I like the size and scale only large speakers can reproduce just like live instruments. Of course accuracy and balance need to be there as well. But big speakers on big baffles generate large wave launches and a scale that mini monitors (even good ones) cannot begin to. It's an important dimension of fidelity that's rarely talked about.
Difficult but not even close to being unreachable or impossible. Speaker manufacturers do it all the time and the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks obviously.
@@Geerladenlad I didn't say it is impossible. I think you overestimate the benefits of 3-way-systems. The main benefit is only the higher output. If you are listening moderate volume, a 2-way-system could be the better choice. I developed a 2-way-speaker with optional passive Stereo bass-modules for higher output performance. The 3-way-crossover is external and quite heavy. The two bass-speakers have 12-inch woofers.
The trick is always to seamlessly cover that most critical low/mid frequency range where fundamental information is contained. That's a major benefit to a 3 way. The midrange covers the vast majority of sound with a woofer and tweeter just extending the extremes better. Where a 2 way will crossover somewhere in the middle of that critical range.
I have a 30-year-old pair of JBL L5 towers that are 4 way speakers, and I have a 50-year-old pair of ESS AMT-5 Rock Monitors which are 3-way with two 10" woofers in each speaker. Both sound amazing to this day!
I have 1980s Dutch Translator Impact5 4-way tower speakers and they too sound amazing to this day. I guess I'm as lucky as you are with the JBL L5s, to have 4-way speakers. There aren't many around anymore. Enjoy!
Fullrange speakers of high quality combined with subwoofers connected directly to the speakers and driven by SET triodes like 2A3 or 300B, is for me the ultimate. As long as you play music that is not too complicated like orchestral music. But jazz, acoustic, Americana, live, small chamber music and so on, there it will shine!
I to am also full range driver guy Lowthers with sub equals the ultimate clarity and imaging. There is nothing between you and the music. Crossover networks suck the life out of the music. My 2 cents.
In 44 years, ALL of my speakers have been two-way! ... My 1979 British 🇬🇧 Mordaunt Short Pageant two-ways, sound AMAZING! ... Less is more! ... Simpler is better! ... In my experience and opinion.
A fascinating piece Paul, JL Audio take this separation one step further with their CR2 low frequency crossover unit. With the CR2 configuration employed, the signal from a preamp would first be processed in their external crossover , and frequencies below ,say 80hz would go directly to JLA’s subwoofers. Everything above the lower cut off is then interconnected to the power amps of the users system. Going this way, JLA say they are taking the low end duty away from the conventional low frequency driver in the users system. It’s an interesting approach , but more electronics for the signal to pass through. Regards, Roger
I find there is a lot more to say about the topic, than can be packed into 4min. Most important is parts: less tend to be cheaper overall, but less (2-way) requires higher quality from the parts: a woofer needs to be light & at the same time free of resonance up to and beyond x-over frequency, it should be large as well but then it would start to beam at high f; high excursions is the cure also not good/not cheap; cutting it off at high f rather requires higher order than 1st (a 1st order requires excellent ie expensive drivers)… and thats only the LF part.. having said that - go listen to mofi 10” concentric or triangle Duetto, B&W 805, Dynaudios, and you’ll see what a great 2-way can do. For good money.
A lot of it comes down to driver selection. The better behaved the drivers are, the easier it typically will be to design the network for them. The ringing/breakup frequencies and distances between the drivers also play a part.. if you have a woofer that has severe breakup at 3 Khz don't pick a tweeter that has to be crossed at 2-3+KHz. look for one that can cross 1-2KHz range or lower, or find a mid driver that can easily play between 700Hz-3Khz. It will mean more parts ofc, but the performance will be better than trying to make a 2-way design where the woofer is breaking up at the crossover point.
For a long time it was difficult to make a very high-performing 2-way speaker, for the reasons Paul described. However. In the last twenty years, new wide-range compression drivers became available, able to cover from 400 Hz to 19 kHz. They’re more expensive, of course, but they’re worth it, because then there’s only one crossover point instead of the two between the three drivers in a 3-way speaker. This eliminates one region of phase shift and other distortions. Check out the Klipsch Heritage Jubilee for the ultimate development of a 2-way speaker that can reproduce sound from 18 Hz to 20 kHz. No subwoofers needed!
Still with a 2-way will sound less immersive than the 3-way. I think Genelec with The Ones has made the greatest 3-way ever made, and all tests says so also.
I disagree about single driver full range speakers. In a small room, they can be exceptional in their clarity, intimacy and impact, especially when paired with a subwoofer. The OGY speaker by Closer Acoustics is an example.
Well designed two way speakers have a more coherent sound, especially at low to moderate listening levels. Less to go wrong assuming you have a good crossover and drivers with a wide range. Three (or more) way speakers can reproduce a wider frequency range and handle more power. Good for listening at higher volumes.
