green mountain.

[GranteedEV]

If you know, for example, that your audience's gear reproduces 35hz waves in mono (because, like most people he uses a single sub or paired mono sub rather than stereo subs or full-range speakers), then you would know not to allow a left and right 35hz note to occur 180degrees out-of-phasse because it will cancell in the conversion to mono.

Is that a specific enough example of the dangers of not mixing with inferior equipment in mind?

er...maybe we're not on the same page or something. I was under the impression you're saying that only inferior equipment should be used to mix.

IE in that scenario, you may not even realize the bass is missing if mixing with a single sub - it's something that may be easy to miss.

You'd still need better equipment to use for reference IE "to make sure it's all there".

You mix for a wide range, i never said you shouldn't. But your goal should be to match the original performance, and it's impossible to have a perfect memory. You still need an excellent studio unit to use for reference that won't color the sound and will play it back exactly like it was recorded. You work your way out from there to tackle problems, and then you return to the high end system to see if you messed something up.

 

[clouso]

Btw i wonder why all the guys chearing for green moutain all have the same amounts of posts here...how many accounts do you have here or personalitys?

 

[JerryLove]

er...maybe we're not on the same page or something. I was under the impression you're saying that only inferior equipment should be used to mix.

I don't think I would go as far as to take that position... merely that mixing for something you know to be distinctly different than the actual playback gear is problematic.

 

[Mauimusicman]

Mixing

Jerry,
I understand your point about mixing through speakers which are not the same as the ones the end user might listen through. Taking that theory farther, why use the finest conductor on the orchestra if your average listener doesn't have the system to appreciate him? What difference would it make if said conductor couldn't hear the violin section if the end users speakers didn't reproduce strings well? Why use the best musicians if the end user has a cheap stereo? Why use the best mics to capture the performance if the end user has an I-pod? Heck, why record in a studio at all if the end user's system won't let him hear the wind howling through the barn with a single SM-58 set up near the door?
Interesting also is the fact that with many re-masters, the mastering engineer purposely chooses to leave off the compression the original recording might have had. This is especially true in pop music. My philosophy is the less the signal is processed the better it will sound. The remasters that purposely compress the music to make the recording louder by squishing the dynamics are dismissed as crap in audiophile forums. I think it's called "The loudness war"
Bottom line is you want to mix and master through the finest equipment possible...equipment you know and trust to reveal details that lesser gear would not. If you need proof that's a better solution, have a listen to any early Bob Dylan album then listen to any Diana Krall studio recording. Reversing your philosophy, a lesser speaker might not reveal a timing error or intonation errors, so the engineer would unknowingly leave the recording as is. With this scenario the end user with a great hi-fi system might comment on how pathetic the artist/engineer was to leave that in.
Then the word would spread on forums like this one and no one would buy the recording. Then the artist would lose money, and the listener would lose art. Can't please everyone, Jerry. Back to work for me....aloha all.

 

[clouso]

Jerry,
I understand your point about mixing through speakers which are not the same as the ones the end user might listen through. Taking that theory farther, why use the finest conductor on the orchestra if your average listener doesn't have the system to appreciate him? What difference would it make if said conductor couldn't hear the violin section if the end users speakers didn't reproduce strings well? Why use the best musicians if the end user has a cheap stereo? Why use the best mics to capture the performance if the end user has an I-pod? Heck, why record in a studio at all if the end user's system won't let him hear the wind howling through the barn with a single SM-58 set up near the door?
Interesting also is the fact that with many re-masters, the mastering engineer purposely chooses to leave off the compression the original recording might have had. This is especially true in pop music. My philosophy is the less the signal is processed the better it will sound. The remasters that purposely compress the music to make the recording louder by squishing the dynamics are dismissed as crap in audiophile forums. I think it's called "The loudness war"
Bottom line is you want to mix and master through the finest equipment possible...equipment you know and trust to reveal details that lesser gear would not. If you need proof that's a better solution, have a listen to any early Bob Dylan album then listen to any Diana Krall studio recording. Reversing your philosophy, a lesser speaker might not reveal a timing error or intonation errors, so the engineer would unknowingly leave the recording as is. With this scenario the end user with a great hi-fi system might comment on how pathetic the artist/engineer was to leave that in.
Then the word would spread on forums like this one and no one would buy the recording. Then the artist would lose money, and the listener would lose art. Can't please everyone, Jerry. Back to work for me....aloha all.

so all speakers dont and cant reproduce fidele sounding and are all are scrap!...uhmm you and jerry should listen and get the Bang & Olufsen BEOLAB 5 so maybe you and jerry would start thinking some of the crap above 20000$ can at least get all what your talking about...just a bit maybe..if not just buy some more costly ones maybe they will have what your looking for...

