Anyone familiar with the Manger driver?

Dear D-edwards,
I was really kicked about reading the projest you did 7 years ago.I too am thinking about a Manger based project but using the opposite path,utmost simplicity.A 400 cycle 1st order x-over using two Scanspeak 18W/8546-00 for the lower duties.
Would be nice to hear your opinion.
Sphere.

One thing I missed in my (incredibly long-winded) reply to D edwards -

You mentioned that the backwave energy generated by the SoundLabs is "maybe correlated maybe not correlated".

Excellent observation! When you wrote that, I hadn't yet posted much about diffusing the backwave energy. I believe it should be decorrelated as much as possible and diffusion is a simple way to do that. The ideal would be a broadband diffusor like an RPG panel, but a fake ficus tree is a good poor man's first approximation.

Duke

Duke,

What exactly would be the benefit to me in explaining my research to you?

and thanks for the apology.

Too bad we never met, Warner imaging and ATC both almost flew me to see you so you would "get it", how's that for a 'round about, people willing to spend money for me to educate you :)

isn't that funny!

Doug,

I didn't realize Warner Imaging was still in business. I used to be a dealer for Emil. Those were some very, very nice amps.

I was a dealer for ATC, and probably would be today if I hadn't started putting my nickels into my own speaker projects.

I'm still not sure how either of those companies or their products relates to what I objected to - namely, your statement that the backwave of a dipole is "100% distortion". Presenting the opposing view (and then subsequently defending it) is all I was trying to do, and obviously my skill at presenting an opposing view without it coming across as an attack needs some polishing.

I don't know you, nor anything about your research. What can you tell me, or can you point me to a website?

Thanks,

Duke

For clarity sake I think its important to note that I don't disagree with what Duke is stating other than how he is applying these theories to the subject as all encompassing explanations which is the only area I disagree. The deviation from ideal is where my point is defined, In the vacuum of the theorethical conditions Duke is correct as we know psychacoustics today.

The comment about the scale of image for example, the comment about "not being setup right" means that no fullrange Dipole system I have ever heard has been setup correctly. Because A dipole's cancellation isolates the rear wave into a distinct channel and this channel is always going to behave ideally which Duke's argeument hinges on. And its affect although pleasing still represents signal distortion as do reflections from other areas as you will find in all speakers. The inherent decoding problem of only using two speakers is another factor in this discussion and it is too complex to explain in short points. I have no motivation to write the 5000 words minimum to explain my position, only to have it picked apart for the sake of saying one's opinion about the clarity of a speaker.