2-way vs. 3-way

As is usually the case, there are tradeoffs a designer makes and implementation is often more important than the specific design type.

Well said!

I'll just add that the fact that the low frequency driver in the 2-way speaker has to handle frequencies relatively high up in the mid-range likely means that it will not be able to produce bass as deep as in a 3-way of comparable quality.

Regards,
-- Al

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.