Hi,
the old MLs are prime examples of how to construct a Hybrid, such that it must sound non-homogenous and less subtle.
A 12um thick film driven by a lousy transformer and coupling to a cheap lowquality bass driver with grossly differing distribution character and Xover flanks.
There isn't much left to worsen things more.
I don't know the other speakers (wild guess, are they BRs?).
Well designed modern dynamic drivers in a Dipole or CB show much better resolution of fine detail, absolutely comparable to a ESL below ~250Hz and alot more precise below 100Hz.
jauu
Calvin
the old MLs are prime examples of how to construct a Hybrid, such that it must sound non-homogenous and less subtle.
A 12um thick film driven by a lousy transformer and coupling to a cheap lowquality bass driver with grossly differing distribution character and Xover flanks.
There isn't much left to worsen things more.
I don't know the other speakers (wild guess, are they BRs?).
Well designed modern dynamic drivers in a Dipole or CB show much better resolution of fine detail, absolutely comparable to a ESL below ~250Hz and alot more precise below 100Hz.
jauu
Calvin
Indeed, it does depend upon your set of assumptions. While Stereophile has tested the latest version of my amps, they did not do full testing for my first gen version. They did, however, test the similar MB-750s. Output impedance varies from about 1.4 ohms in triode to about 1.8 ohms in tetrode. Their test load exhibited a much wider variance.
See graph here
On the other hand, their test load is a box speaker with multiple sharp peaks. Thanks for the link to the AA post where the values for the new transformer arrangement is quantified. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Toroid IIs do work better with my amps - and provide greater efficiency. Like you, I would like to see an update impedance curve.
edit: Last week, I was in Chicago on business and had a chance to visit Brian Walsh. His U-1s use the current PX panels (mine are the older ones) driven by Atma Sphere electronics. He is able to get more impactful bass at higher levels than I. You could feel the weight of the concert drums waft past you. The overall results with hi-rez sources was outstanding.
Last edited:
I guess they are all deaf (or soon deaf).
They are free to make a different choice.
Btw, if you like extreme dynamisch, take a hornloudspeaker. ( but sounds horribele i.m.o.)
They are free to make a different choice.
Btw, if you like extreme dynamisch, take a hornloudspeaker. ( but sounds horribele i.m.o.)
Hi,
Yeah, and that's why so many Rock and spectacular Symphonics lovers prefer Quads over speakers with a decent dynamic range.
Anyway the list of songs where You'd prefer almost any other speaker against a Quad is loooooonnnngg, veeerrrry looooooooonnnnnnggggg
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
Hi,
dynamic range and constant loud replay are two completely differing things.
We´re not talking about Dr.Dre Beats-insulted Kiddo´s ears.
What´s wrong about asking that a speaker preserves the natural dynamics of the music?
Why on earth should a speaker, uncapable of peproducing the full dynamic range oif music faithfully, be regarded as right or superior?
It might be perfectly ok on a personal level, but not in a general.
jauu
Calvin
dynamic range and constant loud replay are two completely differing things.
We´re not talking about Dr.Dre Beats-insulted Kiddo´s ears.
What´s wrong about asking that a speaker preserves the natural dynamics of the music?
Why on earth should a speaker, uncapable of peproducing the full dynamic range oif music faithfully, be regarded as right or superior?
It might be perfectly ok on a personal level, but not in a general.
jauu
Calvin
Then you already know that soundpresure is related to distance.
Natural dynamics ...... In a concerthall, club, for a musisian or visiter?
Quad esl63 has excellent dynamics but more then 100dB is a problem. So what, there is no need for it.
Natural dynamics ...... In a concerthall, club, for a musisian or visiter?
Quad esl63 has excellent dynamics but more then 100dB is a problem. So what, there is no need for it.
I'd like to distinguish "average playing loudness" measured by an SPL meter on "slow" from "instantaneous peaks." I would appreciate learning if this is a factor in sound quality.
Some people favour very powerful amps in order to be able to drive those instantaneous peaks... even when on average, the amp is putting out only a watt. Are they right in thinking there is an audible difference arising from having that power? Should the same logic be applied to speakers?
