Single way or multiway

What about the Reference 3A Nefes II speakers? They have basically no crossover except for a protective cap on the tweeter. They are also a d'Appolito configuration design.

@ditusa wrote:

A well executed two way speaker can deliver excellent sound reproduction. 😎

Mike

+1

With a low sensitivity speaker segment however you can only go so far macro dynamically with a 2-way design, and they’re typically LF-restricted due to the need for a smaller woofer/midrange to "meet" with a direct radiating dome tweeter above that can only be crossed so low (used as a direct radiator not much lower than 2kHz).

As an exception to this "rule" the now sadly discontinued speaker brand, S.P. Technology, made an interesting 2-way design based on a ~10" waveguide loading a low fs 1" dome tweeter, and a 8" Seas Excel woofer/midrange (arguably mostly a woofer). Their largest model, the some 6’ tall floor standing Revelation, sported two of the 8" Seas woofers flanking the waveguide in a d’Appolito configuration and a kind of quasi horn-loading of the woofers. The crossover frequency sat in the 700-800Hz region, very low for a dome tweeter, but aided by the waveguide that "relieves" the dome tweeter in its lower spectrum in a progressive, nonlinear fashion. These speakers were essentially and honestly full-range and played down to 20Hz clean - a very impressive feat for at 2-way, lower sensitivity design - and they sounded wonderful to boot, though presented a hideously difficult load to the amp in their passively configured form (they were developed with the Crown Studio Reference 1 amps). 

It’s very different of course with the high sensitivity segment of speakers, like your JBL 4435’s, that allows the use of large woofer/mids in conjunction with a horn + compression driver combo that can cross over lower than 1kHz. Different challenges design-wise, but a potentially much more capable package overall as a 2-way (or 2 1/2-way with your JBL's) design - not least actively configured :)

A well executed two way speaker can deliver excellent sound reproduction. 😎

Absolutely! It's really the sweet spot of "managed complexities". Kind of hard to mess it up and get bad sound - you almost have to be TRYING. 

A well executed two way speaker can deliver excellent sound reproduction. 😎

Mike

I would look at the distribution of speakers on the market... particularly high end ones. Say the most high acclaimed speakers over $50K or $100K. These are intended to be examples of the very best possible sounding speakers with as few a compromises as possible for cost. What are some examples? Magico, Sonus Faber, Wilson, B&W. Notice anything in common?

Cabinet Design is also not to be overlooked.

A Single Driver is supported as a drive unit substantially, when the Cabinet is designed to assist with producing an extension of frequencies.

Other Benefits are also available through selecting a particular design for a Cabinet, and these will also be inherited by the single driver.

Multi Drive Units used in a typical cabinet design will not be benefiting from what certain cabinet designs area able to offer.

Complications with Cabinet Construction and associated costs are a deterrent to speaker producers.       

@ronboco  agree 100%

I will take a good quality 3 way speaker every time. Asking a single driver to do all the work seems far more difficult than building a quality cross over. 

I have a room dedicated to a use of an Audio System, which as a setting is treated in a way that allows a Speaker to couple to the space and produces an End Sound that is (not only my words) very very impressive when experienced.

Where there is division between individuals is how the decide on what is the attribute to creating the impression that has been made, some accept the Treatments they see to help form the Space Sound is produced in, is the cause.

Some of the other expressed thought suggests the systems bespoke built audio items are responsible as well as the treatment of the spaces created for the sound to be managed.

I have a different take, I see the Space and System as being very encouraging to experience the End Sounds that can be created, hence, I am not Wed to one type of End Sound being produced.

Through my owning, I am able to experience Electrostatic Speakers ( main choice), recently added Floor Standing Cabinet Speakers with Dual Concentric Drivers and long time used Floor Standing Cabinet Speakers with Multi Drivers.

In the past and not too distant past I was also able to listen to Stand Mount Cabinet Speakers and other models of Floor Standing Cabinet Speakers.

For the not too distant future I will be able to experience OB Speakers and if all goes to plan DML Panel Speakers.

