Roy,
Thank you for joining and posting here. I'm certainly in no position to speak for a board of people; but I believe that everyone appriciates when a designer will come and discuss his speakers with us.
Please understand also that, for me at least, there are things that make me skeptical of your product line: but at the same time I am very much open to the possability that it is terriffic gear. My early arguments with a builder here (WmAx) and my current owning of a pair of his speakers should attest to that.
I believe that the most useful form of posting is similar to the style you've just used (a narrative rather than a point-by-point), but it's not the way I find easiest to write in: so forgive me if I take the lower-road and quote-and-respond here.
Before I do, I'll cover some of your early response sans-quote: I see no problem with a lack of maninstream companies. When an idea fails to gain adoption, I like to understand why. It's a discussion I've had with planar vs. non-planar, or omnipolar vs. unipolar. I'm sure it's worth having with time-coherence, cast marble (I don't know if it sounds good, but it sounds cool), and crossover choices.
[*]We never offer the latest gee-whiz technology via flashy-looking (multiple) drivers and complicated 'computer-aided' crossover circuit designs, because neither satisfies my design criteria. 'New' is seldom better, especially when it comes to raw drivers, and a complex crossover circuit only inhibits clarity and dynamics and always degrades time-domain accuracy.
I am curious if you've ever considered the use of active crossovers. It would seem to off the best of all worlds excepting only the sudden need for more amps.
[*]We insist a GMA retailer keep our speakers set up and broken in, and present products on their audible merits, not 'what's on sale'.
And sadly, none near me.
The poor FR and waterfall plots you refer to, Jerry, are from a 1994 Stereophile test, where their editor not only measured these speakers at a close-up 50", but also all the way down on the woofer's axis, while 'looking for' the time-coherent axis. He found it, but then the mid and tweeter were VERY far off axis to his microphone, showing up as a poor FR (contrast that to his 'in-room' FR graph). While that speaker's waterfall response was above-average for 1994, all of our later models' waterfall responses improved substantially as on those, we improved our cabinets' cast-marble and eliminated reflections from cabinet-surfaces.
I do understand both points. The review is 16 years old, and so your speakers may have improved since then, especially given that was (I believe) relatively early in your development. Also, stereophiles measurements may be less... comprehensive than might otherwise be done.
I am sure I can find some people here on AH that would be more than happy to do a more modern review complete with independant measurements. Heck, I'm almost to the point I can do so myself excepting my lack of a proper listening room.
You would be quite surprised and likely delighted by our performance, but USA retailers are getting harder to come by. So, it will likely be some time before we are able to be heard everywhere. Yet we continue to exist, especially from sales overseas, because those who purchase our speakers hear straight away the differences our time-coherent sound makes to music, especially women and those familiar with the sounds of live instruments and voices.
I grew up with an uncle who was a professional conductor. I have poor language for describing problems with speakers, but (in my opinion) an excellent ear for catching them.
I truely would love to hear your speakers. It's unlikely that I'll be leaving the state any time in the next year (depends on my medical situation) so I fear it may be a while before I get the chance.
Phillip, I appreciate and share your concern about 'over-priced' products, and yet you really should hear the performance of Marigo Audio's "TRi Mystery Feet" and their wires (which we use inside our HD-models and in our reference system along with the Audio Magic brand).
There is a very signifigant amount of evidence that all properly built and sufficiently gauged speaker wire sounds the same. Disproving claims to the counter is a signifigant part of the early make-up of this site.
I have no desire to sound patronizing: but cliams of "superior wire" are going to severly color any other positions you assert until and unless you manage some extra-ordinary proof that these wires indeed improve sound (which given the accurate-well-beyond-human-hearing of normal wires seems a logical impossability).
Put bluntly: If you do have a very good speaker and want to make that case: I'd just drop a discussion of wires (unless it's to assert that you've done it for marketing purposes rather than sound, as some manufacturers have admitted). Even if you believe you are correct, it's likely to cause nothing but trouble for you here (again unless you can manage some never-before-achieved extraordinary proof).
On a lighter note: do you have your own on and off-axis FR, waterfall, and (would be great) cabinet vibration measurements? I personally am most interested in your bottom end (the one's I'd most likely buy first) and top end (I own more expensive that that now: so it's entirely within the realm of possability) lines.
And again, thank you for taking the time to post personally. For any designer, that can be harrowing: but if you do have a good product, and can defend those decisions, many converts can be had (the discussion on AVS Forums of Peavy's new amp is a good example).
Warmly,
Jerry