Let's talk about Quads that clearly can't play super loud. But that means they also can't play those instantaneous little peaks that are recurrent in music (esp. women's choir) and that sometimes even make it all the way through the recording and transmission process (such as when the average loudness of a CD is recorded low).
If Quads can't play super loud, they can't play those peaks either, even when their "slow" loudness isn't terribly loud.
Anybody know?
Ben
Some people favour very powerful amps in order to be able to drive those instantaneous peaks... even when on average, the amp is putting out only a watt. Are they right in thinking there is an audible difference arising from having that power? Should the same logic be applied to speakers?
Let's talk about Quads that clearly can't play super loud. But that means they also can't play those instantaneous little peaks that are recurrent in music (esp. women's choir) and that sometimes even make it all the way through the recording and transmission process (such as when the average loudness of a CD is recorded low).
If Quads can't play super loud, they can't play those peaks either, even when their "slow" loudness isn't terribly loud.
Anybody know?
Ben
Hi,
Ben, You're totally right.
The dynamic capabilities are only required short term to reproduce peaks.
With 98dB of maximum SPL (source: Stereoplay 03/2006) the Quads are very limited in dynamic performance. Audio´s resumee: (04/2007) "You should take Your time for the Quads - and only listen to it at low levels".
Think, that sums it up nicely.
98dB is roughly what a 6-8" driver would be capable of.
Enough for some people, not enough for 100+dB peaks.
jauu
Calvin
Ben, You're totally right.
The dynamic capabilities are only required short term to reproduce peaks.
With 98dB of maximum SPL (source: Stereoplay 03/2006) the Quads are very limited in dynamic performance. Audio´s resumee: (04/2007) "You should take Your time for the Quads - and only listen to it at low levels".
Think, that sums it up nicely.
98dB is roughly what a 6-8" driver would be capable of.
Enough for some people, not enough for 100+dB peaks.
jauu
Calvin
I guess 99,99% of all speakers can't reproduce this level with resonable low distortion (1-2%).
Btw, i don't have Quad. (i not like them for other reasons)
Ok, Esl-63 have limitations as maximum soundpresure level but after all not many full-range esl are as good and reliable as the Quad. And no hybride can come even close.
Btw, i don't have Quad. (i not like them for other reasons)
Ok, Esl-63 have limitations as maximum soundpresure level but after all not many full-range esl are as good and reliable as the Quad. And no hybride can come even close.
Last edited:
I am So Happy to report that my little Desktop version falls within that rare .001% !!!
Even though they are meant to be used for Nearfield use, they give the same impression of a much much bigger system than they really are!!
I have found that an increased Bias voltage does more than help with just the efficiency.
For a given certain SPL I think the level of detail goes up with the bias voltage as well.
As stated earlier for full range systems displacement rules when it comes to the low end and physical width of the radiating area specifies the horizontal dispersion as per frequency.
The electrically segmented concept certainly shines in this manner.
You can't deny the laws of physics.
Personally I find it easier and would much rather deal with one resonance than several of them.
My little panel can easily do +105 to +110db but that doesn't mean that I always listen to it that loud.
Having a woofer that can keep up is the biggest challenge!!!
Being able to reach those levels sure says a lot when it comes to the dynamic range that the speaker can produce, even when it is listened too at a lower level.
As I have state before when I run my panels at a very high bias voltage of 7kv to 10kv they make sound with a type of authority!!
Rather than just making good sound, even though my peak SPL may not be much more than 87db or so at the time.
The transients are just that much cleaner and the level of micro detail is higher as well.
The earlier Quads weren't design to this level of performance that we have achieved in today's times.
I do however think that the dimensions were well planned out for a balanced sound.
It is now time to take this a step further considering the better materials and components we have to work with these days.
There are several types drive systems available to us and it is hard to beat the tried and true transformers, but the cost more than the panels themselves!!
And when it comes to THD, Transformer design is at the center of the issue especially at the lowest frequency's where it is noticed the most.
I have found other ways to be possible to control the diaphragm at a DC level of accuracy when it comes to the lowest frequency's.
Without having to worry about dangerous High Current HV amps!!!
ESL's don't require a lot of current (or any for that matter) to move the diaphragm at low frequency's, or for DC control of movement to lower the THD at the lower frequency's.
