I am building a project to address some of the issues. A little backgound first. I built the white Nao's on John K's site, and also the "u frames for the Quads. The Nao's are the most nutral system that I have heard to date. They do nothing bad. But it was listening to the Quads and a post Calvin made some time ago that prompted me to build these. He stated that the ML Statement was the one to emulate. Mine has a bit of a twist.
The esl panel are from Just Real Music and are 48 x 12 . They will be used down to 250-300. The mid bass is a dipole line source consisting of 8 Dayton RS 150T down to 120. The bass is active consisting of 2 (eventually 4) of John K's 10" Peerless "U frame" subs. My hope is that the lines source will provide the punch that some esl's seem to lack. I know the bass will be better than the retail systems.
John
The esl panel are from Just Real Music and are 48 x 12 . They will be used down to 250-300. The mid bass is a dipole line source consisting of 8 Dayton RS 150T down to 120. The bass is active consisting of 2 (eventually 4) of John K's 10" Peerless "U frame" subs. My hope is that the lines source will provide the punch that some esl's seem to lack. I know the bass will be better than the retail systems.
John
Hi all,
Great viewing I've gotta say!
Don't understand much (any) of it, gotta confess that much.
Just one simple question: Is this an 'Inside job'?
I mean, is someone here, sent, (by their own spiecies I presume) here to Earth, to gather useful infomation on 'earthlings' interpretation of perfect sound, by an Earth based, (I'm only guessing here!) commercial speaker company?
Not a conspear-apathy theorist (or whatever they're called), or anything, but.......
Wow, sure does make for interesting viewing, none the less!
I'd like to thank my sponsers, Leeloo, and sphear! Thank's Heaps you've been GREAT!
Regards, Mick.
Great viewing I've gotta say!
Don't understand much (any) of it, gotta confess that much.
Just one simple question: Is this an 'Inside job'?
I mean, is someone here, sent, (by their own spiecies I presume) here to Earth, to gather useful infomation on 'earthlings' interpretation of perfect sound, by an Earth based, (I'm only guessing here!) commercial speaker company?
Not a conspear-apathy theorist (or whatever they're called), or anything, but.......
Wow, sure does make for interesting viewing, none the less!
I'd like to thank my sponsers, Leeloo, and sphear! Thank's Heaps you've been GREAT!
Regards, Mick.
Hi @all,
nice discussion
I have experience with electrostatics for about 15 years now and heard and owned Sombetzkis, Capacitis and Silberstatic (which i still own).
There are really many designs with problems, and what i personally dislike most are curved metal stators by sound.
First ESLs do not have to be really expensive, except you expect things they naturally cannot deliver on their own: 20Hz @ 115 dB
Too bad i experienced B&W Matrix 801 S3s before my first ESLs, so i am veryy needful speaking of bass. Needful does not mean that i need much of it, it just has to be "there". I learned one thing: deep, hopefully deepest Bass with precision is mostly expensive.
I combine my ESLs with nearly perfect Subwoofer, now using Klein+Hummel O810 Basses, one for each side. So bass is not a Problem speaking of precision oder power. Other well working Sub-Woofers i know are A.C.T., Audiodata and i think Genesis will work very well. But i do not think it is easy to build such a thing easily. Work well means you do not hear that there is a dynamic woofer present in the system. It just perfectly extends the ESLs. Mine are cut between 60 and 80 Hz. Panel size is actually about 30cm x 200cm with wire line sources which indeed sound great. What i miss is a really perfect Frequency Range, which i fix by using double panels which still will be cut. So the reachable level is really loud enough to let trumpets blow your ears away.
Speaking of Amps: Mine are perfectly driven by a valve Amp, because Silberstatic deliver matched transformers for valve amps. You rech much loudness, control and maybe even perfect controlled punchy bass with much amp power and i would use Hypex HG Amps with 180 or even 400 Watts for that. They do not react at all to load, so they are perfect for ESLs
I think this combination might change some known facts about ESLs.
Second they (or the amps) do not like high capacitive Speaker cables. So the beloved CAT cables are a clear no go! I use Audioplan CRC cables for that reason. Musically sounding, quite cheap, low capacity. I even get a peak in the highs now (not a heavy loss that i thought was normal).
Speaking of bass extension if still needed when you use Hypex Amps:
I would really prefer push-push folded Dipoles, which are the most "open" sounding Woofers i ever heard. See Linnkwitz and Axel Ridthaler for perfect designs. Too sad there is a patent on that principle :/ So building this to sell it may be stuck with problems.
