No offense taken at all.

One of the lessons I have learned from my TL work is that there is no absolute definition for many speaker terms. People love absolute narrow definitions where they can look at some design and immediately apply a simple and obvious label to classify the design. Often the label also carries some implied measure of value or prestige. But the boundarys of these labels can become very fuzzy and things are not so clear. I guess I tend to work in this fuzzy boundary area.

The thing I find most interesting, reading some of the forums, is the strictness in the application and acceptance of these labels that some contributors use while constructing their systems. They only work in very narrow bands of acceptance. You get enough of these types gathered on a forum then the topics become very limited in scope and the new comers start to buy into the philosophy without even questioning or being aware of other options or opinions. It feeds on itself. Things have to be just a certain way or it cannot be any good by definition. An alternate view is met with utter disbelief, ridicule, and contempt.

Unfortunately, the full range purists are probably the best example of this behavior. The purists have very tight blinders on. But there are others. One of the other forums I read occasionally is totally focused on smaller two way bass reflex systems and crossovers. Raise an alternate topic and it is ignored. At an audio meeting I went to last year, the largest number of speaker systems being presented were smaller two way bass reflex designs with elaborate crossovers. Interesting for the first few and then ......

So I have decided no more strict definitions and labels. If it sounds good then its OK by me.

Martin