You must have totally misunderstood my comments and obviuosly have not seen the plots on my web site. I don't know how you got what you claim I said from my post. I reread it and I never said anything about "Non-uniformity of off-axis response" being a "good thing". I said the exact opposite! "I think that uniform directivity is better still" - SO DO I! But to do this across the entire spectrum is simply impossible.

I think that you call a corner a CD horn down to very low frequencies, but to that I do not agree. Since you cannot get the source at the corners apex, there will be some frequency at which this concept fails. And anyways, the entire concept of directivity at low frequencies in a small room is ambiguous. Further a HF CD source placed in a corner is not in the proper plane (ear level) nor pointing in the correct direction (it points upward - or downward). So while this concept seems attrctive - in is not feasible.

What I said was that the ideal for a small room - where a huge system is also not feasible - is to have the directivity narrow down (since at LF a monopole source has a very wide directivity) to the designed coverage angle starting at about 500 Hz. It should be at the design angle at about 800 - 1 kHz and remain constant from that point up. In a small room it would be virtually impossible to get any substantial directivity below 500 Hz. Using a dipole helps, but they have their own set of problems.

I simply do not understand how you got the idea that I was promoting a varioable coverage angle with frequency.