# 2 way vs 3 way front stage



## fatboyracing (Oct 8, 2008)

I have never had or led alone heard a 3 way front stage. I like the look of a set of pillars for a 3 way set up. 

I am wondering what you gain from 3 way over 2 way 

Is what you gain worth the price difference


----------



## voodoosoul (Feb 7, 2010)

fatboyracing said:


> I have never had or led alone heard a 3 way front stage. I like the look of a set of pillars for a 3 way set up.
> 
> I am wondering what you gain from 3 way over 2 way
> 
> Is what you gain worth the price difference


Better blending between the midrange frequencies and the mid bass. From my experience I've seen the benefit only is the mid range and the tweeter can be close together.


----------



## voodoosoul (Feb 7, 2010)

Correction - Mid range and tweeter frequencies *


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

voodoosoul said:


> Better blending between the midrange frequencies and the mid bass. From my experience I've seen the benefit only is the mid range and the tweeter can be close together.


this is for the most part irrelevant when you have signal delay at your disposal

the benefits are there, but your not going to get them just by throwing 3 speakers per side up front


----------



## voodoosoul (Feb 7, 2010)

What I meant to say is it's beneficial when the mid and tweet are closer together. If the tweeter is on a pillar and the mid isn't it's more tuning than it's worth. 2 ways work great together


----------



## cms983 (Jul 11, 2015)

I like having all or almost all of the vocals in one pair of drivers. My mid-range response in the 6.5s in my doors were terrible and hard to eq without insane amounts of boosting. Door card absolutely ruined everything so that's the main reason I went 3way. If you don't have that problem, a 2way with a tweeter that can play down around 2.5khz can damn near provide just as good of a sound stage as 3way. So if it's not broken, a good two way is just fine. 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## voodoosoul (Feb 7, 2010)

voodoosoul said:


> What I meant to say is it's beneficial when the mid and tweet are closer together. If the tweeter is on a pillar and the mid isn't it's more tuning than it's worth. 2 ways work great together





cms983 said:


> I like having all or almost all of the vocals in one pair of drivers. My mid-range response in the 6.5s in my doors were terrible and hard to eq without insane amounts of boosting. Door card absolutely ruined everything so that's the main reason I went 3way. If you don't have that problem, a 2way with a tweeter that can play down around 2.5khz can damn near provide just as good of a sound stage as 3way. So if it's not broken, a good two way is just fine.
> 
> Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
> 
> Agreed. My mid plus up to 3250. Which at certain volumes sounds extremely muddy and is hard to control.


----------



## voodoosoul (Feb 7, 2010)

fatboyracing said:


> I have never had or led alone heard a 3 way front stage. I like the look of a set of pillars for a 3 way set up.
> 
> I am wondering what you gain from 3 way over 2 way
> 
> Is what you gain worth the price difference


What drivers?


----------



## Focused4door (Aug 15, 2015)

Speaker location plays a big part in how a system sounds, and a three way with a smaller midrange speaker opens up lots of speaker locations that are not practical with a larger speaker.


----------



## cms983 (Jul 11, 2015)

voodoosoul said:


> Agreed. My mid plus up to 3250. Which at certain volumes sounds extremely muddy and is hard to control.


Really need to measure your truck! I bet that muddy sound can be fixed easily. 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

voodoosoul said:


> What I meant to say is it's beneficial when the mid and tweet are closer together. If the tweeter is on a pillar and the mid isn't it's more tuning than it's worth. 2 ways work great together


i disagree. either way you still have to eq, and you still have to align signal. i see no difference, nor do i hear one


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

3-way in a car with A-pillar tweeter/mid has a distinct advantage in staging, I've found. I really liked it in my Flex, with RS75's and ND20 tweeters with a crossover I made using simple components. I felt like no matter where my or my passenger's legs were, the stage stayed solid and anchored. Conversely a 2-way setup means we're playing higher down low, so if you or a passenger moves their body, the sound changes a bit. 

Another way to go is to run a very low-playing tweeter. The KAXBLTWT for instance, I crossed that sucker really low with some SI6.5's in a Speed 3, and it sounded very much like a 3-way.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

I love this topic! 

Firstly, both 2-way and 3-way have their advantages and disadvantages, saying one is objectively better than the other is false. 

Consider this: The ideal stereo would be 2 point source speakers, one left, and one right. The entire frequency range would be covered by a single driver, so there would be no need to worry about aligning phase for multiple drivers, adjusting levels, and messing with crossovers. This ideal stereo isn’t possible, but if you think about it in theory, it works by being simple and using as few sources as possible. 

A 2-way front stage is closer to the theoretical “ideal” stereo. The fewer drivers means there are fewer areas that need to be blended together, fewer crossovers, fewer drivers to balance, and perhaps most importantly, fewer phase problems. 

An obvious disadvantage is that you’re asking a lot out of the drivers in a 2-way. A speaker can only be played so high before beaming becomes a very real, audible problem, and a speaker can only be played so low before you run into problems of distortion and over excursion. This is especially difficult in a car, where mounting locations and angles are not particularly flexible. Major customization can sometimes be needed to put drivers in good locations, on axis. Much more attention needs to be paid to which speakers are used, and generally speaking, drivers with extended frequency ranges tend to be much more expensive than a driver that only needs to cover a small range. A tweeter that plays down to 1.8khz well will be more expensive (and likely bigger) than a tweeter that only needs to play down to 5khz. 

To summarize a 2-way setup: they are much easier to tune, and you avoid some of the phase issues that a system with more drivers will have. However, care must be taken in selecting drivers, and setting the crossover correctly (and EQ) between the mid and tweet is very important. The spot at which a mid and tweeter will need to be crossed is typically going to be right in the middle of the vocal range, where our ears are very sensitive. Basically, any issues in this area will be very audible.

A 3-way front stage strays even further from the “ideal” stereo by adding another set of drivers. Now you have at least 6 drivers (likely more with subwoofer(s)) that all need to play together. The sound from each of these drivers needs to arrive to the listener at the same time. Phase becomes even more difficult to manage, and phase problems can be very audible, especially at lower frequencies. With the extra speakers, tuning becomes even more difficult. Not only do you need to get all drivers in phase, you need to level match them (you do this in a 2-way, but fewer drivers make this much easier), and once you start working with so many speakers, tuning can be a very difficult and time consuming task. 

With a 3-way, you will spend more time tuning, and you’ll need more expensive equipment (DSP) to even allow you to tune. A 3-way (plus sub) active crossover will be more expensive than a simple 2-way (think about the huge cost difference between Pioneer’s 80PRS and their P99RS), but the drivers in a 3-way will be playing more narrow bandwidths. There are a couple of advantages to this. Firstly, speakers are cheap when they only need to cover a couple of octaves well. If you don’t need a tweeter to play down to 1.8khz, you’ve got a thousand great, inexpensive tweeters to choose from. Another advantage is that when using a dedicated midbass, midrange, and tweeter, you are able to keep the vocal information, which we hear very well, contained within one pair of drivers. By having all of the vocal information come from the midrange, you avoid level and phase problems that would be very audible if you split vocals between 2 different pairs of speakers. 

Now we have a couple of advantages, and disadvantages of each type of system, so how do you decide what is going to be best? One of the first questions you need to answer is, are you looking for a stereo, or a hobby? A 3-way front stage will require more time and energy to optimize, if you aren’t looking for a hobby, then maybe a 3-way isn’t for you (active may not be for you, sticking with a passive set of components may end up sounding better). A bad tune can easily make great speakers and a great install sound terrible. You may also want to consider who is doing the install. With a 3-way there are more speakers to run, more amp channels needed, and likely more custom fabrication. If the install is half assed, then you’ve likely neutralized any benefit you would have had. If you don’t have the ability to do the install and tune correctly, then there is a very good chance that you’ll create a very time consuming, expensive, and bad sounding system. In acoustics the KISS approach goes a long way. 

