Speaker Asylum

General speaker questions for audio and home theater.

Return to Speaker Asylum

2-ways that are close to 3-ways

70.174.153.212
Posted on November 1, 2009 at 08:37:35
vman71
Audiophile

Posts: 93
Location: Virginia
Joined: February 19, 2005
 I primairily use my 2-ways for 2ch listening, which are Meadowlark Swallows or Buggtussel Circas. I do have a pair of Klipsch Chorus II's for 3-ways, so I don't need a pair of 3-ways.

What I'm wondering is, is there a 2-way that is close to a 3-way while not being as big? I would like to have 3-way (fuller across the frequency) sound while having something in the size of a 2-way footprint.

A little about my system:
- EAD CDP
- Audio Mirror/TRL modified DAC
- Tube Technology Tube Preamp
- Promitheus Transformer Buffer between preamp and amp
- Amps rotate between: 12w SET, 12w PP, 65w chip, 130w ICE-based

Room is 15W X 20L X 8H

I'm really happy with everything, I just feel like my current 2-ways are my limitation when I use my 2-ways. For those asking the question of why don't I just use my 3-ways, it's because they're hard to move at 90+lbs and I don't to move them eveytime I want to listen. I have thought about just building platforms with casters in the future.

Reviews I've read suggest that the Odyssey Lorelei might be.., posted on November 11, 2009 at 05:14:21
Victorymoto
Audiophile

Posts: 549
Location: Southeast
Joined: September 11, 2004
 just the ticket.

Tannoy, of course. (nt), posted on November 5, 2009 at 16:48:09
KT88
Dealer

Posts: 4830
Location: Roanoke VA
Joined: October 5, 2001
 really... nt

drum roll..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 10:02:17
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 This a job for Audio Note (play the Superman soundtrack) - right size room, if you can put the AN E or J in corners you'll get all the bass you could want with all the two way advantages. And they love SETs.

I like some of the Tannoy prestige line but they cost more and are generally a lot larger. I heard them in a larger room and was very impressed - not sure how they do in a smaller room but I believe, and I could be wrong, that they are near filed designs which should mean they'd be good in a smaller room like yours. The E and J play to below 30hz in room and IMO sound better than any 3 way+ design that I have so far heard. Though some of them do have more at the frequency extremes there is more to the game than frequency extension.

RE: drum roll..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 15:07:29
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 The E and J play to below 30hz in room

with the help of some fortuitously placed room-modes and for that you will be rewarded with a lean upper bass region. However, the bass will be deemed very clean owing to it's relative absence :-).

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: 2-ways that are close to 3-ways, posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:11:42
Chef Henry
Audiophile

Posts: 166
Joined: July 27, 2001
 I am only glad that Ronnie H. Rackham and Guy R. Fountain never lived to learn that their Tannoy Dual Concentrics were not only deficient in the midrange, but lacking in frequency response extension. Just the same, I can't quite bring myself to drag mine out to the curb. Maybe if they weighed less . . .

Also the original Snells (K, J, E) and, now, the Audio Note line - all 2 ways Nt, posted on November 2, 2009 at 09:58:35
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Nt
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Try a vintage Advent, posted on November 1, 2009 at 19:25:39
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 It was a two way design using a 10" woofer and a 2.5" cone tweeter with a smaller dome section that covered a nine octave range with a pretty neutral and coherent sounding result. Forget the bottom half octave and the top half octave.

RE: 2-ways that are close to 3-ways, posted on November 1, 2009 at 15:26:49
Drew Eckhardt
Audiophile

Posts: 209
Location: Boulder, CO
Joined: April 28, 2003
 One practical solution is two-ways plus unobtrusively sized sub-woofers, like the Linkwitz Pluto+ system I run in my bedroom including its pair of 14x14x10.75" high sub-woofers. When such woofers are equalized for low frequency extension you need to watch for thermal compression at low frequencies but this is not a big issue on music (versus home theater) due to the limited power in the last octave. The other is a 3-way speaker system you don't have to move, perhaps with wave guides to limit front-wall reflections.

I've never heard a 2-way which produced both good midrange and bass.

The issue is that with conventional dome and ribbon tweeters you need the midrange driver(s) to be acoustically small approaching the tweeter cross-over point to maintain monotonically increasing directivity, small drivers need to move farther to provide a given displacement, displacement requirements for a given volume quadruple with each lower octave, and both IM and harmonic distortion increase with displacement.

One compromise is reasonable sized mid-range drivers that do fine at low volumes and without bass on things like jazz vocalists but distort both bass and midrange once low frequencies are present at moderate volumes. Ports and transmission lines provide additional low end extension at given excursion limits but aren't enough, and leakage from ports can degrade midrange performance.

The other is large mid-bass drivers that have the displacement for bass but are acoustically large which produces an unnatural sounding power response dip in the midrange. This is especially bad where the speaker designer fails to use an extra beefy tweeter (1" + dome with long throw like .5mm xmax) which can accommodate a low (1.5KHz) cross-over point.

The Earl Geddes (gedlee) / Duke LeJune (audiokinesis) approach to speaker design mates a wave guide which limits high frequency dispersion to a large midrange with similar polar response (perhaps matching -6dB angles). That might get you midrange and bass but those speakers aren't built to have bass below 80Hz; presumably due to efficiency (Hoffman's iron law dictates that enclosures must grow 8X to maintain the same efficiency one octave lower) and quality (distributed bass from separate enclosures produces more uniform frequency response, especially over a seating area).

Linkwitz Pluto+
RE: 2-ways that are close to 3-ways, posted on November 1, 2009 at 13:21:45
Borus
Audiophile

Posts: 51
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Joined: November 13, 2003
 Vman
from all the post here as well as some of the speakers I have listened to the argument for a small full-range with super tweeter/sub woofer help can be made.

If you like the Swallows, posted on November 1, 2009 at 12:42:38
Prisoners
Audiophile

Posts: 1703
Location: Chicago
Joined: June 13, 2004
 a pair of Shearwaters might be what you are looking for. They certainly extend deeper than the Swallows but still retain that great Meadowlark smooth sound. I have the Shearwater Hotrods and am thrilled with them.
Baba-Booey to you all!
No easy solution, posted on November 1, 2009 at 09:29:53
John Marks
Industry Professional

Posts: 2420
Joined: April 23, 2000
 Hi-

"Back in the day," by which I mean hi-fi's Baby Boomer boom years in the late 1960s through the 1970s, a very prevalent loudspeaker design was a medium-sized box with an 8- or 9-inch woofer and a tweeter of some sort.

This design is now almost unknown, for two reasons. First, too big. People want a small footprint and a small silhouette.

But also, the large woofer-mid plus tweeter 2-way design suffers from a fundamental problem. Because modern tweeters are limited in their lower-frequency power-handling capability, the woofer has to be driven quite far up into the midrange frequencies. The problem is that as the wavelengths being propagated get close to the size of the driver propagating them, their radiation pattern becomes increasingly directional, and when the wavelengths get smaller than the driver, the dispersion is minimal. Which can easily cause noticeable discontinuities in on-axis sound versus room response. (When a speaker's setup instructions tell you to point the speakers straight on with no toe-in, beamy, hard-to-balance upper midrange response may be what is behind that.) Over and above the fact that both woofer and tweeter are operating perhaps at the ragged edges of their own design parameters.

I found Renaissance Audio's MLP-403.5 to have excellent performance at its price point ($1300 or so), and apparently the design has been refined a bit since I wrote it up for Stereophile. Its dome midrange--as far as I know, the 403.5 is the least-expensive speaker with a dome midrange--removes the above-mentioned problems, and its 9-inch woofer has satisfyingly solid bass.

Dynaudio makes a 2-way speaker with a 10-inch woofer, the DM 2/10. I believe it costs about $1300 a pair. But I have not heard it.

JM
Rennaisance vs Monitor Audio RS6, posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:44:06
Bill the K
Audiophile

Posts: 2301
Joined: June 3, 2006
 These are about the same price.RJR likes the MA a lot.In his comparisons the MA comes up on top.Extremely curious as to how it would compare with the 405.3.I guess you have heard the MA,John.Could you please comment?

Best Regards

Another Renaissance Audio speaker to consider (or not), posted on November 5, 2009 at 16:44:38
JoshT
Audiophile

Posts: 2833
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Joined: July 4, 2000
Contributor
  Since: July 22, 2000
 I like the sound of Renaissance Audio speakers. I own a pair of their Preludes, which is a small floor standing two way transmission line speaker that goes deep.

But I would caution anyone thinking about buying a speaker from this company to make sure that they actually have new inventory in stock before placing an order because I suspect they are not actively manufacturing these days. I waited about 6 months to get my "new" Preludes a couple of years ago, even though I bought the basic black ash, because Mikhael told me the Cherry would take a long time! When I finally got them, the finish was TERRIBLE. Blotchy and streaked paint. I was then promised I would get new cabinets just as soon as their cabinet guy and paint guy were back at work, because there was no denying the bad paint job. Never happened, and a year later I basically go the brush off on ever getting new cabinets, even though I paid full price for what look like demo, used or B stock spray painted over. Not saying they are, and I doubt Mikhael would do that, but they look like they are.

