A few years back, I owned a pair of Definitive Technology speakers that were bipolar in design. They relied upon reflecting off of the wall behind them to provide a sense of having a much larger sound stage. There were several involved discussions about how close or far away, the speaker should be to get the most out of them.
Fast forward to the Submersive. With a somewhat similar bipolar design would you not have some placement considerations that if not done correctly would either smear or cancel the sound????
Hi Jim, The concept of a true bi-pole implies separate sources. When the distance from front to rear is smaller than say 1/4 wavelength and most certainly below 1/8th wavelength the sources are effectively homogeneous and behave as one. The justifiable reason for bi-pole type designs is to better balance the power response in the upper range where the size of the baffle confines the radiation of the speaker in the forward direction. The speaker then transitions from high frequency to low radiating dominantly in a forward direction to omni at much lower frequencies. The addition of a rear tweeter and/or midrange can potentially help better load reflective listening rooms with a more balanced spectrum of sound. Of course execution of the concept is not so simple, as things only work as expected at very high frequencies and very low. The range in the middle gets quite squirrely and often makes for some peculiar behavior in the front/rear and left/right radiation of the speaker. These aren't insurmountable, but they aren't simple, and require much more consideration than had been given by those first pitching the idealized concept. The only placement considerations with the orientation of the SubMersive is due to the fact it is ~24" driver face to driver face. This difference in source location can be a measureable and mildly audible difference, and is worth experimenting with, realizing the differences will be rather small.
Seaton Sound, Inc. email@example.com 773-290-8436