I do dig your setup..an speaker look...
One thing I have found about your Monitors or X older type frames... with the wood mounting rail in front with the panel in back ..boost the bass to my ear....I gess that's why jim moved away from that setup...to the model 2-3-4 type monting
But in my sound studio 18'X40'x13' with a 18'x 7'movebal wall my 2+2s are 14'apart....in a 18'x25' room...I have them 8' off the front wall...only one chair in the room 2'off the back wall...I like the big stage...lot fun great ESL speaker as you know..
But to day... been playing my re-worket Martin Logan CLS speaker...only speaker to give the Acoustat a run for there money...well to me ..to day anyway
have fun thank's for all you input on your setups....
One thing I have found about your Monitors or X older type frames... with the wood mounting rail in front with the panel in back ..boost the bass to my ear....I gess that's why jim moved away from that setup...to the model 2-3-4 type monting
But in my sound studio 18'X40'x13' with a 18'x 7'movebal wall my 2+2s are 14'apart....in a 18'x25' room...I have them 8' off the front wall...only one chair in the room 2'off the back wall...I like the big stage...lot fun great ESL speaker as you know..
But to day... been playing my re-worket Martin Logan CLS speaker...only speaker to give the Acoustat a run for there money...well to me ..to day anyway
have fun thank's for all you input on your setups....
Ok, lots of questions and misinformation flying about while I was away for just a few days...
Yes, Acoustat did use a very thin, adhesive-backed felt between the plastic louver and the wooden frame. This was to reduce any tendency for the plastic to vibrate against the wood, and also perhaps to provide a bit of a cushion between plastic and wood, since both surfaces tended to be slightly irregular. This was very thin felt, probably about 1/16" thick. Nothing special.
Acoustat has always recommended heating the entire surface of the diaphragm when necessary to re-tension the Mylar. Heating just around the periphery probably won't accomplish much. Wrinkles in the Mylar are not an absolute indicator of lack of tension, nor should any visual observation be used in deciding that a panel needs re-tensioning. Attempting to re-shrink the Mylar should only be done when a panel exhibits a rattling on bass notes significantly sooner than its mates. I say it this way because all panels will eventually rattle if given a large enough bass note.
Small voids, or "cracks" or "streaks" in the conductive coating should not be of concern, as long as the effect is not widespread and the coating is not actually flaking off.
The felt blocks on the rear of the panels are there to dampen resonances in the panels. Some folks have removed them and like the result. That's okay, as no harm will come from removing them. However, most people seem to prefer the overall sound with them left in place as originally intended. Although the felt does block the rear radiation very slightly, the speaker still operates as a dipole.
Creating a frame out of metal has been done before, with claims of better sound. However, great pains need to be taken to isolate the panels and wiring very carefully from any metallic parts to avoid any bleeding off of high voltages and potential shock hazards.
Yes, Acoustat did use a very thin, adhesive-backed felt between the plastic louver and the wooden frame. This was to reduce any tendency for the plastic to vibrate against the wood, and also perhaps to provide a bit of a cushion between plastic and wood, since both surfaces tended to be slightly irregular. This was very thin felt, probably about 1/16" thick. Nothing special.
Acoustat has always recommended heating the entire surface of the diaphragm when necessary to re-tension the Mylar. Heating just around the periphery probably won't accomplish much. Wrinkles in the Mylar are not an absolute indicator of lack of tension, nor should any visual observation be used in deciding that a panel needs re-tensioning. Attempting to re-shrink the Mylar should only be done when a panel exhibits a rattling on bass notes significantly sooner than its mates. I say it this way because all panels will eventually rattle if given a large enough bass note.
Small voids, or "cracks" or "streaks" in the conductive coating should not be of concern, as long as the effect is not widespread and the coating is not actually flaking off.