So what's left? Small Sweet spot. Well you could make the full-range Segment even smaller until you get less problems with the sweet spot. To find out how this really works is your work of course
In the end i heard many different systems, where mine (pimped with acourate/audiovolver technology with digitally implemented crossovers and impulse correction with very long FIR Filters) was still one of the best.
As i am used to nearly impulse perfect systems normal systems cannot really compete for my personal taste, where timing is really an issue.
What gets near and sometimes maybe better in parts, are very good systems which are Acourate/Audiovolver corrected, too. I own a pair of Klein+Hummel O300 Monitors for my little homestudio, where listening is also great and which is a very good comparison reference for what is more "right" and neutral, and i like both systems.
What really stunned me was an audition of a Pair of Genesis Dipoles (500?) which sounded great after we set them up propery and added (again) FIR correction. This was really amazing and fun listening But this was a system of 70 EUR plus... A system with ESLs can really sound like that or better (in parts) and maybe overall if the Subs are perfect.
Maybe i'll change my point of view when i get my double panels soon. I may post about that i you like.
Currently i would say a double panel system plus dipole p-p woofer linesouces (meaning 5 woofers per side with 10 suitable drivers each)
plus hypex switching amps may be _the thing_. But i think such a system will cost about 8000-10000 EUR or more just for the used material! (plus FIR including impulse correction of course, cannot live w/o that anymore)
Such a system is a fully active driven speaker system usable in any room (as boomyness and other problems except early reflections are simply not a problem anymore), so it might very well compete with any existing system on the market.
I am planing to get into this business, but more with the roomcorrection stuff which i know for about 15 years now. Please do not see the quotes as ads, currently this are just fine products i am using and which i know much about.
best regards,
LHBL
P.S.: The question about the delayed segments... First Quad did this, and i thing Audio Exclusiv did this too including HV Valve amps w/o trnasformers.
nice discussion
I have experience with electrostatics for about 15 years now and heard and owned Sombetzkis, Capacitis and Silberstatic (which i still own).
There are really many designs with problems, and what i personally dislike most are curved metal stators by sound.
First ESLs do not have to be really expensive, except you expect things they naturally cannot deliver on their own: 20Hz @ 115 dB
Too bad i experienced B&W Matrix 801 S3s before my first ESLs, so i am veryy needful speaking of bass. Needful does not mean that i need much of it, it just has to be "there". I learned one thing: deep, hopefully deepest Bass with precision is mostly expensive.
I combine my ESLs with nearly perfect Subwoofer, now using Klein+Hummel O810 Basses, one for each side. So bass is not a Problem speaking of precision oder power. Other well working Sub-Woofers i know are A.C.T., Audiodata and i think Genesis will work very well. But i do not think it is easy to build such a thing easily. Work well means you do not hear that there is a dynamic woofer present in the system. It just perfectly extends the ESLs. Mine are cut between 60 and 80 Hz. Panel size is actually about 30cm x 200cm with wire line sources which indeed sound great. What i miss is a really perfect Frequency Range, which i fix by using double panels which still will be cut. So the reachable level is really loud enough to let trumpets blow your ears away.
Speaking of Amps: Mine are perfectly driven by a valve Amp, because Silberstatic deliver matched transformers for valve amps. You rech much loudness, control and maybe even perfect controlled punchy bass with much amp power and i would use Hypex HG Amps with 180 or even 400 Watts for that. They do not react at all to load, so they are perfect for ESLs
I think this combination might change some known facts about ESLs.
Second they (or the amps) do not like high capacitive Speaker cables. So the beloved CAT cables are a clear no go! I use Audioplan CRC cables for that reason. Musically sounding, quite cheap, low capacity. I even get a peak in the highs now (not a heavy loss that i thought was normal).
Speaking of bass extension if still needed when you use Hypex Amps:
I would really prefer push-push folded Dipoles, which are the most "open" sounding Woofers i ever heard. See Linnkwitz and Axel Ridthaler for perfect designs. Too sad there is a patent on that principle :/ So building this to sell it may be stuck with problems.
So what's left? Small Sweet spot. Well you could make the full-range Segment even smaller until you get less problems with the sweet spot. To find out how this really works is your work of course
In the end i heard many different systems, where mine (pimped with acourate/audiovolver technology with digitally implemented crossovers and impulse correction with very long FIR Filters) was still one of the best.
As i am used to nearly impulse perfect systems normal systems cannot really compete for my personal taste, where timing is really an issue.
