# Question



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

I'm going to show my ignorance here so please bear with me. What are the advantages/tradeoffs to tower speakers that have multiple drivers (i.e. two woofers, two mids and two tweeters or more of each) versus the speakers that have one of each? :huh: Pros/cons?

Thanks.

Bob


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Certainly NOT an expert, but I'll give a few of the pro's and con's that I know of (or at least think I know):

*Multiple Driver Advantages*

Louder -- I believe it's +3dB for every doubling of drivers
Less Distortion -- because the drivers don't have to work as hard for a given SPL, they usually distort less
Better Dispersion -- I think this is just a matter of having more drivers means you have more area you can cover. Certainly with a properly designed D'Applolito configuration, there are supposed to be benefits in this area.

*Multiple Driver Disadvantages*

Cost -- more drivers means more $$
Size -- more drivers means more space

That's what I've got off the top of my head..

JCD


----------



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

JCD,

Thank you for your response. Your points are good but I guess what confuses me is that there are a lot of high end speakers (where dollars are a given) that use a minimum number of drivers. Perhaps the quality of those drivers are significantly better indicating that the minimal design is better in some cases. 

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to answer.

Bob


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

Part of this discussion should probably include point source vs sound shaping, as in D'Applolito and Bose 901 style and line arrays.

Some folks believe that the fewer drivers the better, this is exemplified by the full range speaker folks who believe that a zero mass, one dimensional point driver would be best, and on the other end you have the line array folks that believe that you need the number of drivers that reach from the center of the earth to the stratosphere to acheive perfection. Systems that are well designed no matter what the underlying philosophy can perform well, some will perform better reproducing one type of noise, others a different type of noise.

As an example of some quality MFR's that have systems with multiple drivers;

McIntosh

MAD

SLS

I expect that different venues, music, taste all go into deciding what speaker is best.

Paul


----------



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

Paul,

Thank you for your explanation and the links. You've given me a good glimpse at the underlying philosophy behind the different speakers and awakened my awareness of how little I know about the different types of speakers. I definitely need to do more reading.

Bob


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

Bob:

Your'e welcome. 

I don't hold myself out as an expert, and some of the stuff you read will be from folks that shouldn't mascarade as experts either. Use critical thinking as you do your research, and before you buy someone's version of aural nirvana, ask yourself "What are they selling?" It may only be their ignorance/ego, or they may be actually selling a product. I find the latter group easier to understand and deal with.

One last note, if you're seriously considering DIY speaker building, don't get trapped by "analysis paralysis." Find something that looks good and make some sawdust, if it isn't perfect, it will probably be better than 90% of the commercial products available, and you'll have fun:duh: building it.

Paul


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Let me preface all of the following: I'm no expert either..



aceinc said:


> Some folks believe that the fewer drivers the better, this is exemplified by the full range speaker folks who believe that a zero mass, one dimensional point driver would be best, and on the other end you have the line array folks that believe that you need the number of drivers that reach from the center of the earth to the stratosphere to acheive perfection. Systems that are well designed no matter what the underlying philosophy can perform well, some will perform better reproducing one type of noise, others a different type of noise.
> 
> Paul


I agree. 

I think, to a large extent, the single driver/fewer driver crowd are trying to minimize or eliminate the crossover. Coinicdently, that is part of the appeal of a line array with all the same drivers (ala Roger Russell).




aceinc said:


> Bob:
> 
> Your'e welcome.
> 
> ...


Also agree with this one.. in the end, the journey should be most of the fun.



JCD


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

There is something to be said for the sonic qualities of full range driver systems. Without crossovers they have an audible quality that is distinguishable from multi-driver systems, preferred by many audiophiles. With no chopping up of the sound to split between drivers, full range drivers can sound much better between the high/bass to low/high frequency range, typically 50 Hz to 15 kHz. However, you see many of these systems combined with subwoofers or ultra high frequency drivers, especially at the lower end (price). Many of the high end systems use band-pass or transmission line enclosures to try to get the most bass extension from these drivers as possible. DIYs are especially enthralled and innovative with full range drivers.


The best sound does not necessarily come from multiple driver systems.

http://www.melhuish.org/audio/


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Bob_99 said:


> JCD,
> 
> Thank you for your response. Your points are good but I guess what confuses me is that there are a lot of high end speakers (where dollars are a given) that use a minimum number of drivers. Perhaps the quality of those drivers are significantly better indicating that the minimal design is better in some cases.
> 
> ...


It shouldn't be taken as an absolute that all, say, 5 driver speakers will sound better than a 2 driver speaker. Absolutely not. I'd take a Dynaudio Contour 1.4 over a Sony three way system. The quality of the drivers is the obvious/biggest difference in this instance, but not the only reason.

I think what you'll also find with most hi-end 2 driver speakers is that there are other speakers in the same "line" from the manufacturer that are generally considered superior to the 2 driver speaker.

For example, the Paradigm Studio 20 is often my standby recommendation for someone looking to buy -- that being said, I think the Studio 100's sound better, it's just that I don't think (among other things) the increase in price is worth the sonic improvement.

JCD


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

JCD,

You may say "great taste," I say "less filling." 

I believe that while good drivers are important, I think that they are no more important than a good total system design. Since most drivers are good at some things, I believe if you base a design on the drivers strengths, mating compatible drivers, enclosures and electronics you will end up with a boffo system.

Paul


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

aceinc said:


> JCD,
> 
> You may say "great taste," I say "less filling."
> 
> ...


I must be misleading you -- I totally agree with your statement above. A gajillion of the best drivers in a poorly designed enclosure and a poorly designed crossover will not sound near as good as a much more modest 2 driver system that has been properly designed. However, I will say, all other things being equal (e.g., design, crossover, et al), generally more drivers in a speaker is going to sound better for the reasons I stated earlier. I'm sure this is not an absolute, but I would say it's generally true. I'll also say that the differences are not always worth the extra cost.

(note: i edited the earlier post to clarify my statement a little bit)

JCD


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

Jackfish,

I am not here to say that a 100 driver line array system is better or worse than a Lowther mounted in the perfect enclosure. I believe they both have their place, as do Pablo Picasso, and John Cogan.

What I believe I can say is that their is no "one true path" to enlightenment, be it spiritual or auditory. 

Paul


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

aceinc said:


> What I believe I can say is that their is no "one true path" to enlightenment, be it spiritual or auditory.


Agreed!


----------

