I’d be interested in seeing FR graphs for the various wall mounted speakers especially the new on-wall since they deviate the most from the basic standalone design. Especially interesting would be to see a anechoic plot compared to a on-wall plot to compare.

My interest is more than academic as I’m looking to buy something to replace my M22s in the back so I can move them back up front as wides. An on wall M2 or M22 might fit the bill since the shelf I was planning to build to set a normal speaker on would be right up against the wall anyway.

I wonder what the criteria would be to anechoically test an on-wall speaker. I mean, since it is designed as an on-wall application, do you test it in the chambre with a section of wall? how big an area? how thick? what material?

Alan!!!

Inaccurate information is inaccurate information, regardless of the sourcing or whether it is presented as a fact or not. I didn't say they were flat out wrong, just that some parts of the article were inaccurate--which they are.

Like what? I can't seem to find any inaccurate information.

The examples I cited are inaccurate in the article. I think we have a basic disagreement over what "inaccurate" means, which probably means that we're in Congress or something.

So there is a caveat at the beginning of the "first look" article that the author does not have all the complete spec/design information on the product at this time but goes to lengths to talk about all the different design possibilites the product "could" have when it hits the market. How is this inaccurate? LOL

Inaccurate data is inaccurate data whether or not it says it might be inaccurate.

I know there is a protocol for it. Not sure of the specifics of the build of the wall, but it's probably to contribute as little as possible to the FR of the speaker. The test is referred to as π anechoic, where as the normal test is 2π anechoic. That's because pi (π) radians is 180°.

This article is the case of incomplete information not inaccurate information. There is a distinction. You obviously have complete information. The article is speculating on the design options the product can take based on the information they have or are given during the period when the article was written. The only thing that can be considered as inaccurate information in that article is the picture of the power bracket that will be used for the On-Wall M2/M3/M22 versions since they even stated in the article that they were aware changes had been made to the design since the M0 review.

Why on earth are we arguing about this?