Is the 2.5 way speaker the ideal home speaker?

Hi. Newbie here. I've been reading this thread with interest and wondered if it might be helpful to briefly summarize the basic rationale behind a 2.5-way design.

It's really a question of performance versus cost. Multiple woofers deliver more bass output than a single woofer. If those woofers are relatively small -- say, 6.5-inch or less -- they should also deliver reasonably good sound in the midrange. However, if they are all operating in unison up to the crossover point with the tweeter, there will be anomalies in the midrange stemming from the physical separation of the woofers. So only one woofer (usually the one closest to the tweeter) is allowed to operate that high; the other (there could be more than one, although I can't think of any examples) is rolled off at a much lower frequency.

A 3-way design should preferable, at least in theory, but it requires an additional type of driver and a more complex crossover network, and both of those increase the cost.

A 3-way design should preferable, at least in theory, but it requires an additional type of driver and a more complex crossover network, and both of those increase the cost.

and often degrades transparency.

I'm not sure I follow, @helomech -

Usually higher tweeter points are achieved with 3-way systems which use a "true" midrange.

It's just my experience that 3-ways often lack the transparency of a good 2-way, I can only guess it's due to the additional crossover components. A good example is the 2-way Maggie .7s vs the 3-way 1.7s. The latter is less resolving.

@helomech

That's interesting, usually three way speakers are considered ideal due to the midrange covering the entire human voice and much of the piano without the crossover involved.

I wonder if your hearing more bass boominess from 3 way designs?

@helomech

That's interesting, usually three way speakers are considered ideal due to the midrange covering the entire human voice and much of the piano without the crossover involved.

I wonder if your hearing more bass boominess from 3 way designs?
 

Yes, some 3-ways have a single driver covering most of the midrange (though many still crossover to the mid around 2kHz, largely negating that advantage) , but even though the crossover point may not be smack in the middle of the midband, it still requires a more complex crossover with additional components in the signal path. The whole signal path of the midwoofer need be considered when it comes to signal purity, not just the crossover points.   

I can't tolerate much bass boom, so no, that's not the issue. I have a room that can accommodate very large floorstanders. I prefer large 2-way standmounts with subs to augment the bass.

Another issue I find with many 3-ways is their small and/or recessed vocals. A vocalist simply won't sound as full and present through a 3" cone as they will via a 7+" cone, nevermind the beaming argument. This is why some designers, B&W for example, refuse use small mid cones. 

I understand the theory behind the proclaimed advantages of 3-ways. It's just that in many cases, my ears cannot detect a practical advantage outside of maximum loudness capability. They can play louder before compression kicks in, or before complex music trips them up, but it comes at the cost of lower resolution at moderate volumes. That's been my experience.