For all we know, SS may be better sounding than all the speakers listed.
And it is perfectly fine for anyone to have an opinion. For or against. No harm done.
But for the sake of our friendly debate class 101, what evidence is there to present to the jury?
1) Besides the rounded edges, it is rather a very square shaped speaker. Some people will argue it is not the best shape for "optimum" sound reproduction (not I since I don't know much about speakers building theories

). Grant & other can chime in on speaker shapes. Like shapes of Salon2, KEF Reference, B&W Diamond....
2) It has a single on-axis measurement. One. The jury will not look favorably on an $8/9K speaker with just one measurement when a $1.6K Philharmonic speaker has like 10 times that?
3) There is not a single, not even one 3rd party measurement or review.
4) Some folks believe the BG Neo8 is better than the Accuton (like Bob).
5) Big giants like Harman & KEF have spent millions in research & development, while Salk uses OEM DIY drivers that anyone and their neighbors and high-school students can use.

Salk does have one weapon that neither Harman nor KEF has -- Dennis Murphy Crossovers.
I think will kick myself in the parking lot for not buying the $20,000 KEF 207/2 for only $10,000 brand new from an authorized dealer. My damn room is not big enough.
Anyway, for all we know, the SS could be better than the $20K KEF Reference, $22K Salon2, & $15K Orion. But it is a hard pill for the jury to swallow given some of these points.
We now wait for the Salk Nation rebuttal.
