Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Joe Roberts wrote:

Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations. The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right. Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

All my experiments with diffusers, screens, refractors whatever it might be called convinced me that it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation angles and widening of dispersion. It is ONLY about the specific attenuation at specific frequency. All those “in your face” feeling are cured not by widening of dispersion here and there and poetic take about acoustic lenses but juts running sound at fractions dB more or less at specific frequencies. What they do is matching the fixed character of Manger’s front radiation to the accidental and most likely very much not optimal sound Manger does from back. There is nothing wrong with it but it would be absolutely not necessary if the back horn would be loaded with own properly selected driver.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

It nothing to do with “single source”. The “single source” is absolutely idiotic concept that was a pure verbal invents of Moron who sell single-drivers speakers in the past and who made week peoples to feel that the “single source” is a meaningful trim.  The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

Joe Roberts wrote:

All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

I think diffuser is a brutal solution. I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary. The mind back chamber might (or might not) be one of the way to do it, it would also add some dB to the back loading the looks like needed in this design.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design …

You probably better shall not mention it as Loth X were absolutely idiotic in design and in sound. Knowing that your Korean flaks are satisfied with their Manger single driver it was not hard to predict where their formers audio experiences came from. Ah, was it Western Loch X Ness Electric?

Joe Roberts wrote:

I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front.

If course you do but this was exactly the point: not to “mess” but to trey make the NECESSARY impact. I did not say that it is easy but it more noble and more elegant, not to mention that it might help to the bass horn that always a plus.

Joe Roberts wrote:

The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best.

Apparently the Manger front radiation is NOT fine, particularly in context of the back horn. If it were fine the Silbatone would not create a federal case around the diffuser. It is so self-evident that it you need to deny it then you are self-delusional or too marketingly-academic.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site