Lead ears?

[Donald]

A message thread in the Marketplace section re: trading a S3100 for a L300 makes me ask this.

How can a 2 way sound better than a 3 way? The woofer has to raise its top end and the mid/tweeter has to have a very large range. Does this not represent a compromise for both drivers?

In a 3 way the woofer can roll off its top end lower and the tweeter can roll off its low end higher. Plus the mid-range normally has a cone which lets it move more air giving the mids more presence.

Or am I all wet?

[boputnam]

How can a 2 way sound better than a 3 way? Fewer crossover points.

[Robh3606]

That is a very good question. I depends on lot's of things. Me I like 4 ways but they are a PITA to get to play right and can be really frustrating to work with. If you have a 4 way that's not balanced right or a poorly implemented crossover point I can see a well done 2 way kicking it's butt.

That said most 2 ways cannot compete with a well designed 3 or 4 way that has cherry picked drivers that are bandwidth limited and used in their most linear ranges like a 4345 or an L250Ti as examples. They will not have as much clarity or be able to handle the dynamics with the same sense of ease like these larger systems can.

With those 2 systems the primary differences would be the loss of the 2405 above 8K or so and the differences between the horns. The 3100 horn is a completely different animal from a simple exponential like the 2307/2308 lense and the 2 cannot really be compared as easily as it would seem. It's not just 2 speakers with horn loaded compression drivers. You would really have to go hear both pairs set-up to make a decision.

You can't just look at these systems by driver count alone. The performance and presentaion from the horns will be critical in making your decision. You may dislike either system based on the horns alone.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Read David Smith's sidebar on the issue here:

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/4430-35.htm

With respect to L300 vs. S3100, there is also a major difference in presentation: S3100 utilizes a defined-directivity horn to expand the phantom center horizontally, and to minimize early sidewall reflections. The design approach is unique to a very few JBL products, in which context L300 is "Just another three-way."

While it may certainly be argued that three- and four-ways do a better job of covering the full frequency spectrum, there are compromises, and technological advances are expanding the two-way envelope.

JBL's leading-edge statement speaker designs have traditionally been "augmented" two-ways. Recently, the augmentation has become less essential an element....

[Zilch]

Plus the mid-range normally has a cone which lets it move more air giving the mids more presence.

Or am I all wet?No cone midrange can match a compression driver/horn combination for "presence," I don't believe. :p

[toddalin]

Some people even like the sound of 1-way speakers. Bose sold a ton of the 901s to the unsuspecting public. ;)

[Ian Mackenzie]

Back in 71 they sounded great on a Bose amp....:banghead:

[Robh3606]

No cone midrange can match a compression driver/horn combination for "presence," I don't believe. :p

Hello Zilch

Have you been working with your 10"s???? They might change your mind or at least make you re-think it. They sure can sound good.


JBL's leading-edge statement speaker designs have traditionally been "augmented" two-ways.

Well only the more recent ones except for the Heartsfield. The Paragon and original Everest were both 3 ways. The current Everest is a 2 1/2 way with a super tweeter so it is "augmented" on the low end.


While it may certainly be argued that three- and four-ways do a better job of covering the full frequency spectrum, there are compromises, and technological advances are expanding the two-way envelope.


Well they are all compromises, just have to decide what works for you.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Johnaec's building me some boxes, Rob.

[I'll know in a couple of weeks.... :thmbsup: ]

[Robh3606]

Johnaec's building me some boxes, Rob.


Good! I have been wondering what happened with them. Your going to like them.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Hartsfield ultimately got augmented with a UHF driver, as well.

If JBL wants to call them all two-ways, I'm certainly with the program.... :p

[scott fitlin]

A really well designed 2 way sounds more seamless and coherent than 3 or 4 way designs, IMO & E! 4 ways can be really good, but as Rob sated, its a real PITA to get it to perform 100%. 2 ways are almost childs play to get outstanding performance from, its easier, there are less crossver points, less compoents and circuits in the signal path, hence less phase error, etc.

