Thanks for the question.

Section 1: WHY
I'm not losing "gearing range". The tables are showing a range far wider than I need. I'll repeat myself, I'm not advocating that Richard reduce his gearing range (he needs his just the way it is). I merely used his setup as a starting point to make a simple comparison with a double-compact, because of the challenge that his unusually low gear represented. I had to compare with something... His smallest gear is far smaller than what is standard on most triple cranksets (how many triples do you see with an inner chainring of 26, huh?). So I figured that if I could come close to his extremely low gearing with a double, and still have a good range, from a high top gear to a low low, with good increments, I'll have proven the merits of a double. And my tables also offer a smallest geat just shy of Richard's smallest, but smaller than what is standard issue on most road bikes with triples... all this while offering reasonable and very useful incrementations between gears. Good highest gear, good lowest gear, good increments, good landing spot (gearing-wise) when shifting on the front. I'm sorry to diverge in opinion, but in my book, it's great!

Section 2: WHAT I USE
I currently have a Shimano Tiagra triple crankset on my recumbent. The small inner chainring has zero wear on it, so I may as well have a double. My smallest gear with the middle chainring could be one gear smaller, but I don't ever bother to shift onto the smallest chainring to get a smaller one, because I KNOW I'd have to shift a few spaces over on the rear just to get the right gear I'm looking for. So my front derailleur stop screw is set to not be able to accidentally shift onto the smallest chainring and potentially derail and end up between it and the frame. My setup will be changing (more on that later).

Section 3: WHERE
I live in Montreal. In the center of the city, is a mountain. Not as big as in the rockies, but a small mountain nevertheless. Around the mountain is a plateau, and around that, a lower level. The geography affects most streets in the city's center. I can't get anywhere without encountering steep hills on the way. 2 decades ago, I used to go up and down the mountain itself for half a day, every day, to train, when I wasn't doing a 100 mile loop bringing me north of the city, towards the Laurentians (part of the Apalachians mountain chain).
Here I find that everytime I hit a hill, I'm fussing with gears, front and back, more than I should have to. There is no simple crossover from the large chainring to the middle one, where I can just do one shift in the front and keep going without shifting the back too. Nope... I have to shift the front, then start messing around with the back... and in doing that, I slow down, and often have the frustration of having to downshift again because I've lost my inertia. ...and with the slowing down, while shifting at ever lower speed, I hear the rear sprockets bang and crack, and I wonder when one of them is just going to break.

I find that I have way too many gears than I need... that aren't in the right places.

Section 4: WHAT I WANT
A cadence within 10% of our ideal is easy to handle. a 15% gear spacing gives us small enough increments so that when we go out of our sweet-spot range of RPM, we have a gear waiting for us thre. So, what I want, is for them to be spaced with a 15% difference, and have a wide enough range to handle anything the topography dishes out at me... that means, for me, having a 53x11 or 53x12 as highest (I'll go with 11 and 12 just in case my derailleur doesn't make it onto 11), and a lowest gear of say, 39x26, is fine for me. I can go up ANY incline with this. (I've been doing that on a 42x23 I think prior to that).
So I ordered myself a Shimano Ultegra crankset, 167.5mm arms, 53T/39T, and a SRAM 11-28 cassette. I think I will be very happy with that. And a new chain... because, even after swapping out my Deore derailleur for an SRAM X.7, it still rarely shifts onto x11.

Two chainrings give me a reasonably wide range with each, and when I shift from 53 to 39 I'll have downshifted just the right amount to take a hill without having to shift on the rear right away, and it's the same the other way round, 39 to 53 while staying on the same rear sprocket will put me in a gear taller enough to benefit right away from a changing slope without having to shift on the rear right away.

When I do the gearing calculations, and transpose this into my riding situations, a compact double is much better for me.

And this gearing should work where well over 80% of the north american population lives. Just not where those grueling hills are, like where Richard lives... those people will have to put up with messing with three chainrings instead of just two. But then again, maybe 11 speeds (see Campy), or 12 speeds, will change things for them too.

Section 5, SPEED
I have no idea how fast I go. I put a speedometer on my recumbent last week, but have had some problems and haven't tested it in the hills yet. On the flats I've approached 50km/h, top speed 58 on some small inclines. But I don't know yet how fast on a real downhill. Plus, I have some problems... the lousy Z chain, standard issue on an Actionbent, doesn't shift onto x11. Or on x12 half the time... not even after I swapped out the rear derailleur from a Deore to an SRAM X.7. I'm not changing the chain, because I'll be selling the recumbent.
The new recumbent, I'll be building out of carbon fiber in a couple of weeks, just as soon as my ex moves her daycare out of my place, so when I can reclaim the space, in other words.
The new one will have the folowing setup: Shimano Ultegra double with 167.5mm crankarms, 53/39 chainrings, SRAM 9 speed cassette, 11-28.