Has anyone used the "Imagers" (1 Viewer)

[Ron Boster]

I'm curious about the product called imagers. Here's a description from a retailers site:
"Andrew Marshall's original Imager design was quite straightforward: a circular neoprene ring that surrounded the tweeter and absorbed energy that would otherwise have been radiated along the speaker baffle and re-radiated milliseconds later at the listener when it reached the edge. The design was sound, and 5000 pairs were sold with not one consumer complaint or return, and a plethora of praise for the improvements wrought with normal direct radiating box speaker designs. Speakers just imaged better, with more depth! (At right you'll see the new, oval Imager)"
Here's a link to the site:
Link Removed
Anyone tried these? If so, what were the results if any?
Thanks
Ron

 

[Ron Boster]

The sound you hear is me eating crow. I have criticized others in the past for not "searching first before posting". And, what did I come across.....
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hlight=imagers
Munch, chew, swallow.....Munch, chew, swallow....
Take Care
Ron

 

[John F. Palacio]

Hmmm....

Only one reply on previous thread of somebody who actually used them.

Anybody else?

 

[Mark Fitzsimmons]

Common sence tells me that if they were beneficial that they would be built into the original speaker design.

 

[Saurav]

Beneficial is a subjective term, IMO. It will definitely change the sound, whether you like the effect or not is hard to predict. Some speakers are designed to work in a room - the designers expect that the energy radiated out into the room will get reflected back to the sweet spot, and they factor this in when voicing the speaker. In such a situation, I can see how adding these rings would probably have a negative effect, and cause irregular frequency response. On the other hand, if the speakers were voiced assuming a certain amount of reflection and you happen to have a room that reflects significantly more energy than that, something like this could help. I've seen speaker designs with foam on various parts on the front baffle.

In short, IMO it's not really possible to make "it works" or "it doesn't work" statements that are generically true. It will almost certainly change the sound, and whether that constitutes an improvement depends on the speakers, the room, the placement of the speakers in the room, and the listener's tastes in sound.

Common sence tells me that if they were beneficial that they would be built into the original speaker design.

I used to think that way too. Then, after swapping some components inside my CD player and seeing how much the sound improved for a grand expenditure of $3, I have a different idea of just how much commercial products are designed to meet a cost target.

 

[Chris PC]

When speakers are designed in anechoic chambers with measuring devices, I wonder why they didn't account for the effect mentioned here. I would hazard a guess that these imagers just prevent sabinet reflection plain and simple. I don't know if I believe the actual cabinet is vibrating, but hey, I desing and measure speakers myself, so I can't say for sure. I just don't think that the tweeters motion is translated into the motion of the cabinet surface. Sounds far fetched as the cabinet surface is too hard. Am I barking up the wrong tree? Are these Imager things simply designed to reduce immediate reflection of the tweeters radiated sound that is bounsed directly beside the tweeter?