 

[Matt34]

so all speakers dont and cant reproduce fidele sounding and are all are scrap!...uhmm you and jerry should listen and get the Bang & Olufsen BEOLAB 5 so maybe you and jerry would start thinking some of the crap above 20000$ can at least get all what your talking about...just a bit maybe..if not just buy some more costly ones maybe they will have what your looking for...

Quit trolling.

 

[clouso]

Quit trolling.

Com on you think the same think then me right now..lmao...ok bye im out of this thread unless someones replying to me lol.

 

[highfigh]

Mixing on multiple speakers that cover a wide range of sounds is correct, I don't think I said it shouldn't be done. In fact I think it helps reveal details in certain frequency ranges that may otherwise be less significant / noticed on the so-called perfect speaker. It's most certainly the right way to go. But I still think that for knowing how a mix is supposed to sound, you should use a flat FR speaker, and work your way out from there.

Mixing on one excellent speaker that is otherwised colored (IE not ruler flat) is what I disagree with. Lo-fi speakers and car speakers have all kinds of assortments of awful sound quality, brutal sound signatures, and yet generally people think music sounds "perfectly fine"on them. It's not because music is mixed for lo fi, but because people don't really have high expectations. Most people these days are perfectly fine listening to things recorded on a computer microphone and uploaded to youtube...the only people picky enough about "how" it sounds are the people who get equipment to make it sound better. Otherwise as long as the loudness is compressed, the beat is a constant 90 hz one note tone and the girl singing it catchy and has a catchy line, it's a hit.

Hell, I know people who have sat down in my car and their first action is to set treble and bass to max, whereas i generally don't touch my EQ. You think these people who play around with 2-band EQs until an awful song sounds "better" *yet still unlistenable really care about their lo fi speakers reproducing things how they're supposed to sound? You're giving most people too much credit. There's only one golden rule of mixing for the masses, and that's that they don't care how "good" or "bad" it sound as long as it's catchy. I could easily mix the same song to sound good on some crappy logitechs and to sound good on my e55s and some of my friends would not tell a difference.

The people that would, would be the people that have an interest in higher fidelity than that.

Since most people can't hear the difference, there's really no reason for the large labels to make their music sound its best, other than maybe someone at the company really wants it to sound great. Bands that have toured for decades and have played in small clubs for a long time have usually lost enough hearing acuity that they rely on someone else to make it sound good. That's not universal, though. Some of the musicians I know have damaged their ears and some have been more careful. One of them was interviewed by Gene in the AV rant and they discussed the recent phenomenon of music being mixed so it sounds good with an iPod. I have a serious problem with this- they should make it sound its best and if someone wants to booger it up in iTunes and on an iPod, they can but I don't want to be forced to listen to music that sounds like crap.

If you know anything about the music industry's history, you know that making the sound pop is more important to the record companies (other than the esoteric ones) than sound quality. They often say they care, but they really don't.

BTW- anyone who gets in someone elses' car and makes a single change to the settings should have their fingers broken. Bartenders are the same way and they almost never know how to make it sound better. They know how to make the Happy Face EQ curve, though. Ironically, that's approximately the inverse of human hearing acuity and it lets us hear the frequencies equally well.

I think we should contact the record companies and make it known that we aren't happy with the sound quality. They want loud and we want headroom.

 

[highfigh]

"Taking that theory farther, why use the finest conductor on the orchestra if your average listener doesn't have the system to appreciate him? What difference would it make if said conductor couldn't hear the violin section if the end users speakers didn't reproduce strings well? Why use the best musicians if the end user has a cheap stereo? Why use the best mics to capture the performance if the end user has an I-pod? Heck, why record in a studio at all if the end user's system won't let him hear the wind howling through the barn with a single SM-58 set up near the door?"

The performance will stand on its own, even if the sound quality isn't top notch. At least, it should. Some people don't listen to the music- they only listen to the equipment and your comments above would find agreement with many of them. The words 'performance' and 'sound quality' shouldn't be interchanged. Ever. You can easily have one without the other but when they're both present, it's great..

