I still feel that the dispersion pattern of the BMR can skew typical frequency response measurement. (Not that the posted graph is anything but good).
In this article frequency response and other speaker parameters are discussed.http://www.stereophile.com/content/m...t-three-page-3
This quote is interesting, although not as specific as I would like, but I'm time constrained at the moment.
'...Assessing the acoustic performance of big panel speakers is therefore an undertaking fraught with difficulty. Some years ago, for example, I had to measure a loudspeaker that had a small dome tweeter that radiated sound only in the forward direction, a large ribbon midrange unit that behaved as a dipole, and an omnidirectional woofer. Both the measured response and the perceived balance of this speaker varied according to how far away the listener and microphone were, rendering meaningless any discussion of this speaker's "frequency response." '
The point is that measuring the BMR, with its nearly hemispherical dispersion at higher frequencies, may be a subtler affair than with a more conventional speaker. I'm fairly certain that omnidirectional and dipole speakers are more difficult to assess with standard testing setups, and the same may apply to the Minx to some degree.
As to your point, Jeffrey, I'm not attributing blame to any specific party, but to a breakdown somewhere in the business chain. But CA is responsible for its choice of distributor, and needs to assess and exert that responsibility given that they are the "face" of CA here in the US.
Our British friend has his own critique, as you know.
But hey, I want them to succeed, and they need demos.