Single mid in a threeway or Two midwoofers in a MTM

[kgveteran]

What do you guys prefer ? Do you prefer a single mid in a threeway or two midwoofers in a MTM.

[Dave Bullet]

Apart from the usual TM or MTM decision criteria that apply, I might MTM to match voltage sensitivity between mid and bass sections, or acoustic sensitivity depending on enclosure loading (or none) in the case of an open baffle midrange. Take a look at Jed's Tombstone build thread for the latter.

If you have a sufficiently sensitive woofer (say more than 4dB sensitive than the midrange) assuming you allow 4dB for baffle step compensation in a real room (which will offer the other 2dB in room gain), then you will either need to pad down your woofer, or get a more sensitive midrange, or go MTM to compensate.

Of course a parallel MTM with W might present a too low impedance, especially if higher order electrical slopes at mid / bass Fc.

David.

[---k---]

Obviously 2 mids are better than one.

[Hdale85]

I like the sound of 2 mids. Cleans it up quite a bit with the lower distortion and what not.

[Jed]

I don't think that's what he's asking.

He's asking whats better... WMT or MTM. I'd say the 3 way will sound better given the same quality drivers, but there is something nice about 2-ways if you can get a quality midwoofer like a scanspeak with the cost savings of going with a simpler design.

Jed

[Hdale85]

Ohhh... hmm noone else picked that up either

[Dave Bullet]

WMT - better extension, possibly larger box, harder design, more expensive passive crossover, less sensitive

Both designs have their pluses and minuses. I think it comes down to how good the drivers and design are, more than whether a speaker is a WMT or MTM. One design does not beat the other hands down.

David.

[TacoD]

I prefer TMW, never liked a MTM.

[---k---]

I don't think that's what he's asking.

He's asking whats better... WMT or MTM. I'd say the 3 way will sound better given the same quality drivers, but there is something nice about 2-ways if you can get a quality midwoofer like a scanspeak with the cost savings of going with a simpler design.

Jed

Yeah, I knew that is what he was asking. I wasn't sure I had an opinion on his real question, so I decided to drag the thread down with my smart response.

I agree with Dave, it isn't a simple question and will depend more on what people's goals and experiences are. I would guess the general public who is impressed by Bose, hot tweeters, and subwoofers turned up to 11 would prefer the more bass in a 3-way. But, I think the HIFI crowd who is more into detail would go for the 2-way with two mids. Its just too generic of a question to give a short answer to.

[tf1216]

I realize kgveteran did ask about a TMM so I hope it is OK to bring up this approach. I don't have much experience but from what I have read I think it offers the most potential for a superb speaker for a designer.

A TMM does not have the nulls of an MTM (as long as you're not nearfield) and a TMM should not have any integration issues often found between the M and W. The 3-ways strength is that it should play the lowest but if we are talking strictly musical reproduction, I think the benefits of the smooth integration of a TMM will ultimately bring more enjoyment to the music.

Am I way off?

[kgveteran]

Hey Guys,
Thanx for the responses. It really is a, "Which do you like better", with a little,"Here's the reason why" tossed in.

I run three WTMW centers as mains.I'm just wondering if a single mid can handle the demands of HT over a similiarly well designed MTM. You guys who design know much better than me.

I will say at this time I'm very happy with my mains, just a little food for thought.

Kg

[---k---]

A TMM does not have the nulls of an MTM (as long as you're not nearfield) and a TMM should not have any integration issues often found between the M and W.

Am I way off?

I think the TMM needs to be a 2.5 design to fully avoid comb filtering. Crossovers aren't brickwall filters. There will be overlapping in frequencies being played by both the tweeter and mids. Typically, you try and keep the spacing between the mid and the tweeter as small as possible, so that the distance does not exceed the wavelength of the overlapping frequencies. With a TMM, that bottom M is getting further away from the tweeter and can cause problems.

[---k---]

I'm just wondering if a single mid can handle the demands of HT over a similiarly well designed MTM. You guys who design know much better than me.

Kg

KG,
I've heard Thomas say that most music lives in the midrange and he prefers 2 over 1. This was the biggest factor pushing me towards the design found in the Khans.

Jim Holtz, I beleive, I once saw him say that the differences between his Nat P's and his RS TMWW tower (similar to yours) were small.

I know that you would be very happy with an upgrade to something like the Khanspires. I can't guarantee that you would be if you stepped down to a 2-way MTM.