Like anything else, one must pick their poison. Decreased off axis performance is one that Roger Sanders freely admits to. He consciously makes this design tradeoff. Every loudspeaker, or audio component, is a series of compromises, and every cognizant (as opposed to someone who does not understand what they are doing) audio designer makes the decisions he makes in the interest of producing the best product he possibly can. Roger is a refreshingly honest in his ability to provide a world of background on the topic, then cogently lay out why every decision he made along the way was done the way it was done.
I will take issue with Mrtennis' assertion above. Again, I would like to say that I was in the room during his audition of the loudspeaker at CES2008, and my own take on the situation is quite different than that which he lays forth...
My biggest problems with what Mrtennis puts forth are that he entered into the audition already convinced of what the loudspeakers did and did not do. My statement is based on what I felt was his jumping up in protest in literally less than one second into the playing of the music to complain about the poor integration of cone and electrostatic drivers he expressed in his post above. Prejudice in life results in the one who holds it being harmed in that they are unable to experience a situation for what it is. The Chinese proverb of emptying one's cup so they can taste the tea seems most apropos.
Instead of sitting back, and giving the speakers and the man the courtesy of a true audition, he then entered into a philosophical discussion with Roger, taking the tact of trying to teach the teacher, which, in my opinion, is always the very height of arrogance, combined with ignorance.
Once Roger then accepted Mrtennis' position as being what he honestly felt (which every person is entitled to - whether or not you agree with their opinion or how they arrived at it - hey, if he hears poor integration, OK), Mrtennis then began asking questions of whether this, that, and the other thing were feasible, possible, or practical.
The hypocrisy alone of this turn of events should not be lost on us, as one would not think that a rational person can go from having all the answers and being completely and totally unaccepting of the views their counterpart holds one minute, and then asking that same person along the lines of someone having no real confidence if certain things that the person clearly disagrees with can be accomplished the next. This is where the "ignorance" factor in the equation I just laid out shows itself.
To his credit as being a true professional, Roger engaged Mrtennis in this discussion, answering the questions in terms of both the objective as well as the tangible. As I laid out above, Roger understands this craft from A to Z, and that everything is a question of tradeoffs. So, in order to provide an answer to the yes/no question of can you build me a loudspeaker, he needed to ask Mrtennis to provide him with the parameters/requirements of that end product - in this case, a purely electrostatic loudspeaker.
For example, tell me how loud you want to listen and the lower limit frequency that you require. Based on that, I can tell you how much power you will need. Or, tell me how loud you listen and how much power you have, and I will tell you how low the speaker will go. In other words, provide me A and B in terms of the two things that you cannot give up, and I will give you my assurance of what C will be, all based on the laws of physics - at which point, you make a yes/no decision of me building it for you.
Mrtennis more or less refused to answer the question ala being utterly unable to provide Roger with two parameters that were most important to him, in that he was unwilling to accept any compromise of the third. He hopes for all three things to be achievable at the same time. We all know that one cannot have everything in this equation. Otherwise, how many of us would be basking in the glory our loudspeakers producing 20 Hz tones at our normal (for me, 90 - 95 dB) listening levels, driven by 2 wpc 45 SET amplification?
A few other wrinkles and tangents were a part of the discussion, but I feel I've painted enough of the picture already, and don't have to describe them here so as not to make what is already too long a post even longer.
Roger's judgement call is putting forth this design - it uses a 10 cone driver in a true TL bass alignment, driven by a 600 wpc solid state amplifier that he provides with the package - you drive the electrostatic panel above 360 Hz with the amplifier of your choosing. The one true statement that can be made is that Roger has done his best to produce the best loudspeaker he feels he can produce. If he felt he could improve upon it within the tools and technology without driving the cost beyond all sense, I can assure you, it would have already been done. Whether or not it is the right speaker for you is the question.
Personally, I feel that the speakers that Roger has put forth are one of the finest products available on the market, sonically. Do I hear poor driver integration in this product? Honestly, I do not. Am I sensitive to it in other products, and feel it is a topic worthy of discussion? Definitely. Is Mrtennis entitled to his opinion that he hears it in this product? Absolutely. Are these loudspeakers perfect? No, of course not. No loudspeaker is or probably ever will be.
Of course, there are two sides to every story. I wanted to lend my own perspective to in the interest of adding balance to folks who may read about the driver integration here enough times that it becomes accepted as truth, as opposed to an opinion. I have no financial stake or otherwise in Roger's business or relationships, but I will say that I hold him in the highest regard as a person and loudspeaker designer/builder, and what I am proud to say - a friend. Take whatever grain of salt in my commentary you wish based on all of that.
