With the shorter/smaller coil, power handling/thermal limts are more of an issue in today's market of cheap amplifier power where people just want to throw more and more power at their speakers. All of that means, that with the sheer cost of steel rising, and our products being machined here in the USA and USA steel, it would be very costly. The market is also very power to price association driven, meaning most people perceive the price to be dictated by the power handling.
For example, we know that a sub woofer that has the power handling of an SSA Gcon, but the price tag of an SSA Xcon, is not going to sell very well at all. We could lather it up in snake oil and BS to magically justify the cost through markeneering, but that is not the way we do things.
Yes, there will be a potential for small improvements on the THD and inductance over a comparatively perceived overhung model, but not enough to make the money work. We do not have a big kitty of cash to play with to try something like that at this time. The power handling could always be offset a little by going with a higher number of layers or slightly taller underhung coil, but that would cause a substantial jump in the top plate steel needs. The bigger the underhung coil, the bigger the gap, the bigger the top plate, the bigger the price, for moderate power handling gains. Hope that explains why the Gcon moved to an overhung design in our business model.
---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------