The point here is that both 2-way and 3-way have the potential to sound incredible. A bad tune can ruin a system with a great install and great equipment. The more complex you make a system, the more likely it is to have problems. A 3-way is simply easier to screw up. I would prefer to listen to an optimized 2-way system over a mediocre 3-way every single time. Don’t think that simply adding more speakers is going to improve your system. Many things need to be considered when deciding between 2-way and 3-way, but the point I'm trying to make is that one is not necessarily better than the other.


----------



## will. (Jul 7, 2015)

Great Post



gijoe said:


> I love this topic!
> 
> Firstly, both 2-way and 3-way have their advantages and disadvantages, saying one is objectively better than the other is false.
> 
> ...


----------



## ANDRESVELASCO (Dec 7, 2015)

will. said:


> Great Post


+2


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

The tuning issue can be mitigated somewhat if you keep your mid-tweet (or I suppose woofer/mid) very close together, and build a passive crossover (or use an active amp crossover), thus you're really tuning like a two-way, because two drivers very close together basically behave as one. In this way, with my mid-tweet pillars (and my 2-way center), I had my processor (MS-8) handle the set of speakers as one output, and it was able to tune accordingly. You can do this manually as well. It helps save on processor channels since 8 out is pretty much all you can get right now, short of a select few high-end processors.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

fourthmeal said:


> The tuning issue can be mitigated somewhat if you keep your mid-tweet (or I suppose woofer/mid) very close together, and build a passive crossover (or use an active amp crossover), thus you're really tuning like a two-way, because two drivers very close together basically behave as one. In this way, with my mid-tweet pillars (and my 2-way center), I had my processor (MS-8) handle the set of speakers as one output, and it was able to tune accordingly. You can do this manually as well. It helps save on processor channels since 8 out is pretty much all you can get right now, short of a select few high-end processors.


Sure, but you have to get them close enough that TA isn't needed, and the crossover needs to be built so that the levels are nearly ideal to start with (you can only do so much with EQ). Your solution can certainly work, but certain considerations still need to be made. You won't have independent control over the drivers, so not TA, and no level matching. If you create a situation that covers those situations, then that certainly helps. However, I'd rather use a digital crossover than try to build an ideal passive crossover. As good as the passive may be, you're stuck with it, and it might not give the best FR, so again, it's very likely a compromise.


----------



## fatboyracing (Oct 8, 2008)

Thank you that was a very good post makes me think about a lot I think I am going to try it I have the dsp and the amps so it is just a mater of speakers I can always go back to a 2 way setup

One question you talked a few times about phase aligning are you talking about time alignment or the actual phase of the speakers (like polarity) or something else just wondering because I thought going active would be a plus for time alignment and the

one question


gijoe said:


> I love this topic!
> 
> Firstly, both 2-way and 3-way have their advantages and disadvantages, saying one is objectively better than the other is false.
> 
> ...


----------



## unix_usr (Dec 4, 2013)

OK ... love this topic, but have a small twist ...

2-Way front stage with rear fill ~ vs ~ 3 way front stage no rears ?

Having only 8 channels (in my, and most processors) and needing at least one for the sub, what opinions are you all willing to share?


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Take a look at this link for a great visualization of phase. Wave superposition | AS A Level Physics Revision | University of Salford
Go down to the "phase difference" animation. Click the red button to start the animation, now use the slider to pick the degree of phase shift. Set it at 180 and you'll see the resulting wave is flat. Put it in phase (0 degrees, or 360 degrees) and see how the waves add to be twice as big as each individual wave. Now, play with the different settings to see how the resulting wave looks at various degrees of phase shift. 

Swapping the polarity (switching the wires) will create a 180 degree phase shift (electronic, not necessarily acoustic). If two drivers are 180 degrees out of phase, then the result is no sound. Imagine from the animation that we shift one wave just a couple of inches, so the peaks line up differently, this results in some constructive and some destructive interference. TA is used to shift the wave a little at a time to get them lined up, and in phase. So, I generally recommend starting will all speakers wired in the correct polarity, then use TA to get the waves lined up at the listening position.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

unix_usr said:


> OK ... love this topic, but have a small twist ...
> 
> 2-Way front stage with rear fill ~ vs ~ 3 way front stage no rears ?
> 
> Having only 8 channels (in my, and most processors) and needing at least one for the sub, what opinions are you all willing to share?


If we're being traditional, stereo if 2 channels (maybe one more 2.1 for a sub). Stereo is designed around 2 channels, right and left, both front. Stereo does not have rear speakers. The stereo illusion depends on everything coming from up front. So, if you want a killer STEREO, then rear speaker have no place.

Now, since then there have been a couple of algorithms that do a good job with multichannel stereo. They take advantage of the rear speakers and use them to create ambiance. The signal that they are playing is NOT the same signal that is going to the front speakers, it's delayed, bandwidth limited, and has all of the common (center) information removed. There are only 2 (that I know of) DSPs on the market for car audio that will do this correctly (Alpine and JBL). 

If you want proper stereo, the rear speakers have to go. If the stereo illusion isn't that important to you, then go ahead and use rear speakers, but the generally accepted definition of "sound quality" refers to STEREO. Staging and imaging are important parts of the stereo illusion, not just frequency response and tone.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

gijoe said:


> Sure, but you have to get them close enough that TA isn't needed, and the crossover needs to be built so that the levels are nearly ideal to start with (you can only do so much with EQ). Your solution can certainly work, but certain considerations still need to be made. You won't have independent control over the drivers, so not TA, and no level matching. If you create a situation that covers those situations, then that certainly helps. However, I'd rather use a digital crossover than try to build an ideal passive crossover. As good as the passive may be, you're stuck with it, and it might not give the best FR, so again, it's very likely a compromise.


This is true, which is why if you use passives like this, you want to set your crossovers in a very conservative way, well outside of driver limits and beaming, and do some basic math for your components. You also need drivers that are essentially right on top of each other, to prevent any audible lobing. With some help from forum experts, I was able to get the crossovers right on my first try. It was a simple 4 component setup in a project box (x3 of those for my Left, right, and center speakers) and all in, I was at about $130 for my front upper stage, including those crossovers!

Even with all processing off, it worked very well, the drivers were well-matched to each other. Once the MS-8 calibrated the pair as one, it sounded amazing. 

T/A on tweeters can be over-rated, IMO. If you have to give something up, give that up first. Be sure to maintain SPL control over the tweeters since THAT is what gives us the impression of staging from a tweeter, beyond T/A.

If you do decide to do this, just build in some quick-disconnect connectors like XT60's and prototype the design with a breadboard type setup, before committing. Components cost almost nothing for mid-tweet setups, because the capacitor and inductor values are tiny. If you pony up for a woofer/mid combo close setup, then component cost drives up due to larger sizes required of the inductors, which get expensive real quick. If you were wanting to do this with woofer/mids, I think I would go the active route with an appropriate amp, as it would be cheaper and more flexible. Mid-tweet, less of an issue!