As far as distortion vs dynamic range and playback level, yes a 4 way will outdo a 2 way in this area, but, it really depends on how loud your looking to play! For moderate home volume levels, a 2 way can perform amazingly well. For really loud, or concert volume levels, 4 way will do better. But, the BEST sound I have ever heard comes from 2 ways. I get really hung up on coherency, ( Altec 604,s make the BEST point source and coherent image I HAVE EVER heard ) and seamless image. I like to hear the female vocal hang in front of the speaker like shes really in the room singing to you, that holographic image if you will. 4 ways have never truly provided this for me.

My full range is a 2 way plus tweeter. I also prefer 18db butterworth slopes in my xover, or 12db bessel, depending on driver/box, horn combination. I find that once you get into higher order filtering, say 4th order and beyond, there isnt enough overlap between ranges for it to sound seamless, and I usually find 4 ways crossed with high order slopes to sound unnatural. This flys in the face of current thinking and practice, but, its what my ears tell me.


Some people even like the sound of 1-way speakers. Bose sold a ton of the 901s to the unsuspecting public. ;)Actaully, rear horn loaded Lowthers have a big cult following.

While they will never make huge sounding bottom end and are rolled off in the top octaves, and cannot play very loud, they can do remarkably coherent sounding midrange.


Well they are all compromises, just have to decide what works for you.

Rob:)This is the truth. And it all comes down to what the individual likes are!

You listen to things and decide what YOU like, you pays yer money, and you takes yer choice!

:)

[Ian Mackenzie]

A message thread in the Marketplace section re: trading a S3100 for a L300 makes me ask this.

How can a 2 way sound better than a 3 way? The woofer has to raise its top end and the mid/tweeter has to have a very large range. Does this not represent a compromise for both drivers?

In a 3 way the woofer can roll off its top end lower and the tweeter can roll off its low end higher. Plus the mid-range normally has a cone which lets it move more air giving the mids more presence.

Or am I all wet?

In the above example its chalk and cheeze. The S3100 is simple eons better if you are looking for hi fidelty.

In a traditional sense of the 2 ways are compromise, particulary at frequency extremes if you are talking hi sensitivity 2 way woofer/horn systems and they tended to be very large and honked like hell.

Only a modern high performance set of drivers could be called superior to a 3 way in my book.

Recent advances in driver design and innovative driver topologies like the most recent JBL E2 provide and very complimentry set performance criteria ( and the compromises are minimised). The laws of physics still need to be obeyed and this is where application of a 2nd augmenation woofer and for those with Bat's ears a UHF driver making it a 2 1/2 way.

In terms of mid to low sensitivity direct radiator systems the 2 way has been a hifi mainstay for decades and the extension to 3 or 4 way is a design preference and choice of drivers.

Ian

[Titanium Dome]

I agree with Zilch's comments on the L300/S3100 subject, which reflect my own experience with the S2600, though the S2600 could use some LF augmentation.

As for four-ways doing a better job covering the full frequency spectrum than two-ways, I'd argue for that, and unless there's a new horn/driver combo I don't know about (always possible), there's little chance of losing.

I'm always perplexed by the ruse of a speaker with three or more drivers covering distinct frequencies being called a two-way. Call it "augmented" if you will, but that's a euphemism for three-way. I know true two-way believers like to hedge on this, but the K2 S9800 looks like a three way to me, right down to the crossover. As for the E2 DD66000, it's at least a three-way, and one could argue it's a 3.5 with the woofers not exactly doing the same thing.

I know the designer says they're two-ways, but to me a two-way has two drivers covering different frequencies, or perhaps in an MTM three drivers, with two drivers covering the same frequencies and another covering different frequencies. In either case, there's one crossover point, not two or three.

Steve Schell played some real two-way horns for me at his place, and they were truly impressive--huge, but impressive--and I thought it was about as good as two ways get. If he would have augmented them for some reason (not necessary to my ears), then they would have become three ways AFAIC.