I am a convert to a one driver speaker. I will never go back to a Xover design. I have a Mark Audio full range driver in a PMC TL cabinet. It is fantastic. Totally transparent and It is really full range. No trade offs. PURE. This is a full circle for me as I started my hifi life with the magnificent JBL LE8T in a large box. It was amazing. Wish I still had them. No more Xovers for me, EVER.
One advantage of a 3-way is that the midrange then has no potential_ excursions inside the magnetic motor and more likely to keep the voice coil in the sweet spot - if you design for that. But this is where the high pass to the midrange is so critical and I have said this many times, a high-pass is more difficult to design than a low-pass as a rule. This goes for the tweeter as well. I use a tuned notch filter to control the roll-off after a series cap, the Q is critical, but it needs to stop dead any excursion at the resonance. This applies to both midrange and tweeter. AM distortions are also reduced.
i am amazed how much a 2 way can do, it is almost like a sweet spot in the middle of it all. if you have dsp i recommend 2 way main speakers and two subwoofers, if you then add a high pass filter on the mains you have created for yourself a 3 way. now you can have 20hz to 20khz reproduction :)
This is what most amateurs or entry level folks do and it’s understandable. I started off this way myself. But here are a couple of issues I ran into: 1. With two way bookshelf’s, the tweeter blew out on one side twice. Celestion. Had a nice blend between tweeter and mid woofer. This is because the tweeter is crossed over low but this is also why the tweeter blew IMO. I swapped out for some Paradigm bookshelf’s. I’ve had for over 20 years now. All working condition. A bit of an issue is that the upper high frequencies are there but not the lower high frequencies. EQ can possibly fix the issue but every song is different. 2. With bookshelf two way in a more larger room, the system lacks “presence” and mid bass. Solution. I have Paradigm Studio 60 v2. It’s 3 way. The mid and woofer are both 7 inches but different design. They are floor standing. The mid bass and even low bass is quite impressive. I have just one corner subwoofer. Two 12 in in one cabinet. M&K. One driver on the side and one on bottom. So I agree with Paul that 3 way is the better way to go usually. Many use 2 way bookshelf in a small room and they sound great.
@@f430ferrari5 if you think about what i said and try to pick speaker for it, you wont pick any 2 way speaker, but one designed for midrange and up. not ported bass compromises, since you wont need that since all the woofer is playing is midrange. and something that plays loud enough so you know the tweeter are no pushed too low in frequency. for you number 2 comment, you have not really read my text at all i seems. what do you think will happen if you put a system like i mention together? you take into account the mid bass, not like Paul and most people recommend using a subwoofer to just add bass extension. i suggests you swap out all the bass duties to subwoofer and cross them over closer to 200hz, that is why i recommend dual stereo subwoofers. it is a large stereo system we are building, not small speakers with extra bass. i know i was a bit short on my original comment, and people always assume everyone else is ignorant.
@356h7 Still, there is no amp driving the mid-range which are more critical than the sub's say 80Hz/100Hz crossover. The immersiveness is still not there on a 2-way with your "fake" 3-way. I have a system like this, and added a 3-way. I will never go back to 2-way with subs.
Go for 2.5-way. Most of 2.5 way loudspeakers don't have port on midwoofer. Working in a sealed box midwoofer speakers have less sound coloration couse of port resonances and lesser crossover parts. Also second woofer work as add-on subwoofer with larger cabinet volume. They sound like a 2 way speaker imaging with full bodied sound of three ways.
They typically get some wonky phase issues, there is no free lunch. And I do believe most use the same box, in the end any issues should have been addressed during design.
The success of the basic 2 way speaker is more a result of synergies: the roll-off of the woofer is easily (though usually necessarily) played upon to simplify the crossover, the BBC dip comes naturally, and the directional characteristics make for good imaging. A port can extend bass, although really that's a kind of crossover too. It's enough to get serious The crossover for a really good 3-way is far more complex.
I think Chris is a bright guy, and the FR20 seemed pretty darn good when I heard it recently. Everything is a tradeoff. I think a really good full range like the Cube Audio would be enticing. Paired with extremely simple triode electronics. Less is more thinking. That said I use and am happy with DIY 3 way open baffle with very simple crossovers supported with a touch of parametric equalization. 60 year old alnico drivers from Japan.
if the tradeoff is extra cost you can get more for your money oddly enough. like adding a dsp unit, small cost huge benefits and the speakers you choose do not need too many tradeoffs, extra bass with ports is a unnecessary tradeoff at that point.
With all that driver excursion going on in a 2 way from the bass, it's a wonder that they can sound so good in the midrange..Some speakers like the vintage 1970s Ohm Walsh models, whose single driver was truly full range, with no crossover needed, was the theoretical ideal in some ways, but they had their dofficulties in a few other ways. The guy who knew best how to skillfully make Walsh Drivers was a man from South America and unfortunately he retired and for quite a while Ohm tried to replicate the perfect phase coherency of the mode A and F models with conventional woofers, tweeters and crossovers. Many doubt that their efforts equaled their first efforts in some ways, but they rate above average for seamlessness; just maybe not quite as good as the originals. There are some things they do better than the originals, and are usually a safe bet for providing good sound.
The more expensive Tannoy loudspeakers use a single driver which they call dual concentric driver where the tweeter is built in the centre of the midrange driver. Their modern ones are like traditional ones.
@@artyfhartie2269 dual meaning 2 and concentric meaning circle. So it's 2 overlapping circles. The reason it's still 2 is because the tweeter is still moving independently from the woofer but they vibrate microscopically. The pointy thing on the tweeter isn't actually the tweeter it's a guide if I'm not mistaken. In contrast to single driver designs the single driver still has the center pointy thing but it's attached to the woofer that's handling a wide range and the wider the range the less tight the sound will be because the 1 driver has to move back and forth microscopically fast for the midrange and the tweeter at the same time so it's super light weight but it handles bass too and it has to be heavy to push hard for bass so something will sound off but because it's 1 driver there is no crossover and that has benefits but also drawbacks.
That's why I've always said bookshelves are almost always better than budget towers. Compromises are made to keep the price of the towers low so there will always be a tradeoff.
I had assumed a single driver would be ideal, the limitations being weight/materials. I never thought about the doppler effect making it a somewhat poor choice even in theory.
The woofer should concentrate on the bass only, and not try to reproduce high frequencies of say 2khz at the same time. This leaves 2 options. Separate mids and tweeters as a 3 way, or a combined mid/tweeter as a 2 way.
If speaker level signal is fed to a sub-woofer, and passed through to a two way speaker, does one not have a three-way system? The sub is sucking the bass frequencies out of the signal, acting as an electronic crossover.
Hi Paul, thanks for that. On a similar note though, does having more crossovers (to handle more "switching" between frequencies) not add more space for noise, distortion and lower the overall sensitivity of the speaker set?
the higher the number of components the more complex and expensive the crossover gets. The benefits of a 2 way is that you only have to match 2 drivers so they can cost less and be done more. When you get to a 3 way if it's cheap it's definitely not good because we have to match 3 drivers and there has to be bass and all 3 have to work in harmony. A great 3 way will sound best cost more and weigh more and that's just the truth of it.
They exist. They just aren't marketed as a 4 or 5 way speaker. A 4 way speaker would be a 3 way speaker with a built in subwoofer. A 5 way would be a 3 way speaker with a built in sub and a super tweeter.
one i can think of that causes issues with adding more "ways" is the overlapping frequencies. more drivers needs steeper filters, that is twice the crossover parts needed.
What about headphones? The best headphones in the world all have one driver for the whole frequency range. Some even cover the Hi Res audio frequency range from 5Hz to 40kHz. How do they manage to sound so good and mitigate Doppler effect? Is it because sophisticated room treatment is applied to the earcups ?
Headphones are only a few inches from your ear drum. Their drivers don't even have to go 1/10 as loud as a speaker does, for a given volume. Besides the Doppler Effect refers to how sound moving further away (like a train) gets lower and lower in pitch. Combing effect...not Doppler. Don't know whose mistake that was. Physics dictate that a big driver disperses sound poorly compared to a small driver. With speakers you need both big and small driver to handle the whole frequency range. With headphones you don't, since they're right on your ears and they don't need to produce much volume. When it's right on your ears, even a small driver can produce enough bass that's enough.
@@sidesup8286Thanks for your answer. What you have described is basically what Focal has done when they started to produce audiophile headphones. They took their patented twitter technology and used it as a headphone driver. I have 2 pairs and they sound fantastic !
Should never crossover a tweeter above lets say 2k..in my opinion..todays world with material below 40hz .. I have no problem with using a sub setup to run below 80hz ...
My biggest frustration of HiFi is the stagnation, in the 1920's Rice and Kellogg’s issued their original paper, detailing a hornless speaker. Magnet, coil and a cone. One hundred years of technology later, we have Kevlar, carbon, neodymium, but essentially magnet, coil, and a cone. How disappointing, obviously we had fun with plasma tweeters and electrostatics (QUAD ESL was 1953..) but really, we are just polishing spanners now. The question isn’t two or three way, it should be what would be better. Same with amplifiers, Black published negative feedback in 1927, what have we got now, Class D ? Don’t maker me laugh.