For anybody curious how it all worked, I detailed it in my build log
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-kind-lansons-2013-ford-flex-audio-build.html


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Sadly it comes down to how the vehicle wants to be built for a lot of people. I ran a 3-way front in my Ram, but will be running a 2-way front with properly processed rears in the Grand Cherokee. My door speakers are up pretty high and tweets in sails. Rears up high nearly on axis in d-pillars. I wanted to run the same fronts I had in the Ram really bad, but didn't want to ruin a beautiful interior for the sake of "possibly" better sound. My AP 3-way set needed to stay together. I'm glad it was sold as a whole set. When choosing 2-way vs 3-way you need to make your choice for the right reasons. I've seen dash and pillar pods look really good and I've seen them look really gaudy. Only way I'd run pods is if they looked like they were part of the factory interior. What someone does with their ride is their choice, but pods sticking out around the dash area for the sake of sound quality isn't for everyone, and certainly not for me.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

This topic has been killed to death so many times, but ignoring the most obvious..... 3-way in a vehicle is quite optimal due to limitations of driver locations for 2-way. Harder to do, but better if you want more output for a given power input. So if you're contemplating it, then just do it. You won't be satisfied until you do..... most have followed suit in the past. 2-way, then eventually 3-way which usually includes swapping out whole setups. Save yourself the time and money, but not the headache.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Bayboy said:


> You won't be satisfied until you do.....


I have to disagree with this, and I think it's statements like this that trick people into believing that 3-way is superior. Comments like this stick in their head and as soon as they get bored with their 2-way setup, they think the only way to improve it is to add some more speakers, when in reality, they probably just need to spend some time tuning. 

Telling someone they won't be satisfied until they go to 3-way is equivalent to saying that 3-way is superior, which is exactly what I spent my time discussing. It is absolutely possible to go FROM 3-way TO 2-way and have a noticeable, objective improvement.


----------



## ANDRESVELASCO (Dec 7, 2015)

gijoe said:


> ...The stereo illusion depends on everything coming from up front. So, if you want a killer STEREO, then rear speaker have no place.


Or need to be faded off enough to be not perceptible from front seats. (Just to give rear passengers a better output)


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

gijoe said:


> I have to disagree with this, and I think it's statements like this that trick people into believing that 3-way is superior. Comments like this stick in their head and as soon as they get bored with their 2-way setup, they think the only way to improve it is to add some more speakers, when in reality, they probably just need to spend some time tuning.
> 
> Telling someone they won't be satisfied until they go to 3-way is equivalent to saying that 3-way is superior, which is exactly what I spent my time discussing. It is absolutely possible to go FROM 3-way TO 2-way and have a noticeable, objective improvement.


Straight rubbish and I entirely disagree with you simply due to the fact that you're twisting what I said to support your own reasoning. The fact is if someone is contemplating on a 3-way, then there's nothing you or anyone else can do to convince them otherwise because _eventually_ they're going to do it. Harder learning curve? Yes. Superior in sound quality? Not necessarily, and in nowhere in my response was that given so let's not make things up for the sake of debate. However, let's not ignore my very first statement........ this has been brought up numerous, countless times before and a quick search will prove so with way more in depth answers given in this thread.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/general-car-audio-discussion/62111-2-way-vs-3-way-more-sq.html


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

That's a good point. We're mostly all here because we like to DIY, so until you make one you'll probably ponder over it over and over.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Unfortunately, that's how it works..... so the point is to at least setup the basics to where upgrades aren't causing you to scrap a whole system and start over whether it be headunit, dsp, or amps. Nothing worse than seeing someone having to put items up for sale for a simple upgrade where something as simple as grabbing up a couple of 4 channels, or a 5 channel w/ a 4/2 channel(s) will be able to include putting in a mid and alleviate starting over. This is how you can save some bucks which is my point. Even in a 2-way, you will be able to bridge for the mid which you will probably need for comparitive output. Keeping versatility in mind is key!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

ANDRESVELASCO said:


> Or need to be faded off enough to be not perceptible from front seats. (Just to give rear passengers a better output)


Do it right and rearfill becomes an front stage enhancer. Rear passengers have nothing to do with it. I've heard the results with my own ears in Erin's car.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Do it right and rearfill becomes an front stage enhancer. Rear passengers have nothing to do with it. I've heard the results with my own ears in Erin's car.


i can agree with that. i can say that its used in a couple of the best sounding cars ive ever heard, and has worked well in the car i tried it in. to add to that, all of the best sounding cars ive heard to date have all been 3 way, or large midbass and a wideband. there definitely is more potential with 3 way in the car environment. how much, well it depends


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Bayboy said:


> Unfortunately, that's how it works..... so the point is to at least setup the basics to where upgrades aren't causing you to scrap a whole system and start over whether it be headunit, dsp, or amps. Nothing worse than seeing someone having to put items up for sale for a simple upgrade where something as simple as grabbing up a couple of 4 channels, or a 5 channel w/ a 4/2 channel(s) will be able to include putting in a mid and alleviate starting over. This is how you can save some bucks which is my point. Even in a 2-way, you will be able to bridge for the mid which you will probably need for comparitive output. Keeping versatility in mind is key!


All of this is assuming that people want a hobby. We are quick to assume that everyone who joins this forum wants to make car audio a hobby, they want to run active, and they want to do the fabrication themselves. Not everyone here is looking for a long-term project, and for some people, a 2-way front stage will sound better given the amount of time and money they are willing to invest.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

And who decides that for them? My intentions is not to steer or corral him as what other suggestions are doing. Rather to suggest having a setup so it is a possibility given that he is inquisitive enough to ask such a question. Being worth it or not for an individual isn't something that can be determined from an Internet symposium. That's absurd. It is something for thar individual to decide & experience for themselves.

So tell me, what makes a 3-way more of a hobby than a 2-way? There are countless numbers of 2-way expeditions on this forum where many constantly swap drivers, amps, locations, etc. But if I'm wrong, no problem. Suggest one set and let's see how long that sticks.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> i can agree with that. i can say that its used in a couple of the best sounding cars ive ever heard, and has worked well in the car i tried it in. to add to that, all of the best sounding cars ive heard to date have all been 3 way, or large midbass and a wideband. there definitely is more potential with 3 way in the car environment. how much, well it depends


Yup, rearfill used properly isn't noticed until it's taken away for demonstration purposes. And yeah there's no replacement for displacement. If I had the guts to do it I'd cut the floor and put 8" midbass drivers in and so some point source drivers in the pillars. I'm just not into this hobby like I used to be. Once my system is done in this rig, it's done! Thinking about the Morel mw166's with the higher q for the doors instead of the Usher 8945a's already on hand.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Bayboy said:


> And who decides that for them? My intentions is not to steer or corral him as what other suggestions are doing. Rather to suggest having a setup so it is a possibility given that he is inquisitive enough to ask such a question. Being worth it or not for an individual isn't something that can be determined from an Internet symposium. That's absurd. It is something for thar individual to decide & experience for themselves.
> 
> So tell me, what makes a 3-way more of a hobby than a 2-way? There are countless numbers of 2-way expeditions on this forum where many constantly swap drivers, amps, locations, etc. But if I'm wrong, no problem. Suggest one set and let's see how long that sticks.


In case you didn't read my post, I laid out the pro's and con's of both types of system, and made no effort to influence people one way or the other. You, on the other hand, made comments that (to me at least) seemed to push people towards 3-way, otherwise they would be disappointed. 

