2-way vs. 3-way

Two way is good for nearfield (3 to 6 feet). Generally three way is needed for far field (8 feet +). A two way just cannot do it all (cover the enormous bandwidth with two drivers and do this with low distortion and even dispersion at the higher SPL levels necessary to sit far back).

I'd agree with Shadorne in general.

Yes - that is exactly what I meant - "in general". It does not mean you can't find something that will work outside this "general" envelope - say in a particular situation or requirement.

I'd add that a two way is often better than a similarly priced three way. Not until you spend a good deal more money on decent drivers will a three way overcome the simplicity and lower parts cost of a two way.

"Far field" is 8' from the speakers?

8 Feet "+" - I think in your haste you missed the "+". If you prefer to draw the line at 10 feet then I would not argue with you.

And a two-way just cannot "do it"?

Perhaps you missed the conditions I gave for being able to do it "ALL" (you missed that too) - "cover the enormous bandwidth with two drivers and do this with low distortion and even dispersion at the higher SPL levels necessary to sit far back"

If you disagree "in general" (not talking about a specific speaker) then please explain?

You seem to have a strong point - why not make it?

Let's not forget that the 4430/35 was a landmark design that became JBL's most succesful monitor - see this JBL Paper. The 4430/35 replaced many previous three and four way designs - it has extremely impressive even dispersion (power response) AND high SPL capability for a two way. A rare two way that will sound good in a wide variety of situations (nearfield to farfield).

If you read the paper it simply emphasizes my earlier point about using two ways for farfield listening - you can see that JBL went to a great deal of effort to achieve their design. The bi-radial horn was necessary to get the even dispersion in the treble and a compliant type 15" woofer was necessary to limit the beaming from such a large woofer. The large woofer and horn mean plenty of clean dynamic acoustic ouput necessary for a farfield position. From an engineering perspective it was a major achievement and I am not sure it has been surpassed.

Best 2-way as in.. Biggest-Baddest-Loudest?

How about a definite contender for "Best 2-way that can compete with a big bad three way for farfield use?" (seeing as a three ways main advantage over a two way is broad even dispersion and generally a higher acoustical ouput - granted it comes with the disadvantage of an additional x-over)

This type design lives on without the Dolly Parton look. And yes - something like this is very big and very bad - with a transient response like a panel and ability to play at a max peak of 136 db SPL - there is very little out there that will play percussion as realistically as this will.

Anyway I'd like to stay away from "best" - for sure a 2 way is better in most nearfield applications and a bigger three way is generally better in most farfield applications (with noted certain exceptions in either direction)

Duke,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that things have improved since this landmark design.

One thing I was curious as to what is the difference between a flat chested bi-radial horn and a Dolly Parton bi-radial horn ;-)

Does one horn sound more chesty perhaps?

What causes the 3% distortion in the upper midrange treble -is that the horn itself ringing or something else?

Paul,

I understand you prefer two way for all applications because of the one less crossover - less compromise - that makes sense - speakers are often a balance of compromises - like how do you place the crossover away from teh critical midrange if you have only one - however, you appear to agree with me that

Obviously, if *max* SPL is the goal, a three-way gives an advantage in sheer driver area, of course.

...I would add that producing clean dynamics in a large room is the main reason I have a three way. A two way would be fine otherwise. I owned two ways for many years and still do - they are even better than a three way for nearfield listening. I have absolutely nothing against two ways - although my list of favored two ways that can produce even dispersion without a "midrange scoop" isn't all that long - perhaps a dozen or so!