"trotsky" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.

The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
noteworthy imaging. Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
technique has not obtained visual acceptance.

Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact of
baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.

You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable absorbers
for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.

Trevor Wilson said:

The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
in desperate need of upgrading.

Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.

You're right about your site too.

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:21:25 GMT, trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:


In article .net,
trotsky wrote:



http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.



Site looks good. Did Mark Levinson lend you his trumpet?


Okay, that made me laugh. No, he didn't lend me his trumpet, because I
refused to give him advice on female orgasms.


And now look at him. No more Kim Cattrell.


Or Cattrall as the case may be. I sure hope that trumpet is the right size.

George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:


Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
your mouth is and starting your own business.



Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.


Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
reviewed in Stereophile?


Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.
I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article ,
trotsky wrote:




The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.


I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
have? That kind of thing.

Gotta like the sand.


God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.

(John Atkinson) wrote in message om...
trotsky wrote in message hlink.net...
http://www.jupiter-audio.com

And be brutally honest.

Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
your mouth is and starting your own business.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A review sure would be nice.

Bob Morein wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
link.net...

http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.


The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
noteworthy imaging.


Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.


Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
technique has not obtained visual acceptance.

Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact of
baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.

You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable absorbers
for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.


While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Lionel Chapuis wrote:

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :

trotsky a écrit :

http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.

May I suggest you that :

"...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater,
or T. Rex music in a two channel system."

doesn't really fit the feeling of the site : trumpet, flower,
silk/satin

I don't speak as an expert in audio but and expert in bad joke. To be
sure of that see my previous post (sorry for that ;-) )

Lionel


This will also keep you out of nasty jokes like :

"...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater, or
T. Rex music in a two channel system."

"Guess why ?
- 'cause it looks like *a* T. Rex


That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too good.
I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you it
will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.

In article .net,
trotsky wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article ,
trotsky wrote:




The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.


I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
have? That kind of thing.

Gotta like the sand.


God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.


More power to you on that.

Stephen

In article .net,
trotsky wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article ,
trotsky wrote:




The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.


I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
have? That kind of thing.

Gotta like the sand.


God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.


More power to you on that.

Stephen

MiNE 109 said:

In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.

More power to you on that.

I don't like speakers that attack too aggressively.

Lionel Chapuis wrote:

trotsky a écrit :

That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too
good. I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you
it will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.

I know it's stupid. But did you already read something really
intelligent here ?
You prefer to have them trolling in your back ?



I had some trolling in my back once, but I took some Doan's pills.


Up to you man...
You have been here for long time before this post you know the rules...


How do you know how long I've been here?



I cannot imagine that you are so proud to post here asking for "brutal
but friendly" critics. Most of these guys are like hyenas waiting you
fail to make good jokes.
It's the last place I would have post such message !
Let's say I read about 2 maximum 3 honest authors. Ask privatly on my
mail I'll give you the names.
Take your time Greg, you have already done a good job but your marketing
is too poor.
As already said I don't care about your sympathy.



Are you a sockpuppet?

George M. Middius a écrit :

trotsky said:


Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.


Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
reviewed in Stereophile?



Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.


Never mind, I wasn't joking after all.


I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.


Does Howie publish his "stuff" online? Time to call in a marker.


Do you want an other glass of champagne Mr. Middius, tastes these
cookies they are marvelloussssssssssssssss!

George M. Middius a écrit :


trotsky said:


Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
your mouth is and starting your own business.



Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.


Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
reviewed in Stereophile?



Ah! Ah! Ah! this Mr Middius what an humorist...
Vous reprendrez bien du pudding ?

"Lionel Chapuis" (LOL! LOt"S!) said:

Do you want an other glass of champagne Mr. Middius, tastes these
cookies they are marvelloussssssssssssssss!

If you're buying, I want a new car.

George M. Middius a écrit :


The Doofalizer whined:


And be brutally honest.



Impossible without listening.


He's talking about the Web site, you idiot.


Don't worry Mr. Middius he's the neighbor's son he's a little bit stupid
but let me introduce Sir......

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:57:56 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote:

Do you want an other glass

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Oh dear, dear, dear.

--
Oily Tartlet

trotsky a écrit :

Are you a sockpuppet?

What do you mean ?
Which type there's here at least 5 to 10 different categories.

Oily Tartlet a écrit :
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:31:18 GMT, trotsky wrote:


"Like a club tie, a firm handshake, a certain look in the eye and an
easy smile"

I'll bet you know what Pink Floyd lyric that's from.


My mind has gone to the Dogs.

--
Thine
Dogs eat dogs

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
wrote:

Dogs eat dogs

I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to Englash
the lauginage.

--
Oily Tartlet

Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.

Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the future?

Boon

Greg said:

Lionel Chapuis wrote:

trotsky a écrit :

That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too
good. I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you
it will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.