We may not be communicated to each other well, but my entire point was to give the pro's and con's so that people can decide for themselves which route is best for them.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I know tons of car audio enthusiasts that will choose quality gear and stick with it for years (or until a piece of equipment fails). All the do is work with the tune to get the sound to their liking. Once their install goals are met the invasive part of the system is done until they decide it's time for a new vehicle.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

gijoe said:


> In case you didn't read my post, I laid out the pro's and con's of both types of system, and made no effort to influence people one way or the other. You, on the other hand, made comments that (to me at least) seemed to push people towards 3-way, otherwise they would be disappointed.
> 
> We may not be communicated to each other well, but my entire point was to give the pro's and con's so that people can decide for themselves which route is best for them.


There is not a lack of communication, rather twisting to support the basis of what you said all along, pointing out more cons to a 3-way, thus swaying. My comprehension is quite good, thank you. Funny how another understood my view, yet you refuse to see it written in that way which further supports how I've responded. Do I need to reiterate a third time? Nope... no need. In case you didn't read my post, I've even included a link where more opinions are given. Surely there is nothing wrong with having more opinions....


----------



## mondo (Oct 31, 2013)

Some good info in here


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I know tons of car audio enthusiasts that will choose quality gear and stick with it for years (or until a piece of equipment fails). All the do is work with the tune to get the sound to their liking. Once their install goals are met the invasive part of the system is done until they decide it's time for a new vehicle.



That is true on both sides of the coin. The irony, the op has been a member of this forum since 2008. I think that should speak volumes to having been here that long and still has never tried a 3-way. A lot more than some posting including me, no? Is he missing something? I can't answer that. Is there something to be improved? Can't answer that either. Differs per car, per listener, etc.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> That is true on both sides of the coin. The irony, the op has been a member of this forum since 2008. I think that should speak volumes to having been here that long and still has never tried a 3-way. A lot more than some posting including me, no? Is he missing something? I can't answer that. Is there something to be improved? Can't answer that either. Differs per car, per listener, etc.


I've heard 2-way fronts sound incredible and 3-way fronts sound terrible and everything in-between. When you've been around the block as much as I have hearing other people's systems you have no choice but to get an open mind. I've gotten to where if I don't already know what someone is running I don't even ask what they have installed until after I've been listening for a bit. Then you have people who have run crazy installs but have chosen to go KISS because they like great sound but don't like to overcomplicate things anymore. And with a 3-way front it's damn near impossible to be as close to stealth as possible without getting too invasive in most vehicles. I work in Little Rock at night. Putting my vehicle at risk for the sake of better sound is just plain stupid to me and I know for a fact that at least half the active members on this forum will agree with me. Not knocking the people who have obvious signs of a system installed because they're aware of the risks involved and are OK with that. My Ram had very nice compact tweeters in the dash corners but they weren't that noticeable at first glance. Even doing that took some courage on my part. 

Through all that I'm saying that there comes a point when someone decides they don't like an obvious and/or invasive system but still like great sound. This is when making better choices to integrate into the interior becomes most important. As for my take on 2-way vs 3-way, it depends. 3-way isn't a magical ticket to better sound. As chad said one time "if you can't get a 2-way sounding good a 3-way will rape your mother". 

For those asking themselves if they should go 3-way, they need to ask themselves why they want to do it. They need to decide if it's worth the extra expense and possibly cutting their vehicle. When you drive something with a really nice interior it becomes a lot harder to justify modding it for the sake of car audio. This is why you see people who compete keeping their car audio vehicle for a long long time and even having another vehicle for a daily driver. Most people aren't that lucky or care to go that far for the sake of a hobby.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

And CENTER! Do center right, and you've got a solid 2-seat car.


----------



## will. (Jul 7, 2015)

fourthmeal said:


> And CENTER! Do center right, and you've got a solid 2-seat car.


How do you recommend to a centre channel right besides using a centre channel processor and good placement. Any thing else I should consider ?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I've heard 2-way fronts sound incredible and 3-way fronts sound terrible and everything in-between. When you've been around the block as much as I have hearing other people's systems you have no choice but to get an open mind. I've gotten to where if I don't already know what someone is running I don't even ask what they have installed until after I've been listening for a bit. Then you have people who have run crazy installs but have chosen to go KISS because they like great sound but don't like to overcomplicate things anymore. And with a 3-way front it's damn near impossible to be as close to stealth as possible without getting too invasive in most vehicles. I work in Little Rock at night. Putting my vehicle at risk for the sake of better sound is just plain stupid to me and I know for a fact that at least half the active members on this forum will agree with me. Not knocking the people who have obvious signs of a system installed because they're aware of the risks involved and are OK with that. My Ram had very nice compact tweeters in the dash corners but they weren't that noticeable at first glance. Even doing that took some courage on my part.
> 
> Through all that I'm saying that there comes a point when someone decides they don't like an obvious and/or invasive system but still like great sound. This is when making better choices to integrate into the interior becomes most important. As for my take on 2-way vs 3-way, it depends. 3-way isn't a magical ticket to better sound. As chad said one time "if you can't get a 2-way sounding good a 3-way will rape your mother".
> 
> For those asking themselves if they should go 3-way, they need to ask themselves why they want to do it. They need to decide if it's worth the extra expense and possibly cutting their vehicle. When you drive something with a really nice interior it becomes a lot harder to justify modding it for the sake of car audio. This is why you see people who compete keeping their car audio vehicle for a long long time and even having another vehicle for a daily driver. Most people aren't that lucky or care to go that far for the sake of a hobby.


I wrote a very decent rebuttal, but I'm going to pass and point out something else instead. I mean it's obvious where some stand on this and I respect that whether my opinion is respected in return or not. I claim no audio god status so it is what it is. 

However, I have not noticed questions towards vehicle, gear, install, or any such which is the usual route. Still this part is largely ignored for the sake of debate:




fatboyracing said:


> Thank you that was a very good post makes me think about a lot I think I am going to try it I have the dsp and the amps so it is just a mater of speakers I can always go back to a 2 way setup



But I digress.....


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> I wrote a very decent rebuttal, but I'm going to pass and point out something else instead. I mean it's obvious where some stand on this and I respect that whether my opinion is respected in return or not. I claim no audio god status so it is what it is.
> 
> However, I have not noticed questions towards vehicle, gear, install, or any such which is the usual route. Still this part is largely ignored for the sake of debate:
> 
> ...


Some people choose function over form and that's fine. When you can have both you've hit the lottery. I'm just going to bat for the people who see the value in 3-way front but choose 2-way front for the sake of keeping it simple. Sounds to me like you've admitted to losing this debate, but could be wrong with my ASSumptions. And by now you've probably seen my thread about trying something different to keep from messing up the beauty of my black and tan interior.


----------



## unix_usr (Dec 4, 2013)

gijoe said:


> All of this is assuming that people want a hobby. We are quick to assume that everyone who joins this forum wants to make car audio a hobby, they want to run active, and they want to do the fabrication themselves. Not everyone here is looking for a long-term project, and for some people, a 2-way front stage will sound better given the amount of time and money they are willing to invest.


To be clear - since I jumped in adding to the thread with my own questions... YES this is hobby for me, and YES as someone pointed out I am already thinking about it (enough so to have purchased the drivers and try it at least). My take was more 2-way + rears vs 3way front only but I also have to point out that I am pretty much gutting my whole setup and starting over to do it. I'll post a build thread when I do and round and round this hobby goes  (hint: sticking with OEM source, but hacking the crap out of Ford SYNC and CAN bus communication to pull off something unique - will be all active either way 2 vs 3 way stage).


