I think you first have to define “what is the ideal speaker?”
For sound reproduction, its means that it should be reproduced with something that has
- no mass or no moving parts
- no distortion
For realistic imaging you need something that only produces sound at the front side of the speaker. So you probably need:
- infinitive baffle
- horn speakers
- point source
Systems with low mass mostly are high efficient. Because with low efficient speakers most energy is wasted by pulling the mass the one side to another. For this item a electrostatic or plasma tweeter should be the way to go. Second options are magnetostatic and horns.
For the image, there are few techniques that can represent a good sound image. Infinitive baffle and horn speakers are the way to go here.
So I think a good horn should do the trick?
(im still using electrostatic speakers)
For sound reproduction, its means that it should be reproduced with something that has
- no mass or no moving parts
- no distortion
For realistic imaging you need something that only produces sound at the front side of the speaker. So you probably need:
- infinitive baffle
- horn speakers
- point source
Systems with low mass mostly are high efficient. Because with low efficient speakers most energy is wasted by pulling the mass the one side to another. For this item a electrostatic or plasma tweeter should be the way to go. Second options are magnetostatic and horns.
For the image, there are few techniques that can represent a good sound image. Infinitive baffle and horn speakers are the way to go here.
So I think a good horn should do the trick?
(im still using electrostatic speakers)
transformer on the ESL are a trouble
but not one of the output
you can alwyas get a better ( read more expensive $$$$$ transformer ) that will perfom better
so i don't see that as a limit to this technology
i have been amazed by electrostats for years,
researched it, bought lots of parts to assemble one
and never got to it ( no time because of current buisness )
Could we get a few graphs out of ESL VS other tech
for spectral decay ???
if i remember correclty, ribbons are the best in this specs right ??
but not one of the output
you can alwyas get a better ( read more expensive $$$$$ transformer ) that will perfom better
so i don't see that as a limit to this technology
i have been amazed by electrostats for years,
researched it, bought lots of parts to assemble one
and never got to it ( no time because of current buisness )
Could we get a few graphs out of ESL VS other tech
for spectral decay ???
if i remember correclty, ribbons are the best in this specs right ??
ESL web sites....
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=305
Have a look here as these are most of the ESL sites that you will find on line. The Dutch seem to have the most interest in DIY ESL's and some of them have very fancy testing set ups. Regards Moray James.
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=305
Have a look here as these are most of the ESL sites that you will find on line. The Dutch seem to have the most interest in DIY ESL's and some of them have very fancy testing set ups. Regards Moray James.
Hi,
money is the wrong answer!!! LineSource, You´ve been a bad boy! I´ll give You a ´D´for this
There are imo no other systems that can be as cheap as a hybrid-ESL to reach a certain high level of signal quality!! Intelligent use of proper material and knowhow shold be the right answer! And spare the money for what it´s worth.
jauu
Calvin
money is the wrong answer!!! LineSource, You´ve been a bad boy! I´ll give You a ´D´for this
There are imo no other systems that can be as cheap as a hybrid-ESL to reach a certain high level of signal quality!! Intelligent use of proper material and knowhow shold be the right answer! And spare the money for what it´s worth.
jauu
Calvin
ok we are now at the 5th page of this thread ...
so i'd say that we should set this straight now !!
can we get a few graphics of each main technology,
the best performer we can find for each or an average of the very best i don't know ..
and compare the different output attributes of each technology ??
we may include dispertion as everbody here seems to think that is it really important and directly related to the drivers
can someone make a list of the posssible attributes we might be examining ?
- spectral decay
- dispersion
- distortion ( mechanical, harmonic ... )
...????
i don't have the required tech knowledge to enumerate all that matters
do you guys think we could focus and do that ?
i think that it would be nice to compare either graphs or numbers from each bests and see what are the strength and cons of each tech.
We could also include the factor of diy hard/easy
or available from industry ( like cones , manger .. )
Let's also list all the MAIN technologies
- Bending wave
- ESL
- ribbbons ( should we classify this one elsehwer? )
- plannars, magnetics
- dynamic cones
... ???
please forget my ignorance if this is a reapeat,
i am only trying to learn from all you guys while duscussing audio
so i'd say that we should set this straight now !!
can we get a few graphics of each main technology,
the best performer we can find for each or an average of the very best i don't know ..
and compare the different output attributes of each technology ??
we may include dispertion as everbody here seems to think that is it really important and directly related to the drivers
can someone make a list of the posssible attributes we might be examining ?
- spectral decay
- dispersion
- distortion ( mechanical, harmonic ... )
...????
i don't have the required tech knowledge to enumerate all that matters
do you guys think we could focus and do that ?
i think that it would be nice to compare either graphs or numbers from each bests and see what are the strength and cons of each tech.
