audible physics AR3K vs tangband w3-1878

[manish]

Ok here goes. For over a few months now, I have read and re-read various claims and reviews on audible physics drivers. Claims by many of the more esteemed members of diyma praising the sound quality and overall fit and finish of Mark’s products has peeked my interest. But when I saw pictures of the ar3m and other various versions of this supposedly magical 3” full range driver, I was very impressed. Then it seems that just as fast as the lucky early buyers got them in their hands, an influx of glowing reviews came in. ” No need for a tweeter” seems to be the prevailing comment from everybody who has listened to these drivers. Thanks goes out to cheesehead (tom) for allowing wldock (walt) to audition the drivers. Also Wldock for having me over and turning me on to a beer called Sapporo and setting out a nice snack tray. Walt and his buddy Anthony had some diverse listening material which made for a more in-depth audition.

Ok here is the setup, Walt had made two sets of open back enclosures or shrouds. He even went so far as to stuff the back of the baffles with poly fill. Mounted to the baffles were a pair of ar3k and a pair of tang band w3-1878’s. I have to say when I first saw the ar3k I was impressed! These drivers have got some serious beef for a 3 incher…or so I thought. The tang band’s size wise are like comparing a jlw7 next to RE xxx woofers. The difference in depth is that dramatic. Amplifier being used is Walt’s personal favorite class g/h clarion amp . But enough of the babble, let’s get to the drivers…

The first cd was Lou Rawls. Not sure of the name of the track, but Lou sounded…technically right. No bloated lower end at all. I felt as if I was at a vegas lounge and there is crushed velvet furniture all around me. The low pass was set @ 250hz. This was just about right to my ears. I did notice though, even when I stood up to switch seat, there was no collapse of imaging. Not saying it stayed centered, but I could still detect that stereo sound. Nice! At this point I notice that I’m enjoying lou rawls…lol. Now time for the tang band’s, with the same track the tangs definitely have a much much fuller low end. It’s night and day. I felt that the low end was so full it was ridiculous. The tangs have the lower octave down pack, so much so that a quick a/b comparison brought to light the dramatic differences of the two drivers. Think muscle car versus a true sports car, with the audible physics being the latter. Walt at my request raised the x-over setting to 300hz. Big difference, I immediately noticed that the tang couldn’t be run as a true full range since I’m not being dazzled by the ridiculous low end. The phase plug design looks more like an old intel 486i heatsink than anything that could help with the upper range. But with a nice tweeter these would definitely replace my peerless 3” full ranges in my setup. And again for the price I would pick up a pair and try them out in my install.

Basically so far yes the ar3k are what I thought they would be…to an extent. I notice as I listened to some fusion jazz, pat metheny & physical therapy with the ar3k, that although they sounded good, I just didn’t get what every body was praising them about. Yes they have good extended range. Yes they have a nice transparent sound, but something wasn’t right. Then it dawned on me, I was listening to a subpar recording. Yes I have to admit those tracks had be copied at a less than full bitrate. There was no impact, no evoked emotion or smile like lou rawl did earlier. So I drop in quincy jones’ jook joint….Yes! the dynamics was there. Read this people the horns…omg the horns was so powerful and realistic sounding. And when the queen starts singing I finally sit back and close my eyes. (has anyone else noticed when playing jazz or classical music, whichever is the most prominent instrument, the ar3k’s reproduce them as if they are the lead singer? Not sure if I articulated that right, but it’s a pleasing quality)
Walt is tapping his feet and Anthony who isn’t even sitting on the couch is bobbing his head. This is dynamic big band jazz music being played via two 3” drivers! Later I tried this track with the tangs and just as I thought, the lack of a tweeter makes this track full at bottom and no excitement up top. Man Walt re-hooks up the ar3k and he just pulls out disc after disc. Autosound2000, and other various tuning disc just further prove what product mark has provided us.