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Some people choose function over form and that's fine. When you can have both you've hit the lottery. I'm just going to bat for the people who see the value in 3-way front but choose 2-way front for the sake of keeping it simple. Sounds to me like you've admitted to losing this debate, but could be wrong with my ASSumptions. And by now you've probably seen my thread about trying something different to keep from messing up the beauty of my black and tan interior.


Losing the debate?! So that was your point the whole time, winning a mere debate??? Not aiding in what I just pointed out had been ignored for some time? Now you slyly belittle his desire to do so by claiming it's just fashion? Wow....

If you want a crown, buy an amp. I have more respect than that. I stopped my earlier reply because it's all circles. You can't convince me, nor can I convince you. The difference is I won't demonize or exaggerate to prove a point. That's a pride move and am not about that. I have said it much earlier and his quote proves it to be true. What more is there to say if you're not aiding? Again.... I digress. Lol


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

3 way is better f**k ya'll


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

1-way was the correct answer. Sorry all.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Zippy said:


> 1-way was the correct answer. Sorry all.


The Mormons use whizzer cones?


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

Bayboy said:


> The Mormons use whizzer cones?


Whizzer cones and Coaxials. My point is it doesn't matter. It's all personal preference. Both can sound amazing. If the OP wants to try a 3-way speaker setup, then encourage him. He cannot make up his mind without have heard and tried both.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Zippy said:


> Whizzer cones and Coaxials. My point is it doesn't matter. It's all personal preference. Both can sound amazing. If the OP wants to try a 3-way speaker setup, then encourage him. He cannot make up his mind without have heard and tried both.


My point exactly.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> My point exactly.


But didn't you say earlier in this thread that 3-way was the be all end all and 2-way was inferior? At the end of the day the goal is to get the system sounding like the sound is coming from a pair of point source speakers above the dash and outside of the physical boundaries of the "room". How one pulls this off makes no difference as long as his/hers goals are met. How deep into this hobby someone goes is their choice. Like I said earlier some people on here have had big complicated systems and even competed in their younger years. There comes a time when some people decide it's time to re-evaluate their priorities. Car audio can be an expensive hobby if you let it. I already have an expensive hobby. The $20000 bass boat with at least 5 grand of fishing gear in it parked outside is that expensive hobby.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

can we all just agree that if you have the ability, a 3 way front is better? even if only by a tiny smidge?


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

will. said:


> How do you recommend to a centre channel right besides using a centre channel processor and good placement. Any thing else I should consider ?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


The processor is paramount of course, since it is a derived channel through processing. But I found with my MS-8 builds that the best, most anchored sound stage came from running a large center, large as you can fit, something that could easily play ~100hz or lower. In the Flex it was a two-way I made along with a ~5" Dayton RS150 and an ND tweeter so it was full-spectrum with no odd beaming. By playing that low, most instruments and vocals of any sort remained locked to center, and could match the left and right perfectly. Moving your head around never made you lose the anchored stage effect. Hell, even standing outside the car near the door frame, poking your head in, you could get the sensation that the front stage was solid. It was wild! With this setup and my A-pillar mids/tweets, and my big RS225's in the doors, the whole front stage was just awesome. At that point in my life, a couple years ago, I didn't even know how to use REW, so I was just relying on my ears and the limited EQ abilities of the MS-8 beyond the auto-cal, as well as manual level-matching from my amps post-cal. What I really liked was how a singer or instrument could move across the dash at eye level, and continued to stay focused. If I closed my eyes while it was happening, it was almost as if you could feel a camera panning, or the stage performer hustling around the stage themselves. Really cool feeling, and very hard to replicate with other systems I've done.

My current center-surround setup in my Durango has a more sedate but still clean-sounding Wavecor full-ranger 3.5" up front, biggest I could fit in the location. That unit is crossed at ~300hz so it can't quite dig as deep. It is also a full-ranger so there's a bit of that cone beaming going on, but the windshield is right there so it disperses pretty well. At the very extremes of movement, like moving my head to the far left (like looking out the window for tire to curb clearance), I can feel the center's anchored stage effect weaken. That's really not bad though.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> can we all just agree that if you have the ability, a 3 way front is better? even if only by a tiny smidge?


Nope, we can't agree on that . It certainly COULD be better, but the fact that it's 3-way does not necessarily make it better.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I can live with that. Still fun debating though.I never said 3-way wasn't better. It was always more of an "it depends" situation.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> can we all just agree that if you have the ability, a 3 way front is better? even if only by a tiny smidge?


I think that also depends on the bottom end of the 3-way. If you can fit 8's or 10's in there, SURE there's hella potential in that. But if you've got a 6.5" woofer, 2-3" mid, and .5" tweeter or something, that's basically going to sound just like a 6.5" and a bigger tweeter, ALL ELSE EQUAL. The KAXBLTWT tweeter was just a powerhouse down low, and showed me the light on this. Same with the SB Acoustics / NVX / ARC Black ring-radiator dimple-dome tweeter.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Why don't we call this a wash before bayboy strokes out


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gijoe said:


> Nope, we can't agree on that . It certainly COULD be better, but the fact that it's 3-way does not necessarily make it better.


your entirely missing my "if you have the ability"..

but care to answer why literally every top car at finals was 3 way or large midbass/widebander? im sure its not just coincidence. maybe you can shed some light on why it is coincidence? never mind the fact that you can easily stay away from resonant frequencies and beaming/break up much easier with 3 way, or that you can easily achieve more output with less strain on the drivers, or you can actually get midrange frequencies up top (not that you cant with them coming from down low, but it can help), more eq bands per octave.. honestly joe, im starting to think you have some sort of grudge against 3 way. can you not handle it? are you upset that you arent wanting to go through the install hassle in your own car? to much money? what is it, cause something is swaying your belief. i know your smart enough to realize the benefits of a 3 way outweigh a 2 way strictly in terms of sound, no matter how small of a difference you may think it is

PS, both of my cars use top of the line gear. but my 3 way setup smashes the ever living piss out of my two way setup. am i doing something wrong?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

fourthmeal said:


> I think that also depends on the bottom end of the 3-way. If you can fit 8's or 10's in there, SURE there's hella potential in that. But if you've got a 6.5" woofer, 2-3" mid, and .5" tweeter or something, that's basically going to sound just like a 6.5" and a bigger tweeter, ALL ELSE EQUAL. The KAXBLTWT tweeter was just a powerhouse down low, and showed me the light on this. Same with the SB Acoustics / NVX / ARC Black ring-radiator dimple-dome tweeter.


i disagree. even if the midbass is still mounted in a door in the 3 way, i think limiting the passband of what the door speaker is playing is pretty important (unless a small mid is installed separately surface mounted in the top of a door, kinda like a bmw).


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> can we all just agree that if you have the ability, a 3 way front is better? even if only by a tiny smidge?


Seeing as I have a three way set in both my vehicles you would think I would agree, but I found a two way set I'm dying to try in my next vehicle.

