Sirspeedy- I'm not sure it's overkill, I'm just wary of the cost-benefit.
Yr room treatment obviously addresses reflections (you mention "glare"). By adding a s-tweet you'll be adding HF sp on axis & (assuming a ~30degrees dispersion) and some reverberant sound as well (you'll effectively overcome part of the room treatment): so, you might perceive more "air" and HF harmonics will be more pronounced, even at low volumes. From yr description, you don't need a s-tweet for high volume listening.
This may be useful for cd as there typical response peters out after 10kHz or so -- the energy level falls.
TO put things plainly, the advantage of a s-tweet is that its response limit is so high up that the audible HF are well within its linear region. The disadvantage is that it won't play as low as a regular tweet... Most spkrs start dropping in room, around 10kHz or so, & a s-tweet will cover +10Khz easily (and that's audible).
Best thing would be to borrow one -- possible? Try at low AND high spl. Cheers
Yr room treatment obviously addresses reflections (you mention "glare"). By adding a s-tweet you'll be adding HF sp on axis & (assuming a ~30degrees dispersion) and some reverberant sound as well (you'll effectively overcome part of the room treatment): so, you might perceive more "air" and HF harmonics will be more pronounced, even at low volumes. From yr description, you don't need a s-tweet for high volume listening.
This may be useful for cd as there typical response peters out after 10kHz or so -- the energy level falls.
TO put things plainly, the advantage of a s-tweet is that its response limit is so high up that the audible HF are well within its linear region. The disadvantage is that it won't play as low as a regular tweet... Most spkrs start dropping in room, around 10kHz or so, & a s-tweet will cover +10Khz easily (and that's audible).
Best thing would be to borrow one -- possible? Try at low AND high spl. Cheers