The 3-way Classic is popular and above some builders' results. Classic style, cool style, rock solid (marble) style, etc. Go to Builders' Response page to view more.

     
Download drivers' data: SEAS CA22RNX + MCA12RC + 27TFFC

An 8" bass driver, a 4" midrange driver and a tweeter was very much what could have been on the agenda in the Seventies and except for the dome tweeter, these drivers could have been right out of the Seventies. Well, the spider chassis are new, but cones, surrounds and voice coils haven't changed much over the years. I do believe dome tweeters have improved significantly since then. The most common Audax and Peerless domes of the Seventies were not the last thing in this area.

Two 37 litre vented boxes were at hand and from the TS measurements of the CA22 driver a reasonably bass performance could be achieved. The SEAS 27TDC and 27TFFC were available and the 27TFFC appeared to have the smoothest sound so this one was chosen for the final design. These two tweeters were readily interchangeable without any modifications to the crossover.

These SEAS paper coned drivers takes some break-in. I've never experienced the magnesium drivers to change much over time, but in particular the CA22 bass drivers will take some heavy massage to come to life. The CA22 TS data suggest this driver to be close in performance to the EXCEL W22 driver, but here we have some 5-7 litres less volume and the CA22 does not reach quite as deep as the W22. We'll later see how the CA22 performs in the 45 litres wide baffle cabinets. My calculation predicts a F3 of 43 Hz. Not bad from a 37 litres cabinet and with a 90 dB sensitivity. The W22 has a little more cone weight, approx. 3 grams and the Qm, Qe and Qt are basically the same. Fs is lower for the W22 and Vas a little higher. So the CA22 is basically a lightweight paper cone and so it appears from the initial listening tests. Bass is speedy and transient but does not have the deep grip of the W22 or the ScanSpeak 18W/8531G00, BUT compared to the 18W/8531 it's around 4-5 dB more sensitive for the same voltage applied. And that makes a difference. Considering the cabinet size I'm sure the CA22 will perform very close to the W22 from a 45 litres cab.

The MCA12 is a darling. What you immediately recognise from this construction is the unusual wide dispersion of the midrange. If you're used to listening to 2-ways with a 6-7" midbass, the sound from the 3W Classic will be very much different. Besides the midrange dispersion, the MCA12 is fast as lightning and you will get a transients attack not possible from 15 grams 6" cones. The 4" middriver may be one of the clues to "an easy to listen to" speaker: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/HES.htm.

The 27TFFC just does what it's supposed to do. No more, no less. This is a magnificent tweeter. No wonder it has found its way into a number of British speakers like the ProAc Studio 100 monitor.

I had expected the overall level of transparency to be compromised from the old time front panel layout, but this doesn't seem to be the case. And why should it? A lot of studio monitors are still built this way. Take a look at ATC monitors. The same configuration of drivers as seen here. Transparency is excellent - probably thanks to the MCA12. I would certainly place the vent on the rear panel to reduce any midrange escaping from here, but stuffing the vent doesn't seem to do much to the quality of the midrange.

Having the TJL3W aside, these speakers were an obvious choice for comparison. Two quite different speakers - and quite different prices too. Having had the 3W-Classics on the stand for a couple of weeks I put back the TJL3Ws, which was - a little disturbing.
Now, the TJL3W has some 5 dB less sensitivity but it does not make a major difference to my 50 wpc valve power amp. But surely I do not have to turn up the volume much when the 3W Classics are connected.

What is immediately clear from this comparison is the deeper bass from the TJL3W - and the overall tonal neutrality. The magnesium drivers' lack of colouration is hard to ignore. And I also suspect the 4th order filters of the TJL3W for being responsible for the lack of drivers overlapping and causing reduced distortion and coloration. But this is a controversial subject. I firmly believe there are benefits and trade-off from both approaches and I don't subscribe to any fixed belief of the "right" way of doing things. It all depends. Whether derived from the paper cones or low-order filters, the 3W-Classics have more "lushness" to the sound. They are more coloured, but in a sympathetic - and quite energetic way. It can be played loud, quite loud actually, but the more you push drivers driven by low-order filters the more driver interaction there will be and it starts smearing the sound.

A visitor was quite impressed with the sound but couldn't help noticing that these speakers certainly didn't look nice! Well, all depends on the eye that sees, but try imagine the speakers wrapped in exotic veneers - like some of British classics from Spendor or Harbeth - and they may start looking quite attractive. Maybe even a front grille might do here. The baffle is so wide that a grille frame might only do minor damage to the sound.

Living room set-up with test crossovers at the floor.
Two stands were made to lift the cabs into proper height. Top panel of stands were tilted 5 deg.

Getting an old time, 3-way classic into proper listening height may pose a problem. We need the mid and tweeter at ear height from our listening position and these "slim" stands makes the speaker seem less bulky than I would have thought. Do not make a stand having a "front panel" as an extension of the speaker front panel. The bass driver reaches up to 500 Hz and a larger front panel will change the sound radically.