Acoustat Answer Man is here

I (don't )think it makes any sonic difference. ...good luck with that...
hehe.... well it dose at my house....sonic differenes are all i am into... from good to better...best sound,now,today......
I have had Acoustats for over 30 years.... droping of the bias feed Res is the best thing i have ever done....for best output an a topend..
 
No confusion i know Sound Lab very well they are miles ahead of Martin Logan, i am not saying that Sound Lab isn't good what i am saying is that the DIY Acoustat Spectra 8800s would hold it's own agains't ANY model of Sound Lab at even 5 times the price the reason for this is the way they are built please note that this panel weighs 800 pounds this is a very very ridgid frame compared to Sound Lab Ultimate Series U-1PX at only 272 pounds.

PS: To be honest i have not heard the 922 series but still i would not worry that's how good the Spectra 8800s are the U-1PX is good but no match not even close.
That sounds more like bias and wishful thinking based on unproven hopes. Believing something without actually testing it is the forerunner to fiction. The fact of the matter is that Sound Labs have notable advantages over the Acoustat's that allow them to perform with relative ease, notably in the bass regions; they perform better not because of any local technician building them, but because of better engineering practices. The reasons reside in the constant evolution of their design, the engineering principles, and finally the execution. Sound Labs utilize smaller panels, each hand made to exacting tolerances. The reason for these small panels is to reduce mass and structure-borne resonance. Each panel is crafted to offer the best transient response, working in unison to produce a wavefront large enough to offer low frequency extension. The long panels of the Acoustat Spectra 8800 cannot match the settling times, nor the essential freedom from resonance simply as a function of their dimensions.

Curved panels introduce a variety of problems. When Sanders designed for Martin Logan, he and I among others identified that the diaphragm would sag between the curved spacers. This had a profound effect on the transient response and cumulative spectral results, as the excursion of the diaphragm was far from linear. The answer was to retain a flat panel where good transient impulse response and fast settling were primary performance constituents. It also helped in lowering harmonic distortion which, contrary to popular brief, actually plagues electrostatics at low frequencies. The problem with flat panels was that their collective radiation planes produced a beaming polar response, making it hard for listeners to hear all the treble information when they were seated off axis. Sound Lab curtailed this problem but using neither flat panels, nor curved panels. Instead flat panels arranged in a curved pattern. Today, this represents the best possible implementation of the panel topologies. It allows the panels to be ideally shaped, the collective speaker to be as large as needed, and the polar response to be less like conventional panels and instead comparable to that of electrodynamic coil drivers - wide and heard from all angles, and close to the sound of a real acoustic event.

The Acoustat's are not bad at all, but they are a product of the past and the limited understanding of diaphragm resonance, on part of Dr. Strictland's original design team. The computer modelling was not feasible at the time that we have now, and it's quite easy to model panels before they go into testing and production. Acoustat stuck to long panels with dimensions that not only harbor modes, but actually introduce them. These show up in the transfer magnitude graphs as sharp peaks and dips. When performing an impulse response test on the Accoustat's, you'll notice they initially settle quite well, but them the delayed reflections from the panel edges return to the center. At certain frequencies, the coincidence of these reflections induce modes and cancellations. The result is both slight coloration induced by the energy storage and deviation from a linear frequency response. What is important is to view an unweighted frequency response measurement, as heavy weighting and windowing will obscure the results and hide the flaws that exist. most panel speakers demonstrate this behavioral trait.

Many of the people who are rebuilding these Acoustat panel speakers do not have a background in loudspeaker design, nor product development. I know who Josclyne from Quebec is, and while he has the initiative to go forth and rebuild these speakers, so do many others. The inherent problem in their methods is that they do not have a suitable engineering background to devise any improvements that offer tangible performance beyond the obvious. Along with this, they do not have the proper testing apparatus and environment to provide their customers with reliable data regarding the alterations. This quintessential scenario is not unlike one bringing his car to a shop for modifications to try and make it a track car. A bigger engine and stronger gear-train will improve performance, but that is not engineering, nor advancement. It is highly predicable that reinforcing the frame will reduce sway and vibration, but it fails to identify the underlying causes. Because of this, it is not really a cumulative solution.