When the time is taken to create a positioning for a Speaker where it is coupled to the Space and Treatments are used within the listening space, that as a basic description, creates a sound management where the Listener only hears sent sound once. This condition encourages the inquisitiveness to have encounters with other types of End Sound within the same space.

Added to the experiencing differences to an End Sound produced from different designs for a Speaker, is the inquisitiveness to want to experience the impact of different devices used within the audio system effect on a particular speaker type produced End Sound. 

There comes a Point in relation to Speakers when Driver Type, Passive Xover Type, Active Xover Type, and whether a Single Amp' or a Tri Amping are non-important as a consideration. What matters is how the sound is perceived in the dedicated listening space and the impression that is made.

When a mindset has the intention to create such broad experiences of Sound produced as a result of using a medium that has embedded recorded music. There is not a Fidelity to any one design or configuration within a system.

Each are an intentional intervention to produce a Morphing End Sound. 

Hearing and Taste for the Homosapien 'astute man' are embedded stimulation to be very adventurous and creative as Humans.          

@limomangus 

Isn't there some saying about to cobblers children go barefoot? 

Clearly he could tell and didn't care. 

I knew a guy who just had 2 soeaker ,no cabinet. Just tm2 speakers hooked up laying on the floor .With the speaker facing you...2 wires connected and thats it...he was a really good audio equipment repair guy ..and thats how he listened to his music ....crazy but true.

@toddalin wrote:

You can have an active crossover and still use passive components between the amp and speaker to "meddle with the interface" to improve the results by "fixing" flaws in the original.

Lovely vintage setup. I imagine it produces stellar sonics. 

Sure you can apply a both/and approach with, in this case, an active, analogue electronic crossover as well as passive components between the amp and drivers, but from a more puritanical perspective it also slightly defeats the purpose of active qua active. On the other hand another puritanical approach, to some, would be avoiding a digital step with a DSP altogether and keeping it all analogue, so there’s that. Whatever works and suits a specific context of equipment and taste. With a quality, transparent pro DSP unit the likes of Xilica/ACX, XTA or Lake I really appreciate the intricate crossover settings they offer and which is especially suited for horn-loaded speaker setups. 

"Some may balk at the need for more amplifier channels, like tripling the amp count for a 3-way setup, but that’s simply what active configuration necessitates; one dedicated amplifier channel directly connected to each driver section with no passive crossover parts in between, meddling with the interface."

You can have an active crossover and still use passive components between the amp and speaker to "meddle with the interface" to improve the results by "fixing" flaws in the original.

@sns wrote:

I suppose most don’t fret about their passive crossovers since the loudspeakers they’ve chosen provide contentment. The importance of knowing the specs of one’s speakers and providing sympathetic amplification mitigates most issues.

I’ve not seen empirical evidence that provides universal superiority of minimalist passive or active crossovers vs more complex crossovers. Speaker designers  are pretty sophisticated these days, have many drivers, crossover components to choose from, based on listeners experience I trust they know what they’re doing. If what you propose is clearly superior don’t you think they’d go down this path?

Issues that to some are deemed mostly "mitigated" with a passively configured speaker scenario and its amplifier partnering, to others - like knowing the difference active configuration can make - is a potentially flawed approach. Of course to compare the active vs. passive speaker scenario in any way meaningful one should ideally use the same speakers in the same listening environment and overall gear; typically passively configured speakers to begin with that are stripped of their crossovers, extra outboard amp channels added to feed each driver section of the speakers (preferably the same amps as the one already used in the passive context, as an outset simply to serve the purpose and experiment to get a clearer bearing on the sonic differences between the two types of configuration to more effectively isolate the one thing that’s investigated here), a quality DSP/digital crossover or analogue electronic ditto, and then a filter preset ideally made by the original designer of the speakers (in, ideally, the specific listening room and at the listening position) that draws on the opportunities and advantages that an active crossover offers. Speaker re-positioning and acoustics tweaking may be needed to best accommodate filter setting changes compared to the passive version.

Now we’ll be able to better assess the difference active configuration can make, and in each of these instances and under the conditions just described above (except from setting the filter values actively that weren’t done by the speaker designers themselves, though in the specific listening room at the LP) where I’ve heard this conversion from passive to active the latter has won - hands down. Truly, to me and the other attendees it was no contest. 