I know it's stupid. But did you already read something really
intelligent here ?
You prefer to have them trolling in your back ?



I had some trolling in my back once, but I took some Doan's pills.


Up to you man...
You have been here for long time before this post you know the rules...


How do you know how long I've been here?



I cannot imagine that you are so proud to post here asking for "brutal
but friendly" critics. Most of these guys are like hyenas waiting you
fail to make good jokes.
It's the last place I would have post such message !
Let's say I read about 2 maximum 3 honest authors. Ask privatly on my
mail I'll give you the names.
Take your time Greg, you have already done a good job but your marketing
is too poor.
As already said I don't care about your sympathy.



Are you a sockpuppet?

Of course.

Boon

Greg said:

John Atkinson wrote:

trotsky wrote in message
hlink.net...

http://www.jupiter-audio.com

And be brutally honest.

Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
your mouth is and starting your own business.


Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.

I would find it very amusing if your speakers made the RC list. ;-)

Boon

"trotsky" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Bob Morein wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
link.net...

http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.


The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
noteworthy imaging.


Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.

What's going to keep you in business?
I gave you an innovation. Be smart and use it.

Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
technique has not obtained visual acceptance.

Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact
of
baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.

You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable
absorbers
for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.


While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix
it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point radiator.

George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:

Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.

Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
reviewed in Stereophile?

Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.

Never mind, I wasn't joking after all.

I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.

Does Howie publish his "stuff" online? Time to call in a marker.










I heard Howie is on a brief hiaturs from reviewing subs until he has a chance
to upgrade his favorite piece of test equipment - the HF Signature Pro
Wrecking Ball.



Bruce J. Richman

trotsky wrote:

Contact Us Page:
The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
of thing.

I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
of questions.

Also:
Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.

Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
to look at them would be important.



I think you're past your allotment of criticisms. Tell me what company
you work for and I'll be happy to point out all the gaffes in their
sales and marketing.

I do systems consutling. Work for myself.

These last points are minor website things, in any case.
I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.

George M. Middius wrote:

Trevor Wilson said:


The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
in desperate need of upgrading.


Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.

I use HomeSite myself. Nice editor for not a lot of cash.

trotsky wrote:

While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Well, big tweeters are like bigger speakers in that they tend to stress
a bit less trying to get all the sound out. The sound is a bit cleaner.
(something like a planar panel is an extreme example of this)

I'm frankly amazed that 1 inch dome tweeters do as well as they do.
That's an awfully small area for the entire top end to be coming from.

(hey - I like ribbons and planar speakers, so shoot me)

trotsky wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

7 3/4 inches deep is awfully thin. I say make it 10 inches deep or
so and get better bass. Or, drop to a 6 inch woofer and get better
speed. Using an 8 inch woofer in a small cabinet that limits it to
50hz is a bit of a waste, IMO.

They are front-ported, though - a good thing. Rear ports suck, IMO.

Yeah - I can see that. But surely, there must be some method to do it.
The JBL 4408A speakers have larger cabinets that are deeper and are
rated at +/- 2db, so it should be possible. Front ported, too.

I'm just saying that more bass response *might* be possible.

That's the thing, though. To make a deeper cabinet the port would have
to go on the back. You can't make the cabinet with any more internal
volume if you want a flat response from the woofer.

Yeah, I can see that. There must be a way, though, as I've seen
deeper and larger cabinets that are front ported.



Subwoofer page:
I noticed that the subwoofer had no specs listed. Distortion
would be nice to list as well. Also, what kind of driver does it use?
For $1250, you can get a servo sub.

(snip)

If you think those things sound good more power to you.

No dis - just no data on the page.

Also, will it accept a remote power on input?

I'm not sure what that means, but it does have signal sensing auto
power-on.

Yeah. That's what I meant. Some don't believe it or not.


All powered subs do. It's a law. Fortunately, the variable LPF is
defeatable, thus if you have a home theater processor with built in
crossover there's no redundancy.

Nice. That's what I meant - something you can switch on and off to
use both ways. I'm a fan of letting the speakers do the job instead
of fancy processing modes, but YMMV I guess - to each their own.

More options is a good thing.

Btw - who makes the power amp module? Just curious.

All pages:
Ditch the MSRP nonsense. If you sell them and they are good, that's
what they sell for. It makes it look like you are trying to justify the
price.

MSRP is necessary because if decide to go through normal distribution
channels that's what they'll sell for.

Ah. Okay.

About Us Page:
The About Us page should have less blather about your goals and a bit
added about your facilities, tech setup, and such. If you use the
latest programs and testing chambers(renting one out is perfectly
acceptable), then mention it. For all we know, this is one guy in the
back of his house making speakers. Again, no dis meannt - just no
information.