We could also include the factor of diy hard/easy
or available from industry ( like cones , manger .. )
Let's also list all the MAIN technologies
- Bending wave
- ESL
- ribbbons ( should we classify this one elsehwer? )
- plannars, magnetics
- dynamic cones
... ???
please forget my ignorance if this is a reapeat,
i am only trying to learn from all you guys while duscussing audio
I completely agree with Bill Waslo. He speaks wisely and truthfully. This shows the enormity of the problem posed by JinMTVT. Using just the measurements that are available to us currently and that we think are valid and reliable, we could get a bit of an idea of the performance envelope of a particular iteration of a particular technology, but we would be nowhere near being able to say definitively that this technology is better than that. Not that this isn’t an interesting topic.
In fact, I don’t believe that it is possible to properly of fairly compare technologies. The implementation of a technology has so much to do with the result that it becomes impossible to definitely determine whether a technology is superior – with measurements or some other criteria. We can’t even agree that a particular embodiment within a technology is the “best”. What is true is that the amount of development that has gone into the standard dynamic voice coil driven diaphragm driver is such that there is little reason (except entertainment or curiosity) to use an exotic system unless you have an enormous amount of time and money to devote to your own R&D. Even the corporate entities that commercialize an exotic technology are strained to just make a product that nominally functions, as most of these companies are rather small with limited resources and are generally under funded. This situation is getting worse with the current state of the Hi-Fi industry. An amateur is not likely to be any more capable of creating a great exotic speaker. An amateur’s resources are generally even more limited: lack of facilities, tools and materials, and perhaps experience and training. I realize that this is perhaps an unpopular stance to many audiophiles, but it really is much easier to get predictable and satisfying results using dynamic drivers.
With respect to measurements, there is still a lot to be learned about the validity of various measures. And perhaps there will be future measurements that are more instructive. There are aspects of a speaker’s performance that are so poorly defined and understood (and yet held to be important by many audiophiles) that there can be no measurement for it. Of course there are several measurements where good performance in those measures, correlate well with subjective preference, but this hasn’t yet resulted in the perfect speaker or even one that is good enough to deter others from attempting to surpass it using unconventional methods. Sean Olive and Dr. Floyd Toole have done great work on the subject.
I suppose that it is possible to do some thought experiments with respect to the theoretical performance of an exotic technology and have somewhat of an idea of the potential performance envelope of said technology. Take for example the acceleration of a diaphragm of one technology versus another. The mass of an electrostatic panel and the amount of force available to move the panel can be relatively easily determined. From there, it is not too hard to calculate the potential acceleration of the panel and then compare this against the same of say a dome tweeter. If the acceleration of a diaphragm is determined to be important in the performance of a speaker, than we can say that in this regard that a particular panel is superior or inferior to that of a particular dome tweeter. We can do a number of these experiments with various performance parameters that have been postulated to being relevant and develop a bit of a picture of the performance envelope of a particular technology. Unfortunately, this still leaves us a long way from being able to answer the original question.
Of course there are so many biases and subjective opinions about this or that. But the private experience of a listener is so much a function of the listener’s biases and state of mind/body at the time of the listening, that it is impossible to use this as a reliable measure of anything. But, ultimately this is the only thing that matters – in that if the listener likes or dislikes a particular speaker; for valid reasons or not (who is to say?); it is his business and he may choose to vote with his dollar. And you are also free to praise or revile him. I just wish that certain individuals who write for certain audiophile publications would stop extolling the virtues of worthless objects.
I currently have in my possession, several embodiments of speakers of various technologies (ESL, Planar magnetic, Bending wave, and various exotic dynamic from well regarded manufacturers – including pre-production prototypes and handmade proof of concepts) and have measured and listened. I can’t say that there is one definitely sonically superior speaker technology. I can find things to like and dislike in all of them. And this is largely what engineering is about: Choosing compromises.
And finally, a “real scientific” approach starts with a testable hypothesis. If someone wants to pose an interesting hypothesis, I will (as time and resources allow) be interested in designing a proper experiment and test this.
In fact, I don’t believe that it is possible to properly of fairly compare technologies. The implementation of a technology has so much to do with the result that it becomes impossible to definitely determine whether a technology is superior – with measurements or some other criteria. We can’t even agree that a particular embodiment within a technology is the “best”. What is true is that the amount of development that has gone into the standard dynamic voice coil driven diaphragm driver is such that there is little reason (except entertainment or curiosity) to use an exotic system unless you have an enormous amount of time and money to devote to your own R&D. Even the corporate entities that commercialize an exotic technology are strained to just make a product that nominally functions, as most of these companies are rather small with limited resources and are generally under funded. This situation is getting worse with the current state of the Hi-Fi industry. An amateur is not likely to be any more capable of creating a great exotic speaker. An amateur’s resources are generally even more limited: lack of facilities, tools and materials, and perhaps experience and training. I realize that this is perhaps an unpopular stance to many audiophiles, but it really is much easier to get predictable and satisfying results using dynamic drivers.