Some may balk at the need for more amplifier channels, like tripling the amp count for a 3-way setup, but that’s simply what active configuration necessitates; one dedicated amplifier channel directly connected to each driver section with no passive crossover parts in between, meddling with the interface. Of course you don’t need to multiply the number of the same amp(s) you’re using already for an active setup, but could instead apply a power differentiated approach from top to bottom with less individually powerful amps that accumulates into a power capacity that’s suitable. It’s worth noting though that an amp’s power capacity and overall performance is much better utilized actively, and so overall you may need less power (and even general quality) overall.  

Bundled, active speakers don’t always appeal to audiophiles, who like to make their own choices with amplifiers, DAC’s and cables, not to mention that many don’t feel built-in amps and DAC’s comply with their quality standards - be it conjecture or not, and irrespective of the advantages an active package may offer. Outboard actively you can do whatever you please with the choice of components and even filter settings, but in most such cases you’re left to dealing with setting filter values by yourself or with the help of others, which to many if not most is a deal breaker. Few speaker manufacturers offer outboard active solutions with preset filter values, and from their chair demand is likely(?) still limited.

Paradoxically it seems many feel amp matching with speakers outboard actively is a problematic and/or complex issue, but from a certain perspective it’s actually the other way ’round; passively amp matching is much more critical, whereas actively you are offered many more options and opportunities to specifically tailor your amp to driver choices. Potentially more complex, yes, but you’re always better off pairing an amplifier to a speaker actively with the negation of the passive crossover between the amp and speakers.

The actual frame of reference of active speaker configuration to go by for the consumer and how to assess its potential vs. a passive speaker scenario from a more practical/pragmatic perspective is fairly diffuse, to put it mildly, and in light of that it’s understandable why many may not feel convinced about the merits of active, if they even care to navigate in this field to make a proper assessment (and so, and this is important: it falls back on the audiophile him or herself to be willing to investigate and put some effort into active configuration and its intricacies to realize its potential). If people are happy with their passively configured speakers, then that’s all that matters. If however curiosity into an outboard active speaker scenario gets the better of you, go explore and find out what it can offer. Indeed: from my chair it appears quite a few audiophiles have an entrepreneurial spirit, so why not invest some energy into this area?

@atmasphere 

My first version of the Tribeca used the Tang Band W8-1808 driver. However, I had issues achieving a flat frequency response after cutting the whizzer cone, and visually it didn’t look great either.

Later, I switched to the W8-2145, which gave me a much better sound overall. I also added a dust cap to cover the imperfections and improve appearance.

You can check my website to see how it looks now.

I'm not familiar with your specific listening standards, but to avoid harshness in the high frequencies, I found it necessary to remove the whizzer cone. The whizzer tends to exaggerate the treble, especially when paired with certain tweeters.

In this setup, I integrated a Fostex tweeter for better high-frequency performance. Using an RTA program with measurement microphone, I confirmed that the whizzer cone was introducing too much energy in the upper range, which negatively affected the tonal balance. Removing it resulted in a much smoother response.

@bache We're on the same page with whizzer cones! They are far more likely to have breakups of their own. I tried to find a version of the driver that didn't have one but as you know, to no avail. I don't play those speakers very loud and my crossover rolls the highs out of the Tangband (to help keep a nice impedance curve) but I've not had the guts to go after the whizzer. How do you do it? That strikes me as very easy to make a mess of it! 

@bache 

The whole point of the Tang Band 8" is to use them as full range speakers.  They do measure with an up tilt in frequency response so probably best listened to flat against the wall instead of toed in. 

Still, we all hear differently. 

@atmasphere 

I’m a speaker builder with extensive experience working with Tang Band 8" drivers. One of my designs is the Tribeca-001.

I'm not familiar with your specific listening standards, but to avoid harshness in the high frequencies, I found it necessary to remove the whizzer cone. The whizzer tends to exaggerate the treble, especially when paired with certain tweeters.

