You are incorrect. Go here: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=275-035

> So let me get this right, you can take me
> to task for some minor semantic violation of the Griffin paper

Uh, no, I didn't. I took you to task because you said that it can't be an array if it doesn't couple to the floor and celing. That's just silly.

> But in your next post you can ignore one of the substantial
> main tenets of the Griffin paper which involves the effect of
> vertical comb distortion by simply saying that you don't care.

I said I don't care because in my experience I haven't had a problem with it. My alignment causes a theoretical combing problem at slightly less than 10k. I have heard nulls when playing around with a frequency generator. I have never heard one when listening to music. YMMV for any number of reasons. But since these are my speakers and my ears, I don't care what you hear. I care only about what I hear.

> We sure wouldn't want the un-informed here to get the idea
> that we can ignore the comb filter distortion issue.

Of course we shouldn't ignore it. But it's a far more complex issue in practicality that simply using a simple calculation and proclaiming the results to be cast in stone. Griffin's paper discusses this very subject on page 13.

> Will you take the same level of responsiblity for your
> gaff for the newbies that you demand of me?

The only mistake I've made is arguing with a self-proclaimed expert who can't admit that he made a simple and dumb mistake in a definition, and who then offers lies and strawman arguments to defend himself.