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).

Agree with the 2-way statements,but using multiple midwoofers can produce good bass extension and still handle the dutires in the mids/lo-treble.Simpler is usually better.

I have a pair of 4430 and a pair of 4435 JBL studio monitors. The best two way speakers on the planet. They have dynamics, low distortion, bass, and excellent imaging.

I'd agree with Shadorne in general.

There are some 2 ways that work particularly well for far field listening as well though. Ohm Walsh and planars like Maggies are two that come to mind. Many other better made 2-ways may also still sound very good far-field as well.

Three ways seldom do well with imaging accuracy listening near field though. One way where it exists and is done well is good also.

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.