by YOUR standards or is this a general sentiment ?
about what % of people in the market for ultra-high-end speakers do you think would say they lack adequate output ?
we're not talking about home theater by the way.
Member
Joined 2003
OK, Perfect to me would mean $100 a pair on top of everything else but now I understand better.
The sweet spot problem has to do with the lobing of the dispersion pattern. It is a function of frequency and the width or height of the panel. a 12" wide panel will lobe below 1 khz in frequency. 6" - 2khz. ESL panels and regular drivers mounted on a front panel have this problem. The width of the front panel determines the lowest freq.
An ideal speaker is a point source. Think of a round balloon varying from 1/2" in diameter to 6" or 12" from 20 hz to 20khz in frequency. That's what an ideal speaker resembles.
The sweet spot problem has to do with the lobing of the dispersion pattern. It is a function of frequency and the width or height of the panel. a 12" wide panel will lobe below 1 khz in frequency. 6" - 2khz. ESL panels and regular drivers mounted on a front panel have this problem. The width of the front panel determines the lowest freq.
An ideal speaker is a point source. Think of a round balloon varying from 1/2" in diameter to 6" or 12" from 20 hz to 20khz in frequency. That's what an ideal speaker resembles.
so if i built that - would you buy it ?
for say ... $50,000 ?
i am not clever enough to be able to build this for $100.
Last edited:
You cannot be serious!?
I really thought you were smarter than that, at least I know you think you are.
Hey, no need to throw insults here. We all learn in time.
to see how opinions vary just read some posts here about a few feet of wire.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1049.html#post2044056
to see how opinions vary just read some posts here about a few feet of wire.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1049.html#post2044056
You cannot be serious!?
it's not possible to build a speaker perfect by standards of romy the cat but it is certainly possible to build one perfect by your standards.
and this is not even a personal attack.
aren't you the one who considers panasonic and pioneer electronics perfect ?
sorry Geddes but i have been involved in flame wars such as me literally single-handed taking on the entire ArsTechnica forum arguing that 9-11 is an inside job - a thread that grew to over a hundred posts in mere hours. i have been doing this for many years. some of my flame wars on political forums your head would explode from just reading. if you really thinking your kindergarten attack tactics faze me then you are the one who has no clue.
To me they are too expensive, too big, and I have a feeling they wont work in any room that I own. The people that have seemed to achieve audio nirvana with planars also tend to have rooms that resemble anechoic chambers. But I wonder about some of the newer cheaper ones like the NEOs. I hear the same complaint about dynamic range and the 2-way monitors that I tend to gravitate towards that have lower order crossovers. So I'm not sure if it's dynamics for me although I could see myself mad if I spent the money and it wouldn't play something I wanted it to cleanly. The last DVD I just watched had an instrumental Jazz Band but the SPL got way up there for sure.
i understand that part.
what reasoning do you use to convince yourself that they wouldn't work in your room ? could you expand on that ?
but that part - i have no idea what you're saying. somehow the sentence structure is insurmountable for my brain. i can tell you're saying something about dynamics but can't figure out what.
Last edited:
It is a bit bipolar lol. I have seen people say that the types of monitors I prefer have problems with dynamic range. But I never seem to notice it. They basically say the same thing that I hear said about planar speakers "those monitors don't rock". So I wonder if you could get them to that point where they compress nicely or smoothly to where it wouldn't matter. I honestly don't know if planars have gotten to that point yet.
Last edited:
Earl likes to dabble in semantics.
I don't think he has ever actually represented his speakers as being "perfect", he just more than comes across as *implying* them as such (..or rather closer to perfection than "x"), especially when comparing his designs to any other.
Of course if anyone else uses the word perfect, then he wants to hold that person to that ideal while reveling in the fact that there is no such thing, and then ridiculing you for it.
Fortunately most people don't react in this fashion.
As for ESL's..
Mass and excursion is its blessing and its limitation. Lower mms and excursion relative to sd tend to result in increased levels of clarity. (.which most prefer.. though not always.)
The limitation then is SPL and alteration of the diaphragm's operation due to enclosures. To overcome the limitation of SPL - sd is increased. To overcome the limitation of disturbing the operation of the diaphragm - open baffle operation (or rather baffle and box-less operation). Open baffle/box-less operation requires much larger sd.