Bewith Confidence III

2" tweeter, 5.25" mid, and 8" sub on each side up front. This is technically a two way setup.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Just one small comment on the surround/center topic. The more I look into it, the less I see a need for a DSP with licensed surround processing compared to some of the more capable processors without licensed surround processing on the market today. Especially for rear fill, and even to a lesser extent on the center channel.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Zippy said:


> Seeing as I have a three way set in both my vehicles you would think I would agree, but I found a two way set I'm dying to try in my next vehicle.
> 
> Bewith Confidence III
> 
> 2" tweeter, 5.25" mid, and 8" sub on each side up front. This is technically a two way setup.


that seems like a 3 way to me lol.. a strange one considering it uses a 2" tweeter, but its still 6 speakers up front


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> your entirely missing my "if you have the ability"..
> 
> but care to answer why literally every top car at finals was 3 way or large midbass/widebander? im sure its not just coincidence. maybe you can shed some light on why it is coincidence? never mind the fact that you can easily stay away from resonant frequencies and beaming/break up much easier with 3 way, or that you can easily achieve more output with less strain on the drivers, or you can actually get midrange frequencies up top (not that you cant with them coming from down low, but it can help), more eq bands per octave.. honestly joe, im starting to think you have some sort of grudge against 3 way. can you not handle it? are you upset that you arent wanting to go through the install hassle in your own car? to much money? what is it, cause something is swaying your belief. i know your smart enough to realize the benefits of a 3 way outweigh a 2 way strictly in terms of sound, no matter how small of a difference you may think it is
> 
> PS, both of my cars use top of the line gear. but my 3 way setup smashes the ever living piss out of my two way setup. am i doing something wrong?


Some people just don't care about rebuilding pillars and the likes. I'm looking for ways around it myself. I remember when no one hardly had midrange mounted above the dash. Now nearly everyone does it. I do encourage people to try things outside of the norm even if it's stuff that was done 20 years ago with primitive processing that might work a lot better with great processing.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Some people just don't care about rebuilding pillars and the likes. I'm looking for ways around it myself. I remember when no one hardly had midrange mounted above the dash. Now nearly everyone does it. I do encourage people to try things outside of the norm even if it's stuff that was done 20 years ago with primitive processing that might work a lot better with great processing.


your also missing what im saying. ignore the extra work, the extra money, the extra time, etc etc. just look at the end result of how it sounds. which one has the upper hand? 2 way, or 3 way? please answer that


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> that seems like a 3 way to me lol.. a strange one considering it uses a 2" tweeter, but its still 6 speakers up front


You never are supposed to count subs when determining 2/3-way configuration. Otherwise a 3-way speaker set with front subs turns into a 4-way.

I agree though that it is fairly close. The 2" tweeter plays from 800 Hz up. IASCA requires max 1.5" tweeters because everyone in Asian that won one year was using Bewith speakers. Meca has no such restriction.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> your also missing what im saying. ignore the extra work, the extra money, the extra time, etc etc. just look at the end result of how it sounds. which one has the upper hand? 2 way, or 3 way? please answer that


I've heard both sound great so technically it depends. Yes I agree a 3-way almost always sounds better. It's still not worth the install effort to everyone. In my Ram it was easy. Midrange in the dash with small tweets in dash corners. 2-way front will work better for me in the Grand Cherokee but that doesn't mean I won't try to use midbass drivers in an alternate location where they can be easily hidden as a bridge between where a sub and midrange have no business going. You know, 80-160.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Zippy said:


> You never are supposed to count subs when determining 2/3-way configuration. Otherwise a 3-way speaker set with front subs turns into a 4-way.
> 
> I agree though that it is fairly close. The 2" tweeter plays from 800 Hz up. IASCA requires max 1.5" tweeters because everyone in Asian that won one year was using Bewith speakers. Meca has no such restriction.


dynaudio calls the mw182 subs as well.. i guess i have a two way front stage

you did say "..8" up front on either side"


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> dynaudio calls the mw182 subs as well.. i guess i have a two way front stage
> 
> you did say "..8" up front on either side"


I said each side. Scroll up


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Zippy said:


> I said each side. Scroll up


sorry, either way, the word is interchangeable in that case

"..8" on each side".. still sounds like a 3 way to me. hell, thats standard for a 3 way.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Too many quotes to quote, so I'll respond as I remember. In no way did I say that 3-way was the end all be all. That is what some would have liked me to so to have fuel for whatever, but the truth is that the OP was curious and that his curiosity was _*not*_ going to be cured by mere talk. This makes the 4th time reiterated, no? Yes. And what do you know..... it wasn't even my argument that pushed him further. :laugh:


Now as far as this destroying of interiors, cars getting stolen, and all of the petty points brought out to *win* some debate.  Let's be clear...... luck of the draw or perhaps wise in choosing a particular vehicle, but not all vehicles require gobs of work to put in a 3-way so stop the assumptions as I remind you that no one bothered to ask about the vehicle much less other gear, or did I miss that? Likewise, not all vehicles will be optimized for a simple 2-way in stock locations without work to optimize tweeter locations. There is no lesser evil here. There is no superiority in either. It's what you can get to work for you. 


Now the big advantage I've had with 3-way is not having to use expensive drivers across the board. I see the KAXBLTWT is used as an example..... I just so happen to have that so I can speak on that without adding fluff. Great tweet, but also bulbous. Not so easy to hide, is it? It sits behind the stock location in my Tacoma mated with a Satori down low. Excellent midrange and detail. Upper bass limited somewhat, but I think some can live with that. In that same location.... I've had a set of Jamos that offered much better midbass punch and extension at the cost of ouput. Can live with that. Had it mated to a Wavecor 2.75" wideband in the stock tweeter location that was nice in detail with pretty good upper end. The difference between the set? Bandwidth. Given that I hadn't added the final step to the wideband (a tiny Dayton neo tweet that would have and will be in the sails, welp....). Which one was worse? I'll let you tell me since 3-way is so evil. :laugh:


But in all seriousness...... this debate helps neither of the guys that are about to attempt a 3-way. In all of the supposed wisdom, still both are abandoned simply because they didn't obey??  How about helping them or step aside. Stroking out? :laugh: If you consider nougat in my briar with a glass of brandy while I type this as stroking, well then I'll be that. :laugh:


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Zippy said:


> IASCA requires max 1.5" tweeters because everyone in Asian that won one year was using Bewith speakers. Meca has no such restriction.


Not true, but the limitation is 2". MECA has the following rule in Stock, Street and ModStreet...

"Optional pair of high frequency drivers. The manufacturer must specify high frequency drivers’ diaphragm or dome size is 2” or less." 

The rest of the rule varies depending on which class you look at.


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

rton20s said:


> Not true, but the limitation is 2". MECA has the following rule in Stock, Street and ModStreet...
> 
> "Optional pair of high frequency drivers. The manufacturer must specify high frequency drivers’ diaphragm or dome size is 2” or less."
> 
> The rest of the rule varies depending on which class you look at.


Yes, you are technically correct that there is a restriction. My point of them being legal for use is still valid.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Bayboy said:


> Too many quotes to quote, so I'll respond as I remember. In no way did I say that 3-way was the end all be all. That is what some would have liked me to so to have fuel for whatever, but the truth is that the OP was curious and that his curiosity was _*not*_ going to be cured by mere talk. This makes the 4th time reiterated, no? Yes. And what do you know..... it wasn't even my argument that pushed him further. :laugh:
> 
> 
> Now as far as this destroying of interiors, cars getting stolen, and all of the petty points brought out to *win* some debate.  Let's be clear...... luck of the draw or perhaps wise in choosing a particular vehicle, but not all vehicles require gobs of work to put in a 3-way so stop the assumptions as I remind you that no one bothered to ask about the vehicle much less other gear, or did I miss that? Likewise, not all vehicles will be optimized for a simple 2-way in stock locations without work to optimize tweeter locations. There is no lesser evil here. There is no superiority in either. It's what you can get to work for you.
> ...


Now we're on the same page


----------



## Jheitt142 (Dec 7, 2011)

So all that said. 