I recognized that using full range class d/g/h amps leave a little off the “plate” when it comes to the lower end. Best way to describe it is to say the lower octaves are a little softer or thinner. So I inform the guys I have a brand new hertz ep4x still in the box out in my car (class a/b). I bring the amp in, walt does the install and after setting the x-over and gain we all sit down to listen to the drivers again….

Anybody who ever tries to discuss/argue with me about not hearing a difference between amp topolgy is crazy! I don’t care about stats, theories, and if you have a phd! All 3 of us noticed a big difference and I’m not talking spl, I’m talking about significant widening of the soundstage and increased clarity. I’m now hearing the valves opening and closing on a wind instrument on some tracks. It was there before, but not like it is now. I’m not a stranger to full range digital amps as I’m a former owner of 3 kenwood kac-x4r and I advocate anyone to get one if they can. But the hertz brought out details in the music. I’m really feeling these ar3k’s!!! I can only imagine how the beryllium versions would sound. I guess an even more extended albeit more sterile sound? Mark please tell me…lol. Anyway, we are all smiling and Anthony was the first to notice how wide the sound stage got as he was sitting dead center. For those who don’t know, anthony has a all out sq comp car running jbl power series and crown amps and focal Be 3-way speakers. And he was impressed, very impressed. It’s funny, at first I was thinking the ar3k would be a waste for anyone who only listens to instrumental music because with vocals reproduction from these drivers are near impossible to beat. But with the hertz amp I was dead wrong. The added detail is a giant leap ahead.
Next up the track by Tamia or as Walt pointed out “Grant Hills fine wife. I had already heard this track with the clarion amp and of course she sounded great, I swear these speakers got pixie dust on them cause that extra something is definitely there. But with the hertz amp…it’s not even up for debate. I will go on record and say it…these are by far the best drivers for what I believe to be the most important driver in any sq setup. I’m a guy who loves silk or ring tweeters and I felt no need for either. Point source is what its all about with these drivers. Mark as I’m typing notes on my phone during this listening session I keep thinking to myself, no lie, Martin Logan like sound. Please market these to the diy home theater crowd!

Now as far as cost, before I listened to the driver we all had a discussion about price of these and I must admit, I felt my money was too tight to even think about getting a pair. But now…well while I still can’t afford the list price, I can say these are my new dream equipment for my wish list…right up there with a pair of carver al-3 speakers… well there is always hope that mark will offer a package deal with his 8” midbass driver he is working on in the future…hint hint

I have pics but i can't post them from my cell

[Ludemandan]

Well! Another glowing review, thanks for reinforcing my confidence in my pre-order.

How did these sound off-axis, as far as high end extension? People say the angle makes a difference in the brightness.

[manish]

Ok when I set off axis the higher frequency didn't drop...just changed. Tone wise they remained unchanged. But I think if these were too bright on axis then off axis would be perfect. But the problem is...there is no harshness on axis so off axis their just a hint subdued if I can say that. I literally stood up and noticed no tonal change, just center image change. Hope that helps...I will tell you this....be prepared to have to purchase and/or rerecord your music at a higher nitrate. These driver are full of promise

[Mic10is]

Nice Review.
when you say ,Anthony, do you mean Davis?

[Audible Physics]

I and my designer/builder would like to thank all of you guys for your honest reviews. We are glad you like the drivers and we will do our best to continue to bring you the best products we possible can. We just hope we can continue to improve on the designs. Hell I just glad I'm not deaf and you guys are hearing what I do.

I need to pick up a set of the Tang Band that driver is a monster. I just love great sounding drivers no matter who the manufacturer is.

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by Mic10is

Nice Review.
when you say ,Anthony, do you mean Davis?

Yep Mic, it was Anthony Davis

[cheesehead]

Nice review Manish. I'm glad you were able to partake in the comparison!

After this review I really need to get these back from Walt and get them installed!