It's true that technological advances can improve the the state of the art for two-way systems, but technology is not standing still for three- and four-way design, either. I just thought I'd point that out in case anyone got the idea that advances disproportionately benefit two-way design. ;)

I find it interesting, though not conclusive in any sense for this discussion, that Harman's top loudspeaker brand, Revel, is an all direct radiator, three-way or four-way speaker in the top Ultima2 line. This approach is certainly a contrast to JBL's, once we get beyond the Performance Series, yet it seems to yield excellent results.

[Ducatista47]

Speaking of augmented, recent events are steering me toward augmented single driver rather than two way as another flavor to "augment" my four way 4345 lifestyle.

I recently had a magical experience with my two watt Grommes valve amp (1.8 watts triode and 6 watts pentode) and a pair of small single driver boxes. Magical in this case means the best reproduction I have ever heard in my sixty years. Keb Mo' needed nothing else; other source material benefited from a powered sub below 100hz. I should add that these tiny units were very picky about amps and impressed no one until coupled with the transcendentally gifted Grommes.

Another member has put me on to these: http://www.hammerdynamics.com/ Single driver, much larger, augmented with a neo tweet, nearly on axis, above 10khz. After my recent revelation I fully intend to build a pair of these in the future.

Clark in Peoria

[Titanium Dome]

Another member has put me on to these: http://www.hammerdynamics.com/ Single driver, much larger, augmented with a neo tweet nearly on axis above 10khz. After my recent revelation I fully intend to build a pair of these in the future.

Clark in Peoria

There are some very nice cabinet finishes in the photo section. It's an intriguing design.

[rs237]

also I hear sometimes gladly 1 way. An old Philips Fullrange, drive by 4 Watts of triode Amp (sorry Finish is not completely). I say always little bass, few heights however each much music. Very good imaging and pretty Vocals.

regards

juergen

[Storm]

WOW!

I am very impressed.

Nice job!

-Storm.

;)

[Thom]

JBL used to claim not to make 3-ways. By crossing at 7k or higher they called them augmented 2-ways, saying this was above all music fundamentals and therefore the crossover wasn't nearly so critical. If you disagree with this, I'm only quoting, and though it makes sense to me, I'm not informed enough to actually stake out a position on this.

[scott fitlin]

JBL used to claim not to make 3-ways. By crossing at 7k or higher they called them augmented 2-ways, saying this was above all music fundamentals and therefore the crossover wasn't nearly so critical. If you disagree with this, I'm only quoting, and though it makes sense to me, I'm not informed enough to actually stake out a position on this.Yes, thats the way I remember it too. I would prefer less crossover points in the critical midrange, and using a tweeter crossed at 7K is an augmented 2 way, but technically since my horn rolls off where the tweeter comes in, it really is 3 way, but I get the sound and coherence of 2 way through the midband, and a cleaner, and more extended top end using a tweeter, which my 2395,s just cant do.

[Titanium Dome]

JBL used to claim not to make 3-ways. By crossing at 7k or higher they called them augmented 2-ways, saying this was above all music fundamentals and therefore the crossover wasn't nearly so critical. If you disagree with this, I'm only quoting, and though it makes sense to me, I'm not informed enough to actually stake out a position on this.


Yes, thats the way I remember it too. I would prefer less crossover points in the critical midrange, and using a tweeter crossed at 7K is an augmented 2 way, but technically since my horn rolls off where the tweeter comes in, it really is 3 way, but I get the sound and coherence of 2 way through the midband, and a cleeaner, and more extended top end using a tweeter, which my 2395,s just cant do.

Really, fellas, that is basically JBL marketing language, ghosting in from the past. I guess it's like a good breast augmentation. You know that's not a real boob, but you REALLY want to believe that it is, because, geez, wouldn't it be great if boobs really were like that? :rotfl:

[scott fitlin]

OK, maybe it is.

BUT, I know what my ears tell me. And my ears love the midrange from a great 2 way, plus tweeter. I know, quasi three way!

Very coherent and seamless sounding. Of course, you have to have the right speakers, etc.

My absolute favorite sounding midrange is single point source coax.