Wasn't trying to start a catfight, here. Actually, from the response, whether you agree with it or not, sounds to me like Gary is the only one who understood and tried to answer the question. In fact, if I just read the specs and listened to Bose's description of the system (regular and compact), Gary's response is what I would have expected. I still don't understand why one would pick that particular system design for a component stereo PA. I think Diki was diki-ering all around the issue by introducing phrases like 'detailed (stereo) imaging' and 'point source' PA. That sounds like it's creeping closer to clearing up some of my confusion about the efficacy of using TWO of these mono-by-design, full range, full coverage systems to create the ultimate flexible, gig-friendly, STEREO PA.

Also, could someone speculate as to why Bose does not offer a STEREO version of this unique design? Could it be that Bose doesn't think STEREO is necessary with this design concept? Remember that old dance, the HUSTLE?

I was just thinking, what if we confused our desire for a FULLER sound with a (perceived) desire for STEREO. Could we end up spending premium bucks pursuing the wrong thing? Just wondering.

chas

"A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste"