Which sounds better 2 way or 3 way speaker design

Coax drivers for mid and high range help in a better two way design and the sound is perhaps more coherent in such two way and even more coherent in a one way design than in a three way speakers. 

The 4435 is a true two and half way speaker, it does not use a crossover point between the two woofers.

’’For uses where even greater low frequency output capability with an attendant reduction in distortion is required, a double woofer system has been designed (model 4435], Directional characteristics have been left intact by bringing the second woofer in below 100Hz only, The maximum output before thermal or excursion limiting has been raised by 4 dB and extended on the low end by half an octave. This is shown in Figure 15, Note that this is not a response curve but is instead a curve of maximum reverberant field SPL generated at the excursion limit or long term power limit of the two systems in typical monitoring conditions. In the very low-frequency range of 20 to 30 Hz a stereo pair of the dual woofer systems can generate some 115 to 120 dB SPL under these conditions.

Both Iow-frequency drivers in the double system are identical to the driver in the single system except for lightened cones, which yield a 3 dB increase in mid band sensitivity.’’

See full article here

See here review of JBL 4435 monitors.

Mike

I’ve owned many 2-way monitors (totem model 1’s, totem mani II’s, totem arro’s, usher mini dancer II’s, to name a few) and they all had their drawbacks. Every one of them I used a pair of subwoofers (Rel) and there were drawbacks to this too, Rel recommends running the main speakers full range which puts a lot of strain on the smaller woofer. In case of the mani II’s, with the isobaric woofers inside, the speaker was so inefficient I was running them with 1000 watt monoblocks part of the time. So with subs, the sound was more full but at a cost.

With 3-way speakers, you normally have the right size tweeter with the appropriate size midrange spec’d together while designing the crossover to send the lower octaves to the woofers. These will play louder with less breakup/distortion. I know you can buy a 2-way/2.5-way with larger drivers but I’ve never liked anything over 6”/7” for the midrange, and some of the smaller 5” midrange in the Ushers sound fantastic.

I purchased a pair of the ESS speakers with the Heil AMT in them in the late 70’s.  If it wasn’t for the patent on them, you would have seen ma y more of them during the last 4 decades. 1 hell of a driver.

ALL 2 way have a hole in middle and are compromised !

Said only the inexperienced listeners. 

tcutter

the Wilson beseech vectors are incredible...the bass driver the same size as the midrange with no cross over...no cross over. 

I said ~80 Hz for the bottom of the midrange because the idea is to keep at least the fundamentals of the human voice within one driver and there are those who can certainly sing lower than that.

I also vote for a 2.5 way. I disagree with the statement the midrange needs to go to 80Hz since the common definition of midrange frequencies varies from the low end at 250Hz to 500 Hz and then anywhere from 1.2kHz to 4000 Hz or more at the higher end.  

The Wilson-Benesch Vector speakers run the midrange full range, a common feature of a 2.5 way, and design it to acoustically blend with/supplement the woofer, which is low-passed at 500Hz, and then hand off to the tweeter which is high-passed at 5000Hz. Both crossovers utilize a first order  design. All of these components are designed and manufactured  in house so there is exquisite control over the product. 

Thus, a single driver covers the entire midrange. There are many other excellent ways to preserve the integrity of the midrange, but this one works well and is elegant in its simplicity.

Definitely 3 way !
ALL 2 way have a hole in middle and are compromised ! and my Vintage 40 yr old Allison AL130 ( 3 way w/ push pull twin 8" woofers and the unique CONVEX mids and tweeters ) not to mention unusual crossover points! = 450Hz and 4,000 HZ ( adroitly bypasses the midrange and voice issue ? ) are vastly superior to MANY modern high-end speakers! ( note they were $1,200-1,500 back in day so about $ $11,200 today! defo "high end " speakers if sold today!
too bad so sad noone can make the unique and proprietary and nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make tweeters and mids ( they were actually assembled by robots! YES! )
add a couple modern GR research open baffle servo subs or a vented and sealed combo of 2 servo subs your fav brand and you will have near-perfection ( filter to the speakers at 80-90 Hz fr subs so the tower speaker woofers just do low bass ! )

Ooops, 4435.  Stupid edit time out!

A 2-1/2 (2.5 way) uses two "lower frequency" "drivers" and an "upper frequency" "driver".

One of the "lower frequency" drivers is allowed to play all the way down to its lower limit and crossed over to the "upper frequency" driver just as a typical 2-way speaker would be crossed-over (or bi-amped).