The felt blocks on the rear of the panels are there to dampen resonances in the panels. Some folks have removed them and like the result. That's okay, as no harm will come from removing them. However, most people seem to prefer the overall sound with them left in place as originally intended. Although the felt does block the rear radiation very slightly, the speaker still operates as a dipole.
Creating a frame out of metal has been done before, with claims of better sound. However, great pains need to be taken to isolate the panels and wiring very carefully from any metallic parts to avoid any bleeding off of high voltages and potential shock hazards.
Model 8's for Sale
Check out this eBay auction.
1 pr. acoustat 8 & 4 each Carver M4.0T Used but loved | eBay
Starting bid is only $3500 (includes 4 Carver amps, too). Only about 20-25 Model Eights were ever produced, so this is a rare opportunity to get yourself a pair.
I pass this on just as a matter of information - I have no personal connection to this auction.
Check out this eBay auction.
1 pr. acoustat 8 & 4 each Carver M4.0T Used but loved | eBay
Starting bid is only $3500 (includes 4 Carver amps, too). Only about 20-25 Model Eights were ever produced, so this is a rare opportunity to get yourself a pair.
I pass this on just as a matter of information - I have no personal connection to this auction.
I suggested a metal (or similar thin and rigid material) frame because it would seem, in theory, to distribute the fastening force of the panel to the wooden frame over a broader, more evenly dissipated area. Again, I have not taken apart my speakers, but I did buy a pair of 1's to play with. Perhaps when I see how they are put together I will feel they cannot be improved upon. Who knows?
One more thing. I have a heat tunnel used to shrink wrap battery packs. It is large enough to pass a panel through. If it didn't damage the styrene louvers, it might be a better way to distribute the heat over a larger more uniform area. You have to be REAL careful with a heat gun not to get hot spots. If anyone has a panel that needs shrunk I'd be happy to try it.
Can the same dampening be accomplished by attaching an additional louver to the back side, ie: 2"X2", maybe 1-2" deep?
AcoustatAnswerMan got nothin', sorry. In fact, I frequently forget about the Spectra 2 and 3: they were not in production for very long, were way too expensive to make, and the woofer section was poorly regarded.
Therefore, you would probably do better not to attempt to reproduce the specs of the original woofer. There's plenty of 10" woofers out there that would probably do better than the original. Of course, the woofer enclosure is part of the problem, too, so you can only take it so far.
The ultimate "fix" would be to abandon the built-in woofer entirely and get yourself one or two powered subwoofers.
Lots of conflicting information here long before I came on the scene. You may not think so but logic and intuition can and often does trump procedure. Declaring streaks and/or cracks are of no concern until it's too late is a bit useless, don't you think? If there's nothing to lose, why not start minimally? "nor should 'any' visual observation be used"? seriously? None? I'm not usually one to **** on somebody's parade. I stay home. Thanks for the help.
Btw, from what I'm reading, Acoustat doesn't have a perfect record.
Life is for learning, bud.
Lots of conflicting information here long before I came on the scene. You may not think so but logic and intuition can and often does trump procedure. Declaring streaks and/or cracks are of no concern until it's too late is a bit useless, don't you think? If there's nothing to lose, why not start minimally? "nor should 'any' visual observation be used"? seriously? None? I'm not usually one to **** on somebody's parade. I stay home. Thanks for the help.
Btw, from what I'm reading, Acoustat doesn't have a perfect record.
Life is for learning, bud.
I’m not sure I entirely understand the point of your denigrating comments, but it seems that some clarification and amplification of my earlier comments might be in order, at least to those who have an interest in what I say. I don’t always have the time to write everything I’m thinking about, which might sometimes lead to over-simplification or glossing-over of some of the ideas I’m trying to express. And if I ever seem to represent my comments as being “the only and final word”, rest assured that I share what I do for the benefit, understanding and education of Acoustat owners, who are free to do whatever they wish with my advice. One of the great things about this forum on DIYAudio is all the great and smart people I get to meet, and I cherish their input as well.
