I've owned a pair of DCM-TF350s since the early 90's. Probably my second set of nice speakers I've ever owned. I still have them. Vifa drivers with rubber surrounds. Maintenance free and nice, tight, and clear with transmission line ports for even bass extension.
So,about 2001, when offered a chance at a set of TF-600s, the bigger brother, I jumped. They have a pair of front firing Vifas, and three tweeters, 2 time-aligned diagonally to the rear/side and one forward. I got them home, set them up in a shitty sloped roof room, with lots of interference, and they sounded like shit. I couldn't figure them out. I was severely disappointed.
Until I moved. They went first. Into an empty room, fed by an old JVC personal disc player, earphone to rca input to a ... a PM-1200 I hadn't even used yet, but knew I needed a couple for the new to me concrete floor.
So, JVC personal disc player input to PM-1200 output to a pair of DCM TF -600s. All alone in a room.
They ROCKED. filled the whole damn room. Sounded excellent. Unbelieveable. They are currently my best set of fronts for critical listening, fed by my M-500t.
So, my question is,
For the rear-firing equipped speaker, and for any dipole/flat panel, infinite baffle, how important is 'Rear-field' contamination, and how should it be set up? Are there requirements with new dipoles for rear reflection surfaces? Any proof?
Along with my DCMs, and many others, the RS-IIs Bean is picking up have rear firing drivers.
This question came to me especially hard after I read the thread with the link from Phil about the designs of the Dahlquists. And how the engineer talked about resonance from instruments going 360 degrees. I thought, 'Wow, he's right' But if you are trying to throw an audio signal rearward to simulate rear ward resonance, what happens to that rear signal if there is rig in the way?
Makes ya wanna go hmmmmmmmm