No information to give. I don't do tests other than listening tests.
The crossovers were designed based on measurements to yield the flattest
frequency response, that's about it. The concept here is that many
speakers use "state of the art" design and construction techniques and
still don't sound very good.

Still, when the other makers do all of this, it's going to be almost
a necessary evil to convince most customers.

I use a common sense approach because that
is what's really needed. If you think, for example, that putting some
sort of material or compound to make the cabinets more inert, as many
"high end" manufacturers do, then you don't understand what makes a
speaker sound good.

Otoh, sometimes it does make a great deal of improvement.

Joseph Oberlander said:

The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
in desperate need of upgrading.


Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.

I use HomeSite myself. Nice editor for not a lot of cash.

Allow me to correct myself: Unless you have a technical background
in software, get an HTML editor with a WYSIWIG viewer.

Lionel Chapuis wrote:
trotsky a écrit :

Are you a sockpuppet?

What do you mean ?
Which type there's here at least 5 to 10 different categories.


Whatever kind is the most ****ty.

Oily Tartlet wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
wrote:


Dogs eat dogs


I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to Englash
the lauginage.


A French Krueger--how unclean can you get?

Bob Morein wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Bob Morein wrote:


"trotsky" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


http://www.jupiter-audio.com


And be brutally honest.


The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
noteworthy imaging.


Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.


What's going to keep you in business?
I gave you an innovation. Be smart and use it.

Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
technique has not obtained visual acceptance.

Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact

of

baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.

You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable

absorbers

for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.


While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix

it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point radiator.


No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote:

Contact Us Page:
The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
of thing.

I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
of questions.

Also:
Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.

Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
to look at them would be important.




I think you're past your allotment of criticisms. Tell me what
company you work for and I'll be happy to point out all the gaffes in
their sales and marketing.


I do systems consutling. Work for myself.

These last points are minor website things, in any case.
I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.


Gotta start somewhere. It doesn't make the product any less excellent.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote:

While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was
shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke,
don't fix it.


Well, big tweeters are like bigger speakers in that they tend to stress
a bit less trying to get all the sound out. The sound is a bit cleaner.
(something like a planar panel is an extreme example of this)

I'm frankly amazed that 1 inch dome tweeters do as well as they do.
That's an awfully small area for the entire top end to be coming from.


I think if the same amount of time and money had been spent on the
development of planar drivers it would be shocking how well they'd perform.

trotsky wrote:

These last points are minor website things, in any case.
I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.



Gotta start somewhere. It doesn't make the product any less excellent.

No it doesn't. I made no comments other than the woofer size
about the product itself, you'll note. Just website/info.

"trotsky" wrote in message

Oily Tartlet wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
wrote:


Dogs eat dogs


I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to
Englash the lauginage.

A French Krueger--how unclean can you get?

You know I try to be nice with you Singh, and your basic nature always
screws things up. But what should one expect from a second-rate midwest
clone of Middius?

"trotsky" wrote in message


Bob Morein wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
hlink.net...

While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
broke, don't fix it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point
radiator.

No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove to be
the start of a lasting hatred.

;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"trotsky" wrote in message


Bob Morein wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
hlink.net...

While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
broke, don't fix it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point
radiator.

No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove to be
the start of a lasting hatred.

;-)

There already is .
You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction causes
comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the disorganized mess
produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.
So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive material,
makes things better.

Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.

Felt could have made a distinction but it doesn't fit into his marketing
scheme.

"Bob Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"trotsky" wrote in message


Bob Morein wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
hlink.net...

While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
broke, don't fix it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do
with coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal
point radiator.

No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove
to be the start of a lasting hatred.

;-)

There already is .

Oh dear, my registry of RAO feuds had become out-fo-date.


You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction
causes comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the
disorganized mess produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.

Oh here we go again. Sooner or later the discussion had to move from Singh's
web site to the actual performance of Singh's loudspeaker products.

So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive
material, makes things better.

...at least some of the time.

Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
subcontracted parts provide little differentiation,

True.

It does help to have a superior product to back up the brave-sounding prose.

and unless the
design has been thoroughly tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a
turntable, and lots of experience, holds little chance of technical
equality with products from larger companies, even if their drivers
are not quite as good.

But are these drivers really any better?

Two key parameters for low frequency drivers for small speakers are Xmax and
smoothness of response near the crossover frequency.

http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html gives me no comfort in either
area.

As far as the tweeters go, here's a pretty credible-looking comparative
look:

http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-4.php3

Like the reviewer, I see the YAG-20 as being underspecified.

A lot of the success of Jupiter audio's full-range product rests in the
design of its crossover, at which point the supporting website text gets
really well, underspecified.

There's that word again!

Felt could have made a distinction but it doesn't fit into his
marketing scheme.