Sonic Differences Between 2-Way and 3-Way Speakers

For most...2-ways in a small room...such as hi end Brit monitors...are really the most cost effective way to get coherent sound and precise imaging (even with the lack of bass argument)...decent 3-ways really start with the Vandy 3 series...and as everyone knows...this is the 2k range...and if you factor in you dont need a sub...and have the room...then a 3-way design would be more appealing...

Socrates...although bass is important...specs can be misleading...I have heard speakers rated considerably lower than my Quad 12Ls(45hz) that sound lean,hollow,and thin...the new Meadolark Swifts (35hz) being one of them...on paper the Swift should have a fuller presentation...unfortunately they dont...it really comes down to design...

I hope nobody thought my post was about bashing two ways. In fact the intent was to defend three ways. Speakers with less bass out put are much easier to fit into more rooms. Many rooms dictate bass constraints. I think most people would prefer to have as much appropriate quality musical information (including bass output) as possible. There are pretty good examples of many different approaches out there. I think we all agree that a single crossoverless driver that could play back the full musical spectrum with all the speed, dynamics, volume, harmonic integrity, etc., etc.,not to mention affordable price would seem to be ideal. I don't think that vehicle has been created yet. Till then we each decide for ourselves on what our priorities and subsequent compromises best suit us individually.

Unsound...well put...an amp plays the speakers...speakers play the room...

I am with Unsound. I can enjoy two-ways, but the further freqency extension of three-ways is more important than the cost/other quality benefit of two-ways. That's why after a/bing, I bought Revelation Twos instead of Transcendence Ones.