I just bought a old school PG ZX450 to run bridged for the AR3K's. And I'm going to pair that up with another PG ZX450 to power my AR6K's. Should give them plenty of head room!!

Now we just need to hear Walt's impressions of these!

By the way is Anthony a member here as well? Maybe he could give his thoughts also.

[manish]

Yep Davis. Those tangs are nice mark. I hope no one got the impression that I don't like them. On the contrary I found them really nice...as a midrange...the name of the game for your drivers is point source. Your drivers sounds like an exotic midrange and tweeter set but all coming from one place. To me the 3-way is dead.

[Ludemandan]

We are still lacking an in-depth listening comparison of the AR3K and the XR3M.

[Hillbilly SQ]

Great review. To be honest I think running tweeters PERIOD is dead. The impact a capable cone gives in the higher frequencies just can't be beat. If I can get a set of ar's in my dash the 6's will be ordered with them (when play money builds back up) and all hell should break loose in my truck in a good way

[cajunner]

what y'all smokin' up in here.....

3" cone ain't never gonna put the sparkle at the top!

you guys is all runnin' glorified Bose, I tells ya..

[Hillbilly SQ]

My 2" cones got the sparkle. Hope to hear the 3's with my own ears this weekend to judge for myself

[manish]

Originally Posted by cajunner

what y'all smokin' up in here.....

3" cone ain't never gonna put the sparkle at the top!

you guys is all runnin' glorified Bose, I tells ya..

Hey I don't smoke...lol man you just gotta hear them yourself.....

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by cajunner

what y'all smokin' up in here.....

3" cone ain't never gonna put the sparkle at the top!

you guys is all runnin' glorified Bose, I tells ya..

Now that is funny, i really like that one. I can tell you a few things about some of the new Bose stuff.

Well it is more like 2.2" of Sd. LOL

But I would have to agree you on that, as what we call Sparkle of a tweeter or Airy sound is not what this design is suppose to do. What it is suppose to do I hope it does it is add the life like weight to the upper range.

I go listen to the live concert at some to the local high schools as much as I can and I must say some these concert are amazing, man these kids have some real talent. I seat as close as they will allow me to and I have visited some of the class rooms.

What I notice is when a cymbal strike is made it doesn't have what we call air or i guess sparkle, it has weight that I could feel even the extra resonance has some weight. Same for horns of all types. I listened to some flutes playing their solo part of a song and man I tell you I never thought flutes could be so dynamic. Ok it was like 5 of them at once, but it's a darn flute.

This experience is what we where after. I could never just get that weight and dynamics for a small dome. Now is there a trade off, Yes. No way a large cone can match the Air or sparkle of a small super fast dome like a 19-27mm tweeter. Just not possible in this design. But which is right or which do you prefer? Hell I like both ways. I love me a dynamic and smooth yet detail tweeter, OW1 and OW2 are the first to come to mine. I also really like the Audison Thesis tweeter.

What I'm saying and i have said it many times, we just can't beat Physics, but we can put up one hellva fight!!!!::

[manish]

Hold up, when I say sparkle I'm not talking the sound you get with a metal tweeter and kid with the trbeble turn way up..lol let me try to articulate better what I mean. When comparing the ar3k to the tang there is more of a full upper register. The ar3k was just...how shall I say this...alive. I forgot that I was listening to drivers and just enjoyed the sound. You know your listening to something special when your not stareing at the drivers ESP when their not covered up. Live recording are to these drivers what 3d avatar is to a new 60" 3d plasma TV. I can't convey how much life like the vocal reproduction is. And you mention flutes....I listen to a track with a sax dead center and it sound not life like... it was surreal.

[cajunner]

Originally Posted by Audible Physics

Now that is funny, i really like that one. I can tell you a few things about some of the new Bose stuff.

Well it is more like 2.2" of Sd. LOL

But I would have to agree you on that, as what we call Sparkle of a tweeter or Airy sound is not what this design is suppose to do. What it is suppose to do I hope it does it is add the life like weight to the upper range.

