@AsciLab I love the science-based approach to speaker design and you all have done a fantastic job here. A few thoughts on the current naming convention (C6B, F6B, S6C, etc.) that might help these products reach more people.
I understand the desire to buck industry trends, but there's a reason most consumer brands use tiered naming - it works. Whether it's BMW (3, 5, 7 Series), KEF (Reference > R > Q), or Apple (Pro > Standard > SE), customers instantly understand the hierarchy without needing a decoder ring.
The current system requires customers to memorize that S=Signature Purifi, C=Ceramic-Aluminum, F=Fiber, etc. before they can even begin comparing options. More importantly, why should a customer care whether it's fiber or ceramic? Without significant technical knowledge, these material differences are meaningless. The average buyer wants to know "is this better?" not "what's it made of?" - and the current naming forces them to research driver materials just to understand the product hierarchy. And, who is Purifi and why should I care?
Consider something like:
AsciLab Signature (current S-line)
AsciLab Caliber (current C-line)
AsciLab Foundation (current F-line)
Then you can give numbering to different models--though whether you tie it to woofer size is something that I think could be up for debate.
Technical details belong in spec sheets where enthusiasts can dive deep. But product names should communicate value proposition, not construction details.
The engineering is world-class. Let's make sure the naming doesn't get in the way of people discovering it!
