I'm still perplex.
And we ARE a civilised group here, I've been around long enough to know -- but I think the speaker presentation took a wrong turn s/where, despite Sellerwithintegrity's kind efforts:
Steved and Planar make excellent points about Qts and comb filter effects... and so have others.
I just still fail to see the "revolution"...
Not to say that this speaker will not sound spectacular; I LOVE dipoles, anyway. So does Steved, by the way:)
From the info gleamed from Sellerwithintegrity's posts and the pictures, and with all due respect, this *looks* like (no more than) a good passive dipole construction with a wide-band line source , & a point source array for the lower freq. -- passed @ the limit of 2pi radiation of the baffle??
However and IMO there is a lot of merit in designing a dipole with passive equalisation...
Also, designing a top-notch dipole to a cost level, has merit too.
10mm of Xmax is very good; the choice of four (parallel?) woofs explains the compromise of small magnets (woofers with big magnets like, say, the Supravox 400: Xmax: 8mm/qts ~0,4 /magnet +1,5T, cost over $600 EACH -- not the stuff for commercial offerings).
As to how they manage to have 4 high Q woofs outputting "clear" and fast sound to integrate with the low mass magnet ribbon, is a secret probably hidden in the xover Sellerwithintegrity refers to.
There's merit in that too.
The baffle shape is a quarter "heart" (hearts are reputedly excellent for dipole operation -- but think of universal waf with a heart-shaped speaker!)
So, that has been carefully thought out too.
What about the high frequencies -- over 18kHz (they're useful too)? I think that the addition of a tweet on that baffle would create, at least, phase and/or gp delay complications and filtering/equalisation difficulties. Also it wouldn't look as good (and deafen the beautifully engineered centre channel).
As Sean once wrote, I have trouble making my posts brief...
But here it is. What's the bottom line (i.e. the caboodle) for the B&G-like ribbon, the four woofs, the filter and, most of all, the hours and toil that went into finalising the design???
And we ARE a civilised group here, I've been around long enough to know -- but I think the speaker presentation took a wrong turn s/where, despite Sellerwithintegrity's kind efforts:
Steved and Planar make excellent points about Qts and comb filter effects... and so have others.
I just still fail to see the "revolution"...
Not to say that this speaker will not sound spectacular; I LOVE dipoles, anyway. So does Steved, by the way:)
From the info gleamed from Sellerwithintegrity's posts and the pictures, and with all due respect, this *looks* like (no more than) a good passive dipole construction with a wide-band line source , & a point source array for the lower freq. -- passed @ the limit of 2pi radiation of the baffle??
However and IMO there is a lot of merit in designing a dipole with passive equalisation...
Also, designing a top-notch dipole to a cost level, has merit too.
10mm of Xmax is very good; the choice of four (parallel?) woofs explains the compromise of small magnets (woofers with big magnets like, say, the Supravox 400: Xmax: 8mm/qts ~0,4 /magnet +1,5T, cost over $600 EACH -- not the stuff for commercial offerings).
As to how they manage to have 4 high Q woofs outputting "clear" and fast sound to integrate with the low mass magnet ribbon, is a secret probably hidden in the xover Sellerwithintegrity refers to.
There's merit in that too.
The baffle shape is a quarter "heart" (hearts are reputedly excellent for dipole operation -- but think of universal waf with a heart-shaped speaker!)
So, that has been carefully thought out too.
What about the high frequencies -- over 18kHz (they're useful too)? I think that the addition of a tweet on that baffle would create, at least, phase and/or gp delay complications and filtering/equalisation difficulties. Also it wouldn't look as good (and deafen the beautifully engineered centre channel).
As Sean once wrote, I have trouble making my posts brief...
But here it is. What's the bottom line (i.e. the caboodle) for the B&G-like ribbon, the four woofs, the filter and, most of all, the hours and toil that went into finalising the design???