On the other hand, Sound Lab employs the equipment needed to idealize their product before it reaches the market. It is a family business, with even the wife and children taking part in the construction affairs. The values and sizing were not random, but the product of the evolution of panel speaker design. They have the capitol to fully test their product so that it meets the most discerning standards. The only ones that none of their scientific mediums can satisfy are, or course, those of bias, pandery, and blatant misinformation just as we find on the internet today.

images
 
Last edited:
That sounds more like bias and wishful thinking based on unproven hopes. Believing something without actually testing it is the forerunner to fiction. The fact of the matter is that Sound Labs have notable advantages over the Acoustat's that allow them to perform with relative ease, notably in the bass regions; they perform better not because of any local technician building them, but because of better engineering practices. The reasons reside in the constant evolution of their design, the engineering principles, and finally the execution. Sound Labs utilize smaller panels, each hand made to exacting tolerances. The reason for these small panels is to reduce mass and structure-borne resonance. Each panel is crafted to offer the best transient response, working in unison to produce a wavefront large enough to offer low frequency extension. The long panels of the Acoustat Spectra 8800 cannot match the settling times, nor the essential freedom from resonance simply as a function of their dimensions.

The Acoustat's are not bad at all, but they are a product of the past and the limited understanding of diaphragm resonance, on part of Dr. Strictland's original design team. The computer modelling was not feasible at the time that we have now, and it's quite easy to model panels before they go into testing and production. Acoustat stuck to long panels with dimensions that not only harbor modes, but actually introduce them. These show up in the transfer magnitude graphs as sharp peaks and dips. When performing an impulse response test on the Accoustat's, you'll notice they initially settle quite well, but them the delayed reflections from the panel edges return to the center. At certain frequencies, the coincidence of these reflections induce modes and cancellations. The result is both slight coloration induced by the energy storage and deviation from a linear frequency response. What is important is to view an unweighted frequency response measurement, as heavy weighting and windowing will obscure the results and hide the flaws that exist. most panel speakers demonstrate this behavioral trait.

Dear sir you are talking about something that you have never heard, this i know as FACT because there is only ONE existing pair of modified Acoustat Spectra 8800s, they where built in 2013-2014 by Jocelyn Jeanson of Quebec Canada, measured bass output without subs is 24hz but for my friend that is still not enough, the addition of two JL,s F-112 subwoofers give's them a measured bass output of 14hz the older Acoustat's of the 90s where very good for the money but these are 23 years later and are one of a kind.
 
I am afraid that you are talking about something that you have never heard. If you had taken the time to read my post, you would have seen that I was familiar with Jocelyn and his work. I am also familiar with others who have had to correct his mistakes. Look up, way up.

Please feel free to give names or for me these so call mistakes don't exist, for ME the only thing that counts is the result how the speakers SOUND screw the engineering if the speakers don't sound good.
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone,

I just bought a pair of Acoustat model 3's with 121 interfaces, and I replaced the binding posts and did the c mod with all metallized polypropylene caps. My main listeners are magnepan mg III's and I was hoping to replace them with the acoustats since the acoustats are so sturdy, but I find the soundstage to be distant instead of in the room and the top end seems rolled off. Is there anyway to make them sound more up front and extend the top end?

Thanks :)

Acoustats have been criticized for a slightly rolled-off top end, so they may have a little less 'sparkle' than other speakers that you've heard. However, there is a High Frequency Balance control inside the interface that can be used to change the extreme top-end response. Have you tried adjusting that control in the 'plus' direction?

Your choice of amplifier can also have some bearing on frequency response. If your amplifier has an output impedance that varies considerably with frequency, it can introduce variations in the acoustic frequency response. Nothing magic going on here - just Ohm's Law.

The imaging characteristics are often a function of speaker placement. Speaking in very general terms, the speakers seem to work best when toed-in toward the listening position, such that the plane of each speaker is perpindicular to the line of sight of the listener. Best results are usually obtained with the speakers and listener arranged in an equilateral triangle. That is, the distance between speakers should be roughly equal to the distance from each speaker to the listener. The particulars of your room acoustics and adjacent walls and furnture may require some modification of these general guidelines. But I have never encountered a situation where these guidelines do not at least provide a very good starting point.
 
Firstly, do you have any affiliation with Sound Lab of which you speak so highly?
The problem with flat panels was that their collective radiation planes produced a beaming polar response, making it hard for listeners to hear all the treble information when they were seated off axis. Sound Lab curtailed this problem but using neither flat panels, nor curved panels. Instead flat panels arranged in a curved pattern. Today, this represents the best possible implementation of the panel topologies.
What about segmentet panels (like in the Spectra's but with slimmer treble segment)?
It is highly predicable that reinforcing the frame will reduce sway and vibration, but it fails to identify the underlying causes. Because of this, it is not really a cumulative solution.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that stabilizing the frame is not a worthwhile modification?
 
