2. speakers
  3. 135527-20253

Is the 2.5 way speaker the ideal home speaker?

Time for what I hope is another fun thread. 

One type of speaker which is actually pretty common but which gets little press / attention here on audiogon is the 2.5 way. 

A 2.5 way speaker is almost a 3-way, but it isn't. It is a speaker with 3 drivers, but instead of a tweeter, midrange and woofer (TMW) it lacks a true midrange. The "midrange" is really a mid-woofer, that shares bass duties with the woofer. Often these two drivers are identical, though in the Focal Profile 918 the midwoofer and woofer were actually different drivers with the same nominal diameter (6"). 

The Monitor Audio 200 is a current example of the concept, but I am sure there are many others. It's also quite popular in kit form. One of the most high-end kits I know of is the Ophelia based on a ScanSpeak Be tweeter and 6" Revelator mid-woofers. I haven't heard them, but I am in eternal love with those mid-woofers. I believe the original plans come from the German speaker building magazine Klan Ton. 

However many other kits are also available

But regardless of kit, or store purchased, are you a 2.5 way fan? Why or why not? 

Best,


Erik 
erik_squires
rlb61
782 posts
 
@erik_squires ... thanks for the info. I really have learned a lot from your insights. 
Ag insider logo xs@2x
astewart8944
499 posts
 
Since I own Joseph Audio Perspectives, and I like them a lot, I guess that makes me a fan. I do run my Perspective speakers with two subwoofers and have them integrated with the mains via a DEQX Premate. IMO it is a powerful pleasing combination. FWIW I heard the Joseph Audio Pearl 3s at AXPONA this past Sunday and I thought they were terrific too. Same family; fuller presentation than the Perspectives running without subs. Yet I suspect that if I owned Pearls I would still run the stereo subwoofers and simply recalibrate the subs via the DEQX to integrate properly. @erik_squires are you of the opinion that the 2.5 provides the opportunity to "outperform" a "full range" because a sub (or subs) can more than compensate for what the full range otherwise provides? This is of some interest to me. I would hate to "upgrade" to the Pearls only to find I already created a more complete combo with the Perspective/subs/DEQX combo. Your thoughts please.   
erik_squires OP
16,012 posts
 
hi @astewart8944 !

Well, I think of 2.5 way as full-range. I meant, that for the slim form factor a 2.5 way can offer a lot of benefits compared to a more traditional 3-way with a large diameter woofer.

In all cases, the ability to use a separate amp with EQ and proper room tuning for the bass is absolutely magical, and (when properly set up) will always outperform a full-range speaker without them.

As an audiophile, I spent a lot (for me!) of cash on my DAC, and pre. I don’t want an EQ in most of my music, BUT, if I can run the EQ for the bass only, it’s heaven.


Best,

E
erik_squires OP
16,012 posts
 
@rlb61 

 thanks for the info. I really have learned a lot from your insights.

What a terribly kind thing to say, thank you. 

E
erik_squires OP
16,012 posts
 
HI @astewart8944 - Not sure if I was clear.

With the Pearls, I’d be tempted to run the bass units via your EQ and separate amps.

The trouble area is 16 to 60 Hz. In that range, dragons lurk. This is why smaller speakers may sound "faster" or "more musical" - They avoid the dangerous areas, and why a sub with good EQ can totally outperform them.

But since you are already happy with your perspectives and 2 subs - I'd suggest you stick with what you have. :) If you must upgrade, room acoustics are always a good place to work on. Contact GIK Acoustics for great advice. 

Best,

E
More to discover