In this setup, I integrated a Fostex tweeter for better high-frequency performance. Using an RTA program with measurement microphone, I confirmed that the whizzer cone was introducing too much energy in the upper range, which negatively affected the tonal balance. Removing it resulted in a much smoother response.

In contrast, some other well-known and equally respected speaker companies — such as Voxativ, Zu, Cube Audio, and Totem — use crossoverless designs.

Who is right, and who is wrong?

@bache There are two issues: Doppler Effect distortion and beaminess.

The former contributes to congestion at high volume. The only real solution is to remove bass excursion from the driver. 

The latter causes the highs to be hard to hear unless you have your head placed in a vise. 

So a crossover is needed to solve both problems. 

IOW there's no such thing as a 'full range driver'. There are however 'extended range midrange drivers' such as the ones you listed. If you treat them as such you will have much greater success with their use. If you don't use a crossover, they really will only work at low volumes. 

I have a pair of Tangband 8" drivers in a sealed box crossed over to a matching Fostex tweeter. They are driven by a 5 Watt amp. I use them as monitors in my electronic music lab. They work great for that since I only use them at low volume. 

@simao LMAO!!!

In my younger days I was all for a multi-way, but nowadays I can usually handle just a single way before it's time to call it a night and cut the music.

IMHO, there is really NO right or wrong. If there was, then we are all having that setup, wouldn't we!

I think, it all depends on implementation. I think, multiway setup can be made to sound great, but Multi speaker and crossovers all require more power to do what the designer wants it to do. So as long as you have the power amp to do so, then you're a winner. 

On the other hand, Single driver with a minimalist crossover (or none) is the most efficient as most of you are aware. BUT I don't believe there are a lot of good speakers that can be a called "master of everything". I personally owned for years the DX4 from Lowther in a single driver arrangement driven a flea watt. I never really like it but got stuck with it. BUT now with Voxativ drivers in the market, maybe there is chance for single drivers to shine. 

This are just my take based on my listening experience.

The solution is to get rid of cone drivers and use electrostatic forces to move ultralight diaphragms.  Done properly can be free of cabinets and cover the full frequency range.

Still have to ensure there is coherence across a big panel, as is done by Quad with their apparent point-source annular design

No highs, no lows, must be Bose

These is one crossover-less speaker that has wide accepted approval..., just not with audiophiles.  It’s been made for a long time going through various iterations, but stays true to its original design.

There are obvious advantages to be had from a point source phase coherent design. That is why increasingly horn + subwoofer solutions are being favoured by designers. The subwoofer is by design omnidirectional. Complex multi speaker designs have a hard time being phase coherent

Every design of well,....everything is just a collection of compromises.  Something has to give in order for something else to be better.  If a design is as close to a no-compromise approach as possible, then what is given up is costs involved to make said design.

In other words, neither design is right or wrong.  Just pick which makes you happier when you listen to music.  

I think putting this on the scale of right and wrong may not be productive. 

I encourage audiophiles to experiment on the cheap!  Madisound has a number of single "full range" drivers and kits for sale.  Rather than try to come to a definitive universal answer, build some of these kits and see how much fun they are. :) 

My take is that the simpler the design the better. The intrinsic problems of single driver systems are pretty obvious. Asking a single driver to reproduce the entire spectrum is simply not possible. Having said this the midrange of the some of the best single driver speakers I have heard were spectacular. 

I am not an expert, but an extremely complex high order crossover with a great many components is precisely the direction I dont think one should go. A patently bad idea. The designers choice of drivers may necessitate such a design.

Crossovers are inherently subtractive.

as a dealer for over 30 years our perspective our this question is simple

we have never experienced a single driver speaker worth owning the reason is simple you need a proper high frequency driver to produce clean and airy high frequencies and in the history of audio we have been moving into better and better tweeters from paper to plastics to metal domes to damped metal to ribbons and AMTs 

as long as the tweeter is well matched with a properly implemented  crossover you can create a seamless totally transparent music reproducer 

Dave and Troy

audio intellect NJ

One of the leading proponents of a single full range speaker element with no crossover are Pearl Acoustics and Mark Audio.  Both keep the driver fairly small to preserve some high frequency dispersion and so give up deepest bass extension. 