My point about the visual condition of the coating was to caution Acoustat owners not to worry if they see certain discontinuities in the conductive coating. In my experience, too many owners see certain “flaws” and suddenly think their speaker has failed or is about to fail. I believe that minor discontinuities in the coating will have negligible effect (if any) on the speaker’s sonic performance.
“Streaks” are occasionally visible in the coating, usually running parallel to the long dimension of the panel. Understand that Acoustat’s conductive coating was applied by brush, and like any brush-applied material, sometimes brush-strokes are visible in the finished coating. Not perfect by any means, but Acoustat considered minor streaks in the coating to be acceptable, and they should not be reason for concern about any imminent failure, or interpreted as a slit or tear in the Mylar substrate.
“Pinholes” are occasionally visible in the coating. This is caused by minor impurities either in the coating itself or on the Mylar substrate prior to being coated, with the result that the coating does not “wet” in a tiny spot. Not perfect by any means, but Acoustat considered minor pinholes in the coating to be acceptable, and they should not be reason for concern about any imminent failure or interpreted as a hole in the Mylar substrate.
“Cracks” or “crazing” are not commonly seen as coming from the factory, but could be caused by applying the coating too thick in a small area. As the top surface of the coating dries first, it can crack as the layer below it attempts to give up its volatile compounds. Acoustat would usually reject such a panel, although it’s certainly possible that a very small area of minor cracking might have slipped out of the factory undetected.
Now, if someone were to notice significant cracking of the coating (very rare), or flaking-off of the coating (even more rare), or actual holes or tears in the Mylar (usually due to external abuse), then that is reason for concern. But these conditions will manifest themselves as degradation in the sonic performance of the speaker, and a visual inspection will only verify what is causing the sonic issue. In other words, if your speaker sounds okay, don’t go looking for defects!
I would never claim Acoustat to be perfect, in its design, in its manufacture or in the sonic attributes of its speakers. And having worked for the company, I probably know the warts and weaknesses of the company, its people and its products far better than the average Joe. Quite frankly, some of our production methods involved far more hand-work and operator skill than I would have liked. Had funds been available at the time of my employment, I would have loved to improve some of our techniques to be more efficient and less operator-dependent. And I was sometimes frustrated by the lack of innovation at the company, which tended to be satisfied with the status-quo and didn’t make enough attempts at improving an already great product (that is, product development tended to be mostly evolutionary, and rarely revolutionary). And none of this should be taken as a personal attack on chief engineer and founder Jim Strickland, who was the most brilliant and dedicated person I ever had the pleasure of working with.
However, I will stand by my oft-cited testimonial that Acoustat ESL’s are the most reliable and long-lasting ESL’s ever produced. The majority of the speakers that Acoustat produced are still operating, and among those that are not working, it’s an electronics failure or “operator abuse” that did them in rather than a failure of the panel. If I did not believe in the long-term value of Acoustat speakers, I would not be volunteering so many hours of my precious personal time to continue helping Acoustat owners some 27 years after the company folded in the USA. Audio is not my only hobby or volunteer activity by any means, which is to say I have plenty of other things to keep me busy.
Conflicting info? Perfect record? Name me one speaker manufacturer that has withstood the 30+ years of use / non use and still sounds as good as they do...and very fixable if not if you follow AAM...
And, if you understood exactly what the coating does (gets charge on the mylar), you would understand that the cracks and chips don't matter much, as AAM states.
If you are the Acoustat expert, maybe you can start your very own thread, and I guarantee we wont bother you one bit!
And, if you understood exactly what the coating does (gets charge on the mylar), you would understand that the cracks and chips don't matter much, as AAM states.
If you are the Acoustat expert, maybe you can start your very own thread, and I guarantee we wont bother you one bit!
Not entirely but you got the gist, right?