What gets near and sometimes maybe better in parts, are very good systems which are Acourate/Audiovolver corrected, too. I own a pair of Klein+Hummel O300 Monitors for my little homestudio, where listening is also great and which is a very good comparison reference for what is more "right" and neutral, and i like both systems.
What really stunned me was an audition of a Pair of Genesis Dipoles (500?) which sounded great after we set them up propery and added (again) FIR correction. This was really amazing and fun listening
But this was a system of 70 EUR plus... A system with ESLs can really sound like that or better (in parts) and maybe overall if the Subs are perfect.Maybe i'll change my point of view when i get my double panels soon. I may post about that i you like.
Currently i would say a double panel system plus dipole p-p woofer linesouces (meaning 5 woofers per side with 10 suitable drivers each)
plus hypex switching amps may be _the thing_. But i think such a system will cost about 8000-10000 EUR or more just for the used material! (plus FIR including impulse correction of course, cannot live w/o that anymore)
Such a system is a fully active driven speaker system usable in any room (as boomyness and other problems except early reflections are simply not a problem anymore), so it might very well compete with any existing system on the market.
I am planing to get into this business, but more with the roomcorrection stuff which i know for about 15 years now. Please do not see the quotes as ads, currently this are just fine products i am using and which i know much about.
best regards,
LHBL
P.S.: The question about the delayed segments... First Quad did this, and i thing Audio Exclusiv did this too including HV Valve amps w/o trnasformers.
That would be me. And poor Borat never got to hear them at their best! In fact I doubt we ever broke 75-80dB. I'm pleased they still made such an impression on you though, so come back any time, Borat.
Why don't people buy them? I think it's because of the 'lifestyle change' or decor sacrifice (low WAF) required to put decent sized ESLs in the living room. They can't be designed to blend in with the furniture, and they need to be out in the room. Plus dealers most often don't set them up for a nice demo. And then on top of that they expose recordings, rooms, and equipment for what they are, and the layman thinks his 'good' recordings don't sound good on them anymore....
Great question, Borat,
Personally, I love the magical imaging and detail you get from a well designed hybrid electrostat. What initially turned me off about them were their ridiculously high price and reputation for questionable reliability. What turned me back onto them was discovering how easily and cheaply you can build your own. I've built a lot of DIY conventional speakers but it's easier to get great results with stats. OK, they're too directional for party speakers but if you're just into fidelity, I'm convinced they are the best value going-- it's hard to imagine a better sounding speaker for the [DIY] price-- $500 will get you some serious fidelity.
Personally, I love the magical imaging and detail you get from a well designed hybrid electrostat. What initially turned me off about them were their ridiculously high price and reputation for questionable reliability. What turned me back onto them was discovering how easily and cheaply you can build your own. I've built a lot of DIY conventional speakers but it's easier to get great results with stats. OK, they're too directional for party speakers but if you're just into fidelity, I'm convinced they are the best value going-- it's hard to imagine a better sounding speaker for the [DIY] price-- $500 will get you some serious fidelity.
This is really a marketing question. People won't buy elctrostatics becasue they are different and unfamiliar. Unfamiliar means increased risk and most people won't take risks when there is a fair bit of money involved. Not only that, but most women won't have a bar of them because they don't look anything like a piece of antique furniture, and they are too big. Believe me, I speak from personal experience. I have 2 pairs of electroststics and am struggling to keep them. She wants me to sell them because they are too big. No matter that they have mids and treble to die for, they are just TOO BIG! She prefers my dynamic speaker creations that sit in a rectangular box.
Personally I think why people don't buy electrostatics has little or nothing to do with sound. Some are very expensive, but then there are also some very expensive dynamic speakers that do sell. Much of what has been said about lack of dynamics or volume is just not the case in a well designed electrostatic. They are a difficult load, and some amplifiers sound terrible driving an electrostatic, so it usually means an expensive power amp. What they do exceeding well is to reproduce acoustic music accurately. If you like overblown punchy sound then an electrostatic will not do that, and let's face it, much of the general public do prefer that sort of sound. My electrostatics excell in the mids and treble, and I have been unable to match them with dynamic drivers, but it is not too difficult to get dynamic drivers to produce deeper and cleaner bass. I have also had a problem with decreasing efficiency with age, and the manufacturer has gone belly up like a lot of other electrostatic speaker manufacturers. However, I have had some of my most satisfying listening experiences with the elctrostatics. Well recorded CDs can sound incredibly realistic, but then on the other hand poor recording technique will be laid bare.
