Sechtdamon

The thing that makes me angry is that attitude, n3rdling. Its what big companies have been doing for ages... Trying to patent things unclear (well not unclear to be honest but they wanna get advantage). They also did new things, I admit that. I have no idea how complex the things they did but, driver is not facing, but have like 180 degree angle, bore and the acustic way toward bore is angled weirdly, the enclosure is kinda like balanced armature. Also anyone dig into the word "electret" what used to describe something about that iem? I really wanna know if my theory is correct.

I really hate hype people... I defend my ideas on turkish forum but, dunno if it makes sense. What i really don't understand is, shure did very innovative, untried things with that headphone, but still they wanna get credit for old "electrostatic transducer technology" as if they invented it. But guys still, i'm very curious about it's sound signature. Especially after seeing that unconventional transducer placing. As i know, even in baby Staxes, transducer faces directly to ear, am I right?

Thanks Sherwood, you're so kind. Here is the original post with patent filling link. Also i wonder, did they really say that they've worked on cables for 3 years? What difference did they make? I really wonder.

Guys I'm newbie, and it's my first message on this forum, i heard the news from Turkish forum, watched Jude's video and Jude's attitude already irritated me. But now i checked on patent, and it's really ridiculous, their claims are like they invented the electrostatic system. Also i catch the word "electret" and i guess they put electret plates behind standart electrostatic stators. i dont know about the gap between stators and diaphragm, but i guess thats why bias is really lower than baby stax. Can any pro check the patent, if not already did? It is fun to read as well.