Need a review of Tyler's Ref 3's,

That would be his 3 way, W26/W17/T25. There is a chance I may upgrade one day from my Thor's and the only spaeker that intersts me is this 3 way. What I'm hoping for is a subtle deep bass from the W26 acting as a sub but intergrating with the W17 and not overpowering the top end. Can I get an opinion please. Yeah I am obsessed with the Seas and want to have that W26 in my system. The Thors with the dual W17's are nice, no complaints at all. However if I turn up the vol, the mids really come through too strong at times, cressendos in certain classical pieces really makes too much of a presence. But I'm wondering with the Ref3 if I will hear orchestral/mids as less dense with the loss of the added W17 in the Thor. With all things audio you have to give up something to gain something else.
Any ideas?
I've heard the Ref. 3 and Ty's Linbrook, which resembles your Thor. I own the Ref. 1--which uses a single W17 like the Ref. 3. I haven't noticed greater orchestral density with the MTM arrangement. The Excel is a very expressive driver, and it's probably a challenge for some HF and LF drivers to match the level or the dynamics of even a single W17. Because the MTM can't go as deep as a well designed three-way, it isn't surprising that the balance on orchestral music isn't quite right. On the other hand, I heard serious orchestral confusion even with a woofer available on the original Gallo Ref. 3. In that case, it might be because of using lesser drivers or as an artifact of the MTM design.

I haven't seen professional reviews of the the Ref. 3, but Stereo Times has one of the Ref. 1.

Thanks. Honestly i've not heard a 3 way that i liked, 30 yrs experience. However the Tyler 3 way does not use a midrange, but uses the W17 as a midwoofer. A driver i love the character of. But thinking things over this afternoon looking at Tyler's other 3 way design, its possible his 3 way, System might be a better option for me. The w22/Siganture can meet the W17 in a smoother transition. Besides I do not feel I'm missing out on any bass at the moment. Now i guess I need to be willing to give up that extra fullness in the mids (minus a W17) to get in exchange the lower hz's offered in the W22. The signature may be the very first 3 way that I find acceptable. However this 3 way configuration is not truly a 3 way, its more like a 2.5 /MTM. For those who do not know what a 2.5 is, its a MTM configue, meaning midwoofer/tweeter/midwoofer. One of the Thors mids are valued slightly lower than the other, and here with the Signature this is exactly whats going on, but in fact even lower value, the W22 is down to 32 hz's. The Thors are at 40hz. I guess that added 8 hz lower range may mean alot. Agree?
Is the Ref 1 a 2 way, W17/T25?
btw i see Tyler mentions a review in the newest Stereo Review mag. I won;t read it. I do not like stereo mag reviews.
The Ref. 1 uses 12" Peerless woofers (isobaric) with a second-order crossover at 80 Hz., the W17, and a ScanSpeak Revelator 9900 with a third-order crossover at 2300 Hz. (if I remember correctly). Ty later added a notch filter for the W17. The isobaric design involved elaborate cabinetry, and the smaller footprint of the Ref. 2s--which I believe used two 8" Seas drivers--and later, the Ref. 3's,had enough appeal that Ty dropped the Ref. 1 from the line. In principle, of course, the W17-W26 transition should be smoother. I think that the Millenium is considered a little smoother and the Revelator is considered a bit more detailed.

Thanks, very helpful info. I'm wondering at what point Ty has the W22 crossed at and the W26. I may do better with the Ref3 in the long run, smoother/tighter/deeper controlled bass from the W26 vs the W22.
Bartockfan, I think you just have to listen to the Linbrook Sig Systems with the dual 8" woofers and the Ref 3's. You may discover that the MTM & dual 8" woof's give a smoother integration between bass and midrange than the single mid/woofer of the Ref 3's. In my room I get very smooth and controlled bass down into the 20's with the Sig Systems.

Someone recently reviewed the Sig Systems II (I haven't heard them either) and the comments were generally that the mids and highs were to die for (my words) but the sound in the low mid's (I assume also the upper bass) was a bit less refined. I suspect this may be due to the absence of the 2d mid-range driver which would take some of the load off just one driver, or just perhaps, the reviewer has noticed a bit of warmth in the low mid-range,which in my room exists in the Sig Systems, but I would never have described it as bloat, unfocused, what ever.

BTW, Ty crosses the 8"ers at 160hz.

Thanks New, you are bringing things into clearer focus. I was thinking along those lines, that the Ref3/W26 may not be as seemless as i would like. IOW the...first lets get the speaker names right. Linbrook Sig which I believe is a MTM with added "bass module" a dual 8 inch cabinet. ..I think Ty should rework the names to his speakers, it gets confusing. I now he has a Thor replica, but can't find it on his site. He has the Linbrook Monitors , which is a MTM w/o the tall cabinet, which is the seas' kit called Odin. ...anyway what i am interested in is the 3 way called Systems 2, a 3 way, W22/W17/T25. As you mention the W22 may offer a better seemless image than with the w26.
If I hear the systems 2 and like it, it'll be the first 3 way that I find acceptable. However as i mentioned, its more like a 2.5 design, a MTM sort of.
About my comment on the 3 way design, in my 30 yrs of speaker reviewing, its the midrange that i have always found to offer the most horrible unmusical barking/coughing/hideous image. I've heard quite a few in my lifetime to make a closed book case.
But with this Systems 2, the w17 works as a midwoofer and the T25 picks up the upper midrange.
I really think I found my ideal speaker. But not until I hear how they sound, if Ty has the xover worked correctly so the Seas can "do their thing".
as I'm listening to my Thors, its the amp that is holding these speakers back from full potential, the JOR is a good amp but another amp may kick in a tad deeper solid bass. But then agin the dual W17's seem to be too mid strong and the bass is rolling off at 40 hz, thus timpini's/cellos//tubas are missing depth.
The dual 8's/bass module/Linbrook Sig is too much for my preference.
Comments please.
Ty's MTM's like the Thor are called Taylo 7U's. The shortie is called Linbrook Sig Monitors, which is the Seas's Odin design.
His MTM with dual 8's/one cabinet is called SIGNATURE SYSTEM.
Just the Linbrook Sig Monitors by themselves are very good, displaying greater articulation and detail than my Norh Mini-9 speakers which use SS Revelator midbass and 9800 tweeter. However, I found that adding the bass modules gives greater image depth, more articulate bass (not just deeper), greater mid-range detail and the system just sounds more effortless with a bigger soundstage.

I've found that the Linbrooks easily show up any change in your system for better or worse.
LInbrooke Sig Monitors = MTM design, W17/T25/W17 = 7 inch midwoofer/Millinium Tweeter/7 inch midwwofer.
But the "bass module" first off may offer more more volume of bass that I want. Most members here are in love with big/huge soundstage. Not me, I always like to keep the speaker at a modest level of sound, the music comes first, the music is always more important than the sound system. The sound system serves the music. But of course the sound system must be on the same level of quality as the music I listen to. Good music deserves good imaging. I always avoid the mediocre and seek out the finest. Always been that way for me.
Now also consider that it will take more a load on the amp to push 2 8 inch woofers than it does just 1 8 inch.
So thats why I'm going with the System design, a single 8, single 7, tweeter.