Sub best at high crossover?

I never said anything about directionality. My reason for the post was the frequency ranges being overlapped. That site has chart, indicating ranges/octaves. Happy listening!

I never did trust speaker manufacturers' frequency response specs. They always embellish real world bottom end performance. Nothin like throwin a hammer in the mix to get some attention.

My post was supposed to be silly, and any other interpretation is strictly prohibited. I use test CD warble tones to see what my room is doing to the sound and then I mostly ignore that, but it is interesting to see where your main speakers actually stop producing useful bass, and where the sub goes. That IS useful information in setting the frequency point in the sub relative to the mains, but final tweeking is up to my wax filled and frequency challanged earballs.

I can see where having your balls in your ears, might present multiple problems.

The ideal situation has one setting the subwoofer to be coming in at the lowest possible frequency that works to provide the needed support. At higher frequencies, the subwoofer is working closer to the point where it is out of its element and your ear might be confused by the conflicting localization cues (the lower the frequency, the lesser your ability to localize the source of the sound). But, if, for example, you have a suck out at some frequency between say 150 and 200 hz because of floor-bounce cancellation of your woofers on the main speakers (a very common issue), the subwoofer might be filling in for that problem. To the extent the subwoofer can cure problems higher up in frequency than it is normally intended to help, I say stick with the higher crossover. It is MUCH more important to cure problems in the lower midrange than to have ideal subwoofer support at lower frequencies--the midrange takes priority.