"Interesting also is the fact that with many re-masters, the mastering engineer purposely chooses to leave off the compression the original recording might have had. This is especially true in pop music. My philosophy is the less the signal is processed the better it will sound. The remasters that purposely compress the music to make the recording louder by squishing the dynamics are dismissed as crap in audiophile forums. I think it's called "The loudness war". Bottom line is you want to mix and master through the finest equipment possible...equipment you know and trust to reveal details that lesser gear would not. If you need proof that's a better solution, have a listen to any early Bob Dylan album then listen to any Diana Krall studio recording. Reversing your philosophy, a lesser speaker might not reveal a timing error or intonation errors, so the engineer would unknowingly leave the recording as is. With this scenario the end user with a great hi-fi system might comment on how pathetic the artist/engineer was to leave that in.
Then the word would spread on forums like this one and no one would buy the recording. Then the artist would lose money, and the listener would lose art."

If the original was mastered for vinyl, there's no way wasn't compressed but if they want the sound to pop and 'sound' loud, they still need to at least limit the peaks. Leslie West's CD 'Guitarded' is really loud, even though digital recording can't/shouldn't exceed 0VU because it will be massively distorted. OTOH, I have several that are much lower in level but have better headroom. They make it sound the way they like it. Compare a Mutt Lang recording with one produced by T-Bone Burnett, Jerry Harrison, Addie Kramer or Tom Dowd. They all have their own style and they all sound good.

An intonation error isn't a sound quality issue, it's just a matter of pitch. Bad timing isn't going to be obscured by bad speakers, either. Listen to anything recent by Emmylou Harris on the worst garbage equipment you can find and you'll still know that she's singing sharp. If it's impossible to tell the difference between one model of guitar and another (like a Strat or Tele), it's a sound quality issue.

 

[KEW]

Hello, Kurt

Our Owners are only in loose contact, and I thank them for their enthusiastic support! I thought about sending each some $$.

I was alerted this time, by several Owners asking if I should address those first concerns of Jerry, especially since he is in an administrative role (nice title, Jerry!). It's not uncommon for me to be alerted-- I add what I can... then it's back to work. Also, GMA searches have increased since the recent RMAF show in Denver, so this thread would have popped up for many.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio

Thanks for the response, Roy.
I can relate to enthusiastic owners of atypical gear staying in touch about their audio nirvana.

Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy day followed by HS football.
I don't know if much more discussion of GMA is in the future of this thread, but are there some notable threads on other forums from RMAF about GMA?

 

[JerryLove]

I understand your point about mixing through speakers which are not the same as the ones the end user might listen through. Taking that theory farther, why use the finest conductor on the orchestra if your average listener doesn't have the system to appreciate him?

That's not taking the theory farther: that's an entirely different theory.

I gave you concrete examples which you have chosen to ignore. You have ignored the effect of merging out-of-phase stereo into mono despite a specific example. You have ignored the issue of why hot mastering has been done for decades and why it is effective even though it's very common in the industry and with good reason.

A recording with a very wide dynamic range will sound inferior to a recording with a compressed dynamic range under several conditions: such as those in most car and under which most ipod listeners listen.

Similarly an out-of-phase signal converted to mono will sound *worse* than simply killing one track would have.

This is different from a good-vs-bad conductor in that a good conductor will not sound *worse*;

Then the word would spread on forums like this one and no one would buy the recording. Then the artist would lose money, and the listener would lose art. Can't please everyone, Jerry. Back to work for me....aloha all.

What listeners? I've asked twice for the name of or a link to any of your material. You've responded to my posts but not my requests. To be honest: I'm feeling rather trolled.

So I'll ask one last time. Show my how wonderful the results of you doing this are. Point me at your work. I'll go to Amazon and buy it: you even get to make a little money off the deal due to the sale.

 

[RoyJ]

Jerry said: "When an idea fails to gain adoption, I like to understand why."

Hi Jerry,

I understand the objective thrust of this website, and objective vs. subjective assessment of speaker performance was precisely my problem when I began designing in the early `70s. I will address how I've dealt with that important issue in subsequent posts (I want to get to five posts logged in, so I may respond to private messages and paste in links).

