If I remember right, the last time I replied to this post my computer crashed midway into it. Doh!
Nathanm, Is your post a joke?
Nope.
The switch controls the output level of the tweeter and it is indeed audible which position it is in.
I know, but the audible result was very subtle to my ears. My opinion is that I tried it many ways and it didn't seem to matter much. But take into consideration that I was the only guy doing the switch and that get up\swap\sit down scenario can throw you off. With two guys on each side and my eyes closed whilst switching then sure, maybe.
Removing the switch makes the sound better (and this comes directly from Anthony Gallo).
That's fine, but does Anthony Gallo loan out his ears and brain to people?
You said they were removing the switch because people kept busting them off. It's a good idea: remove a part which saves some money, prevents tech support calls and then you just change the sales pitch to say that removing this switch makes it Sound Better!
I am not saying that's what they did in such a sneaky manner, but it would make sense. Actually most hifi is based on this principle; give people less and charge them more for it. Works for bikinis too.
All switches degrade the sound. I have not heard one that does not. And this is my direct experience having made preamps and passive preamps with switches and without.
That's fine for you. And my comment of
"Nope. Don't worry about it. That switch does next to nothing as is..." is a result of my direct experience of owning and listening to these speakers with the switches in one of three different positions. Heck, if I was worried about switches I would get even less satisfaction from music than I already do with this perverse gear lust. Heh!
So, if switches degrade the sound I assume they are distorting the signal in some way, correct? Then would you be able to build, let's say a fuzz pedal comprised solely of switches wired in series with no other parts, right? Adding degradation after degradation...would the distortion increase or maybe the volume would get quieter? This is a serious question. How many switches would it take before the sound was all crunchy?
The speaker has more issues than a simple switch IMO. Like a side-firing super-heavy coned woofer in a way small enclosure mated with the small mids\CDT tweeter combo. Personally I didn't like the integration of the drivers. The overall tonal balance wasn't floating my boat. An EQed auxillary amp 'option' tells me that the bass needs "fixing". That is my non-speaker designer, non-technical layman's opinion but I felt that they made a backwards step in going from the I and II to the III design. So why stop with the switch removal? Take out the two midrange drivers, the big woofer, the central pillar, stick in a Dynaudio midwoofer in a cool aluminum ball, plop a mostly-omnidirectional tweeter up top and bob's yer uncle!
I think they compromised a great design just because of WAF. I can't fault them for giving people what they want, but it's a shame nonetheless. Why domestic parnters would object to anodized aluminum balls on sleeky, curvy stands is something I don't quite get. Oh well...
The IIIs have a great sound, but the Solos are greater to my ears. Against a different speaker I probably would have a different view of the III, though. Most likely the frequency jaggies from the Solos were more appealing to me than the frequency jaggies from the IIIs as they bounced about my particular room. Many variables at stake of course, but a switch being the least of my concerns. If a company is going to give the user controls I personally feel they should really Do Something to the sound which doesn't require earnest concentration. Not something that is only audible to some people and not others. If the tweeter boost was variable or offered a coarser range I think that would be better. But removing it altogether is a good idea too. That poor little switch doesn't stand a chance against upwardly accelerating slabs of steel!
