# 2-way vs 3-way: Which is more SQ?



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

2 or 3 way front.
Sound quality is subjective, what is your preference for obtaining what you believe to be the best quality sound. And why!
Thanks!


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

Please elaborate on "more SQ" and/or "better sound" 

Also, 2/3way front or system?


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

I would argue that a 3-way has more potential customization options for different tastes. And since I believe that SQ is really a personal opinion on how you like your sound, then 3-way has got to be the choice as it's more versatile.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

3 ways gets youz mad dee beez and da hunnys like it toos


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> I would argue that a 3-way has more potential customization options for different tastes. *And since I believe that SQ is really a personal opinion on how you like your sound,* then 3-way has got to be the choice as it's more versatile.


So true. I like my sound to have a bloated low end while sounding very unrealistic layered with major time alignment to give it a nice echo effect.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

three way has more potential, since you have more options to reproduce the 20-20...i.e. you can cross over speakers that don't play ranges as optimally as one of the others, etc. also, speakers are more dedicated to frequency ranges. you don't have a mid trying to play 40Hz and 4000Hz at the same time like you see in a 2 way, so there's less chance for breakup.

however, it's a lot more complicated, and you have that many more phase issues, etc to fix.


----------



## falkenbd (Aug 16, 2008)

Why stop at 3-way, when you could have 3.5 way, 4 way, 4.5 way or maybe even 5 way or 5.5 way

The sky is the limit


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

tspence73 said:


> And since I believe that SQ is really a personal opinion on how you like your sound


i think that's a flawed statement. sound quality, or the quality of the sound, is how accurately does the stereo reproduce the music. if you record a live orchestra and play it back, how much does it sound like you're actually there? saying that SQ is a personal opinion on how you like it takes away any standard measurement of what it is. you can have your preferences on how you like things, for example i'm picky about midrange frequencies, and prefer them to be a touch warmer. i had to tune against my preferences all last season to make it sound more accurate. it being warmer made it less accurate, therefore a lower quality.

if you want something that sounds good to you, go for it. you have to listen to it after all.

if you want sq, go for that, but don't say your goal is sq but that sounds good to me.

maybe sq oriented is the best technical way of saying what most people here are after, b/c honestly, a lot of music just sounds better when you bump the eq in different areas.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

It has to depend on your ability to get it into the vehicle CORRECTLY, if you have a challenging install environment then often times a 2 way will outperform a 3 way with speakers pointed in every willy-nilly way imaginable. Without proper install and aiming NO time alignment will help.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

James Bang said:


> So true. I like my sound to have a bloated low end while sounding very unrealistic layered with major time alignment to give it a nice echo effect.


So whatcho tryin' ta say?  And you should talk with your big 'ol 10" midbass and 7" mid. :laugh:


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

I plan to currently run a 3-way front setup, with l-r rear fill, and a single sub. The benefit as mentioned earlier, is my drivers up front won't have to cover as large of a frequency range so they CAN be clearer. The downside is that I have much more to get right: aiming, phase, level matching, crossover points, t/a. 

Luckily I have a processor that can help me do all of this, and I have crossover options between 12&24db(JL amps) and 36&72(Sony 4000x) db slopes.


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> So whatcho tryin' ta say?  And you should talk with your big 'ol 10" midbass and 7" mid. :laugh:


Oh ****, i just got tspence'd. tspence saw through the internet and found out how/where I have my speakers mounted and how they're aimed. 

Dang. How do you do it.


----------



## DonovanM (Nov 1, 2006)

James Bang said:


> Oh ****, i just got tspence'd. tspence saw through the internet and found out how/where I have my speakers mounted and how they're aimed.
> 
> Dang. How do you do it.


I KNOW WHERE THEY ARE THE 10'S ARE IN YOUR DOORS!!!!!!


----------



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

LOL Hes psychic


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

James Bang said:


> Oh ****, i just got tspence'd.


Yep. And don't you forget it.  tspence hath spokem.





> How do you do it?


It's mah secret powers.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I can't vote because that's not a cut and dry question. There is no correct answer.

It's like saying which is more "SQ", a 10 or 12" sub.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

89grand said:


> I can't vote because that's not a cut and dry question. There is no correct answer.
> 
> It's like saying which is more "SQ", a 10 or 12" sub.


I'd agree with this statement. There are a lot of variables and each setup has it's own advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I would think the answer is that the fewest number of drivers you can use to get an accurate reproduction is the way to go. Many times using drivers with narrow frequency ranges, or inability to play the extended ranges accurately forces you to use additional or different drivers to compensate. If you have a midbass/midrange that does not extend very high, you either have to use a tweeter to play very low, a midrange to fill the gap, or a different midrange/fullrange driver to handle the remaining frequency range.

Your installation, driver location, driver aiming, vehicle acoustics, etc will play a role in answering that question as well.

Can you get great sound with either setup? Absolutely. In one installation a 2 way setup may sound superior to a 3 way, while using the same drivers in a different installation may be the opposite.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Deton Nation said:


> Sound quality is subjective


How can something subjective be quantified? I can measure the FR, noise, distortion, etc...all of which directly contribute to the exact nature of the sound. How can things that are absolute and measurable be subjective at the same time???

Here's a better question (to me, anyway): how much of a point source clusterfuck of sound can you personally tolerate? There's an absolute quality to mine, I'll tell you that. Fact is, it's all in my head.


----------



## bafukie (Nov 23, 2007)

watever happen to a 1 way full range speaker?


----------



## drtool (Nov 26, 2007)

My first system 1 way up graded stock

2nd; 2 way with kicks.

3rd system I put together 3 way with 2 pair of tweets, it worked, I can't explain. One set of tweets on x another set 45 off and pointed up.

4th systen 4 way, Pink floyd come on down.


----------



## Z3Sooner (Aug 2, 2008)

Sound Quality is not subjective. The job of a stereo system is to accurately reproduce sound. The more accurate it is, the better it's sound quality.

People may LIKE different things when it comes to sound reproduction, but that doesn't change the above statement.

As for the original question, the only proper answer is, "it depends". Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses and therefore it's own application. It's like asking which roofing material is better, standing seam metal or EPDM. Well, on a sloped roof that you can see standing seam is better because it's more attractive and lasts longer. However, on a flat roof (those roofs with slope less than 1" per ft.) EPDM is better because you typically can't see it and standing seam will leak on a flat roof.


----------



## driveshaft (Jun 22, 2008)

have done a 2-way and now running 3-way, I'll never go back to 2-way again.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

driveshaft said:


> have done a 2-way and now running 3-way, I'll never go back to 2-way again.


Because that's why.........

Why? That's why.........


----------



## Vigarisa (Dec 10, 2007)

I believe the choice depends on the environment and the subwoofer you're using as well.

If you can use a 2-way with a 5-inches midrange and tweeter in front of you, why not? But the car need to be appropriate for that.

There was a car from my friend that used the Seas Dual Concentric for front stage, and 12 6-inches woofers in a pull-pull configuration, F-3 19Hz. 

It's all about the project.

I believe the best drivers to use in a car are the 5's or 6's and tweeters. Most midranges sounds like little horns to me in the car. They have their advantages, but still...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Vigarisa said:


> Most midranges sounds like little horns to me in the car. They have their advantages, but still...


Because [gasp] where they are located they are often times HORN LOADED by their surroundings! As are many placements in an automotive environment......

But who cares about space loading anyways?


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Z3Sooner said:


> Sound Quality is not subjective. The job of a stereo system is to accurately reproduce sound. The more accurate it is, the better it's sound quality.
> 
> People may LIKE different things when it comes to sound reproduction, but that doesn't change the above statement.
> 
> As for the original question, the only proper answer is, "it depends". Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses and therefore it's own application. It's like asking which roofing material is better, standing seam metal or EPDM. Well, on a sloped roof that you can see standing seam is better because it's more attractive and lasts longer. However, on a flat roof (those roofs with slope less than 1" per ft.) EPDM is better because you typically can't see it and standing seam will leak on a flat roof.


I strongly disagree, but I don't think this is the appropriate thread for that discussion.

To the OP, I do believe that simplicity rules. The fewer speakers that you can use to give you the sound you want, the better. If you have enough processing and you carefully select your drivers, a 2-way front stage can sound amazing. Same could be said about a 3-way front stage, however this is going to require more time and careful tuning, not to mention a proper installation. It's difficult enough to get a 2-way installed to sound good, still be aesthetically pleasing and practical, adding another set of drivers only complicates things.

I vote KISS.


----------



## dbiegel (Oct 15, 2006)

Well most of the guys here that know me, know I'm a huge fan of 2-way  I guess I'm a big point source kinda guy, since I believe in using as few drivers as possible to accomplish your goals. I'd certainly prefer to run a 1-way if I could get away with it...

To me, I've heard a lot of awesome sounding 3-way setups, but there's just something that tends to sound unnatural/unrealistic about most 3-ways, even the most technically correct (staging, imaging) ones. I can only speak of my own experiences, but the most natural and realistic sounding setups I've heard all used 2-ways (in cars, at least.. home is a different story of course)...

I think part of the problem is that a 3-way can be used as a band-aid (everyone's been telling me to get supertweeters to fix stage height, for example -- but to me, that just indicates that I have a problem with my setup that I need to work on; I don't want to simply mask that problem). A lot of people go 3-way to improve midbass, but if you have the space for a dedicated midrange, the money for the extra amps, drivers, and fabrication, and the time to fabricate/tune it, I can't help but think of the potentially amazing 2-way setup you could have instead. With the same time and money, you could use world class 8's and large format tweets or fullrange, perfectly installed in the right location, a perfectly fabricated baffle and well tuned... and perhaps end up with a better sounding system with more reliability (less drivers, amps, connections), less space used, less strain on your electrical system, and fewer untunable phase/time anomalies.. not to mention it'll probably end up being cheaper and having less speaker pods in your way/visible, too.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I agree. You only need as many speakers as you need.

I know that sounds too simple, but it really is that simple.


----------



## Mosho (Apr 17, 2009)

Within a reasonable, sane price range, 2-way is the way to go SQ-wise, imo. By the time you get to the SQ of a 2-way with a 3-way, you'd have probably spent much more money.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

IMO, 

A 2-way simply can't deliver sufficient low frequency impact to satisfy most people who put together car audio systems. Even with an 8" woofer and a full range mid/hi driver, you still won't get much usable impact from 20Hz to 40Hz. I am running a 4-way system which I built specifically because of the shortcomings or limitations I heard from running even a 3-way, let alone a 2-way. I can guarantee you that no one will be able to re-produce the sound I get out of my system with a simple 2-way setup. A 3-way system using a mid/hi driver could equal my setup but not a 2-way.

