High End Vienna 2026 had no shortage of ambitious loudspeakers, six-figure electronics, and systems designed to remind everyone that “affordable high-end” is still a phrase the industry says with a straight face, but is sometimes subject to interpretation. But the ESD Acoustic Super Dragon was operating in its own category. This was not a large horn system. This was a room-dominating, field-coil sporting, Class A powered, carbon fiber, multi-way monument to what happens when subtlety is escorted from the building, dumped on Bruno-Kreisky-Platz, and told to take the U-Bahn home. “Fahrscheine, bitte!”

We had a chance to experience the Super Dragon system for our first time at the show, where ESD Acoustic staged one of the most technically extreme demonstrations at High End Vienna. The company also held an official “Super Dragon Technical Exchange + Deep Dive” press event during the show, which was appropriate, because this was not the kind of system one explains with a brochure. You need measurements, diagrams, floor reinforcement, and possibly a municipal permit.

The Super Dragon is built around a field-coil horn architecture using ten field-coil driver units, large carbon-fiber horns, Truextent beryllium diaphragms for the midrange, tweeter, and super tweeter sections, and titanium sandwich diaphragms for bass, sub-bass, and subwoofer duties. It is not a conventional passive loudspeaker blown up to absurd scale. It is a five-plus-one-way active horn system using an analog active crossover, allowing dedicated Class A amplifiers to drive individual sections directly (amps are included with purchase).

That design choice matters. The Super Dragon’s drama is not only visual, although ignoring the visual part would require a better pair of glasses. The system’s frequency response range is specified from 18 Hz to 52 kHz, with 112 dB sensitivity and crossover points at 100 Hz, 500 Hz, 2 kHz, and 8 kHz. In terms of weight, the main speaker enclosure alone is listed at 1,190 kg (2,623.5 pounds), with the subwoofer section at 442 kg (974 pounds) and the sub-bass section at 990 kg (2182.6 pounds). So yeah, that’s over 5,700 pounds of speaker gear. Apartment dwellers need not apply.

You may need to ask a few friends and the dealer to spend the day setting this up at home. You know… In your auditorium.

The Super Dragon’s driver layout includes a massive subwoofer horn covering the lowest frequencies, a low-range carbon-fiber horn, midrange and high-frequency horn sections, and a dedicated tweeter/super tweeter array. ESD uses carbon fiber extensively in the horn assemblies to reduce resonance and control mass, while the powered field-coil motor system gives the company greater control over magnetic behavior than conventional permanent-magnet designs. If “field coil” rings a bell, it may be because that’s the design used by speaker designer extraordinaire Mr. Andrew Jones himself, in his recently introduced Troubadour speakers. But let’s get back to these horns.

The supporting equipment stack was also ESD’s own, rather than a random pile of trophy electronics dragged into the room for branding purposes. The published system configuration includes the CDT-1B CD transport, DA-1B DAC, DPA-1B preamplifier, DX-1B active analog crossover, D100W-1B monoblock amplifiers, DPC-1 center power supply, Kunlun equipment supports, and ESD’s Lion-series AES, balanced, speaker, and power cables.

The electronics are not afterthoughts. The CDT-1B transport uses a Philips CD-Pro2M mechanism and a separate power supply. The DA-1B DAC supports PCM up to 768 kHz/32-bit and DSD512. The DPA-1B preamp is fully balanced with a separate power supply, while the DX-1B active crossover uses interchangeable crossover cards and provides six balanced outputs per channel. The D100W-1B monoblock is a single-ended pure Class A amplifier rated at 20 watts peak (10 watts nominal) into 8 ohms. You get one amps of these per horn, so you won’t need to go amplifier shopping too.

Pricing is where things get both fascinating, if not slightly unhinged. ESD’s standard Dragon speaker package has been listed at roughly $1.05 million, with the full Dragon System listed as starting at around $1.53 million. The special Super Dragon configuration shown at High End Vienna 2026 with its custom lacquer finish was reported to cost more than $3.6 million. That’s quite a paint job.

But how did it sound? In a word: breathtaking. The system had no trouble filling the huge ballroom with powerful dynamic sound. The demo clips we heard were mostly orchestral pieces, and the system really did capture the dynamics of a live orchestra performance, from delicate oboe soloes to powerful strikes of the bass drum and tympanis. Soundstage was huge and dynamics were without parallel. These horns were made for playing music. And that’s just what they did.