What they do need however is a lot of displacement!!
FWIW
jer
Even though they are meant to be used for Nearfield use, they give the same impression of a much much bigger system than they really are!!
I have found that an increased Bias voltage does more than help with just the efficiency.
For a given certain SPL I think the level of detail goes up with the bias voltage as well.
As stated earlier for full range systems displacement rules when it comes to the low end and physical width of the radiating area specifies the horizontal dispersion as per frequency.
The electrically segmented concept certainly shines in this manner.
You can't deny the laws of physics.
Personally I find it easier and would much rather deal with one resonance than several of them.
My little panel can easily do +105 to +110db but that doesn't mean that I always listen to it that loud.
Having a woofer that can keep up is the biggest challenge!!!
Being able to reach those levels sure says a lot when it comes to the dynamic range that the speaker can produce, even when it is listened too at a lower level.
As I have state before when I run my panels at a very high bias voltage of 7kv to 10kv they make sound with a type of authority!!
Rather than just making good sound, even though my peak SPL may not be much more than 87db or so at the time.
The transients are just that much cleaner and the level of micro detail is higher as well.
The earlier Quads weren't design to this level of performance that we have achieved in today's times.
I do however think that the dimensions were well planned out for a balanced sound.
It is now time to take this a step further considering the better materials and components we have to work with these days.
There are several types drive systems available to us and it is hard to beat the tried and true transformers, but the cost more than the panels themselves!!
And when it comes to THD, Transformer design is at the center of the issue especially at the lowest frequency's where it is noticed the most.
I have found other ways to be possible to control the diaphragm at a DC level of accuracy when it comes to the lowest frequency's.
Without having to worry about dangerous High Current HV amps!!!
ESL's don't require a lot of current (or any for that matter) to move the diaphragm at low frequency's, or for DC control of movement to lower the THD at the lower frequency's.
What they do need however is a lot of displacement!!
FWIW
jer
Last edited:
Bias bias bias.....it well make or brak the sound of any ESL......the caps in the bias,an seting of any given bias as the ESL plays ... anyone can hear the diff....an to a point it all better...
Funny thing is SL with there 30"X70" sheet of mylar only gose up to 7-8k an you have to back off.....you can here the Sizeling....as Dr west would say..
By the way i would like to hear from any Diyer that would Ever Diy a 30"X 70" one sheet of Mylar ESL??
jer......has always done the work on his bias an panels....not just read the papers
Funny thing is SL with there 30"X70" sheet of mylar only gose up to 7-8k an you have to back off.....you can here the Sizeling....as Dr west would say..
By the way i would like to hear from any Diyer that would Ever Diy a 30"X 70" one sheet of Mylar ESL??
jer......has always done the work on his bias an panels....not just read the papers
As much as I am cautious in disagreeing with Gerald, my experience with a high-voltage Sanders-like amp over about 20 yrs is that the difference even when compared to the 39-lb Dayton-Wright transformers is fairly obvious and certainly to be coveted by an audiophile.
Ben
17,7kg (the international standard is still kilogram) is not a good choice for a transformer.
Maybe for the 5Hz-50Hz its an advantage but for the rest of the frequency range certainly not. Maybe they never heared about coreloss/hysteresis at Dayton-Wright?
Maybe for the 5Hz-50Hz its an advantage but for the rest of the frequency range certainly not. Maybe they never heared about coreloss/hysteresis at Dayton-Wright?
I wish you have this 0,001% level over the entire frequency but probebly you have it at just a very limited frequency range and level.
I would love to see a transformer capable to do this over the full frequency range.
I would love to see a transformer capable to do this over the full frequency range.
I am So Happy to report that my little Desktop version falls within that rare .001% !!!
Even though they are meant to be used for Nearfield use, they give the same impression of a much much bigger system than they really are!!
I have found that an increased Bias voltage does more than help with just the efficiency.
For a given certain SPL I think the level of detail goes up with the bias voltage as well.
As stated earlier for full range systems displacement rules when it comes to the low end and physical width of the radiating area specifies the horizontal dispersion as per frequency.
The electrically segmented concept certainly shines in this manner.
You can't deny the laws of physics.