The highest quality system I can think of putting together right now would be shooting for the ideal of perfect off-axis response that mirrors the on-axis response in character. To achieve this and still keep the strong low frequency impact, it would require a 4-way setup in an A-pillar design. A 2-way setup can not come anywhere NEAR that goal. The reason for this goal is because a car install will have tons of audible reflections from the off-axis response and if it's not matching the on-axis sound in character, you will hear it. So, in a car install, based on response graphs, I can't think of anyway a 2-way setup can do this.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

tspence73 said:


> IMO,
> 
> A 2-way simply can't deliver sufficient low frequency impact to satisfy most people who put together car audio systems. Even with an 8" woofer and a full range mid/hi driver, you still won't get much usable impact from 20Hz to 40Hz.


The good news is, no one takes your responses seriously.

Besides, we are talking about a 2 or 3 way PLUS sub.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

89grand said:


> The good news is, no one takes your responses seriously.
> 
> Besides, we are talking about a 2 or 3 way PLUS sub.


Even still. Off-axis response from a full-range 3" driver won't match a 4"-mid+1" large format tweet. A 3" driver's off-axis response will start to falter at around 4KHz-5KHz, while a large format tweeter with excellent off-axis specs will CREAM that full range driver. This is precisely why I'm really interested in a particular ceramic XBL tweeter that can cross very low and doesn't have an off-axis response dip until 15KHz. 

So, if we are talking about which system will have superior SQ for a CAR install, there is no contest. The highly audible off-axis reflections in a car that actually mingle with the on-axis sound means that a system that delivers a very similar character both on and off axis will likely sound the best. You cannot achieve this with a 2-way. Not only that, but a 3-way system can also achieve this SQ along with getting louder SPL output and cleaner sound at high overall volume levels vs a 3" full range.


----------



## Vega-LE (Feb 22, 2009)

The best system I heard was a three way front stage. Plate speakers (tweeter/mid) and mid/woofers running full range.


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> Even still. Off-axis response from a full-range 3" driver won't match a 4"-mid+1" large format tweet. A 3" driver's off-axis response will start to falter at around 4KHz-5KHz, while a large format tweeter with excellent off-axis specs will CREAM that full range driver. This is precisely why I'm really interested in a particular ceramic XBL tweeter that can cross very low and doesn't have an off-axis response dip until 15KHz.
> 
> So, if we are talking about which system will have superior SQ for a CAR install, there is no contest. The highly audible off-axis reflections in a car that actually mingle with the on-axis sound means that a system that delivers a very similar character both on and off axis will likely sound the best. You cannot achieve this with a 2-way. Not only that, but a 3-way system can also achieve this SQ along with getting louder SPL output and cleaner sound at high overall volume levels vs a 3" full range.


I am trying really hard to make sense of this.

..not really


----------



## soundlevel (Feb 17, 2009)

more detail in a 3-way set up


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

yeah for the record the best sounding cars i've ever heard, and the world champions in the classes that allow for a 3 way have all been 3 way.

the question of this thread was worded poorly, but if you're asking with all other things being equal, in a car environment, which can you get better sq out of, i have to say 3 way.

2008 MECA finals, best of show was 87.8. That was with a 3 way. In Street+, which is basically all 2 way setups (save for anyone with a scion xb), first place was an 82.5. That would have placed 7th place in modex.

I'm saying this moreso to illustrate how good a 3 way can sound with the proper install and tuning. With everything else aside, and just going on the number of speakers on the front stage, 3 way wins in a car.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

tspence73 said:


> IMO,
> 
> A 2-way simply can't deliver sufficient low frequency impact to satisfy most people who put together car audio systems. Even with an 8" woofer and a full range mid/hi driver, you still won't get much usable impact from 20Hz to 40Hz. I am running a 4-way system which I built specifically because of the shortcomings or limitations I heard from running even a 3-way, let alone a 2-way. I can guarantee you that no one will be able to re-produce the sound I get out of my system with a simple 2-way setup. A 3-way system using a mid/hi driver could equal my setup but not a 2-way.
> 
> The highest quality system I can think of putting together right now would be shooting for the ideal of perfect off-axis response that mirrors the on-axis response in character. To achieve this and still keep the strong low frequency impact, it would require a 4-way setup in an A-pillar design. A 2-way setup can not come anywhere NEAR that goal. The reason for this goal is because a car install will have tons of audible reflections from the off-axis response and if it's not matching the on-axis sound in character, you will hear it. So, in a car install, based on response graphs, I can't think of anyway a 2-way setup can do this.


Man you should listen to my car then: 
DLS A2 - Image Dynamic Horns 630hz and up 
DLS A4 - Image Dynamic Horns 70hz to 500hz
DLS A3 - Image Dynamic IDQ 12 v.2 (x2) 70hz and down
I'm *SURE*, I have more... *"DYNAMIC"* so to speak and while listenning to live recordings, people will have a better feeling listenning to my system than yours... 

Kelvin 

PS: why am I even trying to make you understand anything


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

tspence73 said:


> Even still. Off-axis response from a full-range 3" driver won't match a 4"-mid+1" large format tweet. A 3" driver's off-axis response will start to falter at around 4KHz-5KHz, while a large format tweeter with excellent off-axis specs will CREAM that full range driver. This is precisely why I'm really interested in a particular ceramic XBL tweeter that can cross very low and doesn't have an off-axis response dip until 15KHz.


Then you need to listen to Bob Morrow's car. No tweeter, just a Legatia L3 and Legatia midbass (don't remember which L6 or L8) 

Kelvin


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

It's to subjective from the speakers them selves to their placement. 

In theory: 3-way should yield better SQ. The more speakers there are to play the fewest freqs, IN THEORY, would be better. BUT!!!!!! Then you run into phase issues, tunning issues, cancellation issues, but who has room for all those speakers. To sum up, in Theory 3-way SHOULD be better in the SQ dept.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

2-way has two SQs, whereas a 3-way has three SQs. 3-way wins! More SQs.


----------



## beerdrnkr (Apr 18, 2007)

captainobvious said:


> 3 ways gets youz mad dee beez and da hunnys like it toos


That's why I have a 3way 


89grand said:


> I can't vote because that's not a cut and dry question. There is no correct answer.
> 
> It's like saying which is more "SQ", a 10 or 12" sub.


Clearly 10's have more SQ 

I have no constructive comments to add, sorry.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

smgreen20 said:


> It's to subjective from the speakers them selves to their placement.
> 
> In theory: 3-way should yield better SQ. The more speakers there are to play the fewest freqs, IN THEORY, would be better. BUT!!!!!! Then you run into phase issues, tunning issues, cancellation issues, but who has room for all those speakers. To sum up, in Theory 3-way SHOULD be better in the SQ dept.


The theory that a 3-way should sound better can be argued. The argument that a 2-way should sound better can be made because you have two sources instead of three, which we know is better. Wouldn't the perfect system use a single perfect point source? 

There are advantages to both, really they serve different purposes and it can't be said that one is better than the other.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

gijoe said:


> The theory that a 3-way should sound better can be argued. The argument that a 2-way should sound better can be made because you have two sources instead of three, which we know is better. Wouldn't the perfect system use a single perfect point source?


Not really. There are inherent distortions that are more likely to be present when a single driver attempts to reproduce the entire bandwidth. Doppler distortion and IMD are often prevalent in such designs.

And then, even more importantly, you have physical constraints that prevent high frequency extension and high excursion from playing together nice. Big coils with long throw capabilities are often not the friends of low distortion high frequency output.

I think a lot of the people who promote the virtues of a 2-way could be pacified if the three-way included a coaxial arrangement, IMO.



> There are advantages to both, really they serve different purposes and it can't be said that one is better than the other.


That's the best thing that can come out of this thread, I think. Every goal is different, people's definition of "SQ" vary.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> Not really.
> 
> I think a lot of the people who promote the virtues of a 2-way could be pacified if the three-way included a coaxial arrangement, IMO.
> 
> .


I think that's a good point. If you could reduce the need to have 3 drivers in 3 different locations firing at 3 different angles, a 3-way system would be much more appealing and the advantages of a 3 way could be put to better use. But since that isn't the case, a good 2-way can be very respectable in a car.

Doesn't Genesis have something like this where the tweet and mid are coax? I think I read about it, but don't recall hearing about anyone running them.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Man you should listen to my car then:
> DLS A2 - Image Dynamic Horns 630hz and up
> DLS A4 - Image Dynamic Horns 70hz to 500hz
> DLS A3 - Image Dynamic IDQ 12 v.2 (x2) 70hz and down
> ...


This calls for pictures.  Besides. Horns and waveguides change off-axis responses, so it's not quite the same in comparison.


----------



## katarakt (Jul 10, 2009)

Take a look...what sounds "better"? You can't say it really, both sounding excellent i think. It depends on installation, the install place, quality of speakers and personal music style. 

Most time the bass is playing in doors and tweeter in the A-pilar, this way a 2-way system don't fit MY PERSONAL needs. That's why i'll go for a 3-way in my new car having more kickbass in doors playing around 0-400 hz (depends on the system!) and have all and better staging from 400hz-20khz in the a-pilar or somewhere near there.


----------



## dsh2009 (Apr 28, 2009)

all this talk of point-source got me thinking. i work in the music biz (for the last 20yrs) and have spent a good amount of time in recording, mixing, and mastering studios. many use Tannoys, of various models/sizes (i also owned a pair of vintage Tannoy Ardens back in the day). anyway, Tannoy uses something called "Dual Concentric Driver" (if i remember correctly) technology, which, as you may surmise from the nomenclature, basically is a driver within a driver, which eliminates a lot of point-source issues.

so, and i apologize if this is a bit off-topic, but are there any simlar products/approaches/solutions in the car audio world? seems like somebody MUST have at least tried it? and no i don't consider coaxials the same.

-d


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Seas has a few with the tweet where the dust dome would be....

Remember the god awful advent ICT?

And I use Urei's for mastering at home, another concentric


----------



## Briznow (Mar 19, 2008)

Certainly not made for car audio, but I use these "Uni-Q" satellite speakers from KEF on my dash.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Genesis Studio 16 - Subwoofers & Crossovers - Review Components - Car Audio and Electronics Magazine

Here's what I was thinking of. Never heard of anyone using them though.


----------



## dsh2009 (Apr 28, 2009)

thanks for posting that link - so, apparently someone IS taking this apprach after all.

that Genesis setup looks pretty sick - althoug i mistakenly thought for second it read "Genelec"- wouldn't it be cool if THEY did some car audio...

-d


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

gijoe said:


> The theory that a 3-way should sound better can be argued. The argument that a 2-way should sound better can be made because you have two sources instead of three, which we know is better. Wouldn't the perfect system use a single perfect point source?
> 
> There are advantages to both, really they serve different purposes and it can't be said that one is better than the other.


