Ann: Performance Specifications, page-78

Thanks MattyE. I couldn't agree more concerning NiceOne's ongoing undermining of the AP speaker's capabilities by spreading Fear Uncertainty & Doubt. The intention behind such a strategy does not make enough sense to me.

The clarification of the comparability info is also most welcome.

The merit of the AP MEMS system may not be fully apparent unless one grasps how different it is to typical speakers. As the AP speaker does not generate sound by the oscilating membrane of a typical loudspeaker it does not need to draw as much power to make the same amount of sound. Making a big sound means the membrane has to be damped as well as driven, all consuming energy. This is the meaning of the sensitivity figure: the boom per watt, if you like. This seems to be one area those versed in traditional speaker tech may find most difficult to get. The AP speaker not only gets more sound out of less power, it also gets better spread of frequencies without distortion from each element than membrane speakers can. Thus AP MEMS eliminates the need for different sized speakers for different frequency ranges. For these reasons the typical "figures of merit" of the old tech do not translate quite as well into the MEMS tech.

If you can get any more answers from your source please do so! One of the key questions is whether the finished chip or even the prototyped sub-assemblies have actually played full spectrum music acceptably well against the expected performance specs. It is one thing to know that it can play music - we have heard one chip doing so in the early demo's - but how does an array of chips sound? I.e. as against the spec of the "theoretical arrays" of 4,8,16, 64 chips mentioned in the graphs? This is NiceOne's continual criticism: that it won't perform as well as a traditional speaker. I'm confident that it will from the theory, but it would be great to hear that confirmed.