So for about 10hr i have had a 1ohm res in place of the stock 121 C mod 3ohm....Air mod type setup......pulls the mid out of the sound in my setup....sounds gutless up agents the 3ohm ..... more mid richer sound an in my case better topend...Now with stock panels with the felt on the back of the panels it well sound diff no dout darker.........
For years now i have Not had the felt on any of my panels.... i just use paper tape in the same place the felt was ....i an others have found the felt to eatup some topend....not needed...
i gess the 3ohm give the amp a better load....even sound loader....i gess thats the mid being push back in.....
gofig...all just one mans finding...with two 27" of 3 flat panels........an yes you can move your head around an the image is all right there....never moves like the 1+1

lot fun..............
 
Last edited:
Hi to all in my 30 years journey with Acoustat's i have had many modifications done to them by many people and i don't let ANYBODY that isn't competent touch any part of them i have owned Spectra 22s - Spectra 33s - 2+2s - and this is my third and final pair of 1+1s because i live in a small condo and this is the biggest model my livingroom will accept first mod that was ever done was by Mr. Ed Meitner of Meitner Audio that was in 1984 all other mods where done by competent people that KNOW the product and NO they don't have to be engineers as long as they know what they are doing and for that i will trust my ears for the result of all the mods done one of the most important was the all steel 200 pounds frame because at almost 8 feet tall the panels tend to swing and with the extra weight they are rock solid.

PS: The making of the frames in my Flickr galerie - - - https://www.flickr.com/photos/mracoustat/
 
Last edited:
So for about 10hr i have had a 1ohm res in place of the stock 121 C mod 3ohm....Air mod type setup......pulls the mid out of the sound in my setup....sounds gutless up agents the 3ohm ..... more mid richer sound an in my case better topend...

Tyu, if I understand you correctly:

You replaced the 3ohm VR with a fixed 1ohm?
That achieves the opposite of what any Mid/HF increase mod should do. You lowered the resistance of the shunt leg meaning that less HF energy is going through the HF Trf and more is wasted through the shunt.
If you want to increase the amount of Mid/HF, you need to increase (max-out) the resistance of the shunt leg (16ohm), which is the same as winding up the VR to the max.
That's why I was saying earlier that I don't see the point of "air mod" as it was described to us earlier - if it is only about bridging (MK121A) or maxing out (MK121C) the VR.

If you want "air", then rather increase the capacitance of the HF filter (say 100uF) which lower the HiPass frequency (at a guess, under 200Hz) so there would be significantly more energy going to the HF transformer. You can keep the VR + Resistor arrangement standard, as per C-mod, and still use it for fine adjustments.
 
That sounds more like bias and wishful thinking based on unproven hopes. Believing something without actually testing it is the forerunner to fiction. The fact of the matter is that Sound Labs have notable advantages over the Acoustat's that allow them to perform with relative ease, notably in the bass regions; they perform better not because of any local technician building them, but because of better engineering practices. The reasons reside in the constant evolution of their design, the engineering principles, and finally the execution. Sound Labs utilize smaller panels, each hand made to exacting tolerances. The reason for these small panels is to reduce mass and structure-borne resonance. Each panel is crafted to offer the best transient response, working in unison to produce a wavefront large enough to offer low frequency extension. The long panels of the Acoustat Spectra 8800 cannot match the settling times, nor the essential freedom from resonance simply as a function of their dimensions.

Curved panels introduce a variety of problems. When Sanders designed for Martin Logan, he and I among others identified that the diaphragm would sag between the curved spacers. This had a profound effect on the transient response and cumulative spectral results, as the excursion of the diaphragm was far from linear. The answer was to retain a flat panel where good transient impulse response and fast settling were primary performance constituents. It also helped in lowering harmonic distortion which, contrary to popular brief, actually plagues electrostatics at low frequencies. The problem with flat panels was that their collective radiation planes produced a beaming polar response, making it hard for listeners to hear all the treble information when they were seated off axis. Sound Lab curtailed this problem but using neither flat panels, nor curved panels. Instead flat panels arranged in a curved pattern. Today, this represents the best possible implementation of the panel topologies. It allows the panels to be ideally shaped, the collective speaker to be as large as needed, and the polar response to be less like conventional panels and instead comparable to that of electrodynamic coil drivers - wide and heard from all angles, and close to the sound of a real acoustic event.

The Acoustat's are not bad at all, but they are a product of the past and the limited understanding of diaphragm resonance, on part of Dr. Strictland's original design team. The computer modelling was not feasible at the time that we have now, and it's quite easy to model panels before they go into testing and production. Acoustat stuck to long panels with dimensions that not only harbor modes, but actually introduce them. These show up in the transfer magnitude graphs as sharp peaks and dips. When performing an impulse response test on the Accoustat's, you'll notice they initially settle quite well, but them the delayed reflections from the panel edges return to the center. At certain frequencies, the coincidence of these reflections induce modes and cancellations. The result is both slight coloration induced by the energy storage and deviation from a linear frequency response. What is important is to view an unweighted frequency response measurement, as heavy weighting and windowing will obscure the results and hide the flaws that exist. most panel speakers demonstrate this behavioral trait.

Many of the people who are rebuilding these Acoustat panel speakers do not have a background in loudspeaker design, nor product development. I know who Josclyne from Quebec is, and while he has the initiative to go forth and rebuild these speakers, so do many others. The inherent problem in their methods is that they do not have a suitable engineering background to devise any improvements that offer tangible performance beyond the obvious. Along with this, they do not have the proper testing apparatus and environment to provide their customers with reliable data regarding the alterations. This quintessential scenario is not unlike one bringing his car to a shop for modifications to try and make it a track car. A bigger engine and stronger gear-train will improve performance, but that is not engineering, nor advancement. It is highly predicable that reinforcing the frame will reduce sway and vibration, but it fails to identify the underlying causes. Because of this, it is not really a cumulative solution.

On the other hand, Sound Lab employs the equipment needed to idealize their product before it reaches the market. It is a family business, with even the wife and children taking part in the construction affairs. The values and sizing were not random, but the product of the evolution of panel speaker design. They have the capitol to fully test their product so that it meets the most discerning standards. The only ones that none of their scientific mediums can satisfy are, or course, those of bias, pandery, and blatant misinformation just as we find on the internet today.

images
Firstly, do you have any affiliation with Sound Lab of which you speak so highly?

What about segmentet panels (like in the Spectra's but with slimmer treble segment)?

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that stabilizing the frame is not a worthwhile modification?
Thank you for your reply. I have no affiliation with Sound Lab. The praise for Sound Lab is simply given where it's deserved, in the context that good engineering is realized in their designs. Some of the best designers were the ones who's names never made the audio magazines. Typically, we only read of the owner. To answer your question on the topic of the Acoustat Spectra's thinner panels, the problems around radiating plane resonance are inherent to the dimensions, shapes, and materials. Long panels will form resonant systems as a function of their equivalent corresponding wavelengths, and the propagation velocity of the diaphragm material. BoPET and similar material have a very low horizontal and longitudinal propagation velocity, partially accounting for the limited upper-end frequency response of electrostatic loudspeakers. The rest comes down to the ESL's equivalent of breakup. What Sound Lab did was employ smaller panels move the resonances upwards and out of band, above the natural Fo of the panel's material.

I am a little surprised that you were unsure in the last question, as I thought it was rather transparent. However, this is the internet and it is possible to misconvey ideas and information. What I was referring to was that adding mass and reinforcing the frames partially alleviates the structural issues found among the Acoustat models, but it fails to pertinently address the actual cause thereof. In such cases, new artifacts are traded for the reductions of the old. Only when the cause of the effect is accounted for can the behavior be mitigated or properly controlled. In essence, it is like having a hole in a tire. The driver can use a can of seal-it sprayed into the nipple, but the hole is still there. While the tire may hold air, it has been structurally compromised and its integrity is still in question. In this way, it is not a maximally effective solution.

