Sonic Differences Between 2-Way and 3-Way Speakers

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.

In their limited range..and in smaller rooms...I find 2-ways to be more accurate...unless money is no object...which it always is...you are going to take a hit on bass...but the precision imaging of a coherent 2-way system will be always surpass a 3-way at roughly the same price points...to get this hi-end performance out of a 3-way...additional driver,larger cabinet,more complex x-over will increase the costs significantly...often by more than 50%...I opted for a large 2-way full-range standmount...the new Quad 12L...which has more than enough bass for my needs...including electronic music...unlike imaging abilities...one can always add bass...

Solution is a MTM design, Seas Thor(40hz-) + sub(20-40hz)