So the solution to the limitation is increase surface area, but that then creates all sorts of other problems. (..increased voltage for the stators, increased directivity at higher freq.s, high freq. combing, increase panel vibration, etc..) So it's usually onward to a more conventional bass driver with far greater excursion capability that just never seems to match the subjective quality of the panel (..though some have come close).
Then there are additional problems like impedance matching with amplifiers, low sensitivity, etc..
Finally, not all prefer the clarity of ESL's, (even at their very best), for any given application irrespective of limitations.
For instance I'm not fond of the treble they produce even without regard to limited dispersion and with no serious compromise in linear decay (..which is exceedingly difficult to come-by). To me the sound is always over-damped, even at very low spl's with some wildly inappropriate amplifiers (..that have a high output impedance).
Further, those amplifiers that often *can* drive the loudspeaker to even modest spl's (..i.e. high current power supply amps with staunch output stages that can handle low impedance loads with reactive phase angles), tend to over-damp the speaker at ALL freq.s., lending a "glass figurine" impression to "imaging" rather than something approaching "flesh and blood".
As others have mentioned, dipole bass (and lower mid) in general lacks some physical "impact" or sensation as well, and this is further exacerbated by low mass and low excursion.
So obviously there is no real perfection to be had here, but you already knew that.
There is still potential here though IMO, likely as an *array* of mid-range dipole panels (..with perhaps a ribbon mid-tweeter line source like Paul W has made). It might well have the potential to reach something close enough to what you and others would consider "perfect" (..or rather closer to your rendition of perfection).
Caution: It's seems like a lot of work to get it "right". 
Hi,
read a lot of verdicts and prejudices, that may have evolved from dissappointing listening experiences, press blabla and else.
I assume dissappointing listening experiences as the one that happens most often. Why? Well, You hardly find any decent setup apart from those of a few privateers and afficionados. Listening sessions at dealers, fairs and workshops I attended, where most often far from optimum and the poor ESLs performed far below par.
Built as open baffle speakers care should be taken as to what happens to the sound from the backside of the ESL. Directly reflecting nearby walls spoil not only amplitude response but imaging too. Everything then seems just too big to be real. Take care of the reflections problem and You can enjoy the precise focussing and natural image they are capable to deliver. When built as tall and thin strips reflections from sidewalls, floor and cealing are greatly reduced, which makes positioning of the speaker easier. A positive sideeffect of the figure 8 distribution character is that asetup placed right between both speakers suffers less microphonic effects, whilst with monopolar distributing speakers this often chosen position is much worse.
Mr. Geddes points:
1) They are expensive
2) The lack MAX power output
3) They are big
4) They lack bass
1) beeing parts which are manufactured -handmade- in tiny numbers costs should be expected to be higher, but then.......when I look at the markets pricerange I see small 2-way boxes with 5digit price tags. The flagships of the bigboys in business trade at >>100.000€ (see Focal, Wilson Audio et al).
2) Well Yes and No. What´s true is, is they don´t produce as much output power per membrane area as dynamic speakers. So they have to have larger membranes to reach similar SPLs. Their different distribution character (common dipolar linesource) leads to a different behaviour of SPL over distance. SPL is more evenly distributed over the room´s length.
SPL of the linesource becomes higher with increasing distance compared to a monopolar or wide distributing source. It allows to drive with an overall lower SPL. Last not least panels can be build, that can be used for PA and that reach more than enough SPL for home use.
3) Since You can shape an ESL panel easily into which form You want and since no cabinet volume is needed, large membrane areas don´t necessarily lead to more volume or more takenup space. So "big" means only the parameter ´membrane area´. As some fine specimen proove the flat and sometimes transparent appearance is rather more acceptable to human´s/women´s eyes than a coffin sized speaker-container.
4) Bass is indeed the one area where ESLs have to surrender to dynamic speakers. If they need to play below ~150Hz most of their positive attributes are spoiled, as are ´natural, real sound´, dynamics and precision.
Andrew Eckhardt: "ESLs don't rock."
Well Yes and NO. Yes, if You´re talking about fullrange ESLs. If not build impractically huge, they lack in dynamics and distortion values quickly rise below 200Hz. No, if You restrict to hybrids. Similar dynamics as a big horn are not only possible, but with wide bandwidth, low colouration of sound, exceptionally low values of distortion, first class time behaviour (step response), absence of compression effects (no thermal effects, no excursion dependant shift of paramaters, no hysteresis effects).
