2-way vs. 3-way

I'd agree with Shadorne in general.

There are some 2 ways that work particularly well for far field listening as well though. Ohm Walsh and planars like Maggies are two that come to mind. Many other better made 2-ways may also still sound very good far-field as well.

Three ways seldom do well with imaging accuracy listening near field though. One way where it exists and is done well is good also.

I'd agree with Shadorne in general.

Yes - that is exactly what I meant - "in general". It does not mean you can't find something that will work outside this "general" envelope - say in a particular situation or requirement.

I'd add that a two way is often better than a similarly priced three way. Not until you spend a good deal more money on decent drivers will a three way overcome the simplicity and lower parts cost of a two way.

"Far field" is 8' from the speakers?

And a two-way just cannot "do it"?

Wow.

Yes, good 2-ways can do most of the frequency spectrum and allow far field listening. Merlin VSM do this, and have coherence that most 3-ways have trouble attaining. Bass often sounds out of character (incoherent) to mids and tweeters in many 3 ways I've heard, the Merlins speak as one voice.

Also, 2-ways are generally more efficient than 3-ways, allows for lower power amplifier, SET for example.

"Far field" is 8' from the speakers?

8 Feet "+" - I think in your haste you missed the "+". If you prefer to draw the line at 10 feet then I would not argue with you.

And a two-way just cannot "do it"?

Perhaps you missed the conditions I gave for being able to do it "ALL" (you missed that too) - "cover the enormous bandwidth with two drivers and do this with low distortion and even dispersion at the higher SPL levels necessary to sit far back"

If you disagree "in general" (not talking about a specific speaker) then please explain?

You seem to have a strong point - why not make it?