Borat,
I simpy believe that you are asking the wrong question. It is like asking "Why doesn't Porsche sell more cars?" Most answers to this will be almost useless. You need to split the question into either "Why don't people buy more sports cars" or "Why doesn't Porsche have a wider share in the sports car market?" to get some useful response.
It can't have escaped your attention that dynamic dipoles have an even less market share than planar dipoles. This indicates that the problem is not technology in the first place, but radiation pattern (and the problems involved - mainly in-room-setup).
If you want to increase the market share of ESL, don't try to make better ones, but include a free comprehensive interior design service into every purchase.
I simpy believe that you are asking the wrong question. It is like asking "Why doesn't Porsche sell more cars?" Most answers to this will be almost useless. You need to split the question into either "Why don't people buy more sports cars" or "Why doesn't Porsche have a wider share in the sports car market?" to get some useful response.
It can't have escaped your attention that dynamic dipoles have an even less market share than planar dipoles. This indicates that the problem is not technology in the first place, but radiation pattern (and the problems involved - mainly in-room-setup).
If you want to increase the market share of ESL, don't try to make better ones, but include a free comprehensive interior design service into every purchase.
Didn't answer this question. To tell the truth I think it's more that they have a bad reputation for being really room dependent. But I have never seen extensive measurements so it's more of a prejudice on my part. Linkwitz has sort of anecdotally proven that it's not so much the dipolar pattern that makes it room dependent but it's more the flowering and misbehavior of the off axis response that causes the room issues. I don't have a symmetrical layout in regards to the walls and reflections and as far as I can tell it would not be possible in this house without having to deal with a much worse problem - first reflections off of windows or glass instead of the layered hollow walls that I am using.
And there is another thing I have just noticed from a distance reading reviews from others. It seems like a lot of people with planars start noticing a lot of minuscule artifacts and defects in the sound-field. This could be partly the speakers but most of the time the people that seem to most sensitive to these things are in heavily treated rooms. It is known and proven that certain artifacts like transient distortions and phase response can be heard in anechoic conditions. I saw someone claiming that THD somehow becomes audible in anechoic conditions as well which is consistent with the reviews I have noticed. And I guess to me I have no wish to put myself in the Uncanny Valley where you seem to gain this performance but subjectively you are now distracted by insignificant blemishes.
Well, let me disagree. I own Martin Logan Aerius, which are for sale BTW (PM if you are interested and live in the New England area).
1. They are not expensive, although there are more expensive versions (true with any family of speaker design)
2. They can get plenty loud. Output is more than adequate.
3. Mine are only 11 in wide and 56 in tall. That is not all that big.
4. Many panel speakers are a hybrid design, where the bass is handled in a portion of the cabinet at the bottom with a direct radiator. This is not unlike your own design, where you recommend augmenting the cabinets with multiple subwoofers.
5*. Mine were made in 1994 and have had no problems
For various reasons, I am upgrading and that is why these are for sale. However, what needs reminding is that there is a clarity in the mids and highs that is absolutely stunning. I think for some (depending on their priorities) these kind of speakers are fantastic and at an affordable price.
-A different view of things.
Very well put ...
The problem is not the volume , it's the lack of energy. Most ESl lack energy ,
percussive energy ...
Thank You a.wayne. Someone is understanding what I meant.
And don't get me wrong, I owned the Aerius i. With a close miked jazz sax, driven by an amp that can deliver into low ohms, in a 12 x 12 room, they sound awesome! My buddy bought a pair after hearing mine and has stayed with them for 10 years. And he could afford speakers many times their price.
I've heard the Statement 2's set up at a dealer and swore I was listening to live music. And I'm a musician with classical training and good ears.
As mentioned before, the differences are subtle, and we are discussing some of the best speakers on the market, not WalMart specials.
Do the excursion calculations mentioned before and you will understand that we are pushing the limits of the laws of physics.
And don't get me wrong, I owned the Aerius i. With a close miked jazz sax, driven by an amp that can deliver into low ohms, in a 12 x 12 room, they sound awesome! My buddy bought a pair after hearing mine and has stayed with them for 10 years. And he could afford speakers many times their price.
I've heard the Statement 2's set up at a dealer and swore I was listening to live music. And I'm a musician with classical training and good ears.
As mentioned before, the differences are subtle, and we are discussing some of the best speakers on the market, not WalMart specials.
Do the excursion calculations mentioned before and you will understand that we are pushing the limits of the laws of physics.
I've built dynamic dipoles (Linkwitz Orion) and they're less sensitive to placement than conventional box speakers especially with respect to the side walls and objects between them (off-axis attenuation is 20 log cosine alpha). The effects of getting them too close to front wall are different.
Planar speakers are different in that they degenerate into multiple lobes at high frequencies with the frequency response of reflections somewhat hit or miss.
Dynamic dipoles aren't more popular because they're expensive. Stand-mounted monitor bass extension/levels take a 3-way. With a 15" deep speaker taking twice the displacement of a conventional speaker to reach the same SPL at 80Hz and four times at 40Hz they're not an inexpensive way to get low bass. You also need at least line level equalization in order to have both good high frequency sensitivity and low bass extension which doesn't play nice with consumers using typical receivers.
Right, Drew. I agree 100%.
My speakers are bi-polar, a driver on the front and rear driven in phase, and they are easier to merge with the room than any dipole I've had. Try to market these with your better half wanting to push them right up against the wall, and Sales says "no way" to these designs.
My speakers are bi-polar, a driver on the front and rear driven in phase, and they are easier to merge with the room than any dipole I've had. Try to market these with your better half wanting to push them right up against the wall, and Sales says "no way" to these designs.
This - and your following statements - are true indeed.
But ...
... this is crucial IMHO!
Every now and then somebody asks for my opinion WRT dipoles. Almost half of the questions are about the minimum distance to the front wall and how to possibly reduce that to zero. SWMBO doesn't allow for speakers pulled 1 meter into the room, period.
That's why I didn't recommend an acoustic consultant, but an interior designer.
There are planars which narrow the radiating area with increasing frequency - like these CAPACITIs. I found them to image exceptionally well.
Dynamic dipole (drivers move the same direction, out of phase) != bipole (drivers move opposite direction, out of phase). They're more directive, easier to place because of that, don't benefit or suffer from room gain, and couple less to height and width room modes.
i don't dispute that. but what does it mean ? can anybody explain what this means in terms of physical reality ? is there a consensus on that ?
Some electrostatic loudspeakers are simply poorly designed. That applies to most homemade loudspeakers and to some commercial designs.
In 1980, Peter Walker showed in an article that a flat electrostatic dipole loudspeaker intended for far-field listening must have a frequency-independent current drive rather than a frequency-independent voltage drive. (This applies to loudspeakers intended as point sources, line sources must have a +10 dB/decade slope in the current, or -10 dB/decade for the voltage.)
Still, many designs have a frequency-independent voltage at the stators. This results in a lack of bass that is often compensated by applying no damping of the fundamental resonance of the diaphragm. The excessive far-field treble is compensated by using a too large area for radiating the treble. When the area is too large, you are not in the far field at any practical listening distance. Interference between sound radiated from different parts of the diaphragm then cancels the +20 dB/decade slope, but with many peaks and troughs.
Partial membrane resonances are another thing that can affect the sound. These can be damped effectively with a cloth that is very close to the diaphragm.
My colleague Frank Verwaal (who built his own electrostatic loudspeakers and then sold them because they hardly fit in his living room) has a web site on this subject. See Homepage van Frank Verwaal: Elektrostatische Luidsprekers for a more complete explanation.
Anyway, I own a pair of second-hand Quad ESL-63 loudspeakers (designed by Peter Walker) and I am very satisfied with them. Over the last ten years, I haven't had any technical problems, except when a cat urinated against one loudspeaker. Normally the dust protection membrane should protect the loudspeakers against moisture, but there was a small hole in this membrane.
I never drive the loudspeakers anywhere near their maximum output. The neighbours would start complaining long before.
In 1980, Peter Walker showed in an article that a flat electrostatic dipole loudspeaker intended for far-field listening must have a frequency-independent current drive rather than a frequency-independent voltage drive. (This applies to loudspeakers intended as point sources, line sources must have a +10 dB/decade slope in the current, or -10 dB/decade for the voltage.)
Still, many designs have a frequency-independent voltage at the stators. This results in a lack of bass that is often compensated by applying no damping of the fundamental resonance of the diaphragm. The excessive far-field treble is compensated by using a too large area for radiating the treble. When the area is too large, you are not in the far field at any practical listening distance. Interference between sound radiated from different parts of the diaphragm then cancels the +20 dB/decade slope, but with many peaks and troughs.
Partial membrane resonances are another thing that can affect the sound. These can be damped effectively with a cloth that is very close to the diaphragm.
My colleague Frank Verwaal (who built his own electrostatic loudspeakers and then sold them because they hardly fit in his living room) has a web site on this subject. See Homepage van Frank Verwaal: Elektrostatische Luidsprekers for a more complete explanation.
Anyway, I own a pair of second-hand Quad ESL-63 loudspeakers (designed by Peter Walker) and I am very satisfied with them. Over the last ten years, I haven't had any technical problems, except when a cat urinated against one loudspeaker. Normally the dust protection membrane should protect the loudspeakers against moisture, but there was a small hole in this membrane.
I never drive the loudspeakers anywhere near their maximum output. The neighbours would start complaining long before.
I already have.
Do the excursion calculations mentioned before and you will understand that we are pushing the limits of the laws of physics.
This is the physics of the problem regarless of crossover frequency.
Dynamic drivers can displace more air due to physical limitations of ESL's regardless of frequency.
Do the excursion calculations mentioned before and you will understand that we are pushing the limits of the laws of physics.
This is the physics of the problem regarless of crossover frequency.
Dynamic drivers can displace more air due to physical limitations of ESL's regardless of frequency.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I don't know enough about it to explain in detail. Shown is the segmentation PCB. SPL is controlled by feeding different stator segments through appropriate resistors. The wider areas are lowpassed by the higher inductance of their length of stator wires AFAIK.
Just one more. Here is the best book to read on the subject. You will then be an expert. Schematics, calculations, and all.
Amazon.com: Electrostatic Loudspeaker Design Cookbook (9781882580002): Roger Sanders: Books
Rest well.
Amazon.com: Electrostatic Loudspeaker Design Cookbook (9781882580002): Roger Sanders: Books
Rest well.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.