Don't know if this has been mentioned before but a couple of things i would be interested in are.
1. Panel curvature specifically how panel curvature affects off axis response and at what frequencies e.g martin logan style speakers.
2. bias voltage and stator voltage and its effect on both efficiency and sound 'quality' e.g. is it better to run with a lower step up voltage on the stators but a far higher bias voltage for the average mid range and up panel.
3. This might be a new one which may cause some arguement. Vertical panel curvature - similar to what has been done in the past with line array speakers. The idea being that distance of the panel at all heights from the listener is the same - is there an audible or measurable difference when this is done and is there any benefit - the obvious problem being a smaller 'sweet spot'.
4. panel positioning and rear wave damping. The measurable effect of having panel too near a rear wall or side wall and how it will affect the sound and also damping the rear of a panel.
1. Panel curvature specifically how panel curvature affects off axis response and at what frequencies e.g martin logan style speakers.
2. bias voltage and stator voltage and its effect on both efficiency and sound 'quality' e.g. is it better to run with a lower step up voltage on the stators but a far higher bias voltage for the average mid range and up panel.
3. This might be a new one which may cause some arguement. Vertical panel curvature - similar to what has been done in the past with line array speakers. The idea being that distance of the panel at all heights from the listener is the same - is there an audible or measurable difference when this is done and is there any benefit - the obvious problem being a smaller 'sweet spot'.
4. panel positioning and rear wave damping. The measurable effect of having panel too near a rear wall or side wall and how it will affect the sound and also damping the rear of a panel.
Last edited:
Recent posts
+6 to a.wayne, +1 to arend-jan, And 1 more thing... a test focusing on the rolloff of frequencies above 7k or so, on a flat panel vs a curved panel, just wanting to know if a curved panel solves high freq beaming vs a flat panel. Any takers that want more clarification just lemme know
Cheers, Steve
+6 to a.wayne, +1 to arend-jan, And 1 more thing... a test focusing on the rolloff of frequencies above 7k or so, on a flat panel vs a curved panel, just wanting to know if a curved panel solves high freq beaming vs a flat panel. Any takers that want more clarification just lemme know
Cheers, Steve
Yes ... no good deed goes unpunished .....
Maybe Calvin could present one of his curved panels for testing
While i do have access to a few of the PK modified quads , the owners will not allow me to move them to test , so i would be limited to gated indoor response and from experience this is a very poor way to measure a panel speaker without serious acoustic type ( semi-anechoic) treatment .
It would be interesting to see the electrical imp , Mag and phase so maybe I will try for that to compare to what others have , as these modified babies do rock , very unusual for quads ..
regards,
I had a couple of Wayne Picquet refurbished treble panels over in my shop and did a frequency response measurement. See the attached image, the green line is the Wayne picquet panel and the grey and blue ones are original Quad panels.
What can be seen from this measurement is an overall increase in output (sensitivity), which is to be expected for a refurbished panel (about 3-4dB), but also a significant increase in output above 5kHz which is rather strange. I can only assume that PK did something to these panels (I measured two and they showed the same effect) to get this.
I auditioned the panels and so did a couple of friends and (no surprise here) the speakers with the PK panels sounded rather 'hot'. Some people may like it like this but to my ears it's not an improvement. I prefer the original English layed back, neutral character.
To prevent confusion, this is the original Quad ESL 57 I'm talking about, not the ESL63.
Attachments
Hello good people
I have no idea if this will be of any use to you whatsoever but dropping it in here certainly won't do any harm.
I needed a high voltage transformer for a corona discharge ozone generator & i actually got one dirt cheap from stateside, even the postage was reasonable to the UK.
What i bought was an "oil burner ignition transformer". Primary was of course 110V but the secondary was 5000V 0 5000V with the 0v earthed to the screened case. Looking at it it must be near on 500VA rating.
May be totally useless to you all (my apologies, i just don't know), but if it's any help at all then there you go Can't buy such an animal here in the UK (except in SMPS form & pricey) so i was forced to import one...
I have no idea if this will be of any use to you whatsoever but dropping it in here certainly won't do any harm.
I needed a high voltage transformer for a corona discharge ozone generator & i actually got one dirt cheap from stateside, even the postage was reasonable to the UK.