With respect to measurements, there is still a lot to be learned about the validity of various measures. And perhaps there will be future measurements that are more instructive. There are aspects of a speaker’s performance that are so poorly defined and understood (and yet held to be important by many audiophiles) that there can be no measurement for it. Of course there are several measurements where good performance in those measures, correlate well with subjective preference, but this hasn’t yet resulted in the perfect speaker or even one that is good enough to deter others from attempting to surpass it using unconventional methods. Sean Olive and Dr. Floyd Toole have done great work on the subject.
I suppose that it is possible to do some thought experiments with respect to the theoretical performance of an exotic technology and have somewhat of an idea of the potential performance envelope of said technology. Take for example the acceleration of a diaphragm of one technology versus another. The mass of an electrostatic panel and the amount of force available to move the panel can be relatively easily determined. From there, it is not too hard to calculate the potential acceleration of the panel and then compare this against the same of say a dome tweeter. If the acceleration of a diaphragm is determined to be important in the performance of a speaker, than we can say that in this regard that a particular panel is superior or inferior to that of a particular dome tweeter. We can do a number of these experiments with various performance parameters that have been postulated to being relevant and develop a bit of a picture of the performance envelope of a particular technology. Unfortunately, this still leaves us a long way from being able to answer the original question.
Of course there are so many biases and subjective opinions about this or that. But the private experience of a listener is so much a function of the listener’s biases and state of mind/body at the time of the listening, that it is impossible to use this as a reliable measure of anything. But, ultimately this is the only thing that matters – in that if the listener likes or dislikes a particular speaker; for valid reasons or not (who is to say?); it is his business and he may choose to vote with his dollar. And you are also free to praise or revile him. I just wish that certain individuals who write for certain audiophile publications would stop extolling the virtues of worthless objects.
I currently have in my possession, several embodiments of speakers of various technologies (ESL, Planar magnetic, Bending wave, and various exotic dynamic from well regarded manufacturers – including pre-production prototypes and handmade proof of concepts) and have measured and listened. I can’t say that there is one definitely sonically superior speaker technology. I can find things to like and dislike in all of them. And this is largely what engineering is about: Choosing compromises.
And finally, a “real scientific” approach starts with a testable hypothesis. If someone wants to pose an interesting hypothesis, I will (as time and resources allow) be interested in designing a proper experiment and test this.
Hi,
highest possible bandwidth, highly damping diaphragm material, lighest diaphragm weight, homogenous and linear motor structure,
lowest distortion level, lowest count of resonating mechanisms (no cabinet no spider to begin with), close to ideal coupling to air,
one diaphragm can be exactly ´taylored´ to different active areas or frequency ranges.
All these are features of an ESL. It looses basically on just one feature power vers. size. A ESL can´t develop as much power per membrane area as a dynamic speaker. Since its sensible to restrict its use to the mid-highs where it can truly shine and leave the bass to the more compact dynamic speaker. Thats how the Best is constructed, say I
jauu
Calvin
highest possible bandwidth, highly damping diaphragm material, lighest diaphragm weight, homogenous and linear motor structure,
lowest distortion level, lowest count of resonating mechanisms (no cabinet no spider to begin with), close to ideal coupling to air,
one diaphragm can be exactly ´taylored´ to different active areas or frequency ranges.
All these are features of an ESL. It looses basically on just one feature power vers. size. A ESL can´t develop as much power per membrane area as a dynamic speaker. Since its sensible to restrict its use to the mid-highs where it can truly shine and leave the bass to the more compact dynamic speaker. Thats how the Best is constructed, say I
jauu
Calvin
Wrong. Plasma is far lighter.Calvin said:
You better read Hill's patent on glow discharge sound generation. The plasma's instantaneous deltra-pressure wave is directly proportional to the instantaneous input delta-power. Excellently linear electricity to motion conversion.
The plasma linearity can be arbitrarily raised by increasing temperature of temperature. But even at reasonable power levels the nonlinearity is already on the order of what common amplifiers, rather than speakers, exhibit.
Are you sure? Take a look waterfall and pulse response I posted in the other thread, which are for the close to 30 year old Plasmatronics.
So can the plasma. It's directly determined by it's shape (patent again), with different discrete regions having different peaks in the response, but integrating to make a flat overall response.
The plasma doesn't lose here; the Plasmatronics do 107 dB at 3 meters for a 2 cm tall discharge, which is reasonable for its frequency range.
Which goes for the plasma, where below 400-500 Hz power requirements become unreasonable. Funny, my thought was to leave the bass to large ESL panels, and have the glow discharge from 500 and up.
