Shadorne, these are two great points, and I agree that they are very significant potential benefits of the "short open waveguide" approach. But they're not constant-directivity (which was my main point), and since as it does indeed very much depend on what "driver" you have to begin with . . . these behave fundamentally very much like a standard direct-radiating driver.
But as far as the cone vs. a dome to "maintain uniform spherical wavefronts" that's the whole problem, neither of them deliver any kind of wavefront that's consistent with frequency. Cones, domes, inverted domes, ring-radiators . . . they can all exhibit profound differences in their application and execution, but they are all of a similar ilk in their inability to deliver a consistent wavefront independent of frequency. The compression driver differs in the fact that it (at least aims to) acheive this goal.
I enjoyed Mr. White's article to which you kindly provided the link, but the main problem is . . .
After all, if a dome behaved as a point source, then simply screwing it into a baffle of appropriate size would produce absolutely perfect directivity characteristics, and we wouldn't need waveguides at all.
But as far as the cone vs. a dome to "maintain uniform spherical wavefronts" that's the whole problem, neither of them deliver any kind of wavefront that's consistent with frequency. Cones, domes, inverted domes, ring-radiators . . . they can all exhibit profound differences in their application and execution, but they are all of a similar ilk in their inability to deliver a consistent wavefront independent of frequency. The compression driver differs in the fact that it (at least aims to) acheive this goal.
I enjoyed Mr. White's article to which you kindly provided the link, but the main problem is . . .
The theory behind the waveguides to be described is that a dome driver produces what is fair approximation of a spherical wave over its piston rangeI simply can't conceive of this as being valid . . . I wish my knowledge of physics and my mathematical skill was sufficient to expound on this further, but I think it reasonable to say that it would be hard to build a consenus on this among those who do have competencies in these areas. Further, his calculations are based on the idea that the dome behaves as a point source . . . which is certainly impossible except perhaps for an extremely narrow range of frequencies.
After all, if a dome behaved as a point source, then simply screwing it into a baffle of appropriate size would produce absolutely perfect directivity characteristics, and we wouldn't need waveguides at all.