Personally I find it easier and would much rather deal with one resonance than several of them.
My little panel can easily do +105 to +110db but that doesn't mean that I always listen to it that loud.
Having a woofer that can keep up is the biggest challenge!!!
Being able to reach those levels sure says a lot when it comes to the dynamic range that the speaker can produce, even when it is listened too at a lower level.
As I have state before when I run my panels at a very high bias voltage of 7kv to 10kv they make sound with a type of authority!!
Rather than just making good sound, even though my peak SPL may not be much more than 87db or so at the time.
The transients are just that much cleaner and the level of micro detail is higher as well.
The earlier Quads weren't design to this level of performance that we have achieved in today's times.
I do however think that the dimensions were well planned out for a balanced sound.
It is now time to take this a step further considering the better materials and components we have to work with these days.
There are several types drive systems available to us and it is hard to beat the tried and true transformers, but the cost more than the panels themselves!!
And when it comes to THD, Transformer design is at the center of the issue especially at the lowest frequency's where it is noticed the most.
I have found other ways to be possible to control the diaphragm at a DC level of accuracy when it comes to the lowest frequency's.
Without having to worry about dangerous High Current HV amps!!!
ESL's don't require a lot of current (or any for that matter) to move the diaphragm at low frequency's, or for DC control of movement to lower the THD at the lower frequency's.
What they do need however is a lot of displacement!!
FWIW
jer
Good for you but its not a joke.
If you don't want the typical distortion and coloration of an enclosure + normal loudspeaker you need an esl-unit starting at 80-100Hz. Most hybride esl start at 300-400Hz wich is way to high.
And there are the usual filter problems (if you don't have bi-amplification the problem is even greater).
Btw, soundpresslevels of 105-110dB is only available with very high output poweramplifiers (>400W). Most of these amplifiers are very expensive and i.m.o not always the best sounding.
If you don't want the typical distortion and coloration of an enclosure + normal loudspeaker you need an esl-unit starting at 80-100Hz. Most hybride esl start at 300-400Hz wich is way to high.
And there are the usual filter problems (if you don't have bi-amplification the problem is even greater).
Btw, soundpresslevels of 105-110dB is only available with very high output poweramplifiers (>400W). Most of these amplifiers are very expensive and i.m.o not always the best sounding.
Hi,
I like Your little jokes man
jauu
Calvin
Hi,
jauu
Calvin
You Stated~ "I guess 99,99% of all speakers can't reproduce this level with resonable low distortion (1-2%)."
And I simply stated, That mine do fall into that rare .001% that does have such performance and a THD of much much lower than 1% throughout its bandwidth.
And does +105db as measured with only a 100watt capable (40Vpeak) amplifier.
Yes, it is a Hybrid design as the diaphragm is only 3.25" by 9.75" big.
In order to get another extra 6db, Yes, I have to use one of my bigger amps, but when it is that loud you don't noticed any distortions.
If the panel had more surface area then I could do the same with just a 40Vpeak capable amplifier.
It doesn't take exotic core materials to realize a THD .2% and lower at such levels.
I have shown those real world tests at full power (40Vrms) with a typical transformer from Antek (AN(S)-1206) here,
A TEST JIG FOR FINDING ESL STEP-UP TRANSFORMER PARAMETERS
At a normal listening typical level (5Vpeak) of 89db to 91db the THD is low enough that my sound card will barely register it at .005 % to.002% THD or so.
This is also my approximate sensitivity reference.
There is only one question of accuracy of some of these graphs and that is because I was using my motherboards sound system on some of them, and it was being glitchy.
Other than that the calibrations are correct as verified by my scope.
I know that the main issue here is the use of a full range panel, But I just wanted to address a few issues.
Sorry to have gone off topic a bit.
When they are run at a normal listening level they can go as low as 50hz or so when I do run them full range.
I have listened to them for many hours without a woofer and have been just as content!!
Sorry, But I don't have a more accurate and good to read real world THD graphs except this old blurry one, but there are several others in these threads as well.
All of my graphs are Calibrated though and 100db is 100db of SPL.
jer
And I simply stated, That mine do fall into that rare .001% that does have such performance and a THD of much much lower than 1% throughout its bandwidth.