I go listen to the live concert at some to the local high schools as much as I can and I must say some these concert are amazing, man these kids have some real talent. I seat as close as they will allow me to and I have visited some of the class rooms.

What I notice is when a cymbal strike is made it doesn't have what we call air or i guess sparkle, it has weight that I could feel even the extra resonance has some weight. Same for horns of all types. I listened to some flutes playing their solo part of a song and man I tell you I never thought flutes could be so dynamic. Ok it was like 5 of them at once, but it's a darn flute.

This experience is what we where after. I could never just get that weight and dynamics for a small dome. Now is there a trade off, Yes. No way a large cone can match the Air or sparkle of a small super fast dome like a 19-27mm tweeter. Just not possible in this design. But which is right or which do you prefer? Hell I like both ways. I love me a dynamic and smooth yet detail tweeter, OW1 and OW2 are the first to come to mine. I also really like the Audison Thesis tweeter.

What I'm saying and i have said it many times, we just can't beat Physics, but we can put up one hellva fight!!!!::

I know exactly what you're talking about, and although my comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek, Bose followed this same design philosophy as a natural offshoot of using trade-offs to achieve a response he was aiming for.

I have the original Bose drivers and have played with them in the manner in which these new drivers are being used for almost two decades, all the time hearing about how Bose doesn't have the upper end extension, Bose doesn't publish their frequency response graphs of their drivers, Bose this, Bose that...

but now we're getting into the science of it, and even though new materials and design processes are allowing some real improvements in response profiles and polar plotting, along with the testing that makes these improvements repeatable and consistent across product lines, you still have to go back and look at what Bose accomplished and think along those terms. 20 years ago, Bose had an array that used drivers not very different from these new ones, in a design where the comb filtering was addressed and there was a point-source nature to the design where everything under 220 hz was blended into that efficient, compact bandpass sub design.

Now, 20 years later if we produce the exact same system design and put it in a car, it's a lock once again, because the near field is easier to install some "air" using beaming drivers that have ragged response at the edges, simply due to proximity and exploiting that is a natural outcropping of the physics that require a trade-off between dispersion and imaging, the point source doing battle with the rainbow layers of time-constant manipulated, band separated iterations-

along with that psychoacoustic trick or principle of the lower midbass being difficult to distinguish by localizing and allowing the music to pass as mono, being that a mono subwoofer has many intrinsic advantages that deal with economies of space and power utilization, those Bose systems everyone "audiophile" hates, have some fair amount of trail blazing when you think about it.

As far as what these new drivers represent, as an improvement on a familiar theme I imagine they bring the music out quite a bit more into the believable category in comparison to their forebears, but let's not kid ourselves. These new speakers have to withstand the same criticism if we're being truthful about needing that top register to appear unscathed by the effects of beaming and comb filtering, or we've managed to set aside those differences due to a new appreciation, or at least admit we've made a conscious decision to let the music speak for itself.

[bikinpunk]

Originally Posted by Ludemandan

We are still lacking an in-depth listening comparison of the AR3K and the XR3M.

Someone on this board was nice enough to send me an AR3K. But, due to requiring signature, I didn't get it yesterday when delivery was attempted.

Expect to at least get some data from me regarding FR between the two drivers and hopefully distortion parameters by week's end.

I will also try to do some quick listening comparisons on the test baffle in MONO to see what I think about the subjective side of things. I hate doing this, but given as it's comparison I think I'm okay.

Thanks to the member who sent me his driver. You know who you are.

- Erin

[kvndoom]

I can't wait till the day comes I get a car I know I'll keep for 5 or more years... I do want to try these!

[cajunner]

Originally Posted by manish

Hold up, when I say sparkle I'm not talking the sound you get with a metal tweeter and kid with the trbeble turn way up..lol let me try to articulate better what I mean. When comparing the ar3k to the tang there is more of a full upper register. The ar3k was just...how shall I say this...alive. I forgot that I was listening to drivers and just enjoyed the sound. You know your listening to something special when your not stareing at the drivers ESP when their not covered up. Live recording are to these drivers what 3d avatar is to a new 60" 3d plasma TV. I can't convey how much life like the vocal reproduction is. And you mention flutes....I listen to a track with a sax dead center and it sound not life like... it was surreal.

so, basically, there's more upper end extension with the more expensive drivers? Or, have you found yourself amazed by speakers that somehow defy the laws of acoustics and are satisfied with paying the difference in cost?

I'm not sure I'm seeing what your putting down, here...




*** a glowing review, make no mistake ***

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by cajunner

I know exactly what you're talking about, and although my comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek, Bose followed this same design philosophy as a natural offshoot of using trade-offs to achieve a response he was aiming for.

I have the original Bose drivers and have played with them in the manner in which these new drivers are being used for almost two decades, all the time hearing about how Bose doesn't have the upper end extension, Bose doesn't publish their frequency response graphs of their drivers, Bose this, Bose that...

but now we're getting into the science of it, and even though new materials and design processes are allowing some real improvements in response profiles and polar plotting, along with the testing that makes these improvements repeatable and consistent across product lines, you still have to go back and look at what Bose accomplished and think along those terms. 20 years ago, Bose had an array that used drivers not very different from these new ones, in a design where the comb filtering was addressed and there was a point-source nature to the design where everything under 220 hz was blended into that efficient, compact bandpass sub design.

Now, 20 years later if we produce the exact same system design and put it in a car, it's a lock once again, because the near field is easier to install some "air" using beaming drivers that have ragged response at the edges, simply due to proximity and exploiting that is a natural outcropping of the physics that require a trade-off between dispersion and imaging, the point source doing battle with the rainbow layers of time-constant manipulated, band separated iterations-

along with that psychoacoustic trick or principle of the lower midbass being difficult to distinguish by localizing and allowing the music to pass as mono, being that a mono subwoofer has many intrinsic advantages that deal with economies of space and power utilization, those Bose systems everyone "audiophile" hates, have some fair amount of trail blazing when you think about it.

As far as what these new drivers represent, as an improvement on a familiar theme I imagine they bring the music out quite a bit more into the believable category in comparison to their forebears, but let's not kid ourselves. These new speakers have to withstand the same criticism if we're being truthful about needing that top register to appear unscathed by the effects of beaming and comb filtering, or we've managed to set aside those differences due to a new appreciation, or at least admit we've made a conscious decision to let the music speak for itself.

Now that was a mouth full

Not sure if you took what I said the wrong way or i'm reading and taking your reply in the wrong context, but what I meant was I just have some insight/inside info on the new Bose drivers, and I meant it in all and only great ways. I have always admired what Bose was and are able to do with such small drivers in their enclosure design. You know how many Bose system I have taken apart to see how they are able to do what they do. I bought a wave radio when it came and had it in my Kitchen for all of a week before it was out in the garage in pieces.

But once the drivers where out side their enclosure they where just...ok drivers, the tunnel or transition line not sure what to call it, i'm not enclosure designer of guru, but what Bose is able to do with these drivers is amazing to me.

But even Bose has to improve on the driver design they use in their enclosure and systems and believe me they have, I know this for a fact.

I also agree and I welcome criticism, as it does one thing if it is use the way it should be used and is of the constructive nature. When it is of the constructive nature criticism should invoke a thought process of improvement or change. This is why my designer and I love feedback. We are continuously trying to improve on the designs and make them even better or to simply give the end user what they want from the driver. Transducer design has not changed very much for the start, the basics are the same. Just like a automobile engine. Basic are the same. Advances in materials and technology that allows the said materials to be used in different matter and a few tricks of the trade is what improves on the designs. Sometime just stepping outside the box is all it takes.

