Forgetting the price and the weight for a second,consider the fact that the relative size of the boxes is more or less the same size as it's cheaper full size speaker counter parts.Ah... one cannot cheat the law of physics.Also recall that Hartke had a 4x5 that flopped,Bag End(two and a half lifetimes ago)had a PA box with either 16 or 32 5s @ 970 watts rating and they dropped it from their line.SWR has now moved it's 8x8into custom order only.Ampeg dropped it's 8x8 and 6.5x8 also,as well as carlsboro(4x8)etc.etc.Anyone call up Ashdown lately and ask them if their 4x8 cab is still in production or how well they're selling?I think if any one company was going to introduce anything this radical Ampeg would have taken a shot at this arena and has more than met the challenge already.Outside of the three way cabs out there now,does one really need speakers this small?If so why not add a Bose system(801's,402's)or BagEnd's or Peavey's 2x6.5+horn to brighten up their sound.Philip Jones makes sense with increased motor area but since the bass comes from the back of the speaker not the front this is probly the reason for such a large box in relation to the speaker size.Dan Armstrong had a short dance with cerwin vega using tens in a suitcasecabinet that didn't take off either.We as bass players can't cheat the laws of physics however Bag End comes close with their Infra Sub and their small single 15(I don't want to sound like a commercial)The Ampeg Porta bass series is another great example of permissable cheating.As far as physics go,a single large driver moves a greater quantity(quarts of air)than multiple smaller drivers ie:a 10 has 55 of surface area a 15 has 130 surface area so almost 3x10= 1x15 etc.Obviously there are sonic differences and their respective trade off's.Sorry Phil great concept and I'm curious to hear them but the size and price is holding me back as I can't see any discernable net advantage to that over which is currently commerically available.
