Ya, he's definitely a strong type A personality, that's for sure. \n\nThey used to have data on their older model subs. I wish they would include data for their newer ones too. They've been listed with "coming soon" for years now...\n\nI bought a couple of their subs a few years back and have been very impressed with them. Like I said, some of their older models were tested on databass and did quite well. Maybe James will get a newer one in to test sometime - that would be great.\n\nI've always been skeptical about their speakers. Seems to me speakers are much more difficult to get right than subs. It would be interesting to hear more about your impressions of their speakers.\n\nThey sounded nearly identical to my Klipsch RF62IIs I was looking to upgrade. They did have a smoother top end. That was the only positive thing. They (MT110s) had zero bass. I get that they're marketed as HE speakers but my NHT SuperOnes had quite a bit more bass. In my room they needed a 120hz crossover. \n\nMy biggest issue was with their claimed 95db efficiency. In my room with my AVR they were 2db less efficient than my RF62s. This is where the owner argued that I was wrong and that you can't base efficiency off an AVR. All I know is that using the pink noise during setup, which for my AVR is 78db. Using this to calibrate the PSAs and then switching to the RF62s the RF62s would show 80db. I remember the RF62IIs as being tested to be around 92db, so that would make the PSAs 90db not the claimed 95db. \n\nAnd when I was testing my Q750s against the RF62s the difference amounted to about 4.5db which is in line with Kef's claim of 88db for the 750s and 92db for the RF62s. \n\nIf one speaker plays louder with same input level than the other, doesn't that make it more efficient? \n\nFor me they were overpriced PA speakers. The Q750s are better in every way for the same or less $$$$.