Do you prefer a 2 way or 3 way speaker design?

no-way

 

Says you-ay ;-)

 

2 Way or the High Way....

 

Based on what I've heard, Coaxial/Dual Concentric 2-ways - the classic Tannoy Gold for example, and/or Electrostatics. I currently run both and I wouldn't like to have to choose!

 

Way... 1 way: Quad ESL

 

3 way with digital crossovers & steep slopes. The fewer frequencies each amp/driver has to manage, the cleaner the sound, especially bass-midrange

 

I prefer 3 ways, but it can be very speaker specific.

 

Warning: Broad brushes. It depends - three ways usually having a more complicated crossover, but are less taxing to the drivers reproducing the full range of sound. Speaker design truly is a black art of trying to have your cake and eat it too - most of the time we just get crumbs

 

Those Ascent towers with the RAAL tweeter upgrade are very impressive speakers. Save your coin and look for a Parasound Halo A21, they are trending about $1,500-$1,800 used on ebay. I see that amp is being somewhere between a First Watt and a full blown Pass Labs. I have been listening to an Aleph J and lately a First Watt M2. Both of these provide the detail and dynamics of solid state with the richness and lack of harshness that tube amps are famous for. I would think that the Halo A-21 would be similar sounding as the Aleph J owing to the Jfet/MosFet design inherent to both. The M2 output devices have similar curves to pentodes.

This is the first time that I have been listening to the A7's through SS amps since I bought the tube amps for the A7's. I will comment, that everything you hear about Nelson Pass and his designs are true. I found the sound of these amps really remarkable. Many of the First Watt products are low powered but these will do 25-30 WPC, which works because the Altec's are over 100 db sensitivity, and they can really slam. If you plan on keeping the speakers in the same room and run them the same way as before, you could use a M2, along with using your Nova as the DAC/Preamp and while they won't play loud, you should have an additional 3-4 db over your bookshelves, they will sound incredible (IMHO).

Right now, Reno HiFI has a demo M2, with full factory warranty, for $1,500, an excellent price for an incredible amp. They are known for their excellent customer service and their return policy.

Your Ascend towers will never reach their potential where you have them now, they will sound great, but they will not be able to reach their full potential until you get a better amp and, some day, find a home for them in a larger room. You are following the right path, you never go wrong wisely investing in quality equipment, you will have your Ascend's for many many years.

Overall, Your towers can take a good bit of power and I think they will be better if driven by the 250 WPC that the A21's would provide. Not much difference in your room right now, but in the future, in another space, they will really sing.

Keep the faith, listen and trust your ears!

 

For critical listening I prefer a good 2-way with subs. For parting it's hard to beat a competent 3-way. For casual listening I coul go with either.

Bill

 

The more drivers and crossovers the better. Theoretically speaking there ought to be a single driver for each frequency, right? Within any given frequency range assigned to a given driver there is going to be a compromise to achieving perfect reproduction.

 

I mentioned in the other thread I had going but you must have missed it....I actually upgraded the amp. Picked up a Rogue Cronus Magnum about a month ago. It is a definite step (or three) up above the Nova and I am going through my collection as if it were brand new. The detail I am hearing between the amp and speakers makes listening to old favorites like it is for the first time. Some songs/albums have some major detail I have never heard until recently thanks to the upgrade in gear.

 

Just repeating what many have said. It's the implementation that's most important. There are successful speakers of of almost every design. I've enjoyed, HE single driver, 2-way, 3-way, Planar,Ribbon, Electrostatic, Open Baffle, Field Coil etc...

What's critical IMO is being able to identify your own musical sound preferences/biases and buying a system accordingly. You also need to acknowledge design limitations. All speakers have them and once you realize that there is no such thing as the "perfect speaker" the less frustration over the long haul.

 

My 4-way Koss CM1030s still sound amazing after 34 years. Great power handling. Low end doesn't need a sub. Terrific imaging.

 

The 2 ways usually sound more musical to me. Because a two way crosses over once, the fundamental notes and 1st to 2nd harmonics are unaffected by phase shift and time delay. A good 3 way can deliver deeper bass, but more challenged to reproduce the harmonics accurately.