So, for the purpose of getting one more post up, you stated earlier that "When an idea fails to gain adoption, I like to understand why." What I found about time-coherent design is that the math behind it is really difficult to master. One does not begin to learn that math until graduate-level physics, and it is presented nowhere else. Even then, it must be greatly modified to be applied to the propagation of soundwaves. It eventually showed me the differences between measurement and perception.

The other time-coherent speaker companies, Theil, Vandersteen, and previously Dunlavy, rely only on basic theory and simple measurements to guide their way. However, their theories are incomplete because they lacked the necessary physics, psychoacoustic, and recording backgrounds. And without those, they have been unable to develop specialized measurements. These limitations explain their use of complicated crossover circuits. Mine are extremely simple.

Time-coherence is not an issue with other speaker designers for several reasons:
- They have never heard it without complex crossover circuits.
- They do not understand the math leading to many selective measurements that do validate what is heard.
- Most raw drivers are not suited to the slow-rolloffs of a first-order crossover, especially a simple circuit without notch filters and EQ.
- Cabinets cannot have flat fronts, needed to compensate for the physical-depth differences between woofer, mid, and tweeter.
- Many designers apparently do not know the sound of live instruments.
- Their board of directors, their retailers and end-users, and reviewers don't care.
- Non-square cabinetry and the wideband, high-power drivers (especially tweeters) required cost a lot more.
- Non-square cabinets are unacceptable to most consumers.
- What would these manufacturers say to previous customers, to retailers and reviewers if they abandoned their non-time-coherent philosophy?

So, yes, I took a different path, one much more fundamental to the science of reproduction, with 'the preservation of the waveform' at the top of my list.

In order to grasp and then manipulate all the variables, my research turned out to take many years (actually several decades, unfortunately). Also, the associated education and experience I had to acquire are 'rather unusual' for a speaker-designer. Please refer to my bio on our website.

In a nutshell, time-coherent design is not worth it for other speaker designers as they can't hear the difference for many reasons. Also, they do not want to 'rock the boat', as it were. Add to that how most all reviewers and editors don't know/don't care. Can you imagine how upset EVERYONE would be with Stereophile if John Atkinson began claiming time-coherence was necessary to speaker performance? They'd lose a lot of ad revenue and readers, I'd wager.

I should note right now that the claim we cannot hear time-coherence below a certain threshold of a few milliseconds is just wrong, as the test methods were highly flawed. On our speakers, the effects of a few millionths of a second timing difference between woofer and tweeter are easily heard on any music, through any system. But to hear that small difference in timing, the speaker must be free of many other issues, such as cabinet-surface reflections and cone breakups, and use a simple crossover that does not mask the details.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio.

 

[RoyJ]

Jerry asks, "... ever considered the use of active crossovers?"

Hi Jerry,

Yes I have used them many times. But one loses the ability, in the analog domain that is, of adjusting the phase- and frequency-responses of the raw drivers. It turns out that a simple, passive crossover circuit using the best-sounding crossover parts is exceedingly transparent to the incoming signal.

As as side note, digital-domain crossovers do not have the ability to fix the timing issues that even digital filter-slopes cause.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio

 

[3db]

Hi Jerry,

I should note right now that the claim we cannot hear time-coherence below a certain threshold of a few milliseconds is just wrong, as the test methods were highly flawed. On our speakers, the effects of a few millionths of a second timing difference between woofer and tweeter are easily heard on any music, through any system. But to hear that small difference in timing, the speaker must be free of many other issues, such as cabinet-surface reflections and cone breakups, and use a simple crossover that does not mask the details.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio.

I'm an electrical engineer with a rudamentry understanding of sound wave propogation. I'm not an expert in human physiology either but I have a hard time beleiving that humans can discern anything in the microsecond range. The eyes have the highest frequency translation in us humans whose wavelengths are less than a microsecond in wavelength. Yet, we can't see the 60 Hz flicker in our incadescent light bulbs and that wavelngth is in the 10s of milliseconds. Based on this, I'm very skepticle that humans can discern anything in the microsecond range. If that were the case, people would be able to discern the difference speaker postions relative to the listener less than an inch.

 

[RoyJ]

On Measurements versus Speaker Design

Jerry and others have expressed interest in us showing measurements. I definitely have nothing to hide in our measurements, for they are important. It's just that so many of them don't tell you, the end-user, anything useful!

Neither conventional nor anechoic measurements, as you well know, reflect what we hear from speakers. So I chose instead to publish on our website each speaker model's measured values with their +/- tolerances, along with how the measurements were performed, the acoustic conditions for each and the types of test signals employed where applicable. Not as easy as looking at a graph, but detailed and very specific measurements seldom yield simple graphs.

Please read my lengthy article on sixmoons regarding the numerous difficulties with measuring speakers. I explain what various test signals reveal, miss and conceal, and how to position the microphone, along with the limitations and pitfalls of each method. None of that information is proprietary and all of it has been known for decades, and thus something magazines could have been publishing to explain why conventional speaker tests don't reveal what is heard.

Regardless, magazines would find such detailed measurements very time-consuming to make, to then write up and explain, and either 'off-putting' to some readers or totally ignored by others. I will post a link to my article upon reaching the five-post minimum. In the meantime, it can be found on sixmoons' Industry Updates section, under "Roy" for the first word in its title (via sorting their list of articles by title).

I know our many reviews could be made more accessible on our website. However, each is listed there with its speaker model, many of which are now 'retired'. As one example, you should examine the careful measurements that Andrew Marshall, editor of Audio Ideas Guide, made of our Continuum 1 three-way model, back in 1997. A scan of his review is posted on the C-1's page, found in our Library in the Retired Models section for "Floorstanding Speakers".

Of all the magazine measurements done for speakers, Andrew's methods are unique, and technically sound in many ways, thus making far more sense than Stereophile's tests, as they do reveal much of why a speaker sounds 'the way it does'. Andrew just needs a bit larger room in which to perform them with greater accuracy (the speakers are placed a little too close to the rear wall and objects in that room). And perhaps he has a larger room nowadays, as I was going by the photo published in our C-1's review.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio

 

[JerryLove]

Roy,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond; but I wanted to comment / question a couple of these

Time-coherence is not an issue with other speaker designers for several reasons:
- They have never heard it without complex crossover circuits.

I believe most designers have heard single-driver speakers before (such as the vast majority of headphones) which lack crossovers entirely.

- Most raw drivers are not suited to the slow-rolloffs of a first-order crossover, especially a simple circuit without notch filters and EQ.

Raises a side question for me. I've seen a lot on your site about your cabinet construction (mostly on the outer shell rather than the internal bracing), but very little mention of drivers. Do you make your own? If not, whose drivers do you use?

- Cabinets cannot have flat fronts, needed to compensate for the physical-depth differences between woofer, mid, and tweeter.

THe Euopa's I looked at had flat fronts. Do you perhaps mean "vertically aligned drivers" or something to the effect?

- Many designers apparently do not know the sound of live instruments.

I find that hard to believe

- Their board of directors, their retailers and end-users, and reviewers don't care.

While I find that easy to believe: I don't believe that the board of directors makes specific decisions regarding speaker shape. Certainly this history of the politics of McIntosh's speaker division is well known, and the presence of builder/owners like yourself or Salk and point away from BOD's overriding such decisions. Theil I believe was another.

To say "reviewers" don't care about sound quality is an odd one. Certainly we are all aware of reviewers caring more about advertising revenue than anything else (I'm looking at you stereophile), but they tend to be overly positive on anything.

Finally: this seems to be a pretty low-cost way to improve sound... and therefore very appealing. If you look at the large companies (Harmon Kardon), they would much rather spend up-front design costs that allow them to cut production costs than the other way around.

- Non-square cabinetry and the wideband, high-power drivers (especially tweeters) required cost a lot more.
- Non-square cabinets are unacceptable to most consumers.

You may want to take a look at the market. Square and rectangular cabinets are not really the norm anymore. Though I can think back to my 1994 purchase of B&W Solid-series sat. speakers (which actually remind me of your EOS line), or stare over at my LM1's, or (even more) look out at my N801's (going back to the mid 90s) and see nothing square at all.

As to consumers: you seem to be asserting that they don't buy Bose... and that's ignoring the many non-rectangular speakers stored in rectangular cloth frames (something that could easily be done to many of your designs) such as the Walsh Ohm's I used to own.

I can even go down to Best-Buy and find not only Martin Logans (not square) but (forget the name) those little curved bookshelves they put on sell.

- What would these manufacturers say to previous customers, to retailers and reviewers if they abandoned their non-time-coherent philosophy?