What i bought was an "oil burner ignition transformer". Primary was of course 110V but the secondary was 5000V 0 5000V with the 0v earthed to the screened case. Looking at it it must be near on 500VA rating.
May be totally useless to you all (my apologies, i just don't know), but if it's any help at all then there you go
Can't buy such an animal here in the UK (except in SMPS form & pricey) so i was forced to import one...
A-J,
Measuring on Axis alone will not tell the full story , worst case for a linesource, panel type speaker ( avg response will tell you a lot more ) . PK panel has more on axis energy than the original and due to such will require less to no toe in vs standard quads . 2 much toe and they will sound hot ..
On the other hand the original panel will sound dead off axis and lack any high frequency detail
This can be offset by running more toe and if any cables , wiring etc was updated to compensate for such , would make the newer panel sound "hot"
Last edited:
If that's his decision by design then fine. But why mess with something that ain't broken? The Quad ESL in it's original form has an excellent balanced neutral tonal character. I'm not saying they are perfect speakers, they have plenty of faults, but tonal character is not one of them. In fact it is the foremost reason people love this speaker. Messing with the panels to give more high frequency output does not gain you anything.
I don't think I could disagree more. I guess we have completely different views on speaker design then
But let's get back on topic. When I mentioned the 'beyond the Ariel' thread I did not mean to suggest it as an example for it's length
I don't think I could disagree more. I guess we have completely different views on speaker design then
But let's get back on topic. When I mentioned the 'beyond the Ariel' thread I did not mean to suggest it as an example for it's length
Yes, alive and real with energy is more my cup of tea !
The original Quad has a very "polite " frequency response and an avg FR would have shown how dead it would have been vs the other .
Did your friend have the bass panels done 2 , if not this might be the imbalance you are describing , as i have to agree with Calvin here that the original 57's stock are barely listenable.
Anyway we digress as hi-fi will always be mine and yours .. When do you get a wired stator to test vs a Perforated one ? or as suggested before , we pick one topic to debunk at a time ...
I will try later this week to get some more info on the PK modified panels and hope to plot it's impedance.
Last edited:
Hi Wachara,
A rising output with frequency response will sound sometimes harsh, but always unnatural. This is because nowhere in nature we experience this. A slightly downward slope is something very natural and we associate that with distance, since high frequencies are damped more than low frequencies by the air.
In scientific studies done (by for example F. Toole), blind tests point out that experienced and inexperienced listeners prefer a flat frequency response.
An ESL by itself will have a rising output with frequency which needs to be counter acted . I will get back on this in a later post when I have the time.
A rising output with frequency response will sound sometimes harsh, but always unnatural. This is because nowhere in nature we experience this. A slightly downward slope is something very natural and we associate that with distance, since high frequencies are damped more than low frequencies by the air.
In scientific studies done (by for example F. Toole), blind tests point out that experienced and inexperienced listeners prefer a flat frequency response.
An ESL by itself will have a rising output with frequency which needs to be counter acted . I will get back on this in a later post when I have the time.
Hello,
Strongly disagree and trying to tie a degradation in sound of the quads to such a statement does not make it correct . Rising high frequency on axis does not mean the speaker will sound unnatural, this only becomes a problem if after an aggregate FR still show this to be so and this number has to be quantified..
Is the Magic number 1 db , 2 much or is it 3 db rise becomes 2 much .
A falling off of high frequency on axis will have an even lower aggregate and will sound soft and polite , but never " real " and correct, it will always sound like you are never front and center , never alive .
Also while you can tell the personality of a speaker from it's FR, you can still get a perfectly "flat" speaker and it still sounds unnatural and unmusical . It takes a culmination of test , to determine if the end product will be any good .
testing requires @ a Min:
1. Fr taken at 0,10,20,30,deg axis .
2. Imp , mag and phase
3. Step and Impulse response
4. Power test @ 1,10,20, 40 watt looking for uniformity in FR .
In the end it still comes down to interpretation and likes , as how much is too much and how much is too little , there are no winners in Audio , it's not a GP, there will always be mine and yours and ones interpretation of such .
Then again i could be wrong on this as the quad 57 is the most listen to speaker in the world and is in every household ..... obvious this is about something else , huh !!!
regards,....
Strongly disagree and trying to tie a degradation in sound of the quads to such a statement does not make it correct . Rising high frequency on axis does not mean the speaker will sound unnatural, this only becomes a problem if after an aggregate FR still show this to be so and this number has to be quantified..
