[JLM]

Hey Gang,

What do you think of this one?

http://www.seelectronics.com/se-munro-egg-150

Yes, it’s a bi-amped active 2-way.  But the amps (made up of my old chip amp friends) are outside the cabinet and uses analog crossover (like we might do if building our own).

It’s the egg shape that I’m wondering about.  Yes, it’s a well rounded exterior to reduce diffraction/baffle step effects.  But inside we know that cubic/rectangular and especially spherical shapes lead to resonances.  So in your mind, does an egg shape make sense?

Anyone know about these drivers (made by Monacor)?

It seems that they’ve put considerable thought into this design and the reviews are very positive.  Like most speakers of this genre, it’s ported but reportedly it doesn’t smuck up the sound.  Not cheap as smaller active monitors go, but impressive bass output (depth/quality) from a small speaker.  And note the rated output (118 dB)!

[JohnR]

I worry about the egg shape too, it gives me nightmares (still)

[DS-21]

Yes, eggs make sense. Probably more than any other shape, except for the cost of doing them.

You should look up reviews of the old Waveform Mach-17, which was an egg-shaped mini monitor atop two 12" woofers with an active crossover.

At the time, it was (by a pretty big margin) Stereophile's cheapest "Class A" speaker.

But the output claims for these things are, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. Subtract 15dB...

[JLM]

Yes 118 dB seems wild (but it was rated both channels at 1 KHz, still...).  I certainly don't need 118 dB.  The woofers are rated 89 dB/w/m and 100 watt "music" (20 dBW), so two of them could reach peaks 112 dB at 1 meter

The information admits to high R&D time/cost, but the cabinets are made out of plastic so manufacturing cost should be reasonable (and the reviewers thought they represented good value).

I've heard the Mach 17, and frankly wasn't impressed by the bass (poorly controlled/muddy on acoustic bass) but the room was a bit squarish (although carefully treated), so who knows?