And does +105db as measured with only a 100watt capable (40Vpeak) amplifier.
Yes, it is a Hybrid design as the diaphragm is only 3.25" by 9.75" big.
In order to get another extra 6db, Yes, I have to use one of my bigger amps, but when it is that loud you don't noticed any distortions.
If the panel had more surface area then I could do the same with just a 40Vpeak capable amplifier.
It doesn't take exotic core materials to realize a THD .2% and lower at such levels.
I have shown those real world tests at full power (40Vrms) with a typical transformer from Antek (AN(S)-1206) here,
A TEST JIG FOR FINDING ESL STEP-UP TRANSFORMER PARAMETERS
At a normal listening typical level (5Vpeak) of 89db to 91db the THD is low enough that my sound card will barely register it at .005 % to.002% THD or so.
This is also my approximate sensitivity reference.
There is only one question of accuracy of some of these graphs and that is because I was using my motherboards sound system on some of them, and it was being glitchy.
Other than that the calibrations are correct as verified by my scope.
I know that the main issue here is the use of a full range panel, But I just wanted to address a few issues.
Sorry to have gone off topic a bit.
When they are run at a normal listening level they can go as low as 50hz or so when I do run them full range.
I have listened to them for many hours without a woofer and have been just as content!!
Sorry, But I don't have a more accurate and good to read real world THD graphs except this old blurry one, but there are several others in these threads as well.
All of my graphs are Calibrated though and 100db is 100db of SPL.
jer
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi,
same as Gerald
You don't seem to know the Statement2 and You for sure don't know my ESLs
Typically large FR ESLs require considerable amounts of wattage, as they must trade LF-extension against efficiency.
Your generalized claims may apply to some ESL hybrids, but not if they are concepted and constructed for optimum results (requiring alot more effort and costs).
There is more to hybrids than simply placing a CB or BR bass below a panel and crossing over at point X.
To achieve the SPLs >105dB(@4m) my system requires only the 'good' 50W for the panel that for example a Kronzilla DM can deliver and the 'good' 70W of a Kronzilla DX for the bass.
As a sidenote: THD and IMD of the amps is higher than that of the hybrid over almost the whole power range.
Regarding the filtering problem.
Just moving the filters from the primary side to the secondary side of the tranny does not magically solve the general issues of filters.
Or do You actually believe that electrical segmentation, equalizing and delaying under HV conditions is any better than doing it under LV conditions?
No, almost all FRs are 2- or multiple-way speakers.
The Quad57 beeing 3-way, the 63 and following may be seen as 7-way.
The term 'Fullrange' as commonly used means that only the electrostatic transducer principle is employed.
It doesn't restrict to single-panel or 1-way speakers.
As such the exactly same electrical rules apply to the filtering, regardless on which side of the audio transformer it is done.
Doing the filtering on the lowvoltage primary side is easier and more convenient.
Doing it on the secondary just takes it out of the recognition range of most users.
They don't realize that that simple resistor creates a 1storder lowpass.
ESLs like Audiostatic or Soundlab don't use Highpasses/Bandpasses which differs to common multi-way concepts.
The Quad57 does make use of HP filtering.
As such it differs to a dynamic 3-way speaker only by the employed transducer principle.
In the light of day this ESL busts common FR-myths, like seamless integration et al.
After common thinking, beeing a pure 3-way speaker it should be uncapable of homogenous, seamless integration of Bass and Mids, as both branches are fully independant of each other mechanically and electrically.
How comes that listeners don't hear the Xover?
Why should a ESL/Dynamic-hybrid always behave different?
jauu
Calvin
same as Gerald
You don't seem to know the Statement2 and You for sure don't know my ESLs
Typically large FR ESLs require considerable amounts of wattage, as they must trade LF-extension against efficiency.
Your generalized claims may apply to some ESL hybrids, but not if they are concepted and constructed for optimum results (requiring alot more effort and costs).
There is more to hybrids than simply placing a CB or BR bass below a panel and crossing over at point X.
To achieve the SPLs >105dB(@4m) my system requires only the 'good' 50W for the panel that for example a Kronzilla DM can deliver and the 'good' 70W of a Kronzilla DX for the bass.