"You also have to sit smack in the middle of the sweet spot to get anything of value out of them at all"
I disagree. Every strongly beaming speaker underlies this problem and even widely distributing speakers show their best only in the sweetspot.
Actually the dipolar radiation patter eases the problem of otherwise beaming speakers alot and allows for casual listening off of the sweet spot. The extremely clean performance distortion- and time-wise allows for longer non wearysome listening and less danger of tinnitus.
Still though I wouldn´t use them for parties but because of the fear some drunken nerd might spill beer over them or even p** on them.
"They lack dynamic realism and the natural urge to turn it up to compensate just increases distortion"
Build a hybrid to the best possible standards and this prejudice is pulverized with the first hit on a Snaredrum. A membrane area of say 130cm² (17cm-driver) versus a panel of say modest 3.000cm². Even simplest logic tells that the large membrane allows for a increased dynamic range and possibly lower distortions.
Dcibel: dangerous
With those increasingly stringent international product liabilty laws I can´t imagine a manufacturer would risc to sell unsafe products.
DIY is totally different though and I assume there´s no DIYer who has never experienced a electrical shock. Care must be taken with all electronics, even more so when highvoltage/highcurrent is involved.
Dshortt9:
1) Slight lack of true dynamic rendition
2) Lack of cohesive crossover
3) A larger than life imaging
4) They are demanding of power amplifiers.
1) the examples listed are one small hybrid and several Fullranger.
With none of those I´d expect prime dynamic performance. I´m pretty sure Your opinion could change quite the opposite when listening to a larger hybrid.
2) That is a problem of real implementation not the principle. Actually it is quite easy to construct an hybrid that seamlessly integrates ESL-panel and dynamic bass.
3) I´m sure the setups You listened to didn´t pay enough attention to the rear soundwaves.
4) Yes and No. It might come to a surprise but in the middle frequency range ESLs can reach efficiencies of up to 30%, which is more than 10 to 30 times the value of an average dynamic speaker driver! Efficiency drops with increasing frequencies though. It is the need of an coupling transformer that creates the efficiency problem many ESLs suffer from.
The more so the lower the low bandwidth limit is chosen. Hybrid panels are much less affected and typically must be reduced in volume to match the bass.
What I liked to see as a lesson learned is that ESLs should be treated like any other speaker principle. It has certain very desirable characteristics which allow for extremely good performance and it has its drawbacks or compromises. Since beeing a special speaker principle designing with it should be special too and different to a dynamic design.
It is similar to the discussion of Tubes versus Transistors. While both worlds share many features there are distinct differences in circuit design if You want to achieve the best possible results. One of the many solutions could be to use the best features of both worlds. That is what a hybrid is all about. Still though the quality of implementation of the principles defines the quality of the result. A flawed concept, a bad design and the result is crap. Do it right and You combine the best of both worlds.
jauu
Calvin
read a lot of verdicts and prejudices, that may have evolved from dissappointing listening experiences, press blabla and else.
I assume dissappointing listening experiences as the one that happens most often. Why? Well, You hardly find any decent setup apart from those of a few privateers and afficionados. Listening sessions at dealers, fairs and workshops I attended, where most often far from optimum and the poor ESLs performed far below par.
Built as open baffle speakers care should be taken as to what happens to the sound from the backside of the ESL. Directly reflecting nearby walls spoil not only amplitude response but imaging too. Everything then seems just too big to be real. Take care of the reflections problem and You can enjoy the precise focussing and natural image they are capable to deliver. When built as tall and thin strips reflections from sidewalls, floor and cealing are greatly reduced, which makes positioning of the speaker easier. A positive sideeffect of the figure 8 distribution character is that asetup placed right between both speakers suffers less microphonic effects, whilst with monopolar distributing speakers this often chosen position is much worse.
Mr. Geddes points:
1) They are expensive
2) The lack MAX power output
3) They are big
4) They lack bass
1) beeing parts which are manufactured -handmade- in tiny numbers costs should be expected to be higher, but then.......when I look at the markets pricerange I see small 2-way boxes with 5digit price tags. The flagships of the bigboys in business trade at >>100.000€ (see Focal, Wilson Audio et al).
2) Well Yes and No. What´s true is, is they don´t produce as much output power per membrane area as dynamic speakers. So they have to have larger membranes to reach similar SPLs. Their different distribution character (common dipolar linesource) leads to a different behaviour of SPL over distance. SPL is more evenly distributed over the room´s length.
SPL of the linesource becomes higher with increasing distance compared to a monopolar or wide distributing source. It allows to drive with an overall lower SPL. Last not least panels can be build, that can be used for PA and that reach more than enough SPL for home use.
3) Since You can shape an ESL panel easily into which form You want and since no cabinet volume is needed, large membrane areas don´t necessarily lead to more volume or more takenup space. So "big" means only the parameter ´membrane area´. As some fine specimen proove the flat and sometimes transparent appearance is rather more acceptable to human´s/women´s eyes than a coffin sized speaker-container.
4) Bass is indeed the one area where ESLs have to surrender to dynamic speakers. If they need to play below ~150Hz most of their positive attributes are spoiled, as are ´natural, real sound´, dynamics and precision.
Andrew Eckhardt: "ESLs don't rock."
Well Yes and NO. Yes, if You´re talking about fullrange ESLs. If not build impractically huge, they lack in dynamics and distortion values quickly rise below 200Hz. No, if You restrict to hybrids. Similar dynamics as a big horn are not only possible, but with wide bandwidth, low colouration of sound, exceptionally low values of distortion, first class time behaviour (step response), absence of compression effects (no thermal effects, no excursion dependant shift of paramaters, no hysteresis effects).
"You also have to sit smack in the middle of the sweet spot to get anything of value out of them at all"
I disagree. Every strongly beaming speaker underlies this problem and even widely distributing speakers show their best only in the sweetspot.
Actually the dipolar radiation patter eases the problem of otherwise beaming speakers alot and allows for casual listening off of the sweet spot. The extremely clean performance distortion- and time-wise allows for longer non wearysome listening and less danger of tinnitus.
Still though I wouldn´t use them for parties but because of the fear some drunken nerd might spill beer over them or even p** on them.
"They lack dynamic realism and the natural urge to turn it up to compensate just increases distortion"
Build a hybrid to the best possible standards and this prejudice is pulverized with the first hit on a Snaredrum. A membrane area of say 130cm² (17cm-driver) versus a panel of say modest 3.000cm². Even simplest logic tells that the large membrane allows for a increased dynamic range and possibly lower distortions.
Dcibel: dangerous
With those increasingly stringent international product liabilty laws I can´t imagine a manufacturer would risc to sell unsafe products.
DIY is totally different though and I assume there´s no DIYer who has never experienced a electrical shock. Care must be taken with all electronics, even more so when highvoltage/highcurrent is involved.
Dshortt9:
1) Slight lack of true dynamic rendition
2) Lack of cohesive crossover
3) A larger than life imaging
4) They are demanding of power amplifiers.
1) the examples listed are one small hybrid and several Fullranger.
With none of those I´d expect prime dynamic performance. I´m pretty sure Your opinion could change quite the opposite when listening to a larger hybrid.
2) That is a problem of real implementation not the principle. Actually it is quite easy to construct an hybrid that seamlessly integrates ESL-panel and dynamic bass.
3) I´m sure the setups You listened to didn´t pay enough attention to the rear soundwaves.
4) Yes and No. It might come to a surprise but in the middle frequency range ESLs can reach efficiencies of up to 30%, which is more than 10 to 30 times the value of an average dynamic speaker driver! Efficiency drops with increasing frequencies though. It is the need of an coupling transformer that creates the efficiency problem many ESLs suffer from.
The more so the lower the low bandwidth limit is chosen. Hybrid panels are much less affected and typically must be reduced in volume to match the bass.
What I liked to see as a lesson learned is that ESLs should be treated like any other speaker principle. It has certain very desirable characteristics which allow for extremely good performance and it has its drawbacks or compromises. Since beeing a special speaker principle designing with it should be special too and different to a dynamic design.
It is similar to the discussion of Tubes versus Transistors. While both worlds share many features there are distinct differences in circuit design if You want to achieve the best possible results. One of the many solutions could be to use the best features of both worlds. That is what a hybrid is all about. Still though the quality of implementation of the principles defines the quality of the result. A flawed concept, a bad design and the result is crap. Do it right and You combine the best of both worlds.
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.