Single way or multiway

Less in the signal path the better. IMO.   i.e. less is more.

10th order wow that’s a lot of crossover components in the signal path. 

From my experience no crossover sounds very good, but not all single drivers can do full range (or close to it) well, there are limitations of course.

I’ve never heard of this manufacturer before, I had to google them.

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. 

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.)

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..

@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/