Sorry Tomic,
Hate to disagree, but your arguements don’t hold water, an "aerodynamic" midrange driver will eliminate reflections off of the parallel surfaces behind the driver’s surface.
A tapered tube is designed to funnel the back wave energy away from the cone in the first place, by redirecting the rear wave into a transmission line loaded tube with different densities of stuffing material, this result would therfore would be much more effective then by just removing some reflective surface material behind the driver, without a mechanisim to redirect and disipate the back wave, you are not really accomplishing all that much however, it would still be an improvement over a driver that is not built to control the rear wave in some manner.
As per bonding a carbon skin to balsa that is why Richard got the patent, howerver, JM Labs and Thiel were bonding Fiberglass skins or metal diaphrams to light weight damped foam cores for years so again where really is the innovation in that? Is Balsa and Carbon fiber better than a Fiberlgass sheet over foam or is that marketing hype? Can you prove that claim?
Unless you actually measure the different bonded drivers ie a Focal vs a Vandy driver you really don’t know one is which is better in terms of the drivers response and less risidual coloration.
What started this is someone claiming "revolutionary" we are refuting that by saying that there are other engineers who created composite core/cone diaphrams earlier. Which one is better is open to conjucture.
Considering that Vandersteen is the only one to use this cone vs Focal who uses their own, the world won’t really know.
Tomic you could also conjucture if you built a diaphram that was inherently light and stiff and self damped you wouldn’t need to try to bond materials together, wouldn’t it be great if that diaphram woud exisit.
I guess you might want to look at Magico or YG or Rockport’s diaphrams or Kef or Paradigm or Vivid.
I guess a company that could spend $4 million dollars developing all their own drivers wouldn’t have access to any and every state of the art measuring device know to man both Kef and Paradigm as well as B&W have state of the art research labs do you honestly think that their cones aren’t perfectly pistonic?
Please keep drinking the coolaid. The 7s are very nice speakers if you love yours that is great, personally if I was going to spend $70k on a set of speakers I would buy a set of Vivid G1 any day of the week, but I guess Lawrence Dickie ins’t a loudspeaker genius as well.
By the way we are not Vivid dealers, so we got no skin in that game.
Good night to you, and go listen to a set of G1 and lets talk.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
Hate to disagree, but your arguements don’t hold water, an "aerodynamic" midrange driver will eliminate reflections off of the parallel surfaces behind the driver’s surface.
A tapered tube is designed to funnel the back wave energy away from the cone in the first place, by redirecting the rear wave into a transmission line loaded tube with different densities of stuffing material, this result would therfore would be much more effective then by just removing some reflective surface material behind the driver, without a mechanisim to redirect and disipate the back wave, you are not really accomplishing all that much however, it would still be an improvement over a driver that is not built to control the rear wave in some manner.
As per bonding a carbon skin to balsa that is why Richard got the patent, howerver, JM Labs and Thiel were bonding Fiberglass skins or metal diaphrams to light weight damped foam cores for years so again where really is the innovation in that? Is Balsa and Carbon fiber better than a Fiberlgass sheet over foam or is that marketing hype? Can you prove that claim?
Unless you actually measure the different bonded drivers ie a Focal vs a Vandy driver you really don’t know one is which is better in terms of the drivers response and less risidual coloration.
What started this is someone claiming "revolutionary" we are refuting that by saying that there are other engineers who created composite core/cone diaphrams earlier. Which one is better is open to conjucture.
Considering that Vandersteen is the only one to use this cone vs Focal who uses their own, the world won’t really know.
Tomic you could also conjucture if you built a diaphram that was inherently light and stiff and self damped you wouldn’t need to try to bond materials together, wouldn’t it be great if that diaphram woud exisit.
I guess you might want to look at Magico or YG or Rockport’s diaphrams or Kef or Paradigm or Vivid.
I guess a company that could spend $4 million dollars developing all their own drivers wouldn’t have access to any and every state of the art measuring device know to man both Kef and Paradigm as well as B&W have state of the art research labs do you honestly think that their cones aren’t perfectly pistonic?
Please keep drinking the coolaid. The 7s are very nice speakers if you love yours that is great, personally if I was going to spend $70k on a set of speakers I would buy a set of Vivid G1 any day of the week, but I guess Lawrence Dickie ins’t a loudspeaker genius as well.
By the way we are not Vivid dealers, so we got no skin in that game.
Good night to you, and go listen to a set of G1 and lets talk.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