Horns for ESLs?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Just wondering if this would help beaming issues. I'm thinking an equally spaced, progressively outward angled array of reflectors maybe an inch apart and a few inches wide extending from top to bottom on a typical flat panel such as an Acoustat. Could dispersion be 'tuned' this way by setting the angles just right like window blinds? Logically it seems a better solution than a curved panel since there aren't any/or less phase anomalies.
 
'Horn loading' adds moving (air)mass to the driver, since it is an impedance transformation device; that's all

ESLs work well because they are a very good impedance match to free-air (esp.compared with conventional drivers); I bet that changes remarkably, and unfavourably, if you try to 'load' them.

I've a feeling it's the sort of ground Peter Baxandall probably already laid-out the maths for, 50+yrs ago...
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
'Horn loading' adds moving (air)mass to the driver, since it is an impedance transformation device; that's all

ESLs work well because they are a very good impedance match to free-air (esp.compared with conventional drivers); I bet that changes remarkably, and unfavourably, if you try to 'load' them.

I've a feeling it's the sort of ground Peter Baxandall probably already laid-out the maths for, 50+yrs ago...
But what about directivity?
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I've never read of anyone who found dipole ESls didn't have good-enough directivity, it's kind of inherent!
Right, they're very directional. That's the point, the beaming. Not that it's a problem. But I feel dispersion could be improved by widening it in a precise manner thereby maintaining or not compromising imaging. Just widening the sweet spot.
 
The best sound an image, tone, Ive got out of Acoustat so far....are using 4 Spectra panels, setup in a 1+1 type setup....that give only 6" for the mid-base.... 3" for the high frc..In each panel. I use 2 12"bass box sub type putting out 40-50 hz.. in my setup all the time, adding fullness are take out as needed...
But with Acoustats only a 25% open panel...an the ML CLS 50% open an the curve panel...I go back an forth....like I do with the 2+2s an the M3s...an the Magnepans......Apogee ribbons....on an on...just cant see one speaker doing it all...ever....just saying

Have you seen the MurAudio sp1...some talk
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-04-06 at 23.36.04[1].png
    Screen Shot 2018-04-06 at 23.36.04[1].png
    223.2 KB · Views: 262
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The best sound an image, tone, Ive got out of Acoustat so far....are using 4 Spectra panels, setup in a 1+1 type setup....that give only 6" for the mid-base.... 3" for the high frc..In each panel. I use 2 12"bass box sub type putting out 40-50 hz.. in my setup all the time, adding fullness are take out as needed...
But with Acoustats only a 25% open panel...an the ML CLS 50% open an the curve panel...I go back an forth....like I do with the 2+2s an the M3s...an the Magnepans......Apogee ribbons....on an on...just cant see one speaker doing it all...ever....just saying

Have you seen the MurAudio sp1...some talk
Interesting. Bass enhancement? I'm referring to the panels and the enclosure.
 
acoustat only 25% open ? they got wires every 2 meter only ;) they used like half of the wires they should have used. there huge gaps between the wires. even the audiostatics use a to big of a spacing, still they are much closer together then the acoustat.

maybe acoustat answering man knows :)
 
My point was that the Spectra panels setup... give the most dispersion with out more output lose... like with a angled array or reflectors..
Funny....Most Acoustat lovers....have never even heard the Spectra speakers...
That's Magnepans keys to there.... Sound nothing in the way of one side of the mylar
With the right Amp.room setup..the Maggys are as good if not better sounding than most ESLs....well to me anyway
 
From the point of view of the listener, there's no such thing as beaming. Speakers don't beam at you. Who ever thought so?

Zen koan aside, it may be that others in your music room find the treble softer than some people sitting mid-line. Is that your problem? Is that worth fretting about? Can just the least bit of EQ achieve a happy compromise for group listening? If Mr. Big is the only listener you care about, then beaming isn't an issue and complicated fixes aren't worth the trouble.

I use multiple flat cells mounted on a mildly curved frame, two rows high, 6 cells to a side. Spreads the beam a bit. Works nicely or at least the interactions of radiating surfaces are averaged out.

(Viewed system-wise, you do need to consider the total sound and the sound compass reaching the listener (or on rare occasions, the listeners). That in turn also depends on how much sound is coming out the back and bouncing about too. Sometimes, but not always, the polar plot matters.)

B.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
From the point of view of the listener, there's no such thing as beaming. Speakers don't beam at you. Who ever thought so?

Zen koan aside, it may be that others in your music room find the treble softer than some people sitting mid-line. Is that your problem? Is that worth fretting about? Can just the least bit of EQ achieve a happy compromise for group listening? If Mr. Big is the only listener you care about, then beaming isn't an issue and complicated fixes aren't worth the trouble.

I use multiple flat cells mounted on a mildly curved frame, two rows high, 6 cells to a side. Spreads the beam a bit. Works nicely or at least the interactions of radiating surfaces are averaged out.

(Viewed system-wise, you do need to consider the total sound and the sound compass reaching the listener (or on rare occasions, the listeners). That in turn also depends on how much sound is coming out the back and bouncing about too. Sometimes, but not always, the polar plot matters.)

B.
Sure. It's not a problem. It may even be an advantage in terms of imaging and transient response. Not sure about that but I hear a serious drop off when I walk about in my semi open concept living/dining/ kitchen area. With me this is a hobby and it includes accomplishment. I love experimenting. I'm envisioning a nicely built louvered grill with reflectors angled precisely by
experimentation over time and then fixed permanently. It would be helpful to know what the optimal width of the louvers would be. I have Acoustat Monitor 3 with 8" center panel and 9" outer panels. Also what might the optimal number of louvers be? I'm thinking about 2" apart
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Umm, quite a challenge to design a great ESL system for folks walking about their kitchens.

This is a serious shortcoming of recent textbooks that they've overlooked a chapter in kitchen walking theory.

B.
No kidding. You would think they'd take the ones spending big bucks on their gear into consideration. I mean sitting in one place is all good and fine but what about the other? Sheesh!:)
 
Must be the eastern Canada cold snap making some of us silly. Sorry. Granted, it is worthwhile to have good sound wherever we are, perhaps excepting elevator music. So Discopete's concern for distribution of sound matters.

And on the other hand (if any hands are left), panel speakers seem unsuitable as the substrate for good distribution within a room or whole floor. For a bunch or reasons. Their precision would suggest a single good listening chair with sound fine-tuned for that spot.

That does not negate the need to understand and work with the polar response. But it does suggest there's no need to do prior-modifications to make it more uniform which might actually make it worse for the good chair.

B.
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Must be the eastern Canada cold snap making some of us silly. Sorry. Granted, it is worthwhile to have good sound wherever we are, perhaps excepting elevator music. So Discopete's concern for distribution of sound matters.

And on the other hand (if any hands are left), panel speakers seem unsuitable as the substrate for good distribution within a room or whole floor. For a bunch or reasons. Their precision would suggest a single good listening chair with sound fine-tuned for that spot.

That does not negate the need to understand and work with the polar response. But it does suggest there's no need to do prior-modifications to make it more uniform which might actually make it worse for the good chair.

B.
This is what I suspected, a narrow line source. OTOH, the 3 panel Acoustats have angled outer panels while the 4 panel seem counter intuitive in that in order to be directly in front of at least one panel, they have to be off center since their angles are equal to each other. I brought the idea up in another thread to angle them inward and focus all the panels at the listening chair/area. It was not received favorably to say the least. But one would logically conclude just by the nature of the design that this would be optimal, no? I have another idea to build a pair of 6s with piano hinges.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.