Sonic Differences Between 2-Way and 3-Way Speakers

The obvious:simpler crossover,smaller enclosure=better imaging...I am also looking into the very efficient "one way" designs TWL and others speak very highly of...this is the future of hi-end speaker design IMHO...

A simple well designed 2-way offers a more coherent,transparent, 3-d midrange image...they dont have the low end of a 3-way in general...but 90% of music falls into the midrange frequencies...do the math...

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...

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...

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