Fritz, Totem, and maybe others have made 2-ways with "capacitorless series crossovers" to closely approach the ideal of a full range driver without the loss of high frequency extension and dispersion.  

The EPI 100 and all its siblings used a single cap to attenuate lows to the inverted 1" paper dome...couldn't be simpler!

The Walsh driver found in the Ohm A, F, and more recently German Physics' DDD driver, which to my knowledge use no crossover components, yet achieve full range and omnidirectional coverage.

The Infinite Slope and Gauder approach is the other end of the spectrum.  

I grew up using speakers that were no more than 8” full range drivers with wizzer cones attached.  Then I bought some ADS 300’s. Tiny two way speakers with a big sound. Then came my first subwoofer and a separate active crossover to fill in the bottom.  Essentially making my system a three way. Much later came the DQ-10’s with their 5 way crossovers.  When I added the sub and crossover it became a 6 way speaker system. Now,  I have a 3.5 way and a sub. 
I bet the crossover’s in the Amati’s cost more than my first few systems combined!

I sure have come a long way in my journey.

Bache, not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post. As A manufacturer, I would normally assume that you would try to achieve a broadband reasonably flat curve doing little harm as possible to phasing... Not the case? I also look at keeping impedance swings flat as possible. In crossovers, I do prefer to keep part counts down, but if a 3rd or 4th order is needed for driver protection or to preserve phasing, then yes, I would use higher orders. I can only guess that the 10th order slopes that you quote are trying to achieve a brick wall effect to have an absolute start & stop frequency. I hope that you would know those benefits. I've tried very steep slopes and always preferred standard 6 to 24 DB slopes. However, well done brick slopes in active crossovers can be great. 

I suppose most don't fret about their passive crossovers since the loudspeakers they've chosen provide contentment. The importance of knowing the specs of one's speakers and providing sympathetic amplification mitigates most issues. I've not seen empirical evidence that provides universal superiority of minimalist passive or active crossovers vs more complex crossovers. Speaker designers  are pretty sophisticated these days, have many drivers, crossover components to choose from, based on listeners experience I trust they know what they're doing. If what you propose is clearly superior don't you think they'd go down this path?

The design concept (single driver, multiple driver/planar, horn, dynamic, etc.) is not important.  It is the execution of the design concept in the design control, design transfer, and manufacturing process that is critical to sound quality.  Each design concept will have unique characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses which we may be more or less sensitive to.  For example, I have never warmed up to the sound of any single driver speaker I have heard, but do acknowledge their exceptional coherence through the range they reproduce.  I have heard multi driver speakers where I hear each driver’s characteristic (not a good thing) and others that are as coherent as single driver speakers, but extending further in both ends of the frequency spectrum.   The conclusion, there is no right or wrong.  It depends on execution of the design intent and our personal sound quality preferences.  

@bache wrote:

@Phusis     Respect you opinion , but looks like you disagree  with Dr. Gauder or did not read above post, you can see more at https://gauderakustik.com/

Basically I'm not in a disagreement with Mr. Gauder - certainly not what he points to about the essentials behind going multiway, which is fairly straightforward and common knowledge in speaker design btw., and something that shouldn't need his doctoriel status to get through. 

What I attempted to elucidate was that of seeing the strengths from using a crossover-less widebander, mainly that it's a single point source per channel (but also and not least, which I didn't get into earlier, that there's no passive XO parts between the amp and driver), as an inspiration or important reminder in designing a multi-way speaker. Using multiple drivers dedicated to different frequency bands is typically a design necessity, but by its nature also a design challenge; you don't, or rather you shouldn't want a multiway speaker to sound like distinct, different driver elements nor that it is spatially inhibited compared to what a widebander/single point source is capable of. By the same token using what's usually a passive crossover is a design necessity to facilitate the frequency divisions, but it's far from desirably placed between the amp and drivers where it messes with the interfacing between them, not to mention its inherent sonic "contributions" and limitations. Then there's the choice of crossover points and where to place them, the choice of driver type (dynamic, ESL, direct radiating, acoustic transformer/horn, etc.) and what it affords in crossover point positioning (if any with ESL's), the size of the speaker design, etc.

I'm not as much interested in a wideband driver as the fact that it's a single point source, with all that entails. I'm not as much interested in a crossover-less speaker design as the fact that there's no passive crossover between the amp and driver. I'm not as much interested in large, multiway high efficiency horns than the fact they provide better, effortless dynamics, dispersion control, etc. And so on. Get it? Take a fittingly large Synergy Horn design with multiple, frequency divided drivers loading their shared horn flare actively configured, and now you have a single point source per channel that isn't frequency nor SPL limited and that has no crossover - between the amp and drivers, that is. Take a 4-way horn-loaded speaker design like the one I use that only has a single crossover point in a some 7 octave span and that has a uniform dispersion pattern at this crossover point - actively configured. There are ways to minimize the negative impact of going multiway, while conversely taking advantage of what it can provide with different, frequency divided driver elements. That's what I was trying to get across. 

I had a pair of Omega and while they did sound very good they struggled with certain genres of music .   

After about a year I realized what I was missing, the sparkle and air of a dedicated tweeter.  Midrange was their magic, vocals and imaging really were their strengths 

I bought a really nice sealed acoustic 3 way and never looked back.  

There’s no free lunch with speakers.  There are many choices to be made, and every one of them has advantages and disadvantages.  It’s up to the designer to define the objectives and find the best path forward to meet it, but there will always be compromises.  Most companies only market the advantages, and don't bother to mention the downside of their offering.  A talented designer will try to maximize the benefits and minimize the impact of the cons.  

The issue with single driver speakers is covering  the entire freq spectrum humans are capable of hearing. I've owned Omega and Jordan single drivers, both were unsatisfactory in this regard. I suppose one could add subs and super tweeters, but I'd expect major problems with integrating them, and you've lost the principle of simplicity. 

Who is right, and who is wrong?

I disagree with your leading premise that there is a “right vs wrong”.

Perhaps if a single driver can do the speed of treble down to bass that can move enough air would be ideal, but doesn’t exist.  Therefore tradeoffs are inevitable- there is no perfect speaker design.

Also, there’s “higher efficiency” that’s seems to be ignored when comparing Guader offerings to high efficiency Voxative and Zu, the latter which can run on very low powered amplifiers down to SET tubes Sonics.

I’m a fan of Gauder’s products indicating excellent engineering, but I do not reach farther in declaring them “the” global spokesman for what is best/right/wrong.  

and he will be right. Playing with a singular driver that may beam too early, ring at its breakup mode frequency is madness to me, but I guess companies must find their gimmicks.

but one doesn't need an overly complex crossover system to get class leading presentation of sound

@bache 

Gauder is not doing anything unusual- basically three way designs with near infinite slope crossovers.  

Joseph Audio also uses infinite slope high order crossover designs.  The main reason for this is that certain speaker drivers and driver materials that offer a higher level of clarity also have a limited useable frequency range because of distortion (see the link for the magnesium cone SEAS driver).  

these SEAS magnesium drivers are super clear sounding but have ultra high breakup distortion after their useable frequency.  in other words the output level after the low pass crossover needs to drop off in a hurry so that the breakup is not audible to the user.  

Many speakers have much less distortion and a wider useable frequency range and therefore do not require steep slopes or complex crossovers in their designs. 

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/8-woofers-6-to-8-ohm/seas-excel-w22nx001-graph-e0077-8-graphene-cone-woofer/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20727061620&gbraid=0AAAAAD_AChEl9-jLyIqCHzRzOKSmrWtEU&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-q_dhcjRjgMVrkd_AB1UrB8QEAQYASABEgJiXfD_BwE

Somehow owners of audio companies always say their way is right, and other people are doing it wrong.

What can one learn from that?

