NOZ Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 Ok, I've been involved in and read some discussion on this topic and just thought I would try to stirr everyone up...HEHE My feeling and experience is in favour of three way speakers, which I feel, sound a lot fuller than two way. We are nearing the end of the year and lets all let loose and hear everyones opinion on this highly controversial topic... Please don't hold back..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundthought Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 The more I research it, the more I want to listen to a pair of stevens full range coaxial driver cabinets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 well, it depends on the price range. 2 ways are better in the lower price range (2,000 and down), but 3 ways are better if yo ucan affoard good ones. It costs allot to make a really high quality 3 way speaker crossover, so speakers in the 1,000 dollar range that are 2 ways in my opinion definatly sound better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOZ Posted November 6, 2002 Author Share Posted November 6, 2002 prodj, RF-7's are not cheep, but are two-way..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 no, you missunderstood. RF-7's are cheap in the scope of real high end stuff. I mean, rockport tech makes speakers that cost 50 grand, which makes the RF-7's look like department store grade speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOZ Posted November 6, 2002 Author Share Posted November 6, 2002 prodj, We are talking about what most of us can afford. Lets not dive into the rediculus world of $50k speakers. I'd like to keep this topic to a 1K to 5k expense level.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundthought Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 In all fairness, we must consider the fact that the RF7 is a 2.5 way speaker. IMHO a 2.5 way is a slightly different critter than your standard 2 way monitor. In a 2.5 way, the mid bass and bass drivers run together but have overlapping crossover points. That takes a considerable load off the midbass driver. Allowing for a full midrange sound without compromising the bass extension. This compromise seems to be the case with most 2 ways i've heard. I also feel that a standard ported/sealed 3 way loudspeaker differs greatly from a 3 way with a passive radiator. Essentally, it's 3.5 way. Considering the back wave from the bass driver is causing propagation of another driver. As far as your basic 2 or 3 way is concerned, I believe both have their own positive attributes and both have their place in the audio world. Form follows function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOZ Posted November 7, 2002 Author Share Posted November 7, 2002 Audio, So political, tell us what you really think...LOL Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundthought Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 LOL. Some people wear their heart on their sleeve, me. I wear crossovers as cufflinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cornell Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 A 3 way Pulling the midrange out of the woofer totally, produces better sound with a 3way speaker! Then again a 3some would be nice, OOPs sorry The 2 way KG5.5s were awesome, i mean for a 2 way BUT when i got the cornwalls, i know efficency is better, but i couldnt her the KG5.5s at all! Nor could i hear the KG4s ETc, in fact building a theater system with the cornwalls was one of the hardest things ive ever done! I went thru Klipsch speakers, my fellow co-worker is using with his HT today LOL! BUT i did at one time, or year who knows, hear that the 2 way produces better sound than a 3way! There are manufactures that are making million s on 2 way, and no horn designs! On the heritage all the 3 ways are squawkers, what the hell is a squawker? LOL Is that a midrange or something else LOL! After 2 years on this BB and 1000 post ive never asked! Klipsch is the only speaker ive seen Squawker in! This must be the older word for Midrange, think about it, Mid range, ok the mid of what section of the room, or is it the mid of the speaker itself, meaning middle, as thats where it always is mounted! Between the woofer and tweeter making it middle, MID range! Weird stuff now isnt it! Squawker isnt a word for middle, meaning it isnt an actual midrange, as in a middle effect! Although its still mounted between the 2 drivers! SO A midrange is a paper dome A squawker is a horn loaded Mid! I better go to bed LOL Regards Jim LOL Regards Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen328 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Well, hmm thats a toughy. I could get all political and say it depends on the manufacturer and stuff like that, but no. I'd really have to say of the speakers i've listened to (which isnt that many) two way have just sounded better to me. I cant back that up with any data, Just the ones i've heard sound better. Or you could always go one way with bose!!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 This is basically a theoretical discussion. In theory, a 2-way that performs equally is superior due to the reduced phase shift and distortion introduced by the crossover. To perform equally, a 2-way must have much higher quality, tougher drivers that inevitably cost more. Mr. Paul's AES paper introducing the K-400 horn showed just this. He had a lab quality driver that ran from 400 to 16k Hz and was quite smooth. However, the K-55-V and K-77 easily performed as well and was cheaper, including the extra crossover components. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 the best sound I have heard recently comes from wide-range single drivers: all they need is a super tweeter and a subwoofer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOZ Posted November 8, 2002 Author Share Posted November 8, 2002 Come on people, lets get some educational coments and opinions going on this topic, I am no expert, so, please more reactions... Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 I don't understand the bit about the RF7 being a 2.5 way. Both cones are run in tandem, and cover the same frequencies. Now, the RC7 is a 2.5 way, as one driver cuts out early. No, the RF7 is just an old fashioned two way with the cones playing all the fundementals of the midrange. I've always liked the sound of two-ways, though there have been a few multi-ways I've liked: Dahlquist DQ-10, ADS 1290, and the AR-11. Along with what John A. said, it is usually true that a two-way has a smoother response, and generally speaking has much better imaging capabilites. To get this, you sacrifice power handling and low distortion at high SPL's. A multi-way will sound cleaner at the higher SPL's -- if your ears can handle the not so always flat response. The problem with most two-ways is that they crossover too high. When the woofer starts moving -- the midrange gets all mucked up. Two-ways with lower crossover points always sound better to me. The RF7 is an example of a two-way taken to the stratosphere. A fairly decent tweeter that can play fairly low, uses efficient cones that can go down to 2K without breaking up, and are built to take the heat. So, you get the smooth response of a two-way, and the power handling capability of a three way. However, even the RF7, I believe, would sound like crap with 200 watts unloaded into it. As soon as those cones start jumping -- you're in trouble. As long as the cones don't go coo-coo for cocoa puffs -- it's awesome. In my early adulthood, I listened to Original Old Advents. A simple two-way crossing over at 1000Hz. In a small room, with a Dynaco 400 and Dual TT with a Shure V15 type IV -- they could completely blow your mind. The Advent sacrificed the extreme upper treble to get the midrange right. They used a 2" paper cone tweeter that started to roll off at 12Khz, and had nothing above 14Khz. No three or more way could match it in musicality for up to 5 times the price. It's the sound I grew up with, and this probably has a lot to do with why I listen to the RF7's. Inversely, it may also be why Heritage owners don't like them -- the same cone midrange sound that I love -- they disdain. This takes us into whole other area -- horn midrange vs. cone midrange, and I ain't even going to go there! It's all about tradeoffs and what a person is willing to sacrifice to get something else. I like two-ways, and will gladly give up accuracy at high SPL's, to get silky smooth and balance from top to bottom. If I can get 100db at my listening position and still get the warm fuzzies when I'm listening -- I'm happy as hell. Now NOZ, I know for a fact that you can sleep through 100db -- so you better stick to 3-ways!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cornell Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 I myself caint explain the difference between, the cone midrange and horn squawker midrange! I should of stayed out of this! Sorry NOZ Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.