Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloud...ll/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.
That's the price of progress , What I find most amazing is how the differences in the measurements of the two designs validate Hoffman's law, the Audio Note E sacrifices bass output of the original design to achieve 1.5dB increase in senstivity. That said, given the popularity of the speaker state-side, it would seem that Audio Note made the right call, afterall the reports from the California Audio Show have many listeners raving about it's transparency, tight and 'extended' bass. The whole episode speaks volumes about the inability of many seasoned audio enthusiasts to determine a neutral sounding speaker. I suppose folks should remember that the maxim goes "If it sounds good, it is good" rather than "If it sounds good, it is accurate and good".