Start rubbing that Powerball ticket on your friendly neighborhood leprechaun. And in the meantime, make sure there are no cracks in your foundation.

The Bottom Line

The ESD Acoustic Super Dragon was one of the most outrageous rooms at High End Vienna 2026, but not because it was merely expensive. Expensive is easy in high-end audio. The Super Dragon was outrageous because it was unapologetically engineered as a complete ecosystem, from source to crossover to amplification to horn-loaded transducers. It was massive, excessive, impractical, and impossible to ignore.

So yes, the price is ridiculous. The size is ridiculous. The logistics are ridiculous. But the system itself was no joke. It was ESD Acoustic making a very loud argument that extreme horn loudspeaker design still has room to evolve and they’re the ones who will push it forward.

Just make sure your listening room has its own zip code.

Related Reading:

Presented by F5

Enterprise AI teams have spent years solving for compute, securing GPU allocations, negotiating cloud capacity, and benchmarking training throughput. The assumption embedded in that work is that the path between storage and compute will keep up. In production, that assumption increasingly does not hold. Real traffic introduces latency spikes, network jitter, and node degradation that controlled benchmarks fail to capture, resulting in pipelines that perform well in the lab but stall in deployment. A growing response is AI data delivery, deploying an application delivery controller (ADC) or application delivery and security platform (ADSP) in front of storage as a resilient and secure control point.

“Provisioning solves for capacity but not for delivery, and that is where the constraint now hides,” says Hunter Smit, senior manager of product marketing at F5. “Enterprises buy enough GPUs and enough storage, then assume the path between them will keep up, but AI traffic is bursty, highly concurrent, and random in its reads in ways ordinary storage networking was never built to absorb.”

The production gap benchmarks don’t show

Standard benchmark methodology compounds the problem, says Paul Pindell, principal solutions architect for technology alliances at F5.

“Benchmark testing is usually built to produce the best possible performance or security result, not the most realistic one,” he says. “With S3, latency is a known factor in degrading performance, so meaningful testing has to introduce consistent latency into the path.”

Most benchmark environments never do that, which means the performance numbers enterprises rely on for infrastructure decisions are drawn from conditions that production systems will never replicate. To test this assumption, F5 and MinIO conducted throughput testing under degraded network conditions.

“What stood out was how quickly S3 throughput falls off once you introduce latency,” Pindell says. “Even modest latency takes a real bite out of it, and as latency climbs toward long-haul distances, the degradation gets severe.”

The testing also showed latency mattered far more than jitter as a driver of throughput loss, which inverted what the team had expected going in. The upshot for enterprise architects is that S3 object storage deployments cannot be designed around clean-room assumptions; they have to be engineered for the degraded network conditions they will actually face.

The cost of fragile data paths

“In AI infrastructure, people naturally focus on GPUs because they’re the most visible and expensive resource,” says Tanu Mutreja, senior director of product management at F5. “But in production environments, GPUs generate only as much value as the data path that feeds them.”

That path runs through storage, networking, databases, security, and orchestration layers, often stitched together from multiple vendors. Customers experience none of those seams; they experience the output of the whole system.

When the data path degrades, the effects compound. GPU underutilization is the most immediate and visible symptom, but Mutreja pointed to a wider set of consequences: degraded inference performance, poor-quality AI outputs, higher egress costs from unnecessary data replication, and growing operational complexity.

“At scale, data-path efficiency becomes a strategic business lever rather than technical optimization,” she says. “When the data path is engineered well, GPUs remain productive, AI applications stay responsive and trustworthy, operations scale efficiently, and organizations maximize the return on their AI investments.”

AI workloads are structurally more exposed to these failures than traditional enterprise applications. Databases, ERP systems, and web services absorb transient storage delays through caching and buffering. AI workloads running across massively parallel GPU clusters have no equivalent protection. As Mutreja noted, even minor latency spikes or bandwidth bottlenecks can cascade across large GPU clusters, simultaneously hitting utilization, training efficiency, and the customer experience.

Treating the storage edge as a control point

For decades, storage and intelligence operated as sequential concerns in enterprise architecture: data was stored first, then analyzed downstream. Mutreja argued that this model no longer fits the demands of AI.