It is all about perception - i.e. how long will the speaker last? Will the manufacturer be around if they fail? They look wierd, how will they fit into the lounge room? etc I have also had some people say they sound "strange" or "thin". The reason for that is becasue they are used to listening to a crappy sounding dynamic speaker with over bloated bass. The only answer to that is, well mate that is exactly what an acoustic instrument sounds like in the flesh.
Personally I think why people don't buy electrostatics has little or nothing to do with sound. Some are very expensive, but then there are also some very expensive dynamic speakers that do sell. Much of what has been said about lack of dynamics or volume is just not the case in a well designed electrostatic. They are a difficult load, and some amplifiers sound terrible driving an electrostatic, so it usually means an expensive power amp. What they do exceeding well is to reproduce acoustic music accurately. If you like overblown punchy sound then an electrostatic will not do that, and let's face it, much of the general public do prefer that sort of sound. My electrostatics excell in the mids and treble, and I have been unable to match them with dynamic drivers, but it is not too difficult to get dynamic drivers to produce deeper and cleaner bass. I have also had a problem with decreasing efficiency with age, and the manufacturer has gone belly up like a lot of other electrostatic speaker manufacturers. However, I have had some of my most satisfying listening experiences with the elctrostatics. Well recorded CDs can sound incredibly realistic, but then on the other hand poor recording technique will be laid bare.
It is all about perception - i.e. how long will the speaker last? Will the manufacturer be around if they fail? They look wierd, how will they fit into the lounge room? etc I have also had some people say they sound "strange" or "thin". The reason for that is becasue they are used to listening to a crappy sounding dynamic speaker with over bloated bass. The only answer to that is, well mate that is exactly what an acoustic instrument sounds like in the flesh.
Last edited:
I have a set of ML CLSs and have had them since 1984--upgraded to Zs in the early 00s.
1: These CLS ESLs do not really perform until you take the bass information off of them and send it to a proper sub woofer to carry the bottom end (all the way up to 105 Hz in the case of the CLS Zs).
2: The top end can be beamy and certain room organizations accentuate this disturbance. I have had two rooms that hated these speakers, and one room they performed well, and one room where they are fabulous. The fabulous room is 17 feet wide, 53 feet long and 11 feet tall. The good room was 24 feet wide 17 feet deep with a cathedral ceiling starting at 9 feet high going to 13 feet high.
3: They are extremely picky about how you load your phono cartrige--and inform you when you have it wrong.
4: They make you fix the rest of the audio electronics chain {Preamp, Power Amp, CD player} due to 2 and 3 above.
5: However, once you find a room where they shine, get them tuned up (pointed in the correct orrentation for that room), with the sub to carry the bottom end:: presto, its like being there.
1: These CLS ESLs do not really perform until you take the bass information off of them and send it to a proper sub woofer to carry the bottom end (all the way up to 105 Hz in the case of the CLS Zs).
2: The top end can be beamy and certain room organizations accentuate this disturbance. I have had two rooms that hated these speakers, and one room they performed well, and one room where they are fabulous. The fabulous room is 17 feet wide, 53 feet long and 11 feet tall. The good room was 24 feet wide 17 feet deep with a cathedral ceiling starting at 9 feet high going to 13 feet high.
3: They are extremely picky about how you load your phono cartrige--and inform you when you have it wrong.
4: They make you fix the rest of the audio electronics chain {Preamp, Power Amp, CD player} due to 2 and 3 above.
5: However, once you find a room where they shine, get them tuned up (pointed in the correct orrentation for that room), with the sub to carry the bottom end:: presto, its like being there.
I got the ESL bug around 1977 and , like many ESL fans, have never thought any other kind of driver held anywhere near the appeal. Perhaps it is that we focus on certain virtues (clarity and freedom from distortion, perhaps) and gladly ignore ESL shortcomings in exchange.
Many of these shortcomings are documented above.
Some are limitations that mature adults live with - maximum loudness or a thirst which can sometimes only be addressed through vast low-impedance driving power.
Some are pains - like the cost or durability.
Some are theoretical and of surprisingly little practical impact (and/or can be negotiated) - like high frequency beaming, room placement for a dipole, or even tilted output with frequency.
But in the unlikely event I get to heaven, I hope I will find large spherical-surface speakers composed of Dayton-Wright drivers (sans the drycleaner bag and gas) driven directly by high voltage amps.
To answer Borat's first post, I think ESLs wouldn't sound good in a large, open-plan kind of showroom. Dayton-Wrights are a possible exception since they were designed for possible use in movie theatres and accordinly have some special virtues, no kidding.
Many of these shortcomings are documented above.
Some are limitations that mature adults live with - maximum loudness or a thirst which can sometimes only be addressed through vast low-impedance driving power.
Some are pains - like the cost or durability.
Some are theoretical and of surprisingly little practical impact (and/or can be negotiated) - like high frequency beaming, room placement for a dipole, or even tilted output with frequency.
But in the unlikely event I get to heaven, I hope I will find large spherical-surface speakers composed of Dayton-Wright drivers (sans the drycleaner bag and gas) driven directly by high voltage amps.
To answer Borat's first post, I think ESLs wouldn't sound good in a large, open-plan kind of showroom. Dayton-Wrights are a possible exception since they were designed for possible use in movie theatres and accordinly have some special virtues, no kidding.
Last edited:
My impression is that beaming is one of those things that engineers believe in (and on a good day and if you are lucky, your mic can locate in an anechoic space using pure tones) but that have little aural significance... and esp. at frequencies that only the falsely boastful claim affects their music listening.
Is there a sweet spot for your listening chair? Do ESLs have smaller sweet spots? For sure. But the sweet range is defined by all kinds of more important sound/stereo factors. I think the matching and precision of ESLs pairs results in greater constraint seat-localization (and here I am talking about a bad consequence arising from a speaker's quality) and the beaming is therefore not the key factor forcing the seat-localization.
And beaming just doesn't matter when you are in the beam, eh.
Is there a sweet spot for your listening chair? Do ESLs have smaller sweet spots? For sure. But the sweet range is defined by all kinds of more important sound/stereo factors. I think the matching and precision of ESLs pairs results in greater constraint seat-localization (and here I am talking about a bad consequence arising from a speaker's quality) and the beaming is therefore not the key factor forcing the seat-localization.
And beaming just doesn't matter when you are in the beam, eh.
I think that it does.
The ideal loudspeaker has a good off-axis response with minimal beaming.
There is an ideal condition where the radiation pattern is about ±45° from the on-axis. The off-axis signals are important because they reflect off of walls and furniture in the room. Music is mixed with this in mind.
If you don't believe that is true, listen to a set of really good speakers in an anechoic environment. They will sound awful.
Trust me, beaming is more than simply a sweet spot on the sofa.
As it happens, I did some speaker listening at Bell Labs at what was once the largest anechoic chamber. Terrible place to listen to music - or to eat lunch or do anything except listen to your own breathing. Same is true of listening to anything but brass bands (directional sound???) in bandshells or speakers out of doors. What does that prove?
Are you speaking from textbook "truths" or practical listening? What reaches your ears in a concert hall or a room is affected by all kinds of direct and reflected forces. You can have great sound from a very directional speaker and from a very non-directional speaker (or terrible sound too). I won't sneak away calling it just a matter of "art," but it is a matter of practical R&D and practical room set-up.
You can set up (location, EQ, etc.) very narrowly directional speakers so that they sound great - in fact, you have more control over the aural result that way.
There just isn't a "right" directional angle any more than there is a "right" room and there just aren't recording standards that dove-tail with any such thing.
Degree of directionality is a parameter, not a standard. Trust me.
Last edited:
What does that prove? My point, of course!
What we hear and perceive when we listen is the on-axis sound and the off-axis sound.
You need both to provide the response you want.
If you have evidence in the form of written papers or articles that points otherwise, please cite your sources. I would love to see why it doesn't matter.
C'mon now. You are the one who making the authoritarian dogmatic assertion that "you need both to provide the response you want." As well as all kinds of other dogmatic (AKA textbook) assertions about ideals in your earlier post.
You prove them. Need I add again that old scoundrel's give-away you used in your earlier post, "trust me."
Footnote: funny thing, nobody has mentioned that headphones couldn't possibly work.
Last edited:
You need to research a little about the term "Constant Directivity". That is not a term made up by engineers
Beaming matters unless you have zero reflections, its going to matter. I guess you are just use to it.
Red herring.
Actually, you stated, "And beaming just doesn't matter when you are in the beam, eh."
So, it's up to you to back up your argument, not me to dismantle it.
Everything I have been privy to read states that off-axis response is important as it works with the room to create the total image and soundstage.
If that were not the case, then the ideal listening environment would be 4∏ (full space) with zero room reflections.
We know that isn't true just as much as we know that total room reverberation is wrong. There needs to be a balance.
I think that what you are saying is as long as you are sitting in the lobe of the beam room reflection doesn't matter. Why would it not?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.