As a sidenote: THD and IMD of the amps is higher than that of the hybrid over almost the whole power range.
Regarding the filtering problem.
Just moving the filters from the primary side to the secondary side of the tranny does not magically solve the general issues of filters.
Or do You actually believe that electrical segmentation, equalizing and delaying under HV conditions is any better than doing it under LV conditions?
No, almost all FRs are 2- or multiple-way speakers.
The Quad57 beeing 3-way, the 63 and following may be seen as 7-way.
The term 'Fullrange' as commonly used means that only the electrostatic transducer principle is employed.
It doesn't restrict to single-panel or 1-way speakers.
As such the exactly same electrical rules apply to the filtering, regardless on which side of the audio transformer it is done.
Doing the filtering on the lowvoltage primary side is easier and more convenient.
Doing it on the secondary just takes it out of the recognition range of most users.
They don't realize that that simple resistor creates a 1storder lowpass.
ESLs like Audiostatic or Soundlab don't use Highpasses/Bandpasses which differs to common multi-way concepts.
The Quad57 does make use of HP filtering.
As such it differs to a dynamic 3-way speaker only by the employed transducer principle.
In the light of day this ESL busts common FR-myths, like seamless integration et al.
After common thinking, beeing a pure 3-way speaker it should be uncapable of homogenous, seamless integration of Bass and Mids, as both branches are fully independant of each other mechanically and electrically.
How comes that listeners don't hear the Xover?
Why should a ESL/Dynamic-hybrid always behave different?
jauu
Calvin
It makes a huge differance between a fr esl with simple 6dB filtering against the more complex filtering ( not forget resonance with the audiotransformer).
I have seen many hybride esl in my live and in shops. It is exceprional if the efficiency is higher then 90dB.
Sanders sound system makes panels with 94dB and they are huge. So it's not easy to believe small panels do have the same efficiency. Probebly the measurements are not done correctly. Transformers easely have larger distortion then 0,001%.......
Secondly and the same is probelbly for the Sanders system ( i am not 100% sure about them) is that 1 panel 10x25cm have not a good directivty for the frequeancy range. Maybe go as a mid-range speaker but as a "tweeter" totally wrong disigned, unless you like a very, very small sweet spot (and difficult load)
I made esl elements as you and gerald did, but they are not as good as you and gerald think they are.Neverless always nice to try.
I have seen many hybride esl in my live and in shops. It is exceprional if the efficiency is higher then 90dB.
Sanders sound system makes panels with 94dB and they are huge. So it's not easy to believe small panels do have the same efficiency. Probebly the measurements are not done correctly. Transformers easely have larger distortion then 0,001%.......
Secondly and the same is probelbly for the Sanders system ( i am not 100% sure about them) is that 1 panel 10x25cm have not a good directivty for the frequeancy range. Maybe go as a mid-range speaker but as a "tweeter" totally wrong disigned, unless you like a very, very small sweet spot (and difficult load)
I made esl elements as you and gerald did, but they are not as good as you and gerald think they are.Neverless always nice to try.
Hi,
same as Gerald
You don't seem to know the Statement2 and You for sure don't know my ESLs
Typically large FR ESLs require considerable amounts of wattage, as they must trade LF-extension against efficiency.
Your generalized claims may apply to some ESL hybrids, but not if they are concepted and constructed for optimum results (requiring alot more effort and costs).
There is more to hybrids than simply placing a CB or BR bass below a panel and crossing over at point X.
To achieve the SPLs >105dB(@4m) my system requires only the 'good' 50W for the panel that for example a Kronzilla DM can deliver and the 'good' 70W of a Kronzilla DX for the bass.
As a sidenote: THD and IMD of the amps is higher than that of the hybrid over almost the whole power range.
Regarding the filtering problem.
Just moving the filters from the primary side to the secondary side of the tranny does not magically solve the general issues of filters.
Or do You actually believe that electrical segmentation, equalizing and delaying under HV conditions is any better than doing it under LV conditions?
No, almost all FRs are 2- or multiple-way speakers.
The Quad57 beeing 3-way, the 63 and following may be seen as 7-way.
The term 'Fullrange' as commonly used means that only the electrostatic transducer principle is employed.