That I have to agree... The following pics are from Cabasse: 

















They need to create a way to adapt the design to car audio: smaller mounting depth  

Kelvin


----------



## dsh2009 (Apr 28, 2009)

ya the Cabasse La Sphere looks to be an amazing peice of kit - and at $165,000 with the specialized Bel-Canto amps they are a steal!

-d


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

I only voted so I could see the poll results.


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

TREETOP said:


> I only voted so I could see the poll results.


For future reference, theres a little link on the bottom right corner that says "view poll results"


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

gijoe said:


> Genesis Studio 16 - Subwoofers & Crossovers - Review Components - Car Audio and Electronics Magazine
> 
> Here's what I was thinking of. Never heard of anyone using them though.


Here you go...

Welcome to The Autophile!

You've got a lot of posts around these here parts for not having heard tell of them thar drivers...


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

kevin k. said:


> Here you go...
> 
> Welcome to The Autophile!
> 
> You've got a lot of posts around these here parts for not having heard tell of them thar drivers...


Not a lot of folk n dez neck o da woods spend that kinda money on speakers.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Two way is pretty easy to mess up . . . but *3-way is a no brainer to trash *

So if you can get *more speakers *in the sys . . . go for it !!


----------



## 4-way (Jul 9, 2009)

Thumper26 has a point about SQ. The phrase SQ is very easy and, indeed, very personal for each person. It still should be High Fidelity. 
It is an utopia to think you can reproduce live performance in your living room but it still should be a goal for music lovers to reproduce as close as possible.
On the other hand, every individual has his/her own audiogram what will cause an other impression for instruments and music experience.
In the time domain, the step response often is far better, where there can be troubles in the impedance magnitude and the electrical phase for a 3-way or 4-way system what can be very difficult for some amplifiers.
Often a 2-way system is preferred because it´s easier to build with use of an active subwoofer. But a lot of these systems have a poor tonal balance as practice have showed that 10% of the consumers have a subwoofer setting that´s to loud and even 5% of the "professionals" made it wrong.
I prefer a 3½-way system and even 4-way as it is possible to give each driver their own passband what, I think, is very important for the human voice.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Where would one find space for 4 drivers per side at the front of a vehicle? It's not easy, should you wish to maintain the car in stock form (even in the slightest).


----------



## 4-way (Jul 9, 2009)

Your right.
But if you want to install 8 drivers, just buy some spare doorboards etc. I managed to do so in a, discontinued, Fiat Stilo. 2 x 6,5", 1 x mid and 1 x tweeter per side.
Also in my TransSport it´s almost stock. 1 x 8", 1 x 6,5", 1 x tweeter and 1 x image tweeter per side. Only have to buy new doorboards when I want to sell the car. The only drivers you see are the image tweeters.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

tspence73 said:


> Even still. Off-axis response from a full-range 3" driver won't match a 4"-mid+1" large format tweet. A 3" driver's off-axis response will start to falter at around 4KHz-5KHz, while a large format tweeter with excellent off-axis specs will CREAM that full range driver.
> 
> So, if we are talking about which system will have superior SQ for a CAR install, there is no contest. The highly audible off-axis reflections in a car that actually mingle with the on-axis sound means that a system that delivers a very similar character both on and off axis will likely sound the best.


Correct.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

If you have door installed woofers, with a good low FS tw, you could have a good sounding system but it will be always outperformed by a 3 way with the midhigh and tw on axis and playing close together.
A good installed 5 1/2 + tw in good kickpanels on axis, should sound awsome if you are not after very high output.


----------



## UncleMeat (Jul 14, 2009)

dbiegel said:


> I think part of the problem is that a 3-way can be used as a band-aid <snip>


Ditto that my brother. Contrary to popular belief, going 3-way is actually an easier means of achieving desirable results to the average enthusiast*. Whether or not people are able to critically discern what they're hearing is an entirely different matter.

Setting up a phenomenal sounding 2way is an art that requires not only a fundamental understanding of tuning, but also careful driver selection; that is, not whatever happened to be on sale you pieced together, but speakers with characteristics that will excel in the locations/enclosures you have decided upon and will operate harmoniously within their respective frequency ranges.

Once you start considering dispersion/lobing and the constraints of the automotive environment, it's really just easier to endorse a 3-way given one has the fiscal means and space required.

*IME/YRMV disclaimer


----------



## DanMan (Jul 18, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Man you should listen to my car then:
> DLS A2 - Image Dynamic Horns 630hz and up
> DLS A4 - Image Dynamic Horns 70hz to 500hz
> DLS A3 - Image Dynamic IDQ 12 v.2 (x2) 70hz and down
> ...


Bumping for clarification. Pretty sure it's a typo-can't possibly be running two pair of horns-especially one set 70-500hz?

What mids are you using? I use ID Mini Ultra's w/ X69's. Really solid pairing.

Just curious is all!

Thanks.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Typo  
I use the X65 to keep a stealth install... 

Kelvin


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

Coaxial Sub!


----------



## invinsible (May 4, 2009)

What do you guys think of 4" Morel Integra Ovation XO coax which can do with active at 140-150 rms coupled with Morel Elate SW6 midbass. The idea has been running on my mind since quite sometime. Both coax and midbass will be on doors.
Or 
May be getting a Morel Piccolo Tweeter + Morel cdm88 mids with Peerlees SLS6. Both Piccolo and mids will be custom installed on A pillar with Sls6 in doors. 

Which one of these setup will give more bang for the buck for the front stage?

Am looking for midbass that can play down to 50hz?


----------



## vinny (Apr 28, 2008)

kevin k. said:


> Here you go...
> 
> Welcome to The Autophile!
> 
> You've got a lot of posts around these here parts for not having heard tell of them thar drivers...


The driver reminds me of the concentric driver Thiel uses in their speakers.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

It should. It's the same driver.


----------



## iarechaga (Oct 27, 2009)

I always had a 2 way system, but now my mid-woofers are the Scan Speak revelator and the act awesome in the lowest frequencies so next time i'll have a 3-way system


----------



## AdamO (Nov 17, 2009)

a$$hole said:


> Two way is pretty easy to mess up . . . but *3-way is a no brainer to trash *
> 
> So if you can get *more speakers *in the sys . . . go for it !!


sacred words


----------



## mark1478 (Nov 11, 2009)

3 way without a doubt. I had a set of utopia 3 ways in kicks with 300 watts to each side. Amazing. been chasing the feeling ever since..


----------



## yonigta (Nov 20, 2009)

Hello puaes I since my system changes 2 way to 3 way and obtained mas dynamics, mas forces and mas cleanliness in the sound, also me to side many mas to regulate it, but the resultdo is very good though it(he,she) is not exajerado opposite to 2 way, on having possessed(having relied on) one crayon hxd2 the stereo effect is very good and the voices do to themselves mas present that in 2 way, so much that sometimes I can indicate with a finger this where the singer...

A greeting from Canary


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

yonigta said:


> Hello puaes I since my system changes 2 way to 3 way and obtained mas dynamics, mas forces and mas cleanliness in the sound, also me to side many mas to regulate it, but the resultdo is very good though it(he,she) is not exajerado opposite to 2 way, on having possessed(having relied on) one crayon hxd2 the stereo effect is very good and the voices do to themselves mas present that in 2 way, so much that sometimes I can indicate with a finger this where the singer...
> 
> A greeting from Canary


"Hell" of a first post  

Kelvin


----------



## voomm (Nov 20, 2009)

hehe yes


----------



## bruther (Sep 22, 2009)

I just went 3 way and it reaaly enahances the midbass and voice...I love it.


----------



## SteveSlagle (Apr 5, 2009)

As my first post,
2 ways are much easier to make and have a good SQ. The effort for a good 3 way is Much higher. I am not at the level of building my own custom 3 ways. This is true in home audio, my background. For a car, I am trying to come to grips with the environment issues of cabin gain, reflections, ... I'm here to learn.

Steve


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

Well, it looks as though I have sided with the majority.
I've run single point source, 2 way, and 3 way. The single
was very easy to set up and took little to no time correction,
however lacking in what everyone describes as midbass 
punch. The two way depending on tweeter placement also
took little to no time correction in the same car, but again
playing around with the tweeter yielded a great stage. I 
changed cars that had dash speakers 190e AMG, and
I did kick 8"s which were great. This by far had a much 
more defined front stage which enabled for the sub to be
very non-directional. It did take quite a bit of time correction
took up way too much floor space. 

If I didn't own the gear and this poll were to help settle in which
direction one should take I would have to say buy a two way.
Play around with placement and see if it will fill your needs. You
may need to incorporate time alignment to help the stage. Then
if your missing low end and it made your sub directional add a
midbass driver. I would spend as much money as you can and
get quality drivers in the two way set up. Then if you do have to
add an 8" or whatever the case may be the cost would be 
spread out over time. That is if funds were an issue. I wouldn't
go to great lengths in building kicks to start off, only doing so
if a 3 way was indeed needed in the long run. Again, as many
have mentioned it can also be dependent on the vehicle in
question.

NEAT useful topic!


----------



## bri g (Oct 9, 2009)

as an audio newb, I like the details of the 3 way better. the voice definitely stands out better so I'm in the process of switching over to 3 way as well.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I won't vote on this poll, since I think this is a very interesting question with no real answer.
Both "-way"s have their pro's and cons.

It is a known fact that it's good for the purity of the sound to prevent all forms of processing (TA, EQ, X-overs...) as much as possible to prevent coloration. This is also the basic idea behind dipole and open-baffle speakers (no box coloration without a box).
This fact speaks in favor of 2-ways frontsets. 

However it's also a known fact that human beings have the best hearing in the voice-frequency-range. A classic 2-way's frontset has a crossoverpoint at 2-4kHz, which is in that region. A classic 3-ways frontset has 2 crossoverpoints, but they are near the outer ends of the human voice range or even outside it.
Altough this solution has 2 crossoverpoints instead of 1, it might cause less audible issues, which speaks in favor of a 3-ways frontset.


To make things even more complicated: When one drivers takes it over from another one at high frequency, you might experience serious phase issues since the distance between the drivers becomes larger than the wavelength of the crossover-frequency.
This fact speaks in favor of a less common form of 2-ways: Fullrange + Midbasswoofer.
This way you should have the best of both worlds: 
- 1 single crossoverpoint
- crossoverpoint well below phase-issue-critical frequency
- crossoverpoint near the lower end of the human voice range

But there's also a "however" on this type of frontset: This way, the midrange and treble comes out of 1 single pair of drivers. The fullrange drivers are expected to play about 7 octaves at a high-end level. The best singers of the world can't do that!