They sound wonderful driven by a CJ CA200 and a Simaudio CD5.3 and Scout with Benz Ace HO, and the transmission line is one way to get deep bass without the woofer working as hard.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
disagree about your modern tweeter coment, posted on November 1, 2009 at 10:20:38
Steyr
Manufacturer

Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009
 Many modern tweeters have very extend range some far more than vintage designs. I don't see any trend towards limiting response, just modern have more extended range on top, many vintage where more like upper midranges. I feel manufacturers are building what they think buying public wants small bookshelf s with 6 in woofers. Easy cheap to build, easy and cheap to ship. Easy to get past wife and easy on the budget. Good quality transducers are not cheap. Thus not many use them. But they exist in legion. Look at the progress in ribbons over the past decade went from near 0-2 ohm to 8 ohm also from 84db=86db 1 watt to some near 102db 1 watt like fountek neopro 51. The low frequency extension on some of these affordable ribbons is amazing from what it was just 10 years ago. I can point to other examples just hate typing.

I agree Steyr, posted on November 2, 2009 at 08:18:04
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 There are a couple dozen excellent tweeters out there available to the DIY community that often SLAY what is being put into commercial boxes. We're talking units from Seas, Vifa, ScanSpeak, Hiquiphon and others - tweeters with pedigree. Scanspeak has small format neo tweeters that crush the performance of most large flange tweeters - small format for excellent interdriver spacing is now a non-issue.

I've never considered $300 for a pair of tweeters to be too much money. You can get some "gems" for under $50 and the Seas 27TDFC-06 is STILL an evergreen with its 550hz Fs, 0.5mm xmax and exceptional off-axis performance due to the suspension design. (Their large surround is what allows the excellent off axis response of a 3/4" dome while enjoying the low Fs and power handling of a 1" dome.)

In fact, it's very likely the modern day ring-radiator technology used today by Vifa and Scanspeak started with drivers like the Seas 27 series.

I dunno. Tweeter off-axis response is getting better, Fs is getting lower...

Just because manufacturers are still putting pretty looking proprietary plastic crap into their boxes doesn't mean the technology is not available. You just have to pay more for it nowawdays.

Cheers,
Presto

It was the "upper midranges" I was referring to., posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:03:37
John Marks
Industry Professional

Posts: 2420
Joined: April 23, 2000
 I am aware that there are drivers in the near-"cost no object" category (e.g., the largest Raven ribbon driver) that play much deeper than cone tweeters of the past, but I was making a generalization that holds true in the budget-speaker realm.

Judging from the original poster's gear list, I didn't think he was going to be shopping for very expensive solutions like the Raven.

JM

Said Fountek never mentioned raven, posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:30:54
Steyr
Manufacturer

Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009



And there are other affordable drivers that can cover this range not just cost no odject which I never mentioned. I could list over a dozen cheap domes tweeters with good range that could pull off a 8in or 9in woofer 2 way system. Just the markets not there for it. These fountek ribbons I mentioned are affordable not cost no odject, also have hi-vi cheaper yet in ribbons. So to me your comments about modern tweeters just not true. The markets gets what it wants small 2 ways or towers based on 6in woofers. The larger drivers 8in plus need larger cabs,shipping boxes thus more cost since most is imported ends up not so budget. But the transducers are available if one wants such. More so than in the past. Pic is hi-vi rt8 not costly at all but is used in some mega buck loudspeakers. Ive used these with 12in woofers with great results. So get some birchply make a OB use a eminance 12in woofer there ya go under $500 bucks a pair and about 2 hours work.

RE: 2-ways that are close to 3-ways, posted on November 1, 2009 at 09:01:46
JerryS
Reviewer

Posts: 1498
Joined: February 24, 2001
 The problem with most 3-ways is that they have the woofer-to-midrange crossover in the midrange. Middle-C is 262 Hz, and IMO having a crossover anywhere near that frequency is not a good thing.

I think you are on the right track to look for a 2-way. Maybe check out the Acoustic Zen Adagio.

Happy listening.