“Competitive advantage is determined not only by the volume of data, but also by relevance, lineage, security, and performant delivery of data,” she says. “Across the industry, from NVIDIA and AWS to enterprise storage providers, the movement is toward embedding intelligence directly into data infrastructure rather than stacking it on top.”

F5’s integration with MinIO instantiates this approach at the layer where storage and compute actually interact. As part of the F5 ADSP, BIG-IP sits in the data path, continuously monitoring the health of MinIO’s distributed storage nodes and directing requests only to those that remain available.

The operational impact of that capability becomes clear when nodes degrade, which is expected in distributed storage clusters. Without intelligent routing, clients that land on an unhealthy node must retry and may land on another degraded node, dragging down overall performance.

“F5 makes sure traffic only goes to healthy nodes, or even the least busy ones, so S3 client traffic is always processed in the most efficient way,” Pindell says.

Governance across distributed environments

The challenge grows at scale, when AI pipelines stretch across multiple locations, clouds, or edge environments.

“Once an AI pipeline crosses regions and clouds, the question stops being about performance and becomes about control,” Smit says. “You are operating under different rules in every jurisdiction, and digital sovereignty is now a design constraint. Where your data is allowed to live, who is permitted to touch it, and which borders it cannot cross now shapes the architecture before anyone talks about speed.”

That pressure is driving a visible trend of enterprises repatriating AI workloads from public cloud onto infrastructure they own and govern directly. The architecture Smit described resolves this by decoupling applications from any single storage location and placing a unified control point between them that enforces consistent policy across all of them.

“Sovereignty, resilience, and cost stop being trade-offs you manage one region at a time,” he explains. “They become a capability you run as a system.”

Storage-to-compute path as a managed control point

To solve for these issues, enterprise teams need to stop treating the storage-to-compute path as a direct connection and start treating it as a managed control point, Smit says. SecureIQLab’s independent validation of F5 BIG-IP in storage deployments has confirmed the approach delivers resilience without surrendering throughput.

“Insert a full-proxy ADC between the two, and the path becomes observable, programmable, and failure-aware, with health-based routing, quality of service, and security enforced inline,” he explains. “That single move converts data delivery from an assumption into an engineered discipline, which is what keeps GPUs fed when conditions degrade.”

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

It’s early days yet, but if you rely on vendors’ software for your RAID enclosure, you probably need to find out what their macOS 27 plans are.

We’ve had macOS 27 for all of four days at this point, and there may already be a show-stopping problem for folks that hang on to RAID enclosures. We’ve found several that just don’t work under macOS 27.

For example, I’ve got a Thunderbolt 3 LaCie 12Big enclosure that I’ve had for a while. It runs fine in Tahoe, on a Mac mini home server that I’ve had for years.

That LaCie 12Big doesn’t work at all in macOS 27. I’ve tried fresh installs of the software, different cabling, updating a Mac in place that it worked on in macOS 26, nothing works.

All of my dumb enclosures work and mount fine. SoftRAID as it stands now from OWC works fine in macOS 27 to set up a new array on those dumb enclosures.

This has happened before, of course. Talk to Drobo and Pegasus enclosure owners about when Apple changed how it handled device drivers a few years ago. It’s just worth mentioning that it’s happening again.

To get in front of this, I’m not talking about RAID arrays with DIP switches, other physical ways to configure the drives, arrays set up with Disk Utility, or Network Attached Storage devices. This is about vendors that sell enclosures that need special software to run on macOS.

Who’s at fault, and why is this happening?

I wish I had a good answer for you. Apple does like changing things, like how it’s done something with the boot selector in macOS 27. So there’s something there.

Also, macOS 27 also ships with no Intel code remaining, which could affect drivers compiled for Intel-only targets.. That may have something to do with it too.

Beta cycles are intended for developers to update their software to the new macOS. They exist for testing things like this.

But in our experience in the past, some things made by third party vendors get left behind.

Our advice as always stands. If you have mission critical hardware, this is not the time to try out the betas. And, if you’ve got enclosures that rely on older software, like my LaCie 12Big, it’s time to contact the vendor to see what’s going on.

And come up with a plan if there won’t be support in macOS 27.