Every "-way" has it's pro's and con's, so just do what your intuition says is best.
Xenia and I have chosen to do a combination of fullrange+midbass and 3-ways in our cars: midbass+fullrange+supertweeter. We expect issues with the high crossoverpoint between the fullrange driver and the supertweeter, but we hope to get this solved...

greetings,
Isabelle


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

K.I.S.S.!!! What ever works best.

I would love to do a system in an old BMW 540i SPORT with a couple of AE Speakers Lambda Series Dipole10's in the kicks, Some Scan tweets, and a couple of IB 15's ...all SIX SPEAKERS powered with a huge amount of ARC SE's or maybe some JL HD's?


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

WLDock said:


> K.I.S.S.!!! What ever works best.
> 
> I would love to do a system in an old BMW 540i SPORT with a couple of AE Speakers Lambda Series Dipole10's in the kicks, Some Scan tweets, and a couple of IB 15's ...all SIX SPEAKERS powered with a huge amount of ARC SE's or maybe some JL HD's?


A 2-ways frontset with a 10" woofer (with parameters optimized for dipole use!) and a tweeter? They might say the dipole10 is able to play up to 2kHz, I'm pretty sure a 3-5" driver will do a much better job at 2kHz!


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

Candisa said:


> This fact speaks in favor of a less common form of 2-ways: Fullrange + Midbasswoofer.
> This way you should have the best of both worlds:
> - 1 single crossoverpoint
> - crossoverpoint well below phase-issue-critical frequency
> ...


Please post your experience with this setup.
I have use it in the past with Auras NS3 and today I have the TB bamboos widerange drivers.

I couldn't get the desired result with none of them and in the end I still use tweeters. I have tried high xo points between the mids and the tw but always ended using a standard xo of 3.2 khz.

One reason is that a good tw has better highs than a good widebander. The other is that to "my" ears an even polar response from the system is good and a 3 inch driver beems like crazy above 5K?

I have read a lot of thead about controling directivity. I think it is a good thing if the polar response is narrower but even. 

The system sounds better if the power response is linear. You are filling the cab with music and all frecuencies must have similar power response.

The car interior is hostile to an audio install. Speaker placement without mayor mods is usually poor.
What happens when you talk with a friend inside the car. Does his voice sounds unnatural? I think not. Early refleccions, difraccion and all the enemies are still there but it sounds right and natural. This leads me to thing that the real problem is that we have no place to install a stereo system properly...


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

Was that bamboo-coned TB a 3" or 4"?

Some time ago, we ordered a pair of TB 4" titanium drivers and a pair of TB 4" bamboo drivers to compare and maybe end up with one being ideal for one car and the other being ideal for the other one...
It didn't go that way, it ended by sending back the bamboo-coned pair.

The bamboo-coned TB 4" isn't a bad driver at all, but if you put the titanium-coned version next to it, you never want to listen to the bamboo version again...

Something very important if you use full-range drivers as mid+high driver in a FAST-like 2-way frontset is that you aim the fullrangers very well. How larger a speaker is, how sooner it'll start to beam. 
That's why we'll use tweeters in both cars to cancel the poor off-axis response of the fullrangers, without loosing too much of the advantages of a FAST-like 2-way frontset.


----------



## trigg007 (Feb 24, 2010)

Briefly reading a few responses, I believe what most are referring to as a 2 way or 3 way is excluding the subwoofer. Technically a 2 way with subwoofer, whether it be a single sub (2.1) or stereo (2.2) is considered a 3 way & 3 way with sub = 4 way. That being said, despite varying opinions, it’s much easier to obtain realistic SQ with a 2 way + plus a sub, preferably a stereo pair of subs...So 3 way gets my vote. The likelihood of producing stellar SQ from 2 drivers (20 Hz-20 kHz) is extremely overly optimistic.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

trigg007 said:


> Briefly reading a few responses, I believe what most are referring to as a 2 way or 3 way is excluding the subwoofer. Technically a 2 way with subwoofer, whether it be a single sub (2.1) or stereo (2.2) is considered a 3 way & 3 way with sub = 4 way. That being said, despite varying opinions, it’s much easier to obtain realistic SQ with a 2 way + plus a sub, preferably a stereo pair of subs...So 3 way gets my vote. The likelihood of producing stellar SQ from 2 drivers (20 Hz-20 kHz) is extremely overly optimistic.


Some people actually run a 2-way. Jay's (DS-21) system is composed of an SLS8 and a widebander.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Candisa said:


> A 2-ways frontset with a 10" woofer (with parameters optimized for dipole use!) and a tweeter? They might say the dipole10 is able to play up to 2kHz, I'm pretty sure a 3-5" driver will do a much better job at 2kHz!


Well the thinking is to vent the driver to the outside.Then to get some output use a large driver...and 8" would be the first choice but the Lambda driver uses an underhung design and have extremely low inductance, are very linear, and have very low distortion performance....the 10" seems like a nice choice. Also, a large driver will start to beam some (much less than a standard driver) and the directivity could be a good thing in the car.

Given the good feedback on the 12" and 15" Diople drivers in the home, I think it would be an interesting project to try the Dipole10 IB in the car. Yeah, one would think a three-way with 3"-5" mids would make more sense and offer better clarity. However, think about how coherent, full , and clear souunding a six speaker w/ IB 10" widerange, IB 15" subs might sound? Would be a very intriguing test bed to play with. Many others have done six speaker systems using horns and 8" or 10" midbasses. Others have used conventinal tweets with 8" midwoofers but I would like to do it with 10" wide bandwidth driver.

Well, no funds, resources, and time so.....the next system plans are for a basic five or six speaker system...1" tweets, 6.5" midwoofers, 12" or 15" sub.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Anyone else missing >>>



Default Re: 2-way vs* 3-way*: Which is more SQ?


> Originally Posted by* tspence*
> 
> _Even still. Off-axis response from a full-range 3" driver won't match a *4"-mid+1" *large format tweet_. A 3" driver's off-axis response will start to falter at around 4KHz-5KHz, while a large format tweeter with excellent off-axis specs will CREAM that full range driver.
> 
> So, if we are talking about which system will have superior SQ for a CAR install, there is no contest. The highly audible off-axis reflections in a car that actually mingle with the on-axis sound means that a system that delivers a very similar character both on and off axis will likely sound the best.


*Correct.*
__________________
Global Product Line Manager, JBL Car Audio
Harman Consumer


----------



## trigg007 (Feb 24, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Some people actually run a 2-way. Jay's (DS-21) system is composed of an SLS8 and a widebander.





trigg007 said:


> The likelihood of producing *stellar SQ *from 2 drivers (20 Hz-20 kHz) is *extremely overly optimistic*.




But does it translate into stellar (outstanding) SQ...


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

I've never even heard a 3 way in a car but what if u have say exodus anarchy and one of the most popular or proven tweeter. The anarchy can play from 20/30hz to 3.5k hz tweeter can play 3 or 3.5k hz and up depending on individual preference and the said tweeter.

Realistically a sub would play to at least 50hz so let the anarchy play from 40 or 50hz so u know it's more than comfortable and capable of playing that low up to the 3 or 3.5k hz. IMO it can handle that fine and clear/distortion free. 

Then preferably get a tweeter that can play down to 3k hz and cross it at 3.5 to ensure it's not struggling. With the right power (anarchy rated at 125watts) why would this struggle or why would using another speaker creating a 3 way improve it? 

The anarchy has no problem doing it's job. If u add a mid range and use the anarchy as a mid bass I don't see gaining much ur just limiting what it can do and what it was made for. Like I said I can't comment on the tweeters end I'm not too familar with it.

I guess if there really isn't a tweeter that can come down to 3.5k hz comfortably and sound good I guess I see why 3 way would improve it's lacking area.

Or if u want 8" bass instead of a very nice output 6.5 then I guess u would need to go 3 way for the added 8" woofers.

Is there any chance that those who prefer 3 way have not experienced things like the anarchy and other top notch 6.5s? So instead of getting the correct drivers they just add more? Idk just discussing and curious.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> why would this struggle or why would using another speaker creating a 3 way improve it?


Because some would argue that for a tweeter to go down to 3KHz and sound right, it has to have some big cojones, aka be of large format and with great design. And most would suggest that since you're going to install a large format tweeter, why not try out a mid and small format tweeter instead. That way the important frequency range comes from one speaker AND, depending on vehicle/drivers/user preferences, you can get smaller PLD and better aiming. 

I'm not familiar with the Anarchy, but there are plenty of good mid/midbass drivers out there that would sound nice up to 3-4KHz. The thing is, when you put those in the stock spaces in the doors, you can hardly take full advantage of their acoustic virtues, can you?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Also, having a mid play 50Hz will "blurr" the midrange frequencies. Ok it can play high but I'm sure it can sound much nicer crossed higher coz it'll play midrange frequencies with 20mm p-p midbasses freqs @ the same time. 

Kelvin


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

n_olympios said:


> Because some would argue that for a tweeter to go down to 3KHz and sound right, it has to have some big cojones, aka be of large format and with great design. And most would suggest that since you're going to install a large format tweeter, why not try out a mid and small format tweeter instead. That way the important frequency range comes from one speaker AND, depending on vehicle/drivers/user preferences, you can get smaller PLD and better aiming.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Anarchy, but there are plenty of good mid/midbass drivers out there that would sound nice up to 3-4KHz. The thing is, when you put those in the stock spaces in the doors, you can hardly take full advantage of their acoustic virtues, can you?


So if I'm understanding you right, people go 3 way more or less for aiming? That and it might be easier to have mid bass in a box in the kicks rather than having to make the door handle the bass and it being aimed wrong?


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> Also, having a mid play 50Hz will "blurr" the midrange frequencies. Ok it can play high but I'm sure it can sound much nicer crossed higher coz it'll play midrange frequencies with 20mm p-p midbasses freqs @ the same time.
> 
> Kelvin


I would cross my mid higher as my sub is crossed higher but I was basing the 50hz off of that thread asking ur sub filter and 50% said 80hz other 50 said 50 or 63hz. But are u agreeing if u can cross ur mid higher 3 way really doesn't have any advantage other than perhaps aiming?

Why people cross that low I'm not sure. If it's localization wouldn't having strong up front mid bass blend it well and pull the sub back forward?

Like I said ive never heard a 3 way and I'm still very new at car audio in general but other than aiming it seems 3 way is just a lack of better drivers. Like if u have a low distortion sub u should cross it higher. Then the mid can be crossed higher which lowers the range it plays slightly. Perhaps allowing it to reach higher then allowing the tweeter to cross higher and u have less drivers, generally less wattage, and u didn't have to do anything extra. Like get a mid bass in the kicks.

Does anyone run 3 way passive? Just curious


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Usually people go 3 way instead of 2 way for competition coz you usually lose some midbass since, 9 out of 10 times, 1 mid needs to be in reverse polarity to have a strong image - resulting in weaker midbass. 

You can overcome this with T/A and short PLD then everything becomes easier. 

As said previously, the ease of speaker placement makes 3 way really appealing. Fitting 8" or 10" with montrous mounting depth in the kicks is not an easy task, easier in a door. Then put a mid in kicks or a pillar. 

Buwalda states that crossing a tweeter lower than 4kHz is not really feasible in a car. (please look for the thread in the hybrid forum) - unless right next to the midrange. 
Knowing this, a 2 way pretty much always need the tweeter in the kicks or close to the mid to be crossed over @ 2kHz-3kHz... 

Kelvin


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> Like I said ive never heard a 3 way and I'm still very new at car audio in general but other than aiming it seems 3 way is just a lack of better drivers.


 This could probably be said in home audio, where you don't have to worry that much (compared to car audio) about PLD, near reflection areas, flexible or vibrating panels. Did I mention PLD? [/QUOTE]



Cruzer said:


> Like if u have a low distortion sub u should cross it higher. Then the mid can be crossed higher which lowers the range it plays slightly. Perhaps allowing it to reach higher then allowing the tweeter to cross higher and u have less drivers, generally less wattage, and u didn't have to do anything extra. Like get a mid bass in the kicks.


And you think that getting a midbass in the kicks involves less work than getting a mid in the kicks or even in the A pillars? 


Cruzer said:


> Does anyone run 3 way passive? Just curious


I have in the past (Focal Utopia set with a few tweaks in the crossover), and it sounded damn good. BUT, the midbass was in the stock door locations and both mid and tweeter were in the kicks. Later I did try getting the tweeter up in the dash corners and I gained in stage height, but lost a bit in tonality (male voices started sounding a bit thin, typical). Nothing that couldn't be fixed one way or another, but then I sold the set so didn't have the chance to play some more with it.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

n_olympios said:


> This could probably be said in home audio, where you don't have to worry that much (compared to car audio) about PLD, near reflection areas, flexible or vibrating panels. Did I mention PLD?


i hope to one day have the ear and knowledge to realize these things. while i was installing my speakers, i just threw some 3 way speakers on the amp to have some sound. i sat them in the passenger floor. obviously i could tell it was way right and sounded really weird.

however if i do, i dont really realize all these other things. btw panels shouldnt vibrate if you have done the sound deaden right.



n_olympios said:


> And you think that getting a midbass in the kicks involves less work than getting a mid in the kicks or even in the A pillars?


no i think all that is extra work lol. i would just put something in the door and call it a day unless i was competing.




n_olympios said:


> I have in the past (Focal Utopia set with a few tweaks in the crossover), and it sounded damn good. BUT, the midbass was in the stock door locations and both mid and tweeter were in the kicks. Later I did try getting the tweeter up in the dash corners and I gained in stage height, but lost a bit in tonality (male voices started sounding a bit thin, typical). Nothing that couldn't be fixed one way or another, but then I sold the set so didn't have the chance to play some more with it.


im sure most started out like me, stock speakers in a car sound fine. then u hear some aftermarket speakers on an amp and your like wow what a difference.

but how do u go from that point to, man this frequency is lacking, the right tweeter is bouncing off 1/4" of the windshield and i hear it, the smallest vibration in my back right door is annoying me, etc. ?

i hear rattles, and other obvious stuff but idk how u guys do it.



subwoofery said:


> Buwalda states that crossing a tweeter lower than 4kHz is not really feasible in a car. (please look for the thread in the hybrid forum) - unless right next to the midrange.
> Knowing this, a 2 way pretty much always need the tweeter in the kicks or close to the mid to be crossed over @ 2kHz-3kHz...


ill try and find the thread, but what happens when u cross a tweeter at 3kHz and its in the stock location on the dash?


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Cruzer said:


> but how do u go from that point to, man this frequency is lacking, the right tweeter is bouncing off 1/4" of the windshield and i hear it, the smallest vibration in my back right door is annoying me, etc. ?


This is a looong discussion, not to be started in this thread. Actually wherever you look in this and other car audio fora, you'll find plenty of info. For me, the basic start is to know how it should sound in the first place. Attend concerts, shows, bars with live music, even play an instrument and be part of a choir or orchestra. All these things help. 

The next thing is trial and error. Lots of it. Massive amounts. I couldn't even begin to describe how much. Get the point? 



Cruzer said:


> ill try and find the thread, but what happens when u cross a tweeter at 3kHz and its in the stock location on the dash?


All sorts of eerie stuff. :laugh:


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

n_olympios said:


> This is a looong discussion, not to be started in this thread. Actually wherever you look in this and other car audio fora, you'll find plenty of info. For me, the basic start is to know how it should sound in the first place. Attend concerts, shows, bars with live music, even play an instrument and be part of a choir or orchestra. All these things help.


ok with that ill just say one thing. when i read about time alignment and things like that. i understand why u need it, however, when u go to a concert, the sound is all in front of you and generally your not centered.

So if u go to a concert, it wont sound as good as a car with time alignment?

last concert i went to i was on the far right side, literally 2 people between me and a speaker. i needed some time alignment to delay that speaker and allow all the others to reach me at the same time.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

I was talking about tonality, not staging. 

But anyway, scrap the concerts idea. I wrote it whilst saying to myself "yeah, but you've never heard correct sound in any of the concerts you've been to". Well, apart from when Roger Waters last came here and played all of DSOTM. :ears: :bowdown:


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

will i notice a difference in sound if i sit in the center of my truck?


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Are you kidding? A massive difference.

But let's keep these questions out of this thread, we've deterred from the topic enough so far. Feel free to start a new thread.


----------



## SkarAudio (Oct 25, 2010)

I think what you are looking for is a 3 way setup for your case. There are many other options to consider when building a SQ Setup however.


----------



## rscecil007 (Apr 30, 2009)

I've been doing a ton of reading on the pro's/cons etc, and alot of what has been mentioned in this thread. I've got 2-way right now, and have been planning to go 3-way. But do to some more limited funds, and time as well, I'm going to stick to 2 way, at least for now. 

I think with they new Hybrid special edition tweeter and L6, I'll be able to get a pretty damn good SQ setup in my truck. Or I hope.


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

The three ways are better for a few reasons

#1 You always get the best drivers, I dont know a company that has a bottom of the line 3 way setup. Also good crossovers
#2 You can easily place the mid and the tweeter close together based on the smaller size of the actual mid range driver. 
#3 Because the Mid is not responsible for playing mid bass and bass the mid can play its frequency range clearer. 

But there are definitely cons to 3-way systems. 
#1 They require more room in the front stage
#2 You can run into some crazy timing issues with the bass and the mids depending on where you are forced to put the woofer. 
#3 You usually have to spend more on an amplifier because they require more power, remember the crossover has a parasitic effect on power.

2-ways though sound great! Some of the best sounding 2 ways though have a unique feature, they can typically play a very wide frequency range, usually below 1500 hz. So they do not have any crossover problems. Most tweeters will cross over around 2500 hz this is right in the middle of the frequency range for human voices which can cause issues as you might imagine. So if you want a good 2 way system find a tweeter that plays low.

I personally have a 2 way setup!


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

illcrx said:


> #3 Because the Mid is not responsible for playing mid bass and bass the mid can play its frequency range clearer.


so there is no mid capable of playing mid bass and mid range just as clear as 2 different drivers?

i just find that hard to believe with todays technology.

its slightly different and all, but a sub can play sub notes 60hz and below, but it can also play up to 100hz or higher just fine. if the sub is designed correctly it would not be any clearer if u used a sub for 60hz down and a different from 60hz to 100hz

like i said its different, but i dont see why its not capable to have a mid that can play both ranges clear as it is supposed to be played


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

I did not say that "no mid can play mid bass and bass" 

That was not mentioned once, read again. I was simply saying that with the mid focusing solely on the midrange it would be more clear than if it were playing other frequencies. This was under a heading of why a 3 way is better, not why mids shouldn't play bass. 

Also if this were not the case then why do we not have "full range" drivers hmmm? 

Most speakers can do 20-20k but they are best when doing a certain job and focusing on that only. If you think that a sub cant play 20k with 1,000 watts but a tweeter can with 10 then your nuts. But subs sound like crap at 20k hz so we have other drivers to accomplish this mission. 

This is all I am saying. 

I have a 2 way component set I am installing right now not a three way but if I planned on rebuilding the doorpanel and half the dash I would definately run a 3 way but sometimes life gets in the way. 

SPEAKERS CAN PLAY DIFFERENT FREQUENCY RANGES AND DO A GOOD JOB. 

Take electrostatic speakers, they do a CRAZY good job at that with one panel. But if you dont have the surface area they dont play certain frequencies loud enough, so the technology is there.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

u said if u use separate drivers, one playing mid bass, the other playing mid range, it will be clearer. u didnt say generally, most of the time, sometimes, u said IT WILL BE clearer.

what im asking is, are there no mid drivers that can do both, just as clear as 2 separate drivers?

and yes this is a 2way vs 3 way, but does that mean we are not able to pinpoint the components of a 2 way and compare them vs a 3 way? lmao


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

There arent any single drivers that can do it just as clear as two drivers.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

define clear, is it no audible distortion?

or something else?


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

This is true about the subwoofer as well, it does add another dimension. But so many people use dedicated subwoofers that it is just kind of a given. 

By clear I dont mean audible distortion but you end up with a different type of sound, a less cluttered sound, at least to me anyway. The voices are more defined and the midbass is punchier. The system counts obviously if you have a good 3 way and a crap amp then it wont be as good as it can be but apples to apples 3 way is better. The best SQ vehicles Ive been in were 3 way also.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

if 2 way will never sound as good as 3 way, and its obvious, why are 2 ways made? why arent they cheap if they arent going to sound as good as 3 ways, yet there are some expensive 2 ways.

but i like how u say, it will have a different sound, a less cluttered sound, a better sound, *at least to me anyways*, but then u say 3 way IS better, no doubt about it. just kinda funny


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

I think its funny that you can't comprehend that everyone has an opinion, hell there are people on earth who will swear that there is no science and that there is no god so you not understanding that point shows your simplemindedness. And if you are not simpleminded why don't you actually make an argument in the oppoosite position instead of just picking my grammer apart,which has nothing to do with the actual subject of this thread,

Also keep in mind they make $5 speakers so when you ask why they make 2 ways when 3 ways obviously sound better I ask why don't they only make bugatti veyrons?