The other "lower frequency" driver is also played down to its lower limit and is not allowed to play up to the high frequency driver, but rather rolled off at some lower point.

The "upper frequency" driver, is just that.

Any of the drivers can be any of the designs (e.g., cone, horn, Heil, electrostatic, etc.) so long as it can do the job and that has nothing to do with the number of "ways" in the system.  So, at least in theory, if you add a sub to a 2-way, you now have a 2.5-way.

I have two 2.5 ways myself. One is a Super Big Red that uses a Utah aux woofer (the 0.5 way), the Altec 604’s paper cone, and the Altec 604’s integrated horn.

The other is my own creation and uses a JBL 18" woofer (the 0.5-way), a JBL 9.7" woofer, and a Heil AMT.

The JBL 2235 is their contribution to the 2.5-way market.

raulirueguegas : what is. a 2,5 way speaker?

@sounds_real_audio wrote:

Not sure anyone knows what a two and a half way is

Come on..

@rauliruegas wrote:

Now, a woofer in a 2-way design usually crossover around 2khz and the most critical frequencies are handled by that woofer and it’s here where is developed that high IMD due that that woofer handled from around 40hz and up and that developed IMD puts a lot of " dust " in the midrange and in the HF because we have to remember that everywhere are developed harmonics that starts in the bass range.

+1

@toddalin wrote:

"Dedicated midrange driver" is typically an oxymoron and very few three-way systems will not put some of the midrange in the woofer and/or tweeter. You would need to run the driver from ~80Hz-~4kHz for it truly to be "dedicated" to the midrange.

True, referring to a midrange driver as "dedicated" is with most any speaker design incorrect, and that’s even without taking into consideration the harmonics which are somewhat higher in nature and are said to extend an octave or two beyond ~4kHz.

However having a high efficiency woofer section with prodigious displacement area that’s high-passed steeply below ~80Hz bodes well for covering the lower range of the midrange, not least considering that it’s effectively freed of LF and in all but the most insane SPL situations will see virtually no visible excursion. That’s something very few speaker designs can make a claim to do.

I agree that it depends on the speakers and other variables such as room size and configuration. I recently replaced 3 way tower speakers with 2 way stand mounts and the 2 way speakers sounds way better to my ears. Improved soundstage, mids, and tighter, more well defined bass. In all fairness, the 2 way speakers cost more than double the 3 way towers (13K vs 5K) and are much better suited to my small listening space. I did not conduct a comparison in a larger room at a greater listening distance. 

Not sure anyone knows what a two and a half way is

@ditusa wrote:

See here a two way monitor with attributes of a three and four way design.

Mike

+1

OP: There are a lot of variables involved here. As has been pointed to by several in this thread already it’s about the design goals and juggling different trade-offs, however pragmatically speaking design goals may take a backseat to what’s dictated by the physical outlay of the speakers and the kind of drivers that’s typically used; a 1" direct radiating dome tweeter only goes so low (i.e.: ~2kHz), and in a 2-way design an 8-10" woofer/midrange is about as far as it goes in size to sufficiently "meet" that dome tweeter above, and at the same time avoid severe beaming or break-up modes. The woofer/midrange in such designs will cover most of the voice fundamentals (both male and female), while harmonics are sitting much higher in the treble range of the tweeter. The downside is IMD and Doppler distortion with a single driver covering bass both LF and midrange, and coming down to it there’s also only so much such a driver pairing can do macro dynamically. The power response at the crossover usually isn’t great either, making more obvious there’s a driver division here. Introducing a dedicated and well-implemented midrange driver for a 3-way design (i.e.: where a direct radiating tweeter is used) to my ears tend to be an advantage, both in freeing the mids driver of LF and being given the opportunity for more woofer displacement, even if it means high-passing in the lower midrange area.

On the other hand, waveguide loading a fitting, relatively low fs 1" dome tweeter with a properly sized and designed waveguide can significantly lower the crossover point to the woofer/mids (fairly comfortably down to around 1kHz) while also providing for a smooth directivity pattern at the crossover, significantly lessening the influence of crossing over in the vital midrange area. This way a larger woofer/mids can also be used with up to about 12" in diameter, and with a higher sensitivity pro woofer the dome tweeter can be replaced with a compression driver, and now you suddenly have a high sensitivity 2-way design with smooth directivity characteristics at the XO and prodigious output capability. Depending on the specific pro woofer choice LF may be restricted and which then calls for augmentation down low with subs. This way we’re entering what’s effectively a 3-way design of a different type, and with the further opportunity to highpass the woofer/mids driver with even cleaner lower to central midrange to boot. To my ears such an effectively 3-way waveguide-loaded design choice has a lot going for it.

