OK, Full cylindrical version : 
YouTube - Cylindrical loudspeaker
Steel membrane, anyone ?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvFtDkPuBs4&NR=1
.
YouTube - Cylindrical loudspeaker
Steel membrane, anyone ?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvFtDkPuBs4&NR=1
.
Last edited:
Hi,
Wayne, You simply didn´t search the right places.....otherwise You would have found something
The decision of wether to build a flathead or a round one depends on various factors. For example cost and ease and intended usage. It´s easier to build a decent flathead than a decent curved design. The costs of material are also way lower. For some (friendly version of ´most´*gg*) commercial manufacturers these reasons outweigh sonic or technical issues. And for a FR-ESL curved design are practically ruled out.
Never asked why there are so many Audiostatic-lookalikes? Never asked why beginners rather start with wire stators? Simply because everything is cheap and You still get resonable good results! The wire is cheap industry standard, the isolators (trespan et al) are from cheap standard material, etc, etc. Segmentation reduces capacitive load at the upper bandwidth limit which allows for cheaper transformers. I build my first panels -which were wired panels- for ~80€ the pair (EUP!), labour and casing excluded of course.
Curved sheet metal panels are much more expensive if done properly.
If done properly You hardly find any other electrostatic device with such low levels of distortion and this high level of dynamics and resolution
So if You talk about ´better´ it always depends on what You need, what You expect and what suits Your taste.
jauu
Calvin
Wayne, You simply didn´t search the right places.....otherwise You would have found something
The decision of wether to build a flathead or a round one depends on various factors. For example cost and ease and intended usage. It´s easier to build a decent flathead than a decent curved design. The costs of material are also way lower. For some (friendly version of ´most´*gg*) commercial manufacturers these reasons outweigh sonic or technical issues. And for a FR-ESL curved design are practically ruled out.
Never asked why there are so many Audiostatic-lookalikes? Never asked why beginners rather start with wire stators? Simply because everything is cheap and You still get resonable good results! The wire is cheap industry standard, the isolators (trespan et al) are from cheap standard material, etc, etc. Segmentation reduces capacitive load at the upper bandwidth limit which allows for cheaper transformers. I build my first panels -which were wired panels- for ~80€ the pair (EUP!), labour and casing excluded of course.
Curved sheet metal panels are much more expensive if done properly.
If done properly You hardly find any other electrostatic device with such low levels of distortion and this high level of dynamics and resolution
So if You talk about ´better´ it always depends on what You need, what You expect and what suits Your taste.
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
Hi Calvin,
why should a curved panel have higher dynamics resolution and less distortion than a flat one ??
A curved one do not have perfect symmetric stator drive, has less excursion at comparable D/S spacing and mostly requires thicker membrane to widthstand the higher mechanical tension to prevent from collapsing to one stator.
So for me no single reason to assist your statement.
Capaciti
why should a curved panel have higher dynamics resolution and less distortion than a flat one ??
A curved one do not have perfect symmetric stator drive, has less excursion at comparable D/S spacing and mostly requires thicker membrane to widthstand the higher mechanical tension to prevent from collapsing to one stator.
So for me no single reason to assist your statement.
Capaciti
.......................................... 
................
Hi,
- curved panels are restricted to small d/s values and as such their working range is restricted to hybrid usage. If I were to build a FR I certainly wouldn´t build a single curved cell and I wouldn´t use metal sheets either but wires.
So, within the working range membrane amplitudes are very small and any ´imperfection´ in drive symmetry is swamped by limited building precision, i.e tolerances and inherent non-perfection of the electrical field (every stator features kind of holes or slots, so field density isn´t perfectly homogenous in any case).
- there´s no reason why curved panels must(!) use thicker membranes (higher mechanical tensioning forces are the sole reason for this) and be tensioned harder and why thin membrane material should not be used. I use less than 6µm thick diaphragms successfully. Of course can and should a hybrid panel feature higher resonance frequencies than a FR panel, but this is not only a matter of mechanical tension but also of the distances of the supports. Higher mechanical tension allows for higher bias voltages, hence increasing efficiency.
- with only very small membrane amplitudes there´s basically no significant difference in distortion values between flat and curved panels. But the sheet metal panels usually used for curved cells can be driven with lower transformation factors. A audio tranny with lower transformation factor is always superior to one with a higher transformation factor with regard to signal quality (everything else beeing equal or at least very similar). The differences are small and constructional details may show an greater influence on distortion values. And hey, we´re talking about a niveau here way above the capabilities of dynamic drivers.
jauu
Calvin
- curved panels are restricted to small d/s values and as such their working range is restricted to hybrid usage. If I were to build a FR I certainly wouldn´t build a single curved cell and I wouldn´t use metal sheets either but wires.
So, within the working range membrane amplitudes are very small and any ´imperfection´ in drive symmetry is swamped by limited building precision, i.e tolerances and inherent non-perfection of the electrical field (every stator features kind of holes or slots, so field density isn´t perfectly homogenous in any case).
- there´s no reason why curved panels must(!) use thicker membranes (higher mechanical tensioning forces are the sole reason for this) and be tensioned harder and why thin membrane material should not be used. I use less than 6µm thick diaphragms successfully. Of course can and should a hybrid panel feature higher resonance frequencies than a FR panel, but this is not only a matter of mechanical tension but also of the distances of the supports. Higher mechanical tension allows for higher bias voltages, hence increasing efficiency.
- with only very small membrane amplitudes there´s basically no significant difference in distortion values between flat and curved panels. But the sheet metal panels usually used for curved cells can be driven with lower transformation factors. A audio tranny with lower transformation factor is always superior to one with a higher transformation factor with regard to signal quality (everything else beeing equal or at least very similar). The differences are small and constructional details may show an greater influence on distortion values. And hey, we´re talking about a niveau here way above the capabilities of dynamic drivers.
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.