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

no no, i expect everyone to have an opinion.

but an opinion isnt stated as a fact.

u said 3 way IS better. thats not an opinion. ur stating that as a fact.

thats all i was getting at, because in my opinion i dont see why a well build mid cannot handle both mid bass and mid range flawlessly.

see what i did there, i said my opinion, i think, etc.

not "2 way is just as good as 3 way". fact.


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

As you stated, "in my opinion i dont see why a well build mid cannot handle both mid bass and mid range flawlessly"

Well you are wrong, dead wrong, WRONG WRONG WRONG. FACT. 

NO speaker can do this flawlessly, no speaker can reproduce sound flawlessly. Also did your dad not teach you to capitalize your letters? I is supposed to always be capitalized also the beginning of your sentences should be capitalized as well so before you get on your high horse telling me what my words mean you need to go back to 3rd grade and learn grammer. 

Since sound and light are so closely related in that they both have frequencies and they both have transient properties that are similar also that we try to duplicate both of these wave lengths through technology, we can use this for a comparison, if you can think of another we can use that one but I just though of this as a way to make my point. 

If you take a look at a TV there are 3 pixels, 4 if you count Sharp Quattro and its yellow pixel. If they wanted to they could take a white light and just throw a color in front of it to make their color, instead they take 3 colors and shine them on the screen to make any color they want. Also as the pixels get smaller the picture gets more defined. You could call this more speakers to cover the sound stage.You can think of sound as this way as well, picture an orchestra playing, there are different instruments at different depths and widths on the sound stage. More speakers would be able to handle this width and depth effectively if we had more speakers playing different frequencies, specializing in them over a certain width, depth. 

But as with light frequency, we try to "trick" our ears (and eyes) through technology, but I ask you which is better an orchestra in person with multiple points of sound source with each of its sound source focusing on a certain bandwidth and resonance or listening to one sound source trying to duplicate all of those frequencies. 

Its hard to imagine a situation where the one is better than the many, or 2 or even 3, 3 is not enough either to get more life like ,but its going to be hell putting in a 20,000 way system! 

I re read through some of your posts and it says that you are new to car audio, well if you dont see why a well build mid cannot handle both mid bass and mid range flawlessly then go buy a 2 way and quit trying to convince us that were wrong, just go listen to your opinion. Or give examples, reasons. 

The FACT is that you dont know what you are talking about and you are trying to pick apart other peoples statements so you can feel better about yourself and hence you feel smarter. 

The only reason I stated that as fact is that you were being a douche and I was being sarcastic in retaliation. Well thats over now RIGHT?


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

illcrx said:


> Also did your dad not teach you to capitalize your letters? I is supposed to always be capitalized also the beginning of your sentences should be capitalized as well so before you get on your high horse telling me what my words mean you need to go back to 3rd grade and learn grammer.


haha im not going to read the whole thing, but who was supposed to teach me grammar, my dad or 3rd grade? lmfao

btw it is grammar not grammer. lmfao


----------



## illcrx (Nov 11, 2010)

Fine I mis-spelled one word. Your still a ****ing idiot I'm done with you, your not worth anymore typing.


----------



## NSTar (Feb 24, 2010)

3 way all the way. I have a 3 way system and it's a pain to set up. I now have a two way because I'm not good enough to setup the 3 way... 

one day, I'll manage to figure something out.


Can you bebop and sing at the same time? I bet you need another person to do the beat. I think if you can have Sub, mids, mids bass, tweets


darn it...didn't save...I vote 3 way.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

Wow! It's almost like I've been involved in this thread...the arguing and insults have been flying! 

I enjoy a three way setup because of more flexibility in the tune. This includes the ability to place for the potential for more accuracy on the staging. 

I do love the comment about how a two way way is better than a three way aimed all willy nilly. My vehicle is proof that off axis performance can work AND does sounds great. I also love the people who look at a system and have the innate ability to judge it's sound without even hearing it. These are the same people who can diagnose and fix a vehicle's issues without ever seeing the vehicle.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

^ Just ask Michael Peterson! He knows about the 4 way love.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

sqcomp said:


> I do love the comment about how a two way way is better than a three way aimed all willy nilly. My vehicle is proof that off axis performance can work AND does sounds great. I also love the people who look at a system and have the innate ability to judge it's sound without even hearing it. These are the same people who can diagnose and fix a vehicle's issues without ever seeing the vehicle.


Omniscience , don't you just love it....


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

I suppose I have to bow down to their greatness now don't I? *snicker*


----------



## Jachin99 (Dec 13, 2008)

Before anyone goes out and tries to build a stereo that makes it sound like the band is playing live right in front of them, maybe they should consider that most of your CDs are mixed in a studio environment and that even if the speakers could perfectly replay whats on the recording it still wouldn't sound like the band was playing live right in front of you, it would sound like the band is playing in a basement with padding all over the wall, which would still sound raw and crappy. I think the best sounding stereo is one that can deliver all the frequencies in the music to your ear the most accurately. I like my music to be a little bit fake, i think it sounds better like that, ie a little rear fill. just my opinion.


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

Though i havent heard a 3 way setup, I can see the benefits. Planning on getting a pair of the scanspeak 12m midrange and putting them in kickpods aimed at me. Probably going to run my ml1600 for the midbass for a while then go from there. Looking forward to playing around with it.


----------



## vfparts (Jul 11, 2010)

I think most people will agree that its really going to come down to the install. You can make a 3 way system sound really bad if the speakers are not placed/power/cutoff properly.


----------



## Shanfara (May 10, 2011)

tspence73 said:


> I would argue that a 3-way has more potential customization options for different tastes. And since I believe that SQ is really a personal opinion on how you like your sound, then 3-way has got to be the choice as it's more versatile.


This.


----------



## underdog (Jul 5, 2011)

My 2 cents?
Bass down - doors/kicks or even one 8 inch sub down firing under the dash.
Mid bass - about elbow high
tweats - up in the A pillars

I have seen some of those on the dash setups leave it all empty down below.
And seen the other way where they could not get the sound stage up.
So by going three you can fill the whole space.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Just my two cents, going from an ID CTX 2-way set to a Dyn 342 3-way set, the Dyns seemed to have a better stage right out of the box on the passives. No magic there.

With the MS8 involved, I would swear my tweeters are playing mid bass. The first time I experienced the stage after the processor I turned it down immediately because I thought I did the setup wrong and had the mid bass or mid range going to my tweeters. This is with the mid bass in the doors, mids in the kicks and tweeters in the stock dash locations. With processing the 3-way is a no brainer.

I could compare the SQ difference but that might be unfair comparing one that costs 7x more than the other.

However, there's no doubt that the mid bass is cleaner and clearer when crossed over at 80hz vs 63hz. The tweeters seem to sparkle more with a 5K cutoff vs 3,500.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> Just my two cents, going from an ID CTX 2-way set to a Dyn 342 3-way set, the Dyns seemed to have a better stage right out of the box on the passives. No magic there..


Pardon my ignorance and I don't want to surf to find out, but does
this Dyn set use the dome midrange? If so, have you listened to just
it and your midbass without tweet? If so or if you can I would really
love to know how musical you think it is. I am going to need to make
a change in size of my 3way midrange and that is a contender.

CHEERS,
SCOTT


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

FLYONWALL9 said:


> Pardon my ignorance and I don't want to surf to find out, but does
> this Dyn set use the dome midrange? If so, have you listened to just
> it and your midbass without tweet? If so or if you can I would really
> love to know how musical you think it is. I am going to need to make
> ...


I just made a post indirectly about this mid: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...10423-sometimes-you-just-have-start-over.html

Yes sir, it uses the MD-142 dome mid.

They seem to like a higher crossover point in my car. 900hz/6db is what the factory crossover had it at. I've run it as low as 650hz and while it didn't bottom or make any weird noises, I feel it sounds _much_ better at 700hz and above. I currently have mine at 900/24 and I know I could go lower but the system as a whole sounds so good I'm afraid to change it. The 6.5" dyns play up to 900hz very well but if you're using an 8" or larger, these might not be the best choice.

I've listened to them with a low pass of 5,000hz and no tweeters but my midbass in the doors were still on. They have a very "airy" and smooth sound and as long as the crossover isn't set too low, they're pretty dynamic too. I had no issues with the vocal range being split between two different drivers both on the passives and with the MS8 running active. It was a little surprising just how little I was missing without the tweeters. Don't get me wrong, the tweeters are needed but it wasn't as large of a difference as I thought.

Now I want to run these all the way up to 20k just to try them.

BTW, you didn't frequent SivsAll, did you?


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> I just made a post indirectly about this mid: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...10423-sometimes-you-just-have-start-over.html
> 
> Yes sir, it uses the MD-142 dome mid.
> 
> ...


THANKS FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS!

That is EXACTLY the post I had hoped you would reply with! I can tell you know what your looking for and that you like to play with the driver just to see what it will and wont do. Then try and make it play what its happiest playing. I have always liked dome midranges and I think they surely have a good home in car audio. Best of all the size yields for placement that would be difficult with a cone driver. This is my issue currently with my 911. I've got a pair of kicks and I know with this driver I can make a far shallower (my new word kick that doesn't stick out in the floor. Don't get me wrong my current kicks are well out of the way, but as you know something can always be better. Or so it seems.

Yes, I am using an 8 for midbass. Its only a matter of which sounds better in this car. I've got some really cool oldschool stuff Old MB Quart's and OZ Audio, if those don't do it I'll look into something else. I know the mids are OK just not stellar. I can make them sound great with all the electronics I have, but I would much rather have a natural great sounding speaker that doesn't make much manipulation. 

I'm sorry to say I don't know what SivsAll is? I'm on my nightly MEDS so perhaps I have if you explain a bit.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

FLYONWALL9 said:


> THANKS FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS!
> 
> That is EXACTLY the post I had hoped you would reply with! I can tell you know what your looking for and that you like to play with the driver just to see what it will and wont do. Then try and make it play what its happiest playing. I have always liked dome midranges and I think they surely have a good home in car audio. Best of all the size yields for placement that would be difficult with a cone driver. This is my issue currently with my 911. I've got a pair of kicks and I know with this driver I can make a far shallower (my new word kick that doesn't stick out in the floor. Don't get me wrong my current kicks are well out of the way, but as you know something can always be better. Or so it seems.
> 
> ...


Si vs All was an old car internet forum from the late '90s. There was a guy on there that had the same signature and also owned a bike. I knew it was a long shot but I thought I would ask.