@Phusis     Respect you opinion , but looks like you disagree  with Dr. Gauder or did not read above post, you can see more at https://gauderakustik.com/

Thinking "I want my cake and eat it too" can be good practice, and so what on the surface of things are mutually exclusive design features or properties can occasionally be overcome or partially alleviated with smart engineering or a sound, pragmatic approach to acoustic design. Simplicity and maintaining a single point source per channel has its merits and is a core element to strive for, and yet a widebander will be frequency extreme challenged for obvious reasons, among other things. However Tom Danley came up with the synergy horn that sums the output of several, closely mounted drivers from tweeter to woofer within a single horn flare, thereby acting as a single point source over a fairly wide frequency range while, practically speaking, not being SPL limited. There's a degree of complexity, yes, but it all serves a purpose to what sums into a single point source - which in itself is a very desirable trait.

More typically spaced drivers in a multi-way design (i.e.: that therefore don't emulate a point single source) can be made to behave less acoustically divided when also paying attention to dispersive behavior and matching directivity patterns over crossover points between driver sections and maintaining good power response. My own speaker setup is a 4-way design, but there's only a single crossover point between ~80 to 11.5kHz and so, essentially, it's an augmented 2-way design (that's capable of +125dB SPL). Being also the speakers maintain uniformity of dispersion pattern at the vital crossover frequency at just over 600Hz, it helps to aid the impression of listening to what's a "widebander on steroids." 

The aspect of simplicity, or at least that of maintaining a single point (or line) source per channel should, ultimately, be approximated with every speaker design, I find. Oftentimes I think of a smaller, simple quality 2-way speaker setup with an integrated amp and a turntable to be the core qualities I seek to achieve and f*ck up as little as possible in my current setup, but "beefed up" to have the combination of a coherent, full-range, resolved, tonally accurate, analogue sounding and dynamically uninhibited presentation with, in my case, a digital source only.

So, to me it's about merging one and the other, simplicity/purity of approach with complexity, and achieving (or trying to maintain) in a sense the former via the means of the latter, and built upon it. Sort of like having your cake and eat it too..

Dr .Gauder say (W​hy do we build multi-way loudspeakers?

The human hearing ranges from 16 Hz to around 16,000 Hz (at a young age), i.e. over 10 octaves - an enormous range when you consider that the eye can only see one octave. Accordingly, it is difficult for a single loudspeaker to reproduce this wide range of frequencies.

In the bass range we need large, heavy cones with small magnets, in the mid-range we need light, much smaller cones with a strong drive and in the treble range we need very small, extremely light cones with the strongest possible drive. All of this follows from the laws of mechanics, strength of materials and, last but not least, acoustics. 

As you can see, it is impossible to reconcile all these requirements. It is essential to make compromises here. A first compromise is to divide the 10 octaves between two loudspeaker drive-units. Such designs are correspondingly diverse, as the proportions of the individual chassis can vary greatly. In the classic three-way speaker, three specialists share the 10 octaves, which can bring a significant improvement. The same applies to four-way loudspeakers. Five-way loudspeakers are extremely rare and then hardly offer any more advantages.)

Most engineers will place various solutioning strategies on a spectrum between "simple" and "complex", while understanding the tradeoffs of different approaches. When given a choice, most engineers will pick somewhere in the middle, for most applications - that would be your classic 2-ways, simple MTM's etc. 

But then SOME guys like to make a habit of slamming hard into ONE side of the spectrum, for whatever reason. They’re usually either true geniuses or sociopaths - sometimes both, but more often just the latter, unfortunately. Holy cow, "10th order crossovers" etc is leaning very, very hard into the side of high electrical complexity (crossover) and acoustic complexity (coherent combination of the multiple drivers). 

That approach seems "gross" to me personally, but there’s also really no wrong answer here. The single-driver guys also have to deal with complexity, in the form of how to get decent bass without adding a separate subwoofer section - and THAT often involves very large & complex cabinetry - a different domain of complexity, but complexity to be sure. Sometimes you have better tools & tech to manage one form of complexity than the other, and that should drive your choices. Traditionally, the favor was to big & complex cabinets - but now with high shipping & labor costs (complex horn cabinets), computer aided crossover design, and advanced digital signal processing, maybe there’s something to the 10th order crossover approach... 

My "more in the middle" choice was for Tannoys’ dual-concentric drivers.