It doesn't restrict to single-panel or 1-way speakers.
As such the exactly same electrical rules apply to the filtering, regardless on which side of the audio transformer it is done.
Doing the filtering on the lowvoltage primary side is easier and more convenient.
Doing it on the secondary just takes it out of the recognition range of most users.
They don't realize that that simple resistor creates a 1storder lowpass.
ESLs like Audiostatic or Soundlab don't use Highpasses/Bandpasses which differs to common multi-way concepts.
The Quad57 does make use of HP filtering.
As such it differs to a dynamic 3-way speaker only by the employed transducer principle.
In the light of day this ESL busts common FR-myths, like seamless integration et al.
After common thinking, beeing a pure 3-way speaker it should be uncapable of homogenous, seamless integration of Bass and Mids, as both branches are fully independant of each other mechanically and electrically.
How comes that listeners don't hear the Xover?
Why should a ESL/Dynamic-hybrid always behave different?
jauu
Calvin
Hi,
And 6dB filtering on the secondary side would mean 6dB filtering on the primary.
The steepness of filter flanks is totally independant of the voltage levels.
And what would You do, if steeper filters were reqired?
Also, the panel itself has a complex impedance, so complex number calculation would be involved in the design anywa, regardless on which side of the transformer and voltage levels.
Besides which FR-ESL relies on only 1order filtering?
Maybe smaller Audiostatics, those using just one segmentation stage, come to mind, but which else?
Already the second stage of segmentation means second order filtering.
And every segmentation stage more increases the filter order by one.
And how´s about those ´mirror interfaces´ of Acoustat and Audiostatic that use two leveles of U?
Couldn´t those be regarded as equalizing filters that put out a changed transfer function, just like any other filter?
And what about the second order filter formed by the panel capacitance and trannies leakage inductance?
Think that busts the 6dB myth.
jauu
Calvin
ps:
BTW.... Germany 3 stars, attempting the 4th. Holland 0, and lost 3x
´electrically´ speaking, No! It´s just a matter of more or less calculation.
And 6dB filtering on the secondary side would mean 6dB filtering on the primary.
The steepness of filter flanks is totally independant of the voltage levels.
And what would You do, if steeper filters were reqired?
Also, the panel itself has a complex impedance, so complex number calculation would be involved in the design anywa, regardless on which side of the transformer and voltage levels.
Besides which FR-ESL relies on only 1order filtering?
Maybe smaller Audiostatics, those using just one segmentation stage, come to mind, but which else?
Already the second stage of segmentation means second order filtering.
And every segmentation stage more increases the filter order by one.
And how´s about those ´mirror interfaces´ of Acoustat and Audiostatic that use two leveles of U?
Couldn´t those be regarded as equalizing filters that put out a changed transfer function, just like any other filter?
And what about the second order filter formed by the panel capacitance and trannies leakage inductance?
Think that busts the 6dB myth.
jauu
Calvin
ps:
BTW.... Germany 3 stars, attempting the 4th. Holland 0, and lost 3x
Try a 6 dB on a hybride, ha ha
Everybody diy can do multiple segmented fr-esl
Everybody diy can do multiple segmented fr-esl
Hi,
´electrically´ speaking, No! It´s just a matter of more or less calculation.
And 6dB filtering on the secondary side would mean 6dB filtering on the primary.
The steepness of filter flanks is totally independant of the voltage levels.
And what would You do, if steeper filters were reqired?
Also, the panel itself has a complex impedance, so complex number calculation would be involved in the design anywa, regardless on which side of the transformer and voltage levels.
Besides which FR-ESL relies on only 1order filtering?
Maybe smaller Audiostatics, those using just one segmentation stage, come to mind, but which else?
Already the second stage of segmentation means second order filtering.
And every segmentation stage more increases the filter order by one.
And how´s about those ´mirror interfaces´ of Acoustat and Audiostatic that use two leveles of U?
Couldn´t those be regarded as equalizing filters that put out a changed transfer function, just like any other filter?
And what about the second order filter formed by the panel capacitance and trannies leakage inductance?
Think that busts the 6dB myth.
jauu
Calvin
ps:
BTW.... Germany 3 stars, attempting the 4th. Holland 0, and lost 3x
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.