I’m guessing here, but the software would probably need to run the FBM in both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ modes.
Seems like one of those ideas (Widex trombone tube anyone?) that’s going to fail in execution. It might be a daft idea, but if they wanted to achieve different effective venting/receiver function, why didn’t they just vent the back of the receiver and squeeze the Thuras tube with a cam in a more analogue fashion.
You’re ignoring this member’s posts.