Is the Magic number 1 db , 2 much or is it 3 db rise becomes 2 much .
A falling off of high frequency on axis will have an even lower aggregate and will sound soft and polite , but never " real " and correct, it will always sound like you are never front and center , never alive .
Also while you can tell the personality of a speaker from it's FR, you can still get a perfectly "flat" speaker and it still sounds unnatural and unmusical . It takes a culmination of test , to determine if the end product will be any good .
testing requires @ a Min:
1. Fr taken at 0,10,20,30,deg axis .
2. Imp , mag and phase
3. Step and Impulse response
4. Power test @ 1,10,20, 40 watt looking for uniformity in FR .
In the end it still comes down to interpretation and likes , as how much is too much and how much is too little , there are no winners in Audio , it's not a GP, there will always be mine and yours and ones interpretation of such .
Then again i could be wrong on this as the quad 57 is the most listen to speaker in the world and is in every household .....
obvious this is about something else , huh !!!regards,....
Last edited:
Hi,
if you judge about high frequency level, you need to consider the radiation pattern of the speaker.
If the speaker has wide off axis dispersion and in addition is a dipole too, as ESL usually are, than a softly falling frequency response is desirable. In this case more reflections will add to the directly radiated sound. Only in very heavily rooms it should be different.
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
This is nothing specific to ESL or other planar speakers, but true for any speaker
Capaciti
if you judge about high frequency level, you need to consider the radiation pattern of the speaker.
If the speaker has wide off axis dispersion and in addition is a dipole too, as ESL usually are, than a softly falling frequency response is desirable. In this case more reflections will add to the directly radiated sound. Only in very heavily rooms it should be different.
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
This is nothing specific to ESL or other planar speakers, but true for any speaker
Capaciti
Huh? Please explain...please?
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
I am no expert by any means, but if you'd be so kind, and if you can spare the time, could you explain this? I would love to learn what you know here.
Thank You, Steve
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
I am no expert by any means, but if you'd be so kind, and if you can spare the time, could you explain this? I would love to learn what you know here.
Thank You, Steve
The assumption here is that the reflections contribute to the tonal balance. So this is en interaction between the directivity pattern and the room. The wider the pattern, the more reflections and hence more energy at those frequencies.
If the directivity is properly designed it should be gradual, controlled and smooth. At low frequencies we can have very little directivity, and with high frequencies we are bound to have at least some, but probably a lot. Hence it can only increase with frequency (it can go up and down a bit but the general direction is up). This means that the spatially averaged frequency response will show a downward slope with frequency.
There have been speakers that were build on the premise that the total radiated energy should be flat with frequency. These speakers had a rising response with frequency and sounded awful. Nobody makes them like that anymore.
Back to the first assumption. I have my doubts if for a highly directive speaker like most electrostatic panels, the reflective energy is much of a contribution at high frequencies. I suspect this is part of the reason for the 'direct sound' of ESLs.
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
Or you could say that the wider the angle to more you need a downward slope. This all depends on how much of the energy is actually contributing to the perceived tonal balance. That should be smooth and flat. This involves the room, directivity pattern and psycho acoustics. My point being, for a highly directive speaker the on axis response is mostly what you hear.
If the directivity is properly designed it should be gradual, controlled and smooth. At low frequencies we can have very little directivity, and with high frequencies we are bound to have at least some, but probably a lot. Hence it can only increase with frequency (it can go up and down a bit but the general direction is up). This means that the spatially averaged frequency response will show a downward slope with frequency.
There have been speakers that were build on the premise that the total radiated energy should be flat with frequency. These speakers had a rising response with frequency and sounded awful. Nobody makes them like that anymore.
Back to the first assumption. I have my doubts if for a highly directive speaker like most electrostatic panels, the reflective energy is much of a contribution at high frequencies. I suspect this is part of the reason for the 'direct sound' of ESLs.
The more beamy a speaker is, the more you need an increase of level towards high frequencies in order to compensate for less portion of reflections.
Or you could say that the wider the angle to more you need a downward slope. This all depends on how much of the energy is actually contributing to the perceived tonal balance. That should be smooth and flat. This involves the room, directivity pattern and psycho acoustics. My point being, for a highly directive speaker the on axis response is mostly what you hear.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.