Many of the larger high output JBL designs with pro/studio origins (as referred to by poster @ditusa) adhere to above model being waveguide or horn-loaded 2-way designs with compression drivers and 12-15" woofers - sometimes augmented with a super tweeter above 10-15kHz, but which nonetheless doesn’t deter from the fact that they are basically 2-way designs. Myself I also prefer what is basically a 2-way high efficiency design variant crossed at just over 600Hz, though augmented in either end of the frequency range with subs and dedicated high eff. slot tweeters (i.e.: <85Hz and >11kKz). With only a single XO-point in most of the audio band that clears the power region and has neat power response, the augmented areas, and thus technically a 4-way setup, help in ways that doesn’t impede with but rather exacerbate the basic traits of a 2-way approach with a virtually unlimited macro dynamic envelope to boot. Being also that my speaker setup is configured actively, delay has been carefully implemented at the XO points, and having most of the fundamentals of the central midrange + harmonics covered by a single large format horn + compression driver element is a major advantage.

The crossover design is critical with both 2-way and multiway speakers, but it’s considerably more difficult to achieve balance and coherency with more than two drivers. If the objective is for the speaker to be able recreate a music wave realistically, with all harmonics intact, the wave has to have a consistent shape and amplitude, and the correct phase and timing whether it’s coming from one driver or multiple drivers....the more drivers you add, the more difficult it becomes to recreate that music wave and have it replicate the original.

Single driver speakers have appeal because of their simplicity and lack of a need for crossovers to shape the sound to reproduce a music wave. Their phase coherency is excellent, and they tend to have less smearing and latency caused by crossover components. Their downside is that when frequencies that are smaller in diameter than the driver, those small frequencies tend to beam straight ahead, and have poor off-axis performance. The larger the driver, the more beaming.

There is always a downside to every option, but the marketing hype leaves that part out. Thus opinions that are formed based on the same marketing hype tend to echo only the upside, unaware of the disadvantages. Making an assumption that more drivers are better, is similar to saying more salt is better in all recipes.

All I can say to that is dhh, for the obvious! 
well wired, quality engineered, the wider the sound stage period. I’ve 4 column 5 ways that out perform most 2-4 ways hands down. Little speakers are just that…little !
Happy new year 

Cheers 

2 ways with well integrated sub can sound really good. They don’t go that loud without being crossed over if bass heavy music. 

I’ve encountered many 2-ways that outperform many 3-ways. It really depends on implementation.

I’d rather own a 2-way design with top quality drivers than a 3-way design with mediocre drivers.

It would seem crossover design is really important to a three-way. I guess if one was to ask this question with the assumption that if you had a three-way versus two way which would be better assuming crossover designs are not part of the evaluation process because they are assumed perfect for each situation.

It would seem to me if this was the case the three-way would be advantageous.

And of course assuming driver and cabinet designs are not impacting the decision either. I think it’s a theoretical question and to me if you separate out the mid range and not have it intermingle with other spectrums that may offer interference it would be better to have a third segment of frequency range and create a situation where more detail is better.

3 way designs are more difficult to get right. Also 3 ways are more expensive, so be suspect of a 2 and 3 way design of similar price.

Then there's a 2-way pair with a sub that can cure or complicate where and how driven and the dispersal of said.....a 3-way with sub would seem to live better in a larger space....

It can as well to consider the thoughts to the size of the various drivers applied, 2 or 3 x sub size.....

...an that's why I like a good equalizer, even if the speakers have on-board adjustments for the x-overs...

My approach, a  IMH....*s*

Dear @knotscott  : I agree that always exist trade-offs .

Now, a woofer in a 2-way design usually crossover around 2khz and the most critical frequencies are handled by that woofer and it's here where is developed that high IMD due that that woofer handled  from around 40hz and up and that developed IMD puts a lot of " dust " in the midrange and in the HF because we have to remember that everywhere are developed harmonics that starts in the bass range.

R.

As has been alluded to, it's all about the design.  Most specifically the crossover (assuming you have high quality drivers).  It's easier to get a 2-way design to have proper phase characteristics between the tweeter and woofer/mid woofer.  the coherency of a great 2-way design can be quite beguiling.  To get a 3-way design to sound coherent from top to bottom (highest frequencies to lowest frequencies), and to speak with one voice requires, requires some very intelligent crossover design.  With a 3-way you now have two crossover points which need to be optimized.  Optimizing the phase and frequency balance at both crossover points to allow drivers, on either side of the crossover points, to work in harmony should be the aim of a great design.  When it's done right, it's fantastic.  And the benefits of multi-way designs are now fully appreciated (greater extension at both extremes, lower distortion, greater dynamics, more power handling, etc.).

@rauliruegas

Dear @kjl1065 : Everything the same 3-way is a superior MUSIC reproduction where a 2-way ( almost any. ) has a way higher Intermodulation Distortions that per sé goes against MUSIC in front of the 3-way design.

There’s never a free lunch. You stated a potential benefit from choosing a 3-way design, but there’s a flip side.

A 3-way system typically puts a crossover point (a series capacitor) in the 300-800hz region, and it induces any associated delay and degradation from the capacitor. That’s right square in the middle of the vocal range, which covers the primary music range of a lot of instruments. All things the being the same, that’s most definitely a theoretical disadvantage to at least some aspects of the sound.

Every speaker designer faces lots of those choices. Dealing with all those pros and cons, is simply a matter of picking your poison, and mitigating it as much as possible, but no design is immune.

Implementation is everything.

However, while designing a new speaker, choosing a 3-way may remove a number of constraints a similar 2-way would have, related to distortion and dispersion and dynamic range.  I wrote more about this here.

Having said all of that, trying to judge 2-way speaker A vs. 3-way speaker B is a fool’s errand.

We can start to think about the benefits along the same lines of "why use 2 drivers instead of just one?" Similar benefits will appear when asking "why use 3 drivers instead of just 2?"

It is of course possible to go overboard and design a multi-way monstrosity that sounds horrible.

See  here a two way monitor with attributes of a three and four way design.

Mike

Am I correct to assume that a 3 way design will give the listener a much better chance to hear the full audio spectrum as opposed to a 2 way design?

Depends on what you mean when you say, full audio spectrum.

If full audio spectrum to you means more prominent low frequencies, than in my opinion I think you would have a better chance of achieving that with a 3-way design, though not necessarily a much better chance. As far as the speakers you have listed, the cello should have 3 db more low end output due to it having two dedicated low frequency drivers, at volume levels approximately 83 db or less (measured at 1K Hz) depending on the dynamic range of your source material and many other factors.

But with any real world test, the proof is in the pudding, so the only way to really know is to do an actual listening comparison.

Dear @kjl1065   : Everything the same 3-way is a superior MUSIC reproduction where a 2-way ( almost any. ) has a way higher Intermodulation Distortions that per sé goes against MUSIC in front of the 3-way design.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

Of course 3-ways would be bigger than 2.5-ways which should obviously be bigger than 2-ways..., right???

These Super Big Red 2.5-ways are only 15.5 cu ft. Those are Chartwell LS3/5A 2-ways on the floor for comparison.

Both have their own benefits and drawbacks. First, let's assume they are equally well designed. A two-way design tend to make it easier to integrate the two elements into a single sonic "picture" especially at shorter listening distances. A 3-way design tend to reduce distortion as each element is required to cover a smaller frequency span, but also making it more difficult to get them to "gel" into a single sonic "picture", Many times, a 3-way design will require more of a listening distance to get the 3 elements to blend.

Basically, select the one that fits your room and listening distance the best. 

I would vote for a 2 and a half way....

A great 2 way can sound great. It has been said that since the Xover is more simple, it is easier to integrate. Most all mixing board speakers are small two ways.

I’ve noticed that most of the high end speaker makers (Rockport , Wilson , Magico , YG, Evolution Acoustics) all use 3 way or 4 way speakers in their mid to upper end lines. Surely this speaks to the benefits of this type of speaker. It seems that one of the main reasons people go with a 2 way is your room size. I’ve seen many threads where members recommend a 2 way based on room size 

In my own experience with the ATC lines, three ways always sound richer and more lifelike than the 2 ways 

Parts and build can make a huge difference, but so can how they’re used. For instance, I have a pair of old Yamaha 2 ways speakers than I’m using in a desktop system where they sit 2.5’ from my ears that sound great!  But there is no way I would put them in my main system and expect them to sound as good.

General rule of thumb...Drivers handling approx 30 hz to 300 hz should always be NOT the same driver that handled 300 to 2000 hz.

Having said that, a guy who put 2 dollar trash drivers in a 3 way and designed a trash crossover/ cabinet can make a 3 way sound worse than a guy who put more money and competence into a 2 way.

To say, as the OP does, that "a 3 way design will give the listener a much better chance to hear the full audio spectrum as opposed to a 2 way design" is like saying a car with five speeds must go faster than one with only four. It reflects no understanding of what drivers in a speaker actually do.