Does a regular person stand to gain by going from a traditional 2 way, 6.5 midrange + tweeter system to a 3 way system with a 6.5 mid bass + 3/4/whatever wideband + tweeter all else equal? 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## OldNewb (Sep 30, 2016)

I'm having a hard time with my midrange. I haven't found a good spot to put it. If I have it on the door all the way forward where it meets the A-pillar I get great width but lose depth. If I stick it on the dash in the corner of the windshield I get great depth but lose width. And I catch myself looking at it. I tried to unhook it and reset my crossovers for a 2 way. I get the same width and depth as the mid on the door. And the height is the same or close enough to not know the difference. As of now a 3 way isn't helping me.


----------



## Jheitt142 (Dec 7, 2011)

My sole reason for wanting to go 3 way is midbass. But my ranger doesn't really take well to large door drivers without chopping up the door panel, and kicks are a real no go for me because of snow. Hence me trying to stay 6.5. That said,with it being a ranger parts are plenty full so sacrificial door cards would be easy and cheap to get. I've also thought if just sealing my rear doors up and running 8" mid bass drivers in them 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## OldNewb (Sep 30, 2016)

There are plenty of great midbass/midrange 6.5s. No reason to go any larger unless you want to go over the top


----------



## ANDRESVELASCO (Dec 7, 2015)

SkizeR said:


> sorry, either way, the word is interchangeable in that case
> 
> "..8" on each side".. still sounds like a 3 way to me. hell, thats standard for a 3 way.


2-way plus subwoofer channel = Stereo 2.1 = 2-way (for car audio purposes).


----------



## OldNewb (Sep 30, 2016)

That's not what 2.1 means. It's left channel and right channel plus sub


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ANDRESVELASCO said:


> 2-way plus subwoofer channel = Stereo 2.1 = 2-way (for car audio purposes).


2.1 just means left plus right plus sub.. also, this depends how you set it up. if they set it up so that the 8's are playing stereo and up to a decently high frequency, is it still two way? is it still two way because they label it a subwoofer? unfortunately the company doesnt provide specs (what a shame considering theyre so expensive), its hard to say if it truly is a subwoofer or more of a midwoofer. is my 3 way setup actually a 2 way because i have a driver thats marketed as a 10" slim sub as a midbass? the betwith setup honestly looks like a somewhat standard 3 way setup minus the tweeter size.


----------



## ANDRESVELASCO (Dec 7, 2015)

OldNewb said:


> That's not what 2.1 means. It's left channel and right channel plus sub


I know what 2.1 in general audio means... But for this thread purposes - as I said, (you are debating here about 2-way or 3-way FRONT STAGES isn't it? ) 

The set Zippy mentioned is a 2-way + subwoofer MONO channel. No a 3-way as SkizeR said.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

I have used plenty of different drivers with varying responses and all were in the 6.5-7" range. There is nothing wrong or disadvantageous to using a 6.5 as the bottom of a 3-way front. It all depends on what you can fit and how it will mate to the next driver. Now that doesn't mean throw something in just for the sake of having a 3-way. There should be a need. I happen to like small wideband drivers (around 2") because they're easier to place and aid in using a small tweeter that can also be easily placed & hidden. It's when you start to go big that you might get into trouble. However, keep in mind that there's a few that have mated an 8" midwoofer with the tiny Whisper. 

As for the Ranger, not sure there's a need there. Maybe some years changed locations, but the 1996 I had seemed to have premium locations for a simple 2-way. Half way up the door and slightly forward took minimal processing to achieve good staging (all I had was a JVC KD-SH1000, I think that's the number). However, what I did in mine was set the passive components up as a plate system meaning both mid & tweet was in the door. With the mid located up there, you don't have beaming issues as bad as other vehicles that's low in the doors. So from there you could get away with a mid more geared towards upper bass and use a tweet that can extend quite a bit. Can't imagine what could have been done if I had a full blown DSP to really maximize xover points, equalize L/R response and dial in time alignment.


----------



## Jheitt142 (Dec 7, 2011)

With my 5.25 set I did just that. Because the stock holes are cut vertical I had the the mid and tweet stacked, tweet above the mid in the factory hole. Right now it's 6.5 in that hole and tweeter on the dash 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

What do you have for processing?


----------



## Jheitt142 (Dec 7, 2011)

Not a dang thing besides the HU at the moment. But it's a CDA-9815 so it is 2 way active capable with T/A. I have a 5ch amp ready to go in once I decide to fight the cold and build the mount for it. Then I can go active. 

If I can stop thinking I need different drivers for a day or two I'll order a minidsp 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Good deck, but it misses what I consider the essentials to optimize driver seating... L/R EQ. Really can't stress that enough as a mono EQ can not account for axis differences from the left & right door. The right door is almost always more on axis creating a good difference between left & right response which hinders how good you can get things centered up. I suggest getting a dsp in there first before adding anything else.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ANDRESVELASCO said:


> I know what 2.1 in general audio means... But for this thread purposes - as I said, (you are debating here about 2-way or 3-way FRONT STAGES isn't it? )
> 
> The set Zippy mentioned is a 2-way + subwoofer MONO channel. No a 3-way as SkizeR said.


But like I said before.. is it actually being run mono? Or is it being run stereo? I'm sure more than enough people are playing them to over 200hz. It would be silly not to

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

The 8" in the Bewith set are dedicated *SUBS*. Not midbass drivers playing low.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Either way, I'd like to see specs on them. They look interesting. But it really would be a waste to not play them a bit high and have them play in stereo so you can keep the 5" far away from its resonant frequency therefor reducing distortion 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

Most installs have the 8" in back and only 2" and 5.25" up front. Bewith is very hush hush on it's specs that are advertised. The fs on the 5.25" is at most 40 Hz from what I have been able to tell from the web site. That's assuming they are doing what a lot of audio companies do and advertise fs as the lowest frequency that it will play. I don't think distortion will be an issue. The real reason I want to hear them is the off center voice coils.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Doubt it.... many manufacturers will state a frequency response extending beyond FS. Plus with as high as some of their drivers rate in sensitivity, I doubt FS is actually that low. No clue to the quality of that company, but I have issues with not giving full specs.


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm currently running their amps in my BRZ and am in awe of clarity and quality. I have no doubts about their reputation as a high end product.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Nice, but has nothing to do with not revealing driver data.


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

Bayboy said:


> Nice, but has nothing to do with not revealing driver data.


Agreed, I'd love to see the specs as well. But from my experience with their amps, I'm willing to go for it without specs in my next vehicle. I wonder how long a well maintained RAV4 will last before it must be replaced. I'm a little over 150k on it and it runs like it's a couple of years old.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

It's a Toyota.... 150k is like half life or less if maintained well. You have a long way to go. I have 160k on my Tacoma... runs very strong & smooth. 184K on my LS400.... maintained well they're spec'd to run 300-500k though most don't keep them that long. You have nothing to worry about other than the usual mental block of it not being worth putting money into every now & then. I don't care for payments so I'm going to ride them until they die or I just decide I want something else.


----------



## ANDRESVELASCO (Dec 7, 2015)

Speaking of subwoofers that look like woofers ... What do you think of these slim subwoofers I found sniffing at woofersetc: 

Search results for: 'Focal ibus8'

Search results for: 'Focal ibus10'

Apparently they are the replacement drivers for the brand's powered subwoofers, (ibus10 and ibus20). They handle 75 and 100 wrms respectively, and are thin enough (2 "of mounting depht!) to be considered as underseat subwoofers.

The problem is that technical data is not available, nor could I find anything on Google. For brand and price point, they seem tempting.

