Hi Arnaud,
Yes, the design does have some impact but is negligible compared to spatial tolerances in the FR due to the inherent, narrow dispersion patterns by Electrostatic transmission.
The RR1 initially wasn't an Electrostatic, I was developing a new transmission type which was an Electrodynamic derivative with a key component eliminated to reduce mass but because of budget/technical constraints, I had to stop the R&D. The system was designed to be angled. Hence, we took the same chassis and engineered an Electrostatic system around it. As you might know, Electrostatic drivers are useless at an angle.
Yes, my design is indeed ported but not for Acoustic reasons. The port is a pressure/humidity relief port. My drivers don't use a traditional dust cover system like others and hence have a different reaction to turbulent patterns which make the diaphragms sensitive to collision to the Stator only if there's a sudden pressure change when the system is operating at an high SPL or if the system isn't coupled to the head while it's is baised.
The port reduced the effect to a certain level but is still a characteristic of my system, no big deal to be honest but is a place where I think I can definitely improve upon.
The port also helped to reduce moisture build up which was a very critical issue I was facing in the R&D - voltage breakdown. I'm in Mumbai so this triggered it more than it would elsewhere. We also experimented with Hydrophobic coatings but had no success.
Without the port, the bass extension was among the flattest I've measured on an Electrostatic but, to address the stability issues, I had to port for all the above reasons.
Hope this answers your questions, don't worry about me not sharing something. I could care less about keeping trade secrets. No progress can be made without sharing your findings. I've read your posts over the years and I really appreciate your service to the community. Same can be said about Wachara, Birgir etc.....