6 of one. The square root of 36 of the other.

There can be number of variables approaching infinity related to speaker parameters and considerations. I’m with @skiznfliz on this one: put them in your room and listen to them.

Three way speakers with concentric mid/tweeter designs are another twist that offer very good results. 

Perfectly legitimate question to me ...

When you start with a fallacy as your premise, you shouldn't be surprised at the questionable validity of your conclusion.

Over the last 2 years I’ve been on the Speaker Merry Go Round going through 11 sets of speakers… Yep 2ways, 3ways, and Maggi’s and opted for stand mounts with dual subs… YOU REALLY NEED TO HEAR THEM IN YOUR ROOM TO BE SURE… I can tell you the Triangles I tried had a very short life in my room. I have to say every speaker I tried had a great honeymoon period but once the crucial listen began, 10 of the 11 speakers were asked to leave.

I ended up with Soundfield Audio MMW1’s, Custom designed for my room’s shortcomings and my listening tastes. I met the designer / owner of Soundfield (AJ) at the Florida Int’l Hi Fi Expo in Tampa and his room’s sound blew me away. It’s been nothing but sonic bliss since. There’s several Soundfield Youtube Videos on line, one where the Audiophile Junkie claims Soundfield Audio is the best small room option out there…check ‘em out.
Which ever way you go, LOOK WITH YOUR EARS, not that my speaker has more speakers than yours, LOTS OF GOOD OPTIONS OUT THERE with excellent Build Quality & Component Quality. 

A great discussion.  I’ve had so many speakers over the years from single element to 4-way in many different rooms including large towers and smaller bookshelves.  I agree with the comments that stress design and execution including component and build quality.   My old friend that was involved in speaker design and build always said there is no perfect speaker and that there were trade-offs in any design and build.  I find a key is the room you are listening in and what sounds good to you at this time.  I now listen in a relatively small room so small towers or 2-way bookshelves fill the room better without overpowering the space.  In addition my old man ears don’t hear as high in range as I used to so sibilance is key as as such there are speakers I liked when I was younger that I wouldn’t listen to now.  Trust your ears and what sounds good to you in your listening room.  I haven’t had those 3 speakers but With an 18K budget you’ve got some great choices.  

Having owned Proac speakers in the past I would not rule out the K3 without having an audition. Unfortunately my listening room will not accommodate them but .....

One of my favorite basic design is a three-way, with a compression-driver/horn midrange covering a wide part of the range.  The compression drivers I like are all vintage—from 1930’s to 1960’s.  I own a system fitting that description—twin 12” woofers (modern), bullet tweeter (modern), western Electric 713b midrange compression drivers (1940’s), Western Electric KS 12025 multicellular horn.

I mentioned two single driver speaker companies I like-Charney and Songer—above, and I would now like to give kudos to PureAudioProject which makes terrific open-baffle speakers, modt of them are two-way speakers.  

There are good speakers of all types.
 

Ime loudspeaker design is a fascinating competition of ideas, every one of which is a juggling of tradeoffs (and anyone who tells you otherwise is in marketing). The implementation of those ideas can take very different forms: Single driver, two-way, three-way, four-way, planars, horns, multidirectionals, omnis... And even among speakers which are outwardly similar, the designers are constrained to giving some attributes higher priority than others.

In general the attributes which I prioritize are more likely to be found in a conventional three-way than in a conventional two-way, but my own designs tend to be unconventional two-ways with rear-firing tweeters, often augmented by subs... in which case I guess they are three-way systems?

Duke

I am under the impression, (which I may be incorrect) that a three way design is superior to a 2 way design.  
 

Wrong - it’s the quality of the parts and implementation.  Some crossovers are done extremely well they seem seamless.   More crossovers “may” offer more opportunities to have a poor crossover, but it’s not automatic.

As usual, best to demo yourself to hear what resonates with you.

Actually, the Heil is 29.76 square inches of tweeter surface.  I was too late on my edit. 

I’m partial to my 2.5-ways. They use a JBL 18", a JBL 9.7", and a modified Heil. (BTW, a Heil is equivalent to 8 square inches of tweeter surface.) And these do keep the midrange in the 9.7 going all the way up to ~3,500Hz before crossing over to the Heils. This maintains coherency, staging, and imaging. I really don’t fret about a wide dispersion as I always sit in the sweet spot, and a narrower dispersion results in less wall bounce for better staging and imaging.

So lest someone think fewer ways means less cone area, think again. Some of the biggest speakers are 2-ways.