Pops - I have not yet made serious direct comparisons, but the two driver scenarios both have trade-offs.
The 3.6 vertical stack makes the listener vertical ear position more critical, the constructive and destructive lobing affects the frequency response. But, each driver gets a controlled wave launch from the stationary baffle.
The CS6 along with the 2.3 and up and 3.7, etc. with the coincident driver greatly solves the first problem. The tweeter is where it is designed to be regardless of the listener position. But, the tweeter sees the midrange cone as its wave launch. Even though its cone shape is engineered as a tweeter wave-guide, that cone is nonetheless moving. I don't really know whether that launch is more or less problematic or just different. I know that the coincident PowerPoints are uncannily integrated. And I also know that the CS2.2 tweeter (3.6 and 5) sounds different and lovely.
Who knows? I hope that by this time next year we will all know more.
The 3.6 vertical stack makes the listener vertical ear position more critical, the constructive and destructive lobing affects the frequency response. But, each driver gets a controlled wave launch from the stationary baffle.
The CS6 along with the 2.3 and up and 3.7, etc. with the coincident driver greatly solves the first problem. The tweeter is where it is designed to be regardless of the listener position. But, the tweeter sees the midrange cone as its wave launch. Even though its cone shape is engineered as a tweeter wave-guide, that cone is nonetheless moving. I don't really know whether that launch is more or less problematic or just different. I know that the coincident PowerPoints are uncannily integrated. And I also know that the CS2.2 tweeter (3.6 and 5) sounds different and lovely.
Who knows? I hope that by this time next year we will all know more.