Another example can be given by the design of box speakers. Here, I disambiguate box speakers from the larger variety of enclosure methods simple as a matter of explanations. A horn, tapered transmission line, cad contoured enclosure, open baffle and so forth is not a box, nor does it behave as such, nor does it sound as such. In any case, the dimensions of an unnamed box type speaker have profound effects on its cumulative performance. Not only because of how the front wave propagates around the outside and how the baffle and surfaces profound boundary support for the drivers being used; and not only because of how the inside dimensions also provide an environment for modes, standing waves, and echoes of the initial events, if they are not properly addressed. The shape of a box speaker introduces surface-borne resonance because the dimensions can support them. The inertia of the driver, the sound wave striking the inside and out, and the raw variations in static pressure can set the surfaces in motion. Most designer's methods for reducing the energy storage involves adding more material, or arbitrarily bracing the inside. The problem is that it does not address the cause. The material's properties and the dimensions account for its resonance. Other factors follow suit. By carefully modelling and choosing the dimensions for testing, the effects can be aligned to cancel problematic characteristics. We don't get this from 99% of people rebuilding speakers. Among other things, that leaves me questioning why people hail them in an almost religious fashion and are willing to drop thousands of dollars on them. I appreciate good work, but it can be done better. Our eyes have to remain open to see this.

Many times, we see very heavy cabinets among large horn-based or floorstanding speakers. The walls are braced and very thick. Adding more material is the rudimentary means by which to reduce structure modes, and it works to a point, but it fails to identify the origin. When the origin is modeled and measured, it is then better understood. That data can be used to form a very, very rigid and damped box that weighs less, induces less loss, and provides more internal volume. From there fluid dynamic modeling can be applied to prevent cone breakup as the result of pressure variations over different portions of the radiating plane. This is a smarter solution, and it also applies to panel speaker design. When an engineer knows what the panel wants to do before he builds it, there is far less correcting to do later. When he also knows what the frame wants to do, he can design it to superimpose its own distortion mechanism back upon itself. This is not being done because most people do not have the knowledge, equipment, environment and engineering experience to know where to sink the first anchor.

People can choose not to accept that a 20 to 40 year old speaker is just that, a product of the time, but they only fool themselves. The underlying problem herein is that re-builders are following the footsteps of past designs, and possibly even blindly accept their faults as though they didn't exist. An example of such may be given by the instances of those who talk about their very expensive "low distortion" speakers, which are actually quite distorted compared to others, or those who pretend that it's OK for an amplifier to have over 100 times more distortion than another because it was designed by X person. At best, that makes a weak case and only covers over the shortcomings of a designer who otherwise does not know what he is dealing with, nor how to correct the device's behavior. There was an older adage; If you can't fix it, tell people it's supposed to be that way. It ignores the reality and descriptive mechanisms of the device, its sound, and progression. People develop a love affair and have difficulty moving forward, and ignore the engineering facts, or lack thereof behind the design. That is not really progression. Not all designers are equal, nor are their designs.

This isn't to imply that adding weight and modifying a frame doesn't help, it's just that there is a better way to do it. Sound Lab, by all accounts, really took the initiative to get it as close to correct as feasible with more advanced technology and engineering, and in ways that Acoustat re-builders could have only hoped for. It's not meant to be rude or anything like that, it's just the way it works out. That might be more than some people want to hear, while others will be open minded and are enlightened to advancements.
 
Last edited:
The praise for Sound Lab is simply given where it's deserved, in the context that good engineering is realized in their designs...

People can choose not to accept that a 20 to 40 year old speaker is just that, a product of the time, but they only fool themselves. The underlying problem herein is that re-builders are following the footsteps of past designs, and possibly even blindly accept their faults as though they didn't exist...

This isn't to imply that adding weight and modifying a frame doesn't help, it's just that there is a better way to do it. Sound Lab, by all accounts, really took the initiative to get it as close to correct as feasible with more advanced technology and engineering, and in ways that Acoustat re-builders could have only hoped for. It's not meant to be rude or anything like that, it's just the way it works out. That might be more than some people want to hear, while others will be open minded and are enlightened to advancements.
You cannot find a more long term proponent than I about Acoustats. I heard them in '76 when Bob Rieman and Jim Strickland flew to Atlanta with a pair of the model X for John Cooledge (JWC) of The Absolute Sound to review. As a long term friend of the good doctor (and long term bass in the Atlanta Symphony Chorus) who introduced me to electrostats with his Dayton-Wrights, I was thoroughly blown away by the experience of meeting those gentlemen and hearing the speaker. Also present was Julian Scharfman, an audio dealer who I worked part time for who picked up the line on the spot to supplement Dayton-Wrights. I purchased my pair of the model X in 1977. I updated those to Monitor 4s in '78 or so and eventually replaced them with 2+2s when they were introduced in 1982. I currently have a pair of 1+1s modified by former Acoustat employee Roy Esposito.