 

Back in the ancient days of the early 2000's, I found a no-name vintage three way speaker at a yard sale, which had not sold. The owner had just closed the sale, ad had put them out by the road with a "free" sign on them. They were quite ugly, with brown/ burgundy weave grille cloth. These were 12 inch cloth surround woofer, closed box air suspension, a 6 inch squawker midrange, and 2 inch treated edge cone type tweeter..very old school design. I wasn't expecting much.

They surprised me. I ended up listening to Led Zeppelin I all the way through, then some Best of Cream. I certain aspects, the no-name three way sounded more satisfying by comparison to my Acoustat 1+1 electrostatics. The bass was much more authoritative, and controlled since these were closed box design. (deeper in the bass spectrum than the Acoustats are able to reproduce) The woofer crossover point was quite high, and sounded smooth despite its size. As an estimate, I'd say the crossover points were 2 kHz (very high for a large woofer) and 6 kHz. The squawker behaves more like a tweeter than a midrange. Much of the load normally assigned to the tweeter will be handled by the squawker, so overall power handling is increased. (and also harmonic distortion lessened) Because the squawker is a sealed back design, it has a fast transient response, which minimizes time delay with the tweeter. The drawback of the squawker is the tendency to impart a "nasal" characteristic. However this no-name speaker sounded far more natural then its design normally permits.

I sold them on ebay as a no-name three way, but almost didn't. I later found they were Goodmans, no wonder they sounded so nice!

 

Three ways and not small towers/bookshelf to me.
Low end is important in critical listening

 

I don't have a large listening room. 2 ways have served me well over the years. The close proximity of the drivers on these speakers means the integration is better, leading to a nice soundstage, which I like.

 

I'm going to have to do an Internet search for good three-ways,
do you have any suggestions or tips on finding the best ones?

 

No

 

"Warning: Equally Broad Brush"
Not necessarily "less taxing"
By the middle '70s JBL was designing systems as you suggest, as a total: designing individual drivers for specific duties in a specific multi-driver box or boxes along with a specific tailor made network for the total package, not just the drivers (standard today, even for DIYers thanks to computers and design software)
Even that approach didn't/doesn't prove ideal
There are problems encountered when handing off certain octaves to specific drivers no matter how much care and preparation is involved
Just the physics of it, (big waves needing big cones, smaller waves not needing big cones or domes, but then sensitivity matching becomes an issue and on and on and on)
Then phase problems with multiple driver systems................it just goes on and on

I think the simpler the better, not perfect, just more natural (sounding)
None of 'em are going to be perfect
Compression drivers and horn loading can come close, but even then, 2-ways stand out

 

Don't think they occur in Canada.

 

Big 3-way floorstanders. A 3-way with a 6 1/2 woofer almost seems pointless.

 

Why not? Unless it has to do with the cone shape of the driver further into the center of the driver necessitating a lesser (and corresponding) degree of movement relative to the outside, then I'll take your objection. Even then it seems to me the transient demands placed on a given cone /driver at the various frequencies assigned to that driver's range are going to inevitably compromise performance (introduce distortion).

Talk to me.

 

There is much more to designing a network that "distortion" concerns
Like phase shifts between drivers, sensitivity between drivers (which is frequency dependent), time alignment between drivers, the capacitors and inductors themselves present problems and the more the parts count, the more the potential problems.........it's an ongoing battle

People that know a hell of a lot more about it than me have been working on it for a long long time and will still continue to do so
Then there's bypassing and charge coupling (biasing) of networks:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?3555-Bypassed-and-Biased-Capacitors

Like I said, there is no perfect solution, it's been worked on for years, but at the end of the day, the simpler, the better (2-ways being more prone to sins of omission versus inclusion which is always preferable to me) and, by definition, requiring a lower passive part count, although a truly (or attempt at) "time coherent" 2-way has quite a few bits in it's cross over
Everyone's taste, willingness and abiluity to design and build, and tolerance levels, are different