It’s the latest case to raise alarms about ChatGPT’s lack of safeguards for suicidal behavior.

from the vampire-squid-strikes-again dept

To lose one speech-suppressing SLAPP suit may be regarded as thoughtless. To lose two looks like you’re a censorial hack.

Last month we wrote about how supposed “free speech warrior” Matt Taibbi (who spent years misrepresenting the work of people who study disinformation as inherently censorial, while getting pretty basic facts wrong) had lost his speech suppressing SLAPP suit against author Eoin Higgins. In that case, he argued that some rhetorically hyperbolic metaphors used on the book’s cover defamed him. The court pointed out that’s not at all how defamation works.

Taibbi, who also claimed he somehow had to sue to “protect free speech” (also not how it works) apparently wasn’t satisfied with just a single SLAPP suit. He also had sued congressional Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove in a separate action, claiming that her calling him a “serial sexual harasser” (and entering into the record two articles to support that claim) during a congressional hearing was defamation. If you’re interested, the two articles that were entered into the record were the Chicago Reader’s “Twenty years ago, in Moscow, Matt Taibbi was a misogynist asshole—and possibly worse” and the Washington Post’s “The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow.“

The hearing in question was yet another in a ridiculously long line of congressional hearings (multiple ones where Taibbi has appeared peddling nonsense) about the supposed “censorship industrial complex,” a mostly made-up concept pushed by political hacks trying to shield online trolls and bullies from ever facing consequences from private actors for breaking the clearly stated policies of online platforms.

Kamlager-Dove chose to question Taibbi’s credibility. You could argue she could have focused on the factual problems with his continued confused claims about how disinformation research and trust & safety work — but she went for the more salacious (and widely reported) claims about his time in Moscow from a few decades ago, along with a characterization that reads as a clear opinion based on disclosed facts, which (by definition) cannot be defamatory.

As you may be aware, things said in Congress tend to be protected by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. Taibbi’s lawyers claimed that because Kamlager-Dove reposted videos of her remarks on social media, that somehow took them outside the clause’s protection. For her part, Kamlager-Dove pointed to the Westfall Act which (as we’ve discussed in the past) allows the government itself to substitute in as a defendant in cases filed against government employees if the lawsuit was based on government work they were doing. In defamation cases, this is fatal: once the federal government substitutes itself in as defendant, the case collapses, because you simply can’t sue the federal government for defamation thanks to sovereign immunity.

Here, the case fails on those grounds exactly. Judge Evelyn Padin finds that the Westfall Act does apply, effectively dooming the case. Taibbi’s lawyers tried to argue that Kamlager-Dove’s statements weren’t part of her job as Congress… because her comments were “partisan communications” and were for “self-aggrandizement on Twitter” rather than serving her constituents. Except politicians making self-aggrandizing partisan communications is (unfortunately) part of their job these days.

Representative Kamlager-Dove’s Statements and republications, however, are precisely the kind of conduct that is “a central part of the job for members of Congress.”…. Indeed, a “primary obligation of a [m]ember of Congress in a representative democracy is to serve and respond to his or her constituents.” …. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee holding the Hearing. Representative Kamlager-Dove’s remarks mentioned “taxpayer time and resources” and “foreign policy” topics that are important to members of Congress and that are top-of-mind for their constituents….

Republishing the statements online does not change the analysis. Taibbi claims that the “republications on X, BlueSky, and [Representative Kamlager-Dove’s] website were not legislative work, [and] occurred outside the legislative setting.” …. But members of Congress routinely engage with the public on social media and on the internet as part of their jobs…. (“There is no meaningful difference between tweets and the other kinds of public communications between an elected official and their constituents that have been held to be within the scope-of-employment under the Westfall Act.”). As Taibbi concedes, Representative Kamlager-Dove was simply “talking to voters on Twitter.” …

Thus, while the judge doesn’t get a chance to dismiss the censorial SLAPP suit for being a censorial SLAPP suit, the court does make it pretty clear you can’t sue over this kind of thing.

Two SLAPP suits filed to silence critics. Both dismissed. This is a guy who built his recent brand on the Twitter Files and the “censorship industrial complex” — and who has been a key cog in helping the government suppress speech in the process. He’s now spent quite a lot of time trying to use the courts to shut people up for criticizing him — and failing at that, too.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, matt taibbi, slapp, slapp suit, sydney kamlager-dove, westfall act