2 way or 3 way Speaker?

I upgraded from 2 way KEF 103.2's, also from the 80's, and had the less-is-better predudice. Today's better speaker's have improved SO MUCH from that period that I wound up with 4 ways. It doesn't mean as much now as it did then, because computer modeling and research helps the designer refine his design and reduce the trade-offs. One of the best sounding systems I've ever heard was 1 way Scottish transmission line speakers driven by 2 watt SET's and a high end T.Table. I was admiring the guys "upstairs" THX system while I installed a satellite dish, and he said you have to hear the good system! His "tip" to me was an Audio Research tube pre-amp and a bedini 25 watt class A amp that had a blown fuse. Pretty good guy- that made my day!

First of all, I wouldn’t buy speakers solely based on how many ways it is. I won’t even take that into my buying consideration.

A professor of mine once told me years ago: “Engineering is the art of optimization under constraints”. Every design has its pros and cons. If designed well, both 2-way and 3-way can sound wonderful. If designed poorly, both can sound just as bad.

If a speaker sounds good to you, it is good, don’t let a single design element clouded your judgment.

Crossovers are hard enough to get right with a two way. 3 way? What do you think? Nrchy said it best. I listen to a 2 way monitor that utilizes a true series crossover. Not used in monitors, as a rule, because it's extremely difficult to get right; but in the Caravelles they have done it. peace, warren

Psychicanimal...Glad the Kenwoods are working well for you. Yep, the line cords are wimpy, but I messed around with a heavy duty cord on one of my amps, but it never sounded, or measured, any different from the stock amp. Maybe the power supply is well designed.

I use two way mini monitors with a Channel Islands passive preamp, a Marchand active crossover and stereo subwoofers ( fed by old Kenwood monoblock amps ). If you do something like this it's going to blow you away. You can always upgrade the monitors in the future. Don't settle for a single sub. Stereo subs make a *substantial* difference.

Eldart, those Kenwoods aren't grainy at all--they're good enough to drive the mini monitors w/out the subs! Too bad they have lamp cords. I'm going to use cryo'ed VenHaus Flavor 2 (hardwired).

***

Actually, advances in technology are what have made decent 2-way systems practical. Small (7-inch) woofers have been developed that will respond OK up to the point where a tweeter takes over. Using two of these little woofers produces OK bass. In the bad old days, we used 12-inch (or 15-inch) woofers that were only good to about 1000 Hz, so a midrange driver was essential.

Even today, especially for high sound level, a specialized midrange driver is best. True, the design of a three-way passive crossover is a lot more complex than a two-way. You can't just put two two-way crossovers in series. But it can be done. One practical approach is to biamp the three-way so that only a two-way passive crossover is needed.

Then again, two-way speakers usually put the crossover in a sensitive part of the midrange, which is where the most audibly-damaging problems occur...

Two-way versus Three-way doesn't give anyone enough information to make a quality judgement. There are excellent designs from both camps, so a blanket judgement does not apply here...

If you're asking if there have been worthwhile advances in speaker design, parts, and technology since 1986, then I'd have to answer, emphatically, "YES". If you desire recommendations, you'll have to provide more information on your associated gear, your listening room, and your taste in music. You might want to reintroduce that question under another topic heading.

Not neccesarily. Three way speakers have a lot more potential problems due to the greater complexity of the crossover.

Most of the problems found in a speaker are due to design flaws or compromises in the crossover.