Its nice to do it full range but only Danley can offer it. Is there a huge difference?? No one can prove it in a controlled test.
It is unfortunate you cannot simply hear the difference from your computer.
Actually one reason our sales have grown so well is because as one consultant put it nobody has anything that sounds or works like your products.
While that was in reference to much larger scale sound than the home, the reference certainly included all the traditional large companies, in a market where side by side comparisons are common.
Take a squint at the Portfolio where our products are used normally, what business we are in, there will be at least four more large stadiums with our systems running this fall too, then remember, we are 6 years old now.
In order to do something better than the other choices available to a system designer, one has to solve one or more problems he faces.
One of those so far as fidelity is presenting as close as possible to the same sound to as much of the pattern as possible, over as wide a frequency range as possible.
When you have two subwoofers and place them close together, less than about 1/3 wavelength, they combine into one source, radiate equally in all directions and add coherently into one more powerful source. If you were to reverse one of them, they very nearly cancel each other out entirely.
As you increase the spacing they no longer add coherently but produce an interference pattern. For example at a 1/ 2 wavelength spacing, the two sources produce an interference pattern like a figure 8 when the polar pattern is viewed, two lobes and two nulls. AS one increases the spacing the number of lobes and nulls increases and because the addition is not coherent, reversing one source only alters the shape of the interference pattern, no cancellation global happens.
While this condition exists in most multi-way loudspeakers at least at crossover, it is addressed by careful aiming of the lobes and nulls at crossover so that at the listening position there is a minimum perturbation.
In a commercial sound speaker this is undesirable as it means the spectrum changes as a function of position left or right up and down etc. Remember ideally we want all the seats to get the same signal and you cannot do this with an interfering source.. Also ideally we want a constant directivity system with a high forward directivity to minimize room sound.
That means that if you going to have the horn confine the pattern, the sources have to all combine when the dimensions are small enough to allow coherent addition. AS a result, there are no lobes or nulls in the polar's and because the horns are as large as the enclosures, the pattern loss F is as low as possible.
Now, now of this sounds like it means squat in the living room except for one really big thing.
AS these got better and better, acting more like one single source and not spread out in time, a weird thing happened.
First, one can literally stick your head inside a horn like an SH-50 and the image never wavers from floating somewhere in front of you.
There is no distance required for the sources to mix, these radiate like one driver.
Next, if you play one speaker with a voice say, you can easily hear how what direction it is but as they got better, they got HARDER to hear how far away they were in depth. Not radiating that identity also meant that the stereo image was very strong, the strongest I have ever heard with speakers in a normal configuration and no trickery.
Now, none of this imaging stuff was art of the goal, in fact I didn't know what was happening at first. I developed the Synergy and earlier Unity horns while listening to music through them.
My goal was following Dick Heyser's insight on time arrival, to make one source from many. Part of that allowed a way to eliminate the phase shift normally associated with crossovers as well, truly resulting in one source much closer to occupying one instant in time over a broad frequency range.
As for what a coax driver does, that does depend, the B&C we used in the SH-100, one of our very first products works well but all of the possibilities so far as a driver that I looked at were unusable for one or more of several reasons. Most people are aware of the problems with edge diffraction or that tweeters should not have recesses and edges and such nearby.
They can picture that sound spreads out and that sound can re-radiate from anywhere there is a significant discontinuity.
The horn is a way to much more consciously deal with and control the surfaces of the sounds path as it radiates, to produce a simple part of a sphere.
Once the wave front is large enough relative to the wavelength, it can radiate freely without the horn walls.
The synergy horn then is a way to drive a single large CD horn, over a broad frequency band, without self interference, without the phase shift crossover normally produce. To the great degree it radiates a simple lobe of a single source with a high to back front to back energy ratio. It just turns out that this works very well for stereo imaging.
Obviously people have been plenty happy with prior art but coming up with an audibly better mousetrap has proven a good strategy in a market that has many well known giants .
As for a controlled test, well listen to a pair in stereo and you tell me what you hear.
"Sit down an listen, it's about the sound, it's why you got into audio"