"Look, we've improved our designs"?

I guess whatever HK said when they abandoned paper cones for the MMD and CMMD designs, or when B&W first invented the nautilus and then incorporated the curved design into their 800-802 line.

Perhaps a better example would be what everyone would have had to do as they transitioned from the old near-square boxes to the more modern tower designs, and from the single woofer to the multiple-smaller woofers.. not to mention the people who moved to transmission lines or column arrays. For example, look at the McIntosh XR-7, XR-19, and XR-2kt.

 

[RoyJ]

Microseconds

Hi 3dB,

I appreciate your concern as it surprised me as well, but only after 20 years of research in getting rid of all other variables. Our hearing is far more sensitive in the time-domain than is our visual system, and you would find upon auditioning our speakers that what I wrote is true.

For example, anyone can hear in our two-way models, the difference in sound just an eighth-inch makes in the front-to-rear position of its tweeter relative to the woofer. Even the highly-experienced UK reviewer commented strongly on that in his recent review of our Eos model.

Which is why in most models we offer adjustable-position drivers, to be set up with a tape measure to your unique listening position, as explained in their Owner's Guides.

But the follow-up question then most asked is, what happens when you stand up and move around? Yes, you do certainly lose that most-precise timing, yet even in those off-axis positions, you are still enjoying a speaker having hundreds (sometimes a thousand+) degrees less phase shift than the usual designs have on their 'best axis'. And you can hear that greater coherence down the hall around the corners, too.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio

 

[RoyJ]

For Jerry (and others!)

Hi Jerry,

You commented "I believe most designers have heard single-driver speakers before (such as the vast majority of headphones) which lack crossovers entirely."

Tue, but spending years with headphones, to sort out what they do to imaging, is a lot to ask, and the imaging issue is the primary reason studio engineers do not rely on them for a final mix.

All single-driver designs have major problems with tone balance, dynamic range and bass extension, and come with really strange phase shifts (and resonances) caused by the designed-in cone breakups (= mechanical phase shifts). Also, I would wager that many speaker designers have never lived with a single-driver systems for months on end, necessary to explore their strengths and weakness. Remember, with most designers, it is all about getting out the new models for next Fall, which is a big limitation, one I was able to avoid.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio

 

[JerryLove]

Tue, but spending years with headphones, to sort out what they do to imaging, is a lot to ask, and the imaging issue is the primary reason studio engineers do not rely on them for a final mix.

At minimum this might be a good way to illustrate the significance of temporal cohesion?

Switching from my non-coherent speakers to headphones: where should I focus my attention to really hear the difference?

 

[RoyJ]

For Jerry again

Jerry, you remark above that "I don't believe that the board of directors makes specific decisions regarding speaker shape. Certainly this history of the politics of McIntosh's speaker division is well known, and the presence of builder/owners like yourself or Salk and point away from BOD's overriding such decisions. Theil I believe was another."

Any board of directors must believe what their designer says about his technology and the performance of a proposed design, since none of them has his background, and in many cases they've publicly announced the big money paid to have him come on board (Revel, for one). But, they must ask somebody about the new shape, someone with good knowledge of the industry, and that would be their Marketing Director.

When he or she is asked about putting out any new, radically different design, the answer would be, "No, for the following reasons: It will likely hurt sales since it goes against all for which we've come to be known. Second, we are doing just fine without this new shape. Third, no competitor bothers, and I see no valid reason to go against the overall flow of the market. Fourth, it's going to cost a lot to re-tool, to change drivers and suppliers. Fifth, it's going to take years of on-going education to support this new design. Sixth, the subject of time-coherence is difficult for anyone to understand, compared to the usual 'low distortion, wide frequency response, good cabinets, computer-aided crossovers designs, and don't forget, our Titanium cones'."

Designers for smaller firms do not have a board of directors to whom they must report or to 'convince', thank goodness. The real problem is no independent standard for speaker design exists and never will. As a side note, the THX specs for speaker performance are for power-handling, dispersion, distortion (?) and frequency response, but with no detailed guidelines on how these measurements are made. THX specs were created in part for marketing reasons, and to create another stream of revenue for (and for recognition of) THX. There are CEDIA, CEA and perhaps DIN/EU specs currently being proposed, yet offering no more information than the current THX specs.

Best regards,
Roy Johnson
Designer
Green Mountain Audio