How soon are you looking at getting a new mid? I will be flying into Mobile or Pascagoula late this summer or early fall, I can bring my mids and crossovers and drop them off if you want to get a few days worth of listening. The mids are very easy to remove and the crossovers are sitting in the closet so it's no problem. They even have some velcro on the back from when I was waiting on my kick panels to arrive.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> Si vs All was an old car internet forum from the late '90s. There was a guy on there that had the same signature and also owned a bike. I knew it was a long shot but I thought I would ask.
> 
> How soon are you looking at getting a new mid? I will be flying into Mobile or Pascagoula late this summer or early fall, I can bring my mids and crossovers and drop them off if you want to get a few days worth of listening. The mids are very easy to remove and the crossovers are sitting in the closet so it's no problem. They even have some velcro on the back from when I was waiting on my kick panels to arrive.


DOES the Si stand for HONDA Si? if so that was prolly me. I'm the only one of my kind as far as I know with 'FLYONWALL9' now many others have taken the name and run with it. But I've had it dated back to when we had to pay per time for AOL, not per month. I don't recall when that was exactly but it was LONG time ago.... I think I have pics of my old car on my profile, if not I can send you a link and perhaps that may help us both jog memories. I've been ALL over the net for many years and met many great people!

Thanks for the offer of the MIDS, I may take you up on the offer depending on where I am with my install. I hope like hell I have it playing by then, but I thought I would have something installed by now too..... sometimes things don't work like we hope.

I read your link you sent about the mid and had MUCH of the same issues as you with the MS8. It was swapped in that install for another Sony XES system. Aside from needing a line driver for that system its soooo much better than the auto tune of the MS. I hope they addess that in future examples.


I looked and I was a member of that forum...... Hope I didn't make any bad impressions.


----------



## The Spectacle (Apr 26, 2011)

Interesting debate


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

Shanfara said:


> tspence73 said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that a 3-way has more potential customization options for different tastes. And since I believe that SQ is really a personal opinion on how you like your sound, then 3-way has got to be the choice as it's more versatile.
> ...


Perilous times are these, when t'spence is quoted for truth...

:laugh:


----------



## ReticulatingPigeonElf (Sep 22, 2010)

The most SQ is a 20,000 way system with speaker sizes ranging from the diameter of a pin head, to the diameter of a school bus. It'll need some T/A though.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

Erm... Hardly.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Well, I typed a long response on my phone this morning, and then tapatalk didn't connect to the server.....sigh.....

I only read the 3rd page of this thread this morning, so I probably missed a lot of great discussion (will follow up with the other two pages this evening). 

'Which is more SQ' - I have to imagine that this was defined / refined earlier in this thread, so I won't mention anything about that. It is difficult to be dogmatic when it comes to Car Audio - it seems that is what has caused some of the 'discussion / debate' that I read on this page. 

I have listened to 4 way set ups (tweet, midrange, midbass, sub) that were phenomenal and some that were fairly awful. As stated before by other contributors, it comes down to execution (equipment, install, tuning) - it really isn't necessarily related to cost of the equipment - there are some amazing systems with low cost equipment. 

I would venture to say that most of the folks on this thread would have a hard time arguing that their (or someone else’s) 4 way set up is 'more SQ' than Kirk P's Acura TL 3 way set up (tweet, midbass, sub). He has excellent execution - equipment / install / tuning. 

One other thing that struck me while reading this last page - the lack of the recent phenomenon regarding the use of widebanders. Some have put together incredible sounding 3 way systems (wideband, midbass, sub) using a wideband driver that plays from 250/315 Hz to 20kHz. I would caution to not be dogmatic about the way it would sound until you have the opportunity to listen to a well executed set up utilizing a wideband driver.

I hope this didn't muddy the waters or stir the pot of debate....


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

All depends on how good the install is. 2-way can be done well with decent drivers.. but it's alot of spectrum to cover...


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

bertholomey said:


> I have listened to 4 way set ups (tweet, midrange, midbass, sub) that were phenomenal and some that were fairly awful. As stated before by other contributors, it comes down to execution (equipment, install, tuning) - it really isn't necessarily related to cost of the equipment - there are some amazing systems with low cost equipment.
> 
> I would venture to say that most of the folks on this thread would have a hard time arguing that their (or someone else’s) 4 way set up is 'more SQ' than Kirk P's Acura TL 3 way set up (tweet, midbass, sub). He has excellent execution - equipment / install / tuning.
> 
> ...


Um, no pot stirring taken, just note that on this forum 3-way typically implies _3-way plus sub_ and 2-way implies _2-way plus sub._ Your point that both can sound good is still valid. And augmented widebander systems are definitely gaining traction and popularity, no reason they can't sound as good or better than traditional tweeter/woofer (plus subwoofer) or tweeter/midrange/woofer (plus subwoofer) setups.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

cajunner said:


> what about the guy that runs ambient wide-banders in the stock locations while having the majority of the stage set in place at the firewall/kick juncture?
> 
> that's not in the rulebook, is it...


:lol:

We have a special name for that guy.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

It's an interesting debate for car audio. 

I've always liked going back to home/pro audio first to get grounded. What works best in that arena is a good starting point in my book.

My discovery is that most of my favorite home audio systems are 2 way setups. With great woofers that can play high, it negates the relevance of a dedicated midrange. Remember, the more you divide up the sound the worse the coherence will be. It might be better tonally (maybe), but the coherence will suffer some. 

With car audio, the biggest problem these days are the lack of great woofers. Just how many woofers today can truly play flat and be crossed over at 4k, 5k? Not very many.

If you cannot introduce a high woofer/tweeter transition point in car audio, usually you will have harsher highs. Forcing the issue when the woofer cannot do it's job will introduce cone breakup which will give you upper midrange glare.

A 3 way for the most part will eliminate these issues. Essentially you can bring the tweeter crossover point as high as you'd like (4-10khz with ease). 

So from a tonal point of view, a 3 way active has lots of potential. Of course it also has the ability to suck as well depending on how it's installed who is tuning it, as well as the amps you are using to power them.

A great 2 way passive will give you very nice tonal balance and coherence. Mated to a great amp, and you will have plenty of midbass, midrange punch, etc. And the best part is your tuning time is dramatically shorter. 

So to sum up I think a 2 way is more ideal when the drivers are great, and you have a very nice amp. To beat it tonally with a 3 way is a lot harder than people think it is, and it won't be as coherent most of the time. 

If you have deficiencies in the drivers, then 3 way offers more potential to reduce problem areas. 

BTW, I think the ideal for 2 way is passive, and 3 way active....2 way active I wouldn't do unless it's a horn system. 3 way passive is ok but the power handling benefits are negligible compared to 2 way passive, and the flexibility may or may not be there.


----------



## pnn23 (Jun 7, 2008)

TJ Mobile Audio said:


> Um, no pot stirring taken, just note that on this forum *3-way typically implies 3-way plus sub *and 2-way implies _2-way plus sub._ Your point that both can sound good is still valid. And augmented widebander systems are definitely gaining traction and popularity, no reason they can't sound as good or better than traditional tweeter/woofer (plus subwoofer) or tweeter/midrange/woofer (plus subwoofer) setups.




^ Ah, didn't know that. Noted for future sig or build thread references.


----------



## Thankful74 (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm new here, but not new to car audio. I have reached quite a dilemma with my system and am hoping for some insight. I have JLZR650-CSI 2 way comps up front, Clarion NZ709 touch, Audison LRx 4.300 -- LRx1.1k, and an Orion H2 12.2 (SQ is very high on this sub ....and that's the only reason I chose it), and basic Alpine Type S rears. My question is this :

What kind of mids should I ad to the front stage ??? I have a friend who went with a set of 3" DLS and it sounded incredible with his setup, but I am just not sure what will work best with the JL's that I chose. Any ideas would be really awesome. Thanks.


----------



## FLYONWALL9 (Nov 8, 2009)

I think with a question like this you will get a great many "idea's" what may sound good to the person giving the advise. However, keep in mind they may sound like total POO to you! If you really liked the way the speaker your friend has sounded, ask him what the particulars of the speaker are. What he has them crossed at, will where he has them mounted be the same in your car, can you give them the same kind of power and eq them like he may have? I sold car audio and audio for years and discovered one thing, what I may think is killer someone else may not. If you have shops where you are carry that size driver I suggest going to listen to some, however, keep in mind they aren't in your car so they may be very different once you have them installed. 

If you have really good processing I've found that can shape and make a so-so speaker sound really good. That said I've had 20 buck mids that many would think cost a couple hundred bucks. You'll see LOTS of installs on this board where guys used 3's from a price range of 15-120 bucks ALOT! I just don't think anyone here can tell you what will sound best to you, is all I'm getting at......

Good luck
Scott


----------



## sq_guru (Oct 1, 2011)

If you're talking about an equivalent set of speakers from the same manufacturer - one 2-way and one 3-way, the 3-way is going to be the better choice. A dedicated mid-bass driver and a dedicated mid-range driver is typically optimal in a mobile audio system for a number of reasons. For one, it allows you to place the mid-bass in the door where it can take advantage of the infinite baffle properties of the door to produce greater bass response, and the mid-range can then be placed in a more optimal position (such as a kick pannel) where it is also on-axis with the tweeter. This doesn't have to be purchased as a 3-way set, though. You can use a 2-way component set along with your own custom mid-bass driver to create a 3-way system.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 1, 2011)

2 way all the way.... with the sub is ultimate... 
i personally dont like 3 way


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

EazyMoney said:


> 3 Way (if imaged correctly)
> 
> I believe a lot lies with "seperation." Seperation of frequencies.
> 
> ...


That is certainly a valid point. A counter argument would be the implementation of quality wideband drivers that can play from 315Hz and above - eliminating a crossover in the vocal range. 

Of course I did here a car this weekend that had 6.5" drivers in the kicks and tweets on the pillars with a HP / LP crossover set at 2500Hz that was amazing.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

EazyMoney said:


> 3 Way (if imaged correctly)
> 
> I believe a lot lies with "seperation." Seperation of frequencies.
> 
> ...


That is certainly a valid point. A counter argument would be the implementation of quality wideband drivers that can play from 315Hz and above - eliminating a crossover in the vocal range. 

Of course I did here a car this weekend that had 6.5" drivers in the kicks and tweets on the pillars with a HP / LP crossover set at 2500Hz that was amazing.


----------



## Rodolpho (Oct 3, 2011)

3 way is much better, but more difficult to set up.
My experience is that the 3way font system needs big car. The distance between your ears and the speakers is even longer, the sound is better. So the big cars are better partner by 3way. In smaller cars you will do better sound with an 2way frontsystem.
But nowtimes the 2way "widerange" systems are the best. Souds like a 3 way, without the phase-mistakes. No compromiss. 20-400Hz kick, 400-20kHz mid/high.
2 Years ago the ODR systems won all the EMMA SQ categories. Now the bewith and other widerange systems are much better.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Since i last replied I've had time to hear my setup in a 3-way with all Dyn Esotec drivers, 2-way with Esotec, 2-way with the better Esotar midbass and 3-way with the Esotar 650, 430, and Esotec tweeter.

