Anyone heard the MK III Innersound Eros??

I own the Eros MK-II also and according to Roger Sanders, sonically, there is little if any difference between the Mk-II and Mk-III versions. They both use the same crossover/amp but the cosmetics on the Mk-III seem a bit improved. The ESL panel has been updated for ease of manufacturing, but probably sounds about the same.

The Eros easily bests anything from Martin Logan up to 10G's or more. If you think about it all speakers have sweet spots and sound better in the center. I was listening to the Eros way off axis and even in the next room (while folding laundry) and it still sounded great.

I think the people who frown on this and other speakers for having a narrow sweet spot are really missing out on some terrific speakers. The Eros Mk-II and Mk-III models are not merely good competent speakers -- they are exceptional in my book, and unsurpassed in many aspects in my 30+ years as an audiophile. Set up correctly with good ancillary gear, they can provide a sonic illusion to die for.

Sunnyjim

You are right -- the sweetspot is narrow when compared to dynamic speakers. However, what you do hear when you are in the sweetspot is considerably better than what you would hear from the others. I considered it like this -- How often am really listening to music when I am not sitting in the sweetspot anyway? When I am up moving around with "background" music playing, I am not listening critically so it doesn't matter that the sweetspot is narrower than MLs or Quads.

The designer of the Inner-tube/Innersound tube amp has been using the Eros to voice this product.He has been using a passive crossover on the top-end {6db/oct.}and lowering the crossover point.Very large improvement.I am completely supportive of passive {Dahlquist DQ-LP1 style}crossovers for the upper frequencies.The active units introduce grain and glare,unless extremely expensive.The latest panels {MKII]are more dependable than the original.Good Luck!

The designer of the Inner-tube/Innersound tube amp has been using the Eros to voice this product.He has been using a passive crossover on the top-end {6db/oct.}and lowering the crossover point.Very large improvement.I am completely supportive of passive {Dahlquist DQ-LP1 style}crossovers for the upper frequencies.The active units introduce grain and glare,unless extremely expensive.The latest panels {MKII]are more dependable than the original.Good Luck!

Well, I have had a pair of the MK1's since they first came out. I am upgrading my panels to the MK3 panels this month. I will keep you posted on the upgrade and how it sounds. Regarding the speakers vs. other electrostatics and the beaming of the high end frequencies - the innersounds seamlessly blend the high and low end frequencies and have a quick tight bass - the ML's don't. I cannot vouch for soundlab's as I have not heard them. The Quads do a great job, but I do not think they have the bass capability of the Eros and, to my ear, sound a bit rolled off on the top end. The eros does have a narrow sweet spot - about two people wide, but this was a conscious design choice on the part of Roger - please read his white paper on the innersound web site - reduced room interaction from reflections = better clearer sound. But, as I always say, speakers are a matter of personal choice, so listen to them all. Lastly, can anyone update me on this tube amp being designed? Is this an innersound product on the horizon specifically designed to mate with the eros? If so, I'll be eagerly awaiting an audition.