Originally Posted by bruce can
I think I just found one of the two companies that actually made it.
large rolls were relatively cheap.
I guess he might have went into "production" but I would suspect just frames and assembly. He possibly later ordered the fabric directly from the Chinese manufacturer and could maybe control colour better
I'm guessing he contracted out production of the material, same with the frames. Not that there's anything wrong with that, that's how most/many companies work. The value they provide isn't in the manufacturing of the materials but the design/assembly of the components.
That does sound familiar. Though IIRC, the weave Ruben ended up with (that he ordered himself and then sold off to members) wasn't an off the shelf weave, it was significantly finer weave. I recall there being comparisons of the off the shelf ones, and those were promising enough to investigate a custom order.
Originally Posted by erkq
This is all very interesting... how the heck does it perform so well?? At least by my calibrated mic/pre-amp and C6/CalMan setup...
My simplistic understanding is that basically the finer the pattern of openings, the better the performance. This is essentially the problem with a perforated screen, it's mechanically impractical (impossible?) to perforate fine enough to push the effects out past the audible range. With a weave you can create a much finer pattern. I think if you look at all the best performing (audio) screens, they are all woven.
Of course weaves have their drawbacks. I can't remember the name now, but there was a popular fabric used for AT screens back when Ruben was researching. I remember seeing screenshots showing that essentially the screen killed "MTF" or maybe more accurately local contrast, it would glow/bleed. I think this is one of the things that made the material Ruben found (and then the SMX and Seymour), they were a coated weave so the material itself wouldn't "bleed" light.