I have to say, it doesn't look convincing as a competitor to AP technology. Looking at the patent description, it seems that all of the things that AP tried to eliminate (diaphragm reflex, return reaction, etc) are still in evidence. This is a single action process, with a return to neutral state after each operation of the MEMS unit (which is not one but
three operators).
From the patent:
View attachment 480212
View attachment 480215
The sound wave moving across the operators (15-19) ... it seems like a lot of compromise to make this work.
I'm certainly not an audio engineer, but it would seem that the AP system will yield far cleaner results, with the dipole arrangement of the system being able to function without the reflex recovery time needed for this one. I would think that AP is a lot more predictable too, with no variables in diaphragm response to deal with (such as air pressure and temperature).
Perhaps a smaller footprint for the same resultant SPL (?).
Looks like halfway technology to me .... filling the gap until the real thing arrives. The data world is full of examples of that ...
I'm not sure with regards to your comment on dipolar response ... I would have thought that the compression side on the AP device would produce a far greater impact than the low pressure side of the piston, and thus would not be an issue (like the feel of air in front of a fan, compared to behind it). The USound tech would have a reflex issue to deal with, since they operate in one direction only (unipolar), and I guess that is the difference between the piezo electric drive on and the reflexive return to rest ... perhaps the membrane reflex is significantly less than the drive effect (and the greater the difference between the two, the slower the thing would be to operate) ...
That's my take, anyway. Interesting tech, but does not feel like a threat to the AP ideal.
(20min delay)