Would you think they could serve a subwoofer underswat project in a sealed enclosure? Anyone have experience or heard about the performance of these speakers?


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

ANDRESVELASCO said:


> Speaking of subwoofers that look like woofers ... What do you think of these slim subwoofers I found sniffing at woofersetc:
> 
> Search results for: 'Focal ibus8'
> 
> ...


Looks more like a limited midbass with that projected frequency response. Perhaps it's to make up for efficiency, but doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me. Hoffman's Iron Law at work for sure.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

fourthmeal said:


> 3-way in a car with A-pillar tweeter/mid has a distinct advantage in staging, I've found. I really liked it in my Flex, with RS75's and ND20 tweeters with a crossover I made using simple components. I felt like no matter where my or my passenger's legs were, the stage stayed solid and anchored. Conversely a 2-way setup means we're playing higher down low, so if you or a passenger moves their body, the sound changes a bit.
> 
> Another way to go is to run a very low-playing tweeter. The KAXBLTWT for instance, I crossed that sucker really low with some SI6.5's in a Speed 3, and it sounded very much like a 3-way.


This. Running lower frequencies up top near the tweeter will help with staging and imaging.


----------



## OldNewb (Sep 30, 2016)

How low are you talking? Localization don't begin until high in the mid bass region


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Depending on output levels, I wouldn't run the Kax tweeter no less than 2khz although it's fairly safe there with a careful hand steep slope. Surprisingly you can get it lower than that, but 2khz is enough to help plant the stage and will work with most mids. But if we are to include stealth, it's not that small of a tweet that you can hide so easily. By the time you make room for it in a sail or pillar, you can just as easily plant a small 2" mid & mini tweet with a wider response potential.


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

Bayboy said:


> It's a Toyota.... 150k is like half life or less if maintained well. You have a long way to go. I have 160k on my Tacoma... runs very strong & smooth. 184K on my LS400.... maintained well they're spec'd to run 300-500k though most don't keep them that long. You have nothing to worry about other than the usual mental block of it not being worth putting money into every now & then. I don't care for payments so I'm going to ride them until they die or I just decide I want something else.


Minor tangent, but it depends on what year Toyota you're talking about. My 07 Rav4 was chewing 2qts of oil per 3K miles, at 60K miles. Toyota admitted to a major engine design flaw in a TSB, which they would not fix. Sorry, better luck next time. I know of another Rav4 that had the same problem (a friend of mine) and 2 of my coworkers had 2 of them overheat due to faulty cooling system which lead to significant engine damage. My boss' Lexus did the same thing. The dealer wanted to do total engine swap, at owner's expense ofcourse, which is ridiculous but you get the idea. Toyota also recently issued a recall on their trucks due to excessive corrosion problems. And remember that infamous Tacoma recall when they bought them all back because of a major frame problem? So much for legendary quality. It's not a unicorn, it's a car like all others, and they have their share of problems. The old 4 bangers are pretty good, they had a really bad stretch between '06 - '11 where their quality really went down. Sorry for the rant, I have been significantly soured on that brand last few years.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Ziggyrama said:


> Minor tangent, but it depends on what year Toyota you're talking about. My 07 Rav4 was chewing 2qts of oil per 3K miles, at 60K miles. Toyota admitted to a major engine design flaw in a TSB, which they would not fix. Sorry, better luck next time. I know of another Rav4 that had the same problem (a friend of mine) and 2 of my coworkers had 2 of them overheat due to faulty cooling system which lead to significant engine damage. My boss' Lexus did the same thing. The dealer wanted to do total engine swap, at owner's expense of course, which is ridiculous but you get the idea. Toyota also recently issued a recall on their trucks due to excessive corrosion problems. And remember that infamous Tacoma recall when they bought them all back because of a major frame problem? So much for legendary quality. It's not a unicorn, it's a car like all others, and they have their share of problems. The old 4 bangers are pretty good, they had a really bad stretch between '06 - '11 where their quality really went down. Sorry for the rant, I have been significantly soured on that brand last few years.


Sourness is quite obvious. Yes, I'm aware of some of those issues. Frame corrosion unfortunately is one of the things I was concerned about and looked at when I bought the truck. Not as much of an issue in my area. Did my homework and got one of the better years (it's an 05 by the way  ). Lexus..... still solid, doesn't mean every one is perfect. Most that you see that are run down are due to owners lack of maintenance (they're not cheap on repairs you know). But take your pick... I can find fatal flaw reports in just about any manufacturer.... then again, I don't buy new. My vehicles are old. Gives me plenty of time for year related issues to surface.


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

Ziggyrama said:


> Minor tangent, but it depends on what year Toyota you're talking about. My 07 Rav4 was chewing 2qts of oil per 3K miles, at 60K miles. Toyota admitted to a major engine design flaw in a TSB, which they would not fix. Sorry, better luck next time. I know of another Rav4 that had the same problem (a friend of mine) and 2 of my coworkers had 2 of them overheat due to faulty cooling system which lead to significant engine damage. My boss' Lexus did the same thing. The dealer wanted to do total engine swap, at owner's expense ofcourse, which is ridiculous but you get the idea. Toyota also recently issued a recall on their trucks due to excessive corrosion problems. And remember that infamous Tacoma recall when they bought them all back because of a major frame problem? So much for legendary quality. It's not a unicorn, it's a car like all others, and they have their share of problems. The old 4 bangers are pretty good, they had a really bad stretch between '06 - '11 where their quality really went down. Sorry for the rant, I have been significantly soured on that brand last few years.


Ah, sounds like it's a good thing I got the V6 model that was only available for a few years. 268 hp and 270 foot-pounds torque for $2200 more and 2 mpg less on average than the 4 cylinder. I've gotten 31 MPG on all highway trips with it even though it's rated 28 MPG. It's been rock solid so far.


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

Zippy said:


> Ah, sounds like it's a good thing I got the V6 model that was only available for a few years. 268 hp and 270 foot-pounds torque for $2200 more and 2 mpg less on average than the 4 cylinder. I've gotten 31 MPG on all highway trips with it even though it's rated 28 MPG. It's been rock solid so far.


Indeed, v6 doesn't seem to have the problems. It's the I4 that has had issues. As stated in the previous post, all makes have problems. Pays to do the research. If you make it to 150k, you will probably keep going for a while. One thing about Toyotas is they are cheap to fix. If you are waiting for it to die to build a new sound system, you may have to wait a while


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> your entirely missing my "if you have the ability"..
> 
> but care to answer why literally every top car at finals was 3 way or large midbass/widebander? im sure its not just coincidence. maybe you can shed some light on why it is coincidence? never mind the fact that you can easily stay away from resonant frequencies and beaming/break up much easier with 3 way, or that you can easily achieve more output with less strain on the drivers, or you can actually get midrange frequencies up top (not that you cant with them coming from down low, but it can help), more eq bands per octave.. honestly joe, im starting to think you have some sort of grudge against 3 way. can you not handle it? are you upset that you arent wanting to go through the install hassle in your own car? to much money? what is it, cause something is swaying your belief. i know your smart enough to realize the benefits of a 3 way outweigh a 2 way strictly in terms of sound, no matter how small of a difference you may think it is
> 
> PS, both of my cars use top of the line gear. but my 3 way setup smashes the ever living piss out of my two way setup. am i doing something wrong?





SkizeR said:


> your also missing what im saying. ignore the extra work, the extra money, the extra time, etc etc. just look at the end result of how it sounds. which one has the upper hand? 2 way, or 3 way? please answer that



damn, both of these posts ignored.. weird


----------