As a 2-way with the better midbass it sounded nearly as good as the 3-way esotec. If I had gone with the better Esotar tweeter I'm sure the 2-way would have sounded better. However, with the Esotar as a 3-way there's no comparison. The 3-way wins hands down.


----------



## slowpoke (Nov 11, 2011)

2 or 3 way is an irrelevant question imo. some 2 ways are better than 3, some 3's or better than 2ways. depending on its environment, power sent, amp quality, type of music, wiring, enclosures mounted in, and type of speaker the only way you can truly determine which is best is to first figure which works best with your application. i have currently in my 94 suburban 4 6.5's and 4 tweeters mounted in the front doors, 2 6.5's in the rear doors and 2 5.25 components sets in the very back above the barn doors. thats a 4way, 2way, and 1way. it all comes down to what your working with and what you wish to accomplish.


----------



## Mike_Dee (Mar 26, 2011)

It really depends on how you set them up. The more drivers, the more complex the crossing over, and frequency distribution. I myself prefer a properly done two way set up.


----------



## tuner culture (Jul 14, 2010)

if you did a three way system would it be best having the mid-range 3" and tweeter in the A-pillars or kick panels? where is the best plcae to align the speakers positions - rearview mirror?

Im trying to figure out if i want to have a 2way- or 3-way all front stage in my Audi using a bitone for the processor? any ideas would be great. Thanks for a ll the reading on this thread, been very helpful


----------



## slowpoke (Nov 11, 2011)

tuner culture said:


> if you did a three way system would it be best having the mid-range 3" and tweeter in the A-pillars or kick panels? where is the best plcae to align the speakers positions - rearview mirror?
> 
> Im trying to figure out if i want to have a 2way- or 3-way all front stage in my Audi using a bitone for the processor? any ideas would be great. Thanks for a ll the reading on this thread, been very helpful


as for the tweeters it really depends on which tweeters you get and how good they are. as for mine, they are ok tweeters, i have them both aimed toward the center back of the front seats. some real big power tweeters you can put almost anywhere. as for mids, pillars are usually used when they wont fit in the doors and/or backing can not be applied for a makeshift enclosure. pillars also usually look better than attempting to stuff alot of speakers into the door pnl. me personally i like using pillars anytime i can for trucks and suv's. for cars, vans and lil rice burners i attempt to use the stock mountings when possible. if you decide to use the door panels it can be challenging and yet still fail and have to use pillars. if you use pillars i think you'll be happy with them. this is mostly opinion based as everyone has different taste. what helps me decide from time to time is to just sit inside of the vehicle for a while trying to map stuff out in my head.


----------



## tuner culture (Jul 14, 2010)

slowpoke said:


> as for the tweeters it really depends on which tweeters you get and how good they are. as for mine, they are ok tweeters, i have them both aimed toward the center back of the front seats. some real big power tweeters you can put almost anywhere. as for mids, pillars are usually used when they wont fit in the doors and/or backing can not be applied for a makeshift enclosure. pillars also usually look better than attempting to stuff alot of speakers into the door pnl. me personally i like using pillars anytime i can for trucks and suv's. for cars, vans and lil rice burners i attempt to use the stock mountings when possible. if you decide to use the door panels it can be challenging and yet still fail and have to use pillars. if you use pillars i think you'll be happy with them. this is mostly opinion based as everyone has different taste. what helps me decide from time to time is to just sit inside of the vehicle for a while trying to map stuff out in my head.


Appreciate the advise, i would perfer the pillars to get the vocal onto the front stage, when i do the build, i want it to be very clean and keep it stock looking as much as possiable. I plan on suing Audison VOCE speakers and everything active using the bitone.

thanks!!


----------



## slowpoke (Nov 11, 2011)

np and good luck. just take your time, never rush anything and most of the time you'll be happy with the outcome.


----------



## todj (Dec 11, 2008)

Thumper26 said:


> three way has more potential, since you have more options to reproduce the 20-20...i.e. you can cross over speakers that don't play ranges as optimally as one of the others, etc. also, speakers are more dedicated to frequency ranges. you don't have a mid trying to play 40Hz and 4000Hz at the same time like you see in a 2 way, so there's less chance for breakup.
> 
> however, it's a lot more complicated, and you have that many more phase issues, etc to fix.


Listen to this guy!


----------



## NHgranite (Sep 24, 2011)

What would be an example of these newer "widerange" components?

thanks.




Rodolpho said:


> 3 way is much better, but more difficult to set up.
> My experience is that the 3way font system needs big car. The distance between your ears and the speakers is even longer, the sound is better. So the big cars are better partner by 3way. In smaller cars you will do better sound with an 2way frontsystem.
> But nowtimes the 2way "widerange" systems are the best. Souds like a 3 way, without the phase-mistakes. No compromiss. 20-400Hz kick, 400-20kHz mid/high.
> 2 Years ago the ODR systems won all the EMMA SQ categories. Now the bewith and other widerange systems are much better.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

If you use a sub, there is no reason to take the 3 way route other than simplicity.


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

The perfect system should be 1 way. Technology is not up to the task? ok. Two way then.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

NHgranite said:


> What would be an example of these newer "widerange" components?
> 
> thanks.


Please use the search button. There's lot of information about it 

Kelvin


----------



## NHgranite (Sep 24, 2011)

Wilco.

Currently surfing the site now...





subwoofery said:


> Please use the search button. There's lot of information about it
> 
> Kelvin


----------



## prettysweetsounds (Jul 26, 2011)

Hernan said:


> If you use a sub, there is no reason to take the 3 way route other than simplicity.


...don't listen to this guy.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 1, 2011)

Dear Mates, 

During last two months I managed to audition several 2 way and 3 way systems and here is my finding:

2way:

Sounds very well balances in all aspect
Stage comes right on the middle of dash with TAQ
You can even play around with the tweet to get the best out of it( according to preference)
Sounds very sweet and lush 
Ideal for SQ setup
Gives studio like performance after TAQ
Bass doesn’t hit hard but balanced
Can’t go very louder 
Excellent merge of tweeter with midbass driver. 
Excellent for those who listen classical, Jazz, Pop, Ballads, Instruments, Chill out and Ambient Music

Other than SQ:

Much Easier to tune
No hassle to add up a lot of equipment in car especially a lot of amps if system is on active
Aesthetics remains beautiful, clean and simple
Easy to tune


3 way:

Sounds good but not as balanced due to sound pressure which is more than 2 way system
Ideal for SQL setup and hit hard bass lovers
Can go very loud and good for listeners who prefer to listen on loud volume
With tweet you have to move mid means you can’t play around that much with the tweeter position
Excellent for those who listen (R&B, Hip Hop, Rock and Hard Rock kind of music)



Others than SQ:

Hassle to add equipments (car fill with equipment) more than the sound
Cost more
Pain to install
Pain to tune
Hurt car interior aesthetics
Mid and Tweet if installed in A pillar obstacle/distract view which may harmful for driving
Can’t move tweet alone for positioning although it is possible by adding separate pod


IMHO 2 way sounds the best, well balanced and complete sound thus ideal for pure SQ setup, however 3 way is ideal for people who wants to have loud response (SQL) and more of bass response at the same time.

Also, during my audition in different cars I have found that 3 way is mostly preferred by Lads in their late twenties and in early thirties, most of them recently moved from SPL setup to 2 way and than 3 way SQL after few months or year however all 2 way system I auditioned in car of individual in mid thirties to late forties.

Regards, 

Roberto


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

If the Stephen Hawking of Car Audio saw it fit to use a 3 way (John Whiteledge) then I figure there MUST be something to it.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

JT34237 said:


> If the Stephen Hawking of Car Audio saw it fit to use a 3 way (John Whiteledge) then I figure there MUST be something to it.


 John Whiteledge did not re-invent the wheel... He just made the knowledge available to most 

Kelvin


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

JT34237 said:


> If the Stephen Hawking of Car Audio saw it fit to use a 3 way (John Whiteledge) then I figure there MUST be something to it.


This is called being a lemming. :laugh:


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> John Whiteledge did not re-invent the wheel... He just made the knowledge available to most
> 
> Kelvin


I didn't say he reinvented anything. Considering his education and the amount of time it took him to design the bus that what he decided to do is worth mentioning.


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> This is called being a lemming. :laugh:


I really don't know how to respond to that.  Thanks Mark you are so kind. I hope you feel better after making that comment


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

It wasn't an insult. It was a characterization of your position. When it comes to car audio, if you're going to base your stance on a logical fallacy, it makes you a car audio lemming. That's kinda what lemming means...


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> It wasn't an insult. It was a characterization of your position. When it comes to car audio, if you're going to base your stance on a logical fallacy, it makes you a car audio lemming. That's kinda what lemming means...


So you are saying that if I have no direct experience with the given topic don't have the right to state an opinion or observation? I don't see how you can expect to label someone you don't even know and have it NOT be taken as an insult...  thanks for the clarification though I've been called many things... a lemming is definetly a first.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

JT34237 said:


> So you are saying that if I have no direct experience with the given topic don't have the right to state an opinion or observation? I don't see how you can expect to label someone you don't even know and have it NOT be taken as an insult...  thanks for the clarification though I've been called many things... a lemming is definetly a first.


Well ****, I apologize if it came across as an insult to your character. That wasn't my intent. I was referring to your contribution to the thread. Come on dude, even you have to admit that it was fluff. 

As for Jon, I'm not really sure what he contributed to the discussion...  Even if his builds were great, what can we really learn from them re: 2-way vs. 3-way? Especially in a passenger car...

Take another glance at this thread and I think you'll find that a common theme is that the decision is very application-dependent. And so to base a strategy on a goddamn bus... well, that loses sight of the whole point.


----------



## JT34237 (Apr 29, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Well ****, I apologize if it came across as an insult to your character. That wasn't my intent. I was referring to your contribution to the thread. Come on dude, even you have to admit that it was fluff.
> 
> As for Jon, I'm not really sure what he contributed to the discussion...  Even if his builds were great, what can we really learn from them re: 2-way vs. 3-way? Especially in a passenger car...
> 
> Take another glance at this thread and I think you'll find that a common theme is that the decision is very application-dependent. And so to base a strategy on a goddamn bus... well, that loses sight of the whole point.


I DO see your point. :laugh: I just didn't know fluff was cardinal sin or against the rules of this forum  I felt like stating something so I did. (Thank you constitution!) I understand MOST posters have much more experience to contribute but i'm just as much as a member of this forum as they are. Wouldn't referring to me as a "lemming" be considered fluff? How exactly is that a "contribution" to the thread?


----------