My designer/builder is a chemist the guy is a mad scientist when it comes down to driver design. He designs and builds for many high-end mobile and home audio companies around the world. He does everything he can not build a driver that will cost $1200 a pair, but instead sound like they do without cutting on quality of parts and materials used. He has to our knowledge produced the very first Super wide-band transducer in the AR3K, also the same can the said about the Super wide-band BeM3 that use a Beryllium Alloy cone. He has a few tricks that makes the AR and XR 3" drivers have the top extension they do and makes them a very linear driver, Man I hope the Klippel says the same.

Wow sorry went into a little rant zone there. But I'm with you sir!!

[BigRed]

a bumble bee breaks the laws of physics every single day

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by cajunner

so, basically, there's more upper end extension with the more expensive drivers? Or, have you found yourself amazed by speakers that somehow defy the laws of acoustics and are satisfied with paying the difference in cost?

I'm not sure I'm seeing what your putting down, here...




*** a glowing review, make no mistake ***

You pricing is one of the most important factors in making a decision to purchase anything. Cars, you home, a soda, the new video game console and yes speaker. I can't and shouldn't speak for Manish, but if I understand him correctly, it not just the upper end extension that makes the AR3K a nice driver it the over all listening experience. Does the AR3K cost more the Tang Band yes, is it the most costly 3" on the market no not even close, not even at the MSRP and no one pays MSRP.

But when we go out to purchase what you desire, lets just say a car. We look at a few different makes and models with same and different options. What is the option that makes you buy the Lexus ES350 over the Toyota Camry or GMC Yukon or the Chevy Tahoe, the Porsche or the Vette? the pairs are all in their respective classes, but there is just a little something special that makes you say, man I going to send that extra little bit to get this one, as it has that, that , that last little bit of what I looking for. Sometimes it just a name and to say, look check me out I have a Lexus, sometimes it because it performs better on the long curvy road home and invokes less fatigue on the long drive with the family on the weekends. What ever it is we are willing to pay a little more to get it.

Now that i'm done with the BS above, least but it into perspective here. If the Tang Band was say a Focal driver what do you think the cost would be. As I said I love any driver that sounds nice and I have owned and some of the rarest drivers around. The Tang Band is a great bargain it seems like and hell i've said I going to buy myself a pair to play with.

But less look at it like this, I buy drivers in very small quantities and I use my own hard on earn funds to do it. If I could afford to buy as many as PE those at once man I could get a better price and pass it along to dealers and my friends here at Diyma. When I can I do my very best to give great deals. If I get them I give them. Hell my designer and I are basically giving the drivers in the Blow pre-sale away. Having to factor in shipping, import taxes and custom fees many things get crazy real fast. That is one reason I have a no bling approach. If it adds cost for me it will add cost of the dealers and end user alike, if does nothing for the sound it is not added, well about 95% of it.

I can say this my designer/builder is one of the easiest people to deal with and as those his best to work with me as he does what he does out of passion plain and simple. That passion is what keeps me and many around here going.

But give me a couple more years I will get there I hope where I can afford to order 50-100 pairs at once and hit that price where I can afford to give even better deals. I hope is the people who listen to the Audible Physics and H-Audio OEM drivers are please with what they sent their hard to come by these days earnings. If not give me the criticism so we can improve on the design.

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by BigRed

a bumble bee breaks the laws of physics every single day

Nice one, True!

to explain if someone doesn't know, by all rights a bee weighs to much to fly compared to the surface area of it's wings and the power available in it wings muscles to fly. Please don't tell the bees that, they may loss their confident .

But if I remember correct it was proven it has something to do with their skeleton make up why it works, don't remember.

[cajunner]

Originally Posted by Audible Physics

You pricing is one of the most important factors in making a decision to purchase anything. Cars, you home, a soda, the new video game console and yes speaker. I can't and shouldn't speak for Manish, but if I understand him correctly, it not just the upper end extension that makes the AR3K a nice driver it the over all listening experience. Does the AR3K cost more the Tang Band yes, is it the most costly 3" on the market no not even close, not even at the MSRP and no one pays MSRP.

