[Daemon]

It's a shame; it would have been good to read your opinion (may have saved me trying to form one of my own, which might not be possible anyway).

While on the subject of speakers, can anybody explain to me, in simple terms, the benefits and defecits between the many drivers versus the hardly any drivers design philosophy? One of the locally produced speakers I'm tempted to look at, by Equinox, uses a box full of drivers and has a nominal impedance of 2.5 ohm, but makes up for it a bit with a 96 DB/w efficiency (still going to make your amp have to cope with a lot more blue pees), and seems more or less representative of the many drivers designs. Other similarly priced speakers get by with 2 or 3 drivers. What are the trade offs between these two ways of getting to the same end?

[bhobba]

While on the subject of speakers, can anybody explain to me, in simple terms, the benefits and defecits between the many drivers versus the hardly any drivers design philosophy?...

Multiple drivers mean each driver is pushed less for the same volume (for 2 drivers 6db less, 4 12 db less etc) so less distortion for a given volume.  But then one has 'lobing' (beaming) issues.  Obviously cost as well - multiple drivers cost more than single drivers.  Maybe the cost could be better spent elsewhere - eg in the Timepieces constrained layer construction is used that makes for a practically inert box - a much better investment than multiple drivers IMHO.  

One of the locally produced speakers I'm tempted to look at, by Equinox, uses a box full of drivers and has a nominal impedance of 2.5 ohm, but makes up for it a bit with a 96 DB/w efficiencey

My current speakers Axis LS88's has exactly the same characteristic.  They really placed a huge demand on the amp.  Found they performed better biamped.  Since you are posting on Frank's AVI forum he may like to comment.

Having tried both approaches I recommend the usual MT two way but of the best quality you can find.

Thanks
Bill