sound when an aluminum tweeter is mated to a Kevlar midrange and a paper bass... I find that speakers that use consistent material from bass to tweeter are able to sound more cohesive...

[paulspencer]

RGA said it well.

Audio is all about choosing the best compromise. A lot of guys prefer single full range drivers because of the idea of avoiding a crossover completely, and because they want to get closer to the ideal of a point source loudspeaker. Single driver speakers like all speakers do some things well and others not so well. They are considered good at imaging and a lot of them use an efficient driver which needs a large horn loaded box to keep the efficiency down low. A lot of them use a whizzer cone to get the treble.

Unfortunately their weak points put them into a niche. IMO they create bigger problems than they solve. A multi driver system allows different drivers to be designed for ideal dispersion, low distortion, low coloration within a limited bandwidth. A full range driver is trying to be all things at once.

[RGA]

Well said... I've never been a fan of using dramatically different materials for tweeters and woofers... All the examples I've heard doing that, call too much attention to themselves... I just don't hear a cohesive sound when an aluminum tweeter is mated to a Kevlar midrange and a paper bass... I find that speakers that use consistent material from bass to tweeter are able to sound more cohesive...

Exactly - you see a lot of makers advertise their tweeter or woofer and I always go back to the B&W 705 versus the AN AX Two example. B&W heavily and I mean heavily advertises their tube tapered metal tweeters and ultra stiff kevlar woofers which in themselves are probably quite nifty products. Cabinets look nice and use good connectors. $2300 and it looks the part. The AX Two is $700 and uses two rather dumpy looking Vifa Drivers (silk dome tweeter paper woofer) in decent cabinet with good connectors. The B&W has more extension but the AX Two sounds more cohesive. So do the Dynaudio Audience for about half the price of the 705. Ragarldess of cost I have yet to meet anyone who has heard the two and found the 705 better.

Quad wrote a whole thing about this very issue with choosing matched drivers. The two Vifa's are made for eachother. Kevlar is not made for a metal tweeter. Interestingly the B&W 302 I once had was quite a nice match - no kevlar - soft dome tweeter - sounded better than the 602 from a balance perspective. The only thing I can think of is that a brighter speaker will draw the ear better in a short audition at the stereo shop. It sounds like there is more treble and you can identify bass characteristics more on a short audition - whereas a balanced speaker tends to sound less exciting or possibly polite in comparison, at first anyway???

[RGA]

RGA said it well.

Audio is all about choosing the best compromise. A lot of guys prefer single full range drivers because of the idea of avoiding a crossover completely, and because they want to get closer to the ideal of a point source loudspeaker. Single driver speakers like all speakers do some things well and others not so well. They are considered good at imaging and a lot of them use an efficient driver which needs a large horn loaded box to keep the efficiency down low. A lot of them use a whizzer cone to get the treble.

Unfortunately their weak points put them into a niche. IMO they create bigger problems than they solve. A multi driver system allows different drivers to be designed for ideal dispersion, low distortion, low coloration within a limited bandwidth. A full range driver is trying to be all things at once.

I think the problem with the big multi-ways is that they get too far from the point source ideal and you get a situation where the ear is drawn to the drivers making it tougher to suspend one's disbelief. Some big multi driver speakers are a lot better at it than others but I am looking at the rooms I felt were the five best of CES - my criteria is the ability to reproduce music so I forget about the gear - which after all is merely a tool to get the results. I personally am uninterested in the technology other than as conversation points to figure out a correlation.

My top 5 rooms at CES based on speakers above $10k have
2 two way standmount speakers of relatively modest size
2 single driver speakers of rather large size
1 multiway horn with mid treble and 3 woofers weighing over 300lbs each (it's also $30,000 more than the next closest speaker on my list - and I'm not convinced it was the best). As good but not better - depends on priorities.

[K-High-Fi]

Good points, that’s will explain every thing and I agree with you. Back in early 70s we use to have and I think many people had: big cabinet with TV in one side, tuner and turntable in the other side (left), 2-way speakers located below them (by the way this is definitely best speaker setup than bookshelf or towers). The sound was very good no coloration or anything, directly and simple not heavy like 3 way, midrange strong and apparent unlike modern speakers, and the bass very rich filling the room. I don’t remember I sew crossover so I assume its coaxial design.

Other example is Electro Voice speakers, which installed in our theater in 70s, very natural sound particularly high frequency very soft no harshness at all, there are unique colors (not coloration) in midrange that SO special, it’s easy to identify different sounds, and its none fatiguing sound too. I would describe the sound: natural MORE than nature! The sound was magical until now and I couldn’t find any speaker at present have that quality (best performance) Including reference B&W, Wilson, MG20.

These are two things from the past im dying to have them again, I don’t want go to commercial shop and meet new generating because their interests is to sell. Sometimes I don’t prefer demo unless im sure I don’t like wasting people time.

[JacksonS54]

Closed-cell foam is more expensive, but that investment pays off in a higher R-value per inch. In addition, because of it's 'sticky' qualities and rigidity once cured, it can also provide increased structural integrity to walls and ceilings.
polyurethane spray