Did you measure that? Or did you do it by ear? As I see no numbers I suspect by ear. How big a difference in SPL can you detect by ear and be able to remember it to make a genuine comparison? 3 dB? Less? More? Was the SPL the same over the whole frequency spectrum. What was the condition of the "stock" panel? Was it re-coated in earlier years? Was the speaker bought new or second hand? Was the speaker abused? And so on ..... and so forth ....
I'm sorry to say I find most of the information on this forum to be overly subjective, not supported by any measuring or numbers. Without the support of any measurement I'm sorry to say it is just your personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less. I love to hear personal opinions, but I love cold hard evidence a lot more.
And please remember that this is just my personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Last edited:
@wout; lets remind you of your own quote regarding your coating:
" Never heard a Quad ESL-63 set sound like it sounds now with this coating. But beware it is not only the coating, there is much much more to take care of.
"
Seems like a rather subjective statement to me as well.
Also it is better to have a skilled subjective comparison than lousy measurements who are out of scale because of some error.
Just my 2 cents.
" Never heard a Quad ESL-63 set sound like it sounds now with this coating. But beware it is not only the coating, there is much much more to take care of.
"
Seems like a rather subjective statement to me as well.
Also it is better to have a skilled subjective comparison than lousy measurements who are out of scale because of some error.
Just my 2 cents.
Quite an assumption or do you know the person directly?
Quite a accusation or do you know the person directly?
Last edited:
What you're missing here is that how something sounds can ONLY be judged and described subjectively. Where would our hobby be if this was not the case? Read any review of any HiFi / High End component and it's filled with both subjective subscriptions and cold hard measurements. Both are not always nicely related and taste, price (very much price these days, good HiFi has to be very expensive), brand, marketing etc. come in. How much SPL a speaker produces is of the latter, it can be measured, no room for subjectivity here.
Please can you share your evidence for the assertion all coating hold the same charge? Have you measured charge density with graphite coatings? Please can you share your method for measuring charge density so we can replicate. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
The mylar and stators of an esl can be considered as an air capacitor. In case of a capacitor there is a relation between the capacity (farad), charge (coulomb) and voltage. Capacity = charge/voltage The capacity of an esl is fixed by its geometry, distance between mylar and stator for example. This means that charge is controlled by voltage only. There is no need to measure charge density. If someone claims to have a coating which ' holds more charge' thus with more soundpressure he should show you a valid comparitive experiment which proves it. Ofcourse there isnt.
If you havent measured then with all respects, your null hypothesis that membrane coatings have no effect on charge density is unsupported by data. Your assumption appears to depend on the model fitting. Might it be the theory assumes the membrane is two dimensional? For most coatings thats a fair approximation. For 3micron graphite a 2-D approximation may fall down. The proposal a graphite coating may produce increased surface area with higher charge density and higher SPL's is intriguing.
Even if the graphite coating is 100 micron (not unlikely LOL), fieldlines are defined by the surface not volume.
Also if these large graphite particles increase capacity what do you think of coatings with much smaller conductive elements? Those would have even much larger area.
Last but not least I am not the one who makes big claims of coatings having more charge than others, having more sound blabla, so I dont need to prove anything.
So triboelectric value of the ingredients (and the total of the coating as such) of the coating are not of influence here?
As you point out surface area is pivotal to charge density. An irregular surface increases surface area of the membrane at the micron level. Viola. Potential for increased charge density.
No triboelectric effect unless you want to rub the coating with kind of a towel, then quickly put the esl together and run to your chair und hope it will last a few minutes. Cause thats what tribolectric is about (check wiki)
It would be true in case of an electrolytic capacitor in which the dielectric conforms to the surface of the electrode (small oxide layer). In case of an aircapacitor this is neglegible. You would also have to look tothe surface of the stators cause one plate doesnt make a capacitor.
No the triboelectric effect only applies to rubbing the material. It is a mechanical effect.
Hi all,
This is a bit off-topic but nevertheless ... I sense that the "tone of voice" in this otherwise very interesting thread (IMO) tends to get somewhat harsh.
Personally I find this to be a pity because I reckon that we all have an interest in this subject - and I think that positive collaboration is supportive of good innovation and ideas - and also because I personally always see people next to the ideas, not just ideas.
And IMHO it is just much more pleasant to exchange positively ...
Felt like saying this.
Jesper
This is a bit off-topic but nevertheless ... I sense that the "tone of voice" in this otherwise very interesting thread (IMO) tends to get somewhat harsh.
Personally I find this to be a pity because I reckon that we all have an interest in this subject - and I think that positive collaboration is supportive of good innovation and ideas - and also because I personally always see people next to the ideas, not just ideas.
And IMHO it is just much more pleasant to exchange positively ...
Felt like saying this.
Jesper
This tread was started in 2007...from 2009 I been here...Why Have I not seen any full rang ESL diy,ed here ? Any were?....Anyone...yes NO ...Maybe?
Just had a offer...to trade...a pr of My 30 years old ML CLS Speakers for a pr of the Newer type Quad 989 Speakers...The CLS had way more output an better bass an topend... I was shocket...an the Quads had been rebuild....The Quad souned vary good but only...at low output...Like all I have owned an ever heard....
Licron is the only Sure Thing so far …..an it was named on page one....is this right?....
All I can say is if not for Dish Soap ...I see NO ezey fix for high output form my Re-worked Martin Logan panels...I have panels that have been playing for 3-4 years with one coating....... An I live in Fl.. were its 80% humidity....most of the year ….Just saying
Just had a offer...to trade...a pr of My 30 years old ML CLS Speakers for a pr of the Newer type Quad 989 Speakers...The CLS had way more output an better bass an topend... I was shocket...an the Quads had been rebuild....The Quad souned vary good but only...at low output...Like all I have owned an ever heard....
Licron is the only Sure Thing so far …..an it was named on page one....is this right?....
All I can say is if not for Dish Soap ...I see NO ezey fix for high output form my Re-worked Martin Logan panels...I have panels that have been playing for 3-4 years with one coating....... An I live in Fl.. were its