what are the thoughts of stand alone super tweeter

Mlsstl, my Acapellas extent supposedly to 30K, so there is overlap. But the Muratas play no music. You hear nothing that you would mistake as music on them when played alone. I participated in a demonstration at CES several years ago when I initially heard this. Martin Colloms whom I respect greatly is right in my previous experience with super tweeters. I always preferred the speakers without the super tweeters.

The Muratas worked well with the Lowther drivers in my Beauhorns which were rolling off above 14K Hz. When I got the Acapellas, I thought they would be of no use. Much to my surprise, they added greatly to the soundstage width and realism.

As always, I really don't care what the logic you and Martin state means if I hear otherwise. I know full-well the limits of our understandings.

I don't really disagree with you, I think your explanation fails to account for observations. I know from my science training that an explanation that fails to account for observations is a failed explanation whether or not it is broadly accepted.

Readers should do a search and read Tbg's posting history for a clearer picture of what misunderstanding means.

Chock full of them folks.

And they're funny, too.

My use of super tweeters is limited to a custom pair of Tonian Labs built for my Audio Note E SEC Silver speakers and a pair of Murata ES 103B. My experience with super tweeters is similar to what Tgb has communicated about the Muratas.

Readers should do a search and read Audiofool's posting history for a clearer picture of what little he contributes.

If he doesn't sell it, it is worthless.

He is juvenile also.

Don b, there were two pairs of speakers at the RMAF with Murata supertweeters in them. One was the Reference 3A Grand Veena, which always are among the best sounding rooms. I forget the other speaker's manufacturer.

My Doctoral research area was the History of Science , I also have a Graduate degree in Theology from the University of Chicago. I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about what constitutes an observation. Raw sense data is in no way an observation in a scientific sense. If you tell me that we have a product that 1. Plays no music and 2. Is inaudible and 3. In some inexplicable way makes the music better , I will say that you are in the realm of my other field, i.e., Religion, where belief in the power of unseen forces is prevalent. I am sure testimony such as yours would be admissible in witch trials but hardly in scientific enquiry. Your dismissal of Colloms would have been more convincing if you would have pointed out where he was wrong. You did bother to read the article didn't you?