it should be huge. it HAS to be huge.
that thing JansZen has - is nonsense. has to be 10 times bigger.
if you are still interested, you can read here (part 2)
Wide Range Electrostatic Loudspeakers P.J.Walker Wireless World May 1955
and there was another article with practical solutions (not only boxed though)
in the same magazine a bit later (part 3).
Wide Range Electrostatic Loudspeakers P.J.Walker Wireless World May 1955
and there was another article with practical solutions (not only boxed though)
in the same magazine a bit later (part 3).
Last edited:
Heyyyyy.
Our panels cut off at about 225 Hz, which makes it possible to absorb the back wave completely [for all practical purposes] in a reasonable depth enclosure. No sound waves make the round trip from the walls of the enclosure back to the membrane, and damping is enhanced. Bass is another matter, of course, since an ESL can not pressurize an enclosure . . . I suppose one might consider making a huge TL for an ESL woofer. . . maybe you could get your hands on a KLH Nine or something and give it a try.
Heyyyyy.
Bass is another matter, of course, since an ESL can not pressurize an enclosure . . . I suppose one might consider making a huge TL for an ESL woofer. . . maybe you could get your hands on a KLH Nine or something and give it a try.
according to my calculations in order to not sacrifice output at 225 Hz your enclosure would have to be one foot deep and preferably 15" deep.
i am using 1/4 wavelength here.
and however who said one must stop at 225 Hz ? CLX is rated to about 60 hz which using 1/4 wave would need to be 4 feet deep.
your speaker is certainly prettier than the beveridge but beveridge is the right size.
Last edited:
Heyyyyy.
Bass is another matter, of course, since an ESL can not pressurize an enclosure . . . I suppose one might consider making a huge TL for an ESL woofer. . . maybe you could get your hands on a KLH Nine or something and give it a try.
perhaps "nonsense" comment wasn't fair. i apologize for the choice of words.
i should say that your enclosure size doesn't allow ESL technology to realize its full potential instead.
Borat, thanks for bring it up. I'm pretty sure you're not the only one having this thought.
Your wavelength calculation is correct, but fortunately beside the point. What is important are mainly the following two things:
One, already established, is that the back wave does not survive a round trip through the sound absorbent materials in the box. It may not be well known, but if you examine the absorption coefficients vs. frequency of some common, sound absorbent materials, you'll see that this requires far less than a quarter wavelength at these frequencies.
The other is that the impedance to the rear is not significantly increased thereby, and as it turns out, the apparatus can be configured so that this is the case at these frequencies without requiring a large box volume.
Of course, all that notwithstanding, the design would not have been implemented if it did not bring out something beneficial from the ESL. To surmise that we are doing something that detracts from an ESL's performance is to say we are not quite sensible, here, but actually, I'm pretty sure we are.
Bass is tougher to absorb, making it impractical to enclose an ESL woofer in this relatively simple way. With a more elaborate enclosure, I would say it is one of those things that is possible, but for a number of reasons, not important.
Thanks for saying the One is pretty.
Your wavelength calculation is correct, but fortunately beside the point. What is important are mainly the following two things:
One, already established, is that the back wave does not survive a round trip through the sound absorbent materials in the box. It may not be well known, but if you examine the absorption coefficients vs. frequency of some common, sound absorbent materials, you'll see that this requires far less than a quarter wavelength at these frequencies.
The other is that the impedance to the rear is not significantly increased thereby, and as it turns out, the apparatus can be configured so that this is the case at these frequencies without requiring a large box volume.
Of course, all that notwithstanding, the design would not have been implemented if it did not bring out something beneficial from the ESL. To surmise that we are doing something that detracts from an ESL's performance is to say we are not quite sensible, here, but actually, I'm pretty sure we are.
Bass is tougher to absorb, making it impractical to enclose an ESL woofer in this relatively simple way. With a more elaborate enclosure, I would say it is one of those things that is possible, but for a number of reasons, not important.
Thanks for saying the One is pretty.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.