The one technology that probably beats even this is Pass' infamous ion cloud prototype (replace the ESL membrane with a sheet of ionized air), but the levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide it produces puts even the plasma to shame.
JinMTVT;
You want to drink a good wine or do you want chemical composition of different wines so you can then try to figure
out which one taste better without drinking ?
LOL
Learning takes time and money. Anyone knowledgeable who
posts on this forum didn't become that way overnight. You
want instant satisfaction, instant infusion of vast knowledge,
just like cup O noodles, just add water, viola.. lunch...
One thread won't answer all your questions.
People answering your questions won't know all the answers.
You need to spend a few years researching your desires
from different sources.
If you want to build a loudspeaker, then just stay focuses
on your goals whatever they may be.
You want to drink a good wine or do you want chemical composition of different wines so you can then try to figure
out which one taste better without drinking ?
LOL
Learning takes time and money. Anyone knowledgeable who
posts on this forum didn't become that way overnight. You
want instant satisfaction, instant infusion of vast knowledge,
just like cup O noodles, just add water, viola.. lunch...
One thread won't answer all your questions.
People answering your questions won't know all the answers.
You need to spend a few years researching your desires
from different sources.
If you want to build a loudspeaker, then just stay focuses
on your goals whatever they may be.
Hi,
imo its one of the wrong believes that plasma is the lighest possible ´diaphragm´. The plasma itself ha a mass which is determined by the volume of the flame. Calculated comparatively to the size of a ESL diaphragm the Plasma flame isn´t the lighter one - the thin ESL-diaphragm is!
Yes I´m very sure about the resonanting mechanism. The only one (!) is the diaphragm beeing pulled taut, thereby exhibiting one basic resonance (like Fs in a dynamic speaker). You´re misbelief is understandable though since in practise I too don´t know of one ESL-manufacturer who accounts for standing waves that could happen within the cell by the use of some kind of damping. But that is a problem of -mostly- cheap construction and not one of the principle.
I haven´t taken plasma into my account as best possible speaker, since it is -at least at the moment- not possible to build a plasma-fullrange speaker. But its possible with dynamic speakers, magnetostatics and ESLs. It might not be the best solution to use one principle throughout the whole frequency range, but it is possible.
Anyway, I find the starting Q of this thread not only funny, but funnily free of sense. So I decide for me not to take this thread too serious
jauu
Calvin
imo its one of the wrong believes that plasma is the lighest possible ´diaphragm´. The plasma itself ha a mass which is determined by the volume of the flame. Calculated comparatively to the size of a ESL diaphragm the Plasma flame isn´t the lighter one - the thin ESL-diaphragm is!
Yes I´m very sure about the resonanting mechanism. The only one (!) is the diaphragm beeing pulled taut, thereby exhibiting one basic resonance (like Fs in a dynamic speaker). You´re misbelief is understandable though since in practise I too don´t know of one ESL-manufacturer who accounts for standing waves that could happen within the cell by the use of some kind of damping. But that is a problem of -mostly- cheap construction and not one of the principle.
I haven´t taken plasma into my account as best possible speaker, since it is -at least at the moment- not possible to build a plasma-fullrange speaker. But its possible with dynamic speakers, magnetostatics and ESLs. It might not be the best solution to use one principle throughout the whole frequency range, but it is possible.
Anyway, I find the starting Q of this thread not only funny, but funnily free of sense. So I decide for me not to take this thread too serious
jauu
Calvin
Next time check your math before posting, so you don't embarass yourself yet again.Calvin said:
Mylar density is about 1.4 g/cm^3. Let us consider a small ESL panel half meter in each of the large dimensions, giving 2500 cm^2 area. Taking 4 micron thick film, or 0.0004 cm, we get 1 cm^3, and from this and the density, we get 1 g for the ESL panel.
Now let's do the plasma. The gas law is of course PV = nRT, and the density of air at sea level with 25 degrees Celsius, or 298 K, is 0.001187 g/cm^3. The Plasmatronics glow discharge is a triangle about 3 cm^2 area and under 0.5 cm thick, giving 1.5 cm^3. With the density, if this were air, it would be 0.0018 g. So we already win. But wait, we're not even done yet! I said, if this were air. Everything here in the gas law is in equilibrium with air except the temperature (and that has a very steep gradient in the Plasmatronics design, thus the plasma volume is well delimited). The temperature of the plasma in my experiments can vaporize (not just melt) tungsten wire, thus placing a lower bound of 5869 K. Since that is jus in the center of the plasma, I'll divide by half. Since everything else is the same in the gas law, we just multiply mass by 298 K / 2934 K, thus getting at most 121 micrograms for the discharge, or about 8000 times less than for the ESL panel!
So there still is one. The glow discharge has none.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.