Having said that, I find Sound Lab U-1s (Toroid II, Hot Rodded) superior in terms of imaging and tonal neutrality. It doesn't matter how many pounds you add to the frame holding an Acoustat panel as to its directivity. The wide range uniform directivity of the multi-faceted SL panels eliminates the head-in-a-vise characteristic of the first gen Acoustats. I heard a pair of Spectra 6600s, but limiting the HF to a narrow strip of one panel really doesn't address off axis performance very much.

I continue to enjoy the 1+1s in my garage system. Especially with the upgraded components and "air" mod (independent of speculation about them). On the other hand, the U-1s offer a different experience altogether. Especially when you're off axis.
 
This isn't to imply that adding weight and modifying a frame doesn't help, it's just that there is a better way to do it. Sound Lab, by all accounts, really took the initiative to get it as close to correct as feasible with more advanced technology and engineering, and in ways that Acoustat re-builders could have only hoped for. It's not meant to be rude or anything like that, it's just the way it works out. That might be more than some people want to hear, while others will be open minded and are enlightened to advancements.

If it's one thing I've learned while studying speaker design and the physics of sound it's that every speaker is a compromise, a result of weighting in different preferences of the designer. Some factors that are considered are cost, physical size, max SPL, distortion, dispersion, sensitivity (and there are probably many more).

The Sound Lab speakers are no different. For example by placing the panels in a convex, curved shape they sacrifice some sound quality in the sweet spot for a wider horizontal dispersion compared to a flat shape. Of course, you may be correct about the resonances in the Acoustat panels but you haven't really presented any proof in the form of measurements or simulations/calculations. And even if you do, it's always a question about what the audible benefits and the disadvantages would be of alternative designs that solves or reduces the problem.

IMHO used Acoustat panels are a total bargain (mine cost about 1/40th of a new Sound Lab speaker), and that's why I use them in my DIY system. Not saying I wouldn't prefer a Sound Lab speaker sound wise (I haven't heard them), but they are way of over my budget and too big for my room. So if there is something I can do to improve the performance of my system with reasonable effort and cost (like reinforcing the frame to reduce resonance), I'll consider doing it.
 
The Sound Lab speakers are no different. For example by placing the panels in a convex, curved shape they sacrifice some sound quality in the sweet spot for a wider horizontal dispersion compared to a flat shape. ..(I haven't heard them)
That simply isn't true. I own and enjoy both.

"Sacrifice some sound quality in the sweet spot"? On axis is best, but on my three person couch, everyone gets a good image.
 
If it's one thing I've learned while studying speaker design and the physics of sound it's that every speaker is a compromise, a result of weighting in different preferences of the designer. Some factors that are considered are cost, physical size, max SPL, distortion, dispersion, sensitivity (and there are probably many more).

The Sound Lab speakers are no different. For example by placing the panels in a convex, curved shape they sacrifice some sound quality in the sweet spot for a wider horizontal dispersion compared to a flat shape. Of course, you may be correct about the resonances in the Acoustat panels but you haven't really presented any proof in the form of measurements or simulations/calculations. And even if you do, it's always a question about what the audible benefits and the disadvantages would be of alternative designs that solves or reduces the problem.

IMHO used Acoustat panels are a total bargain (mine cost about 1/40th of a new Sound Lab speaker), and that's why I use them in my DIY system. Not saying I wouldn't prefer a Sound Lab speaker sound wise (I haven't heard them), but they are way of over my budget and too big for my room. So if there is something I can do to improve the performance of my system with reasonable effort and cost (like reinforcing the frame to reduce resonance), I'll consider doing it.

+1 For me also it as always been best bang for the buck, original cost for my 1+1s after all mods & steel frame& transport just about 3k i have yet to find anything that i would trade them for less than 10k the only speaker for ME that came close was the Audio Exklusiv P3.1 at 16k and i did say came close, the Sound Labs are great speakers but they are way over my budget, dollar for dollar still the best bargain in audio.:):):)
 
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
...the Sound Labs are great speakers but they are way over my budget, dollar for dollar still the best bargain in audio.
No debate there. I have only a grand in my Esposito modified 1+1s with new spandex socks. :)

What I find amazing is their sound at distance. As a line source, the sound quality and resolution doesn't diminish as much. Here's a shot of my 1+1s from the neighbor's driveway. Everything is perfectly clear:
 
Last edited: