Romy, i hope this post doesn't offend your sensibilities.  I am not gonna say a word about the physics principles that have led me to the conclusion that this is something that should be tried ( unless you ask of course ). 

The idea i have is a speaker similar to your Macondo but with a few very important differences.  Instead of having having horns fire only forward i was thinking a second identical set of horns firing backward and electrically out of phase.  The ribbon tweeter would have a dipole design - i have developed a technology for such a ribbon:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/154887-plur-2-evolution.html

( or whatever.  Borat = Me.  i am banned from Diy Audio now as Borat as well, so i can't see which is the last thread i had on that technology, but it is all boring and besides the point.  the point is that it is possible to build an open back symmetrical-front-to-back ribbon ( suitable for dipole use ) which would actually have a superior field to regular ribbons which is closed at the back )

ok and finally instead of the sealed bass i would have a dipole bass.

now subjectively everybody who has heard dynamic dipole bass, that i know of, has liked it ( when it is powerful enough, that is when the module is big enough ).  i also haven't come across any feedback that would suggest that opening the back of a ribbon would make it sound worse. the only real questionable aspect here is adding a second set of back firing, inverted phase horns.  mathematically speaking it is what the design "needs" but of course the real question is - what does it sound like ?  that's why i have to ask - has anybody tried this ?

has anybody tried a horn speaker with second set of horns firing back ( in or out of phase ) ?

has anybody tried a horn speaker with a dipole bass section ?

Vasyachkin wrote:

the only real questionable aspect here is adding a second set of back firing, inverted phase horns.  mathematically speaking it is what the design "needs" but of course the real question is - what does it sound like ?  that's why i have to ask - has anybody tried this ? has anybody tried a horn speaker with second set of horns firing back ( in or out of phase ) ? has anybody tried a horn speaker with a dipole bass section ?

haralanov wrote:

Vasyachkin,in the context of your question, there is a very big difference between bass driver loaded with slow and fast expanding horn contours.

haralanov wrote:

The second thing that is not correct in your post - are you talking about low/midbass or upperbass drivers?

haralanov wrote:

Also have in mind that your FEMM simulation graphics have very little relevancy with reality when you construct your dipole ribbon tweetter magnet system. The result FEMM shows to you is only magnet lines in static condition and the things are quite different when your speaker motor "see" signal from your amplifier...

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not exactly understand what you are proposing at DiyAudio site.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I have generally an attitude against dipole radiation, and particularly in bass. There is a common believe among audio people that dipole bass has advances, there was a lot of said and written about it and there were many objective (perfectly verifiable) rationalizations brought to support this point of view.  I am familiar with all of them and I also hear a number of good dipole bass systems.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do feel that the people who support dipole bass are clueless and do not know what is important and what is irrelevant.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Their arguments that dipole bass is able to self-EQ the room’s modes sound laughable to me.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The dipole bass, with very characteristic water-down texture never was sounding right to me. This is one of the reasons why I never appreciate the open baffle designs….

Romy the Cat wrote:

In contrary, at higher frequencies dipole might work fine, but no in bass.

Romy the Cat wrote:

In contrary, at higher frequencies dipole might work fine, but no in bass. The Cat

el`Ol wrote:

IMO you can never get realistic imaging from dipole.

el`Ol wrote:

Here is a very detailed description of a dipole horn for the BG Neo 3. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/159731-beautiful-swingin-speaker.html

el`Ol wrote:

I simulated the Blur when you suggested it and I ended up with very low flux densities if it has to be linear.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Vasyachkin, to say honestly I do not think too much about dipole bass. What I head sounded unacceptable and it was unacceptable not by specific implementation but buy some common character that was characteristic to all dipoles I head.  Loose up some bolt on bass horn and let bass driver to radiate two ways. You will instantly feel hat “relaxed” dipole room loading patter. The same unreasonably relaxed patter I feel with ALL dipole system I ever heard. I personally do not like it and it all that I count.  I do not imply my opinion to be a universal judgment about topology by my estimate of the topology is the only subject that I care and therefore in my own world I have absolutely no interest in dipole applications. I know, some people use audio method to build up universal rules and widespread dogmas.  It is not my objectives, I do audio explicitly for myself and I have all evidences that I need to feel comfortable with detest of acoustic push-pull of bass. So, I will be not the best person to discuss your idea on the subject.

Vasyachkin wrote:

has anybody tried a horn speaker with a dipole bass section ?

noviygera wrote:

Vasyachkin, if this is still relevant: I've tried dipole bass and dipole mids with horns mid/highs in my system. If anything, dipole works the WORST for the bass and here's why: It does not load the room with bass pressure (or bass sound). That's the simple explanation. I've had two 18" woofers running up to 150Hz in H-cabs in a medium size room and even though there is decent output -- it's like listening in headphones. You can get a 30Hz tone sound but there is absolutely no physical pressure in creating the bass "feel" because the pressure is immediately canceled out by the out of phase signal from the back of the driver. So you get detailed, clean, but lifeless bass. This will get on your nerves after a while. Took about two year for me. Here's my take on dipole bass Pros: even bass coverage in room, lean, deep, detailed bass. Cons: lifeless, does not match the sound pressure of horn loaded drivers What you should try if dipole seems appealing to you is "infinite baffle" subs. This works a lot better in my opinion, even if using the same exact drivers. I tried it, by taking the same 18" drivers I used for dipole by mounting them in the wall, using the other room as the box. This worked much better for bass than dipole. Now I feel the bass, not just hear it. P.S. dipole worked much better in the range of 150 to 1000Hz. That is the only good use of dipole. Herman