Look, you're not fooling me. I know when I smell the poop. I've been following your input for a good while and truly appreciate your knowledge, lots of which is over my head. I have no problem accepting what you say...when you say it. There's more than one way to denigrate.What are you, his side kick? He sure doesn't seem to have trouble speaking for himself. You clearly missed the context of my comment about Acoustat. AAM certainly did not.
FYI, the Monitor 3 I presently listen to are imo the most transparent sound I have heard to date, over 40 years. The Model 3 come in second since they use interfaces instead. The sq is without peer ime.
Nope. I just know enough to know AAM knows what he is talking about. Again, if you believe him to be otherwise (you smell poop, yes?), why not start your own thread?
Rip out your membrane that has all those cracks!!! They are not fooling you!!!
Let me make it a bit more clear - I don't always agree on AAM's opinion (like raising the Bias Voltage from 5k to 6k - AAM believes it does not make an appreciable difference, but I believe it does a world of difference, and I do it to all my Acoustat interfaces), but I would never challenge him over it, capiche?
Last edited:
There are no issues with any of my panels. I was merely participating in a discussion. If I wanted to start my own thread, I would not post here.
You appear to still not be grasping the heart of this latest conversation. Must you persist?
You would no doubt do well to challenge those whom you disagree with. Such is the engine of innovation. Without it there is stagnation. Unless of course you're satisfied with mediocrity. Then again there are those who would rather have their ego stroked than be challenged. History is rife with their failures.
Clear the air a bit
May be to change the subject...
We all love electrostats of course.
But after 30+ years of listening to Acoustats, Magnepans, Martin Logans and even Apogees, I am starting to think that they may not be for all or even most situations.
In the 70s everyone seemingly was after a "point source" speaker. That trend died down since but may be it had a "point."
Listening to panels day after day I wonder if sound coming from a "wall" (straight or curved) causes odd cancellations / enhancements in parts of the frequency range that result in unnatural intonations? Sound coming from both sides of a panel probably also adds to these anomalies. I feel like shifting or turning the head ever so slightly leads to changes in how something sounds. This is barely perceptible with instruments or choruses, a bit more with individual voices and most pronounced with speech.
Anyways that is what I hear. Thoughts?
May be to change the subject...
We all love electrostats of course.
But after 30+ years of listening to Acoustats, Magnepans, Martin Logans and even Apogees, I am starting to think that they may not be for all or even most situations.
In the 70s everyone seemingly was after a "point source" speaker. That trend died down since but may be it had a "point."
Listening to panels day after day I wonder if sound coming from a "wall" (straight or curved) causes odd cancellations / enhancements in parts of the frequency range that result in unnatural intonations? Sound coming from both sides of a panel probably also adds to these anomalies. I feel like shifting or turning the head ever so slightly leads to changes in how something sounds. This is barely perceptible with instruments or choruses, a bit more with individual voices and most pronounced with speech.
Anyways that is what I hear. Thoughts?
I'm baffled as well. I owned 2+2s that underwent a procession of upgrades and mods for over twenty years and never experienced that. Nor with the modified 1+1s I currently have.
They do beam profoundly, however, in the horizontal plane. I used a laser pointer and string to provide absolutely matched alignment speaker position to my listening spot to help. The 1+1s are more forgiving in that regard.
Have you replaced the grill socks? I found using tightly stretched spandex improved top end resolution pretty significantly vs the originals.
Honestly, I don't think I'll ever tire of listening to these. Every time I do it's an event. They are just so 'complete' sounding that any draw backs are trumped by everything great about them.
However as EStat mentioned, they do need precise alignment. But in so doing, I find no issues with beaming at all. The Monitor 3s actually have a relatively large sweet spot ime.
I just bought a pair of Acoustat 1's and they do not do this in the same space. I believe it is related to the size and shape of the room (22' wide x 60' long x 30' tall). Even with the servo amps I'm getting this effect.
What kind of Spandex did you use for your grille cloths? I've been wanting to try this. Someone once mentioned a thinner grade of Spandex works better.