@dawkinsj - yes, just followed Iron’s link right to TCC. Assume they forward sale, same as they do w/ Shunyata Research order. I usually wait a few days and call Casandra @ SR for the delivery schedule. SR cables are custom made and tested on each order.
Just more Internet forum nonsense which is sadly becoming more common here.
@Elk Perhaps a separate threat for factory tours? Here’s one I like.
They’re about 4 feet tall and not much more than a foot wide. The total speaker weight is about 175 pounds but because they are now in two cabinets (upper midbass/midrange/tweeters and a separate subwoofer cabinet with all the active electronics) each weighs in at about 80 pounds and each comes in a separate carton. This also means we can FedEx the entire speaker in its 5-boxes (the fifth is the side trim panels that attach via magnets).
Estimated retail between $15K and $20K and probably wind up somewhere in the middle.
Not much Nudell DNA in these anymore it seems…especially with no servo…
No servo? What? The “best” isn’t in the speaker? And it’s $8k more than expected. Shocker.
It seems servo isn’t always „the best“ practically , but just theoretically …in high end history there were several cases like this.
Exactly what I’m thinking. Price more than doubled. Now passive midbass couplers and no servo. As an old-time Infinity/Nudell fan, I was really interested in these. Now, a bit less…?
As for servo, maybe it’s not needed with modern woofers…? Most servo designs date back to the 80-90’s…woofers have definitely evolved since then, lower distortion, higher excursion etc…
1 Like
Are they implementing an underhung voice coil in the design?
Nothing in that area is firmed up yet. It’s about as Nudell as it gets, in fact. Planar ribbons for the kids and tweeters. Rear firing adjustable ribbon tweeter. Variable amplitude midbass coupler (something Arnie pioneered). Built in powered subwoofer. No
toe in off-axis design. 4-way system.
Not sure what isn’t a Nudell concept. Where we deviated is in the woofer section. Arnie loved cheap stamped frame woofers with wimpy magnets. It’s one of the reasons he went with servos. He an I bickered about that constantly.
Just hang in there as we get things sorted. I understand the temptation to judge these efforts on the skimpy info I am supplying and I apologize for the same. I have to be out the door in. A few minutes to do the show and I am trying my best to
commutate between the forums, emails, customer calls, running the company, and doing the show. 
7 Likes
Thank you Paul, would their depth be about 20 to 24"? Among all your work at RMAF, I hope you have fun.
Chas
I think they’re in the same envelope as the “original” AN3’s. To me they looked roughly 4 ft high by 12 - 14 inches wide. Gauging depth was trickier for me because of the glossy curved side panels, but around 20" plus or minus. The outrigger stands will add a bit of non-visual dimension.
Ya know Paul, if you’re really worried about it, send me a pair for Beta testing. I’d be more than happy to help out…
I thought one of the advantages of planar ribbons is, that they are less room critical by not radiating horizontally and vertically too much (even if this means a smaller sweet spot), so I wonder how a wide radiation horizontally for „no toe in“ is achieved and if it’s really positive (except for multiple listeners).
I perceived from previous posts, that servo‘s were also your absolute preference and quasi mandatory in your opinion so far for the new speakers. So a kind of strange move for the watchful reader but not alarming for those who know that there were always many ways to skin a cat 
1 Like
Forget Beta testing, let me the first to ask. Are there any kind soles out there that will buy me a pair? After all, my birthday is in 2 weeks.
Chas 
2 Likes
I suspect that Paul is sorta kinda busy today, so I’ll relay what he told me, which is that servo control was there mainly a way to eliminate distortion in the woofer caused by inertial overhang.
Chris’ new and improved woofer design turned out to be so robust and so low in distortion that adding servo control may actually be overkill (and, I’m inferring here, needless expense).
I should emphasize that Paul said that this is one of those “it remains to be determined” issues. Remember - this is the first experience the PS Audio crew will have installing the prototypes in an acoustic environment that is not one of their controlled listening environments They will learn a lot about what’s needed and what is not.
Feel free to start a factory for thread.
It’s not that things are changing in the product development process that’s surprising. It’s to be expected—and encouraged. It’s the certitude and adamant pronouncements that proceed the inevitable revisions in design and thinking. The goal posts move and a new statement of total confidence replaces the previous gospel without much of an explanation. Today is “the best of all possible worlds” only to be replaced by tomorrow’s best. It’s a strange Groundhog Day version of optimism or marketing or … As I mentioned after AXPONA, this could all be avoided with a slightly more humble approach to marketing communications. The statements along the way would be tempered by a dose of “we are new to this and we are learning as we go.”
5 Likes
My impression from the communicated opinion so far was rather “there is no proper bass reproduction possible without servo at all”. Not in terms of full range, not in terms off enough speed and not in terms of distortion handling. REL in my memory so far was mentioned as an unexplainable exception.
But I don’t want to complain about the change, it’s good for progress to change in time. Frequent changes and previous strongly differing claims just relativate credibility of statements, that’s all.
I think the ability to change from previous dogmas is in fact one of Paul’s strengths, even if the one or other struggles to keep track 
A lot of salesmen make their money with this approach
1 Like
Can’t we do without the dogma? Dogma 127.0 gets old.