Regards,
JerryS

The purpose of multi-drivers is:, posted on November 1, 2009 at 09:15:07
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 to use a driver that is better-suited (molre specialized) for handling a a smaller frequency range than a 1 or 2 driver speaker. But, as you add drivers you add cross-over points + more electronics to force the drivers to cross-over at these points. Kind of like a cluster f--k (bunke pull in danish).

So, a very carefully engineered 2-way with great drivers and electronics, using a simple cross-over design will generally sound smoother than many multi-driver speakers (sorry), but may not be as flat or go as far to either extreme.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make the kind of 2-way I am talking about any cheaper, quite the opposite.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
RE: The purpose of multi-drivers is:, posted on November 1, 2009 at 12:56:42
chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com
Reviewer

Posts: 10208
Location: Lancashire.
Joined: January 21, 2001
 "So, a very carefully engineered 2-way with great drivers and electronics, using a simple cross-over design will generally sound smoother than many multi-driver speakers (sorry), but may not be as flat or go as far to either extreme."

That's been my experience too.


Today is a gift - that's why it's called the Present.

Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
RE: The purpose of multi-drivers is:, posted on November 1, 2009 at 09:53:13
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "So, a very carefully engineered 2-way with great drivers and electronics, using a simple cross-over design will generally sound smoother than many multi-driver speaker"

Quite the opposite, a two-way design is limited by definition, mid/woofer driver is required to cover everything from the lower treble down to bass frequencies, the penalty is limited LF, higher distortion and limited dynamics in comparison to 3+=way speaker. A larger mid/woofer may be get you a bit more bass but at the the cost limited HF dispersion.

In 3-ways, the drivers have an easier job. IMO, a decent design will have less distortion and more dynamic capability than an equivalent 2-way which should translate into a smoother and more relaxed sound. The crossover cannot compensate for the inherent limitation of the mid/woofer in comparison to a multi-way.




Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: The purpose of multi-drivers is:, posted on November 2, 2009 at 01:05:33
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Limited LF coverage I'll give you. Able to shake buildings, I'll give you. Able to make music...I guess either our experience is different or what we hear is different...which is normally the case. I'm sure we'd both rather be burnt at the stake then recant.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Tony Faulkner agrees with you, posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:19:06
John Marks
Industry Professional

Posts: 2420
Joined: April 23, 2000
 When Tony Faulkner can't bring his QUAD panel speakers to a remote location recording session, he brings Wilson Audio Duettes, both because of their small size and because he claims that to him they sound more coherent than the Sophia IIs (which would be even more of a struggle to get to locations).

Tony, whom I guess has engineered CDs that sold more copies than any classical engineer in history (e.g., "A Feather on the Breath of God" and Gorécki's "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs"), believes that two-ways are inherently superior to three-ways because the crossover slopes in and out of the midrange introduce honkiness and ringing and time smear.

ALL THAT SAID, it must be kept in mind that in all good faith, Tony is cherry-picking his data points, in that the other poster's complaints about dynamic range and distortion in two-ways are going to be "solved problems" in Wilson Audio's $12,000/pr. two-ways. I imagine that if you took a pair of budget two-ways such as the Ushers I wrote about a few years ago (V-601s?) and ran them hard against the Wilson Duettes, the limitations of the budget speaker would be very clear.

But what you would be hearing are the limitations of a budget implementation and not of two-ways as a Platonic ideal.

An audiophile chum who is rather sane and does not have a dog in the fight heard the larger new-ish QUADs in one dealer showroom and then went into the next room to hear the Magico Minis (which I have not) and he said that he clearly preferred the Minis, and he was shocked, shocked.

FWIW & YMMV.

JM

And I (mostly) agree with Tony, posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:39:49
JerryS
Reviewer

Posts: 1498
Joined: February 24, 2001
 Different rooms, different systems, but at RMAF this year I listened closely (my CDs) to Sophias and Sashas and many, many others and bought YG Acoustics Kipod Main Modules, which are stand-mounted 2-ways ($17000 list).

They are amazingly coherent to well below 100 Hz. Their time and phase alignment and flat frequency response (+- .7dB) offer an entirely immersive listening experience.

RE: The purpose of multi-drivers is:, posted on November 2, 2009 at 02:07:59
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "Limited LF coverage I'll give you. Able to shake buildings, I'll give you."

and limited dynamic capability and higher measured distortion and potentially more ragged dispersion around the crossover region.

"Able to make music...I guess either our experience is different or what we hear is different"

I am ok with that as that is an expression of preference rather than objective commentary on the capability of each design.


Music making the painting, recording it the photograph

Page processed in 0.065 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]