Good to hear from you! I always enjoy your patent reviews in Voice Coil. Thanks for posting this information, I was not aware of it, and for your offer to make a copy available to people.
If anyone would like, here's a direct link to the patent application on the USPTO site:
Thank you for your kind words...It is good to know that you enjoy the patent reviews.
I came back to make a short reply for now, and see that the discussion is off and running.
I must say that I can relate to MJK's response to the presentation of the MVW system.
It is unfortunate that the inventors choose to use language that obfuscates the understanding of the functionality of the enclosure topology. If they truly wish to have others in the field of loudspeakers/acoustics understand and support their concept, then it would be much more effective if they either created a definition of terms, or drew linkages between their terminology and concepts that are more commonly referenced in the field.
In looking back over nearly a hundred years of loudspeaker history, I have yet to see any advancement that could not be reduced to simple terms and analogies to allow better understanding.
While I will attempt to keep an open mind, historically, I have found the use of terms that are new, exotic, or from another field or narrow aspect the field being discussed, the out come usually exposes one of a few things, such as;
A marketing device, meant to impress the naive and befuddle the well informed, or, reference to criteria that do create real effects, but those effects are so small, or out of band, as to be audibly insignificant.
I have a number of comments about the design concept, which I will try to get around to posting after today.
For now, I must say that after a first pass read of the patent, one is immediately disappointed in the lack of useful disclosure.
The patent system was originally set up with the basic premise that the government will offer a substantial monopoly on an invention for 17 years from the grant date (now, since 1995, 20 years from the filing date) in exchange for the inventor teaching the public enough reduction to practice information that one skilled in the art would be able to build a ‘best mode’ version of the invention.
In the patent there are no specifications, dimensions, references to T/S parameters and their relationship to the architecture, no relational dimensions of the different chamber sections, nothing whatsoever that would teach one how to create a reasonably functioning unit, let alone an optimized device.
Also, there are no measurements disclosed and no comparative benchmarks illustrated.
This combined with the manner in which the system has been discussed by the practitioners and fans, does nothing to minimize one’s skepticism.
I realize that a good demonstration has been achieved, and those that heard it were impressed, but anyone experienced in the industry knows that the number of external variables involved in show demonstrations is enormous.
That said, I will keep an open mind and pursue further analysis. Frankly, the main reason for doing so is based on my respect for your (Duke’s) understanding of which parameters impact loudspeaker sound quality and the assumption that he has studied the concept adequately to have uncovered some achievement that cannot be duplicated, or approached, with prior art technology.
At least, it is always entertaining to have a new item that generates excitement by tapping into that part of us that wants to believe there is something that can come along and transcend anything we have experienced before.
It could happen…
All the best,