But when we go out to purchase what you desire, lets just say a car. We look at a few different makes and models with same and different options. What is the option that makes you buy the Lexus ES350 over the Toyota Camry or GMC Yukon or the Chevy Tahoe, the Porsche or the Vette? the pairs are all in their respective classes, but there is just a little something special that makes you say, man I going to send that extra little bite to get this one, as it has that, that , that last little bit of what I looking for. Sometimes it just a name and to say, look check me out I have a Lexus, sometimes it because it performs better on the long curvy road home and invokes less fatigue on the long drive with the family on the weekends. What ever it is we are willing to pay a little more to get it.

Now that i'm done with the BS above, least but it into perspective here. If the Tang Band was say a Focal driver what do you think the cost would be. As I said I love any driver that sounds nice and I have owned and some of the rarest drivers around. The Tang Band is a great bargain it seems like and hell i've said I going to buy myself a pair to play with.

But less look at it like this, I buy drivers in very small quantities and I use my own hard on earn funds to do it. If I could afford to buy as many as PE those at once man I could get a better price and pass it along to dealers and my friends here at Diyma. When I can I do my very best to give great deals. If I get them I give them. Hell my designer and I are basically giving the drivers in the Blow pre-sale away. Having to factor in shipping, import taxes and custom fees many things get crazy real fast. That is one reason I have a no bling approach. If it adds cost for me it will add cost of the dealers and end user alike, if does nothing for the sound it is not added, well about 95% of it.

I can say this my designer/builder is one of the easiest people to deal with and as those his best to work with me as he does what he does out of passion plain and simple. That passion is what keeps me and many around here going.

But give me a couple more years I will get there I hope where I can afford to order 50-100 pairs at once and hit that price where I can afford to give even better deals. I hope is the people who listen to the Audible Physics and H-Audio OEM drivers are please with what they sent their hard to come by these days earnings. If not give me the criticism so we can improve on the design.

I'm sorry if I made cost, a defense-worthy issue as I had no intention of doing so.

Your pricing is justifiable, if the gains are there and apparently from Manish's glowing review, they are there.

My entrance to the thread was originally one of being mildly amused by such high praises bestowed on the drivers, and it immediately set off bells such as suspecting sponsorship or review-based cost reductions, and of course I couldn't keep from trying to inject a little bit of the "street cred" by tempering the initial enthusiasm with a bit of skepticism, which, may have been unnecessary.

I just wanted to explain that as a design concept, the validity of having point source drivers for the kind of music I listen to, is a hit or miss affair and as such it depends on the material being played whether there is a higher percentage of "yes!" vs. the rest of the 2-way component using world...

peace?

[Audible Physics]

Originally Posted by cajunner

I'm sorry if I made cost, a defense-worthy issue as I had no intention of doing so.

Your pricing is justifiable, if the gains are there and apparently from Manish's glowing review, they are there.

My entrance to the thread was originally one of being mildly amused by such high praises bestowed on the drivers, and it immediately set off bells such as suspecting sponsorship or review-based cost reductions, and of course I couldn't keep from trying to inject a little bit of the "street cred" by tempering the initial enthusiasm with a bit of skepticism, which, may have been unnecessary.

I just wanted to explain that as a design concept, the validity of having point source drivers for the kind of music I listen to, is a hit or miss affair and as such it depends on the material being played whether there is a higher percentage of "yes!" vs. the rest of the 2-way component using world...

peace?

No issue here sir, all is cool! I just like to talk sometimes ask anyone who has talked with me. Man I can talk and when it comes down to Audio your in for a long one. What I need to do is learn to proof read my posts before I post them, I'm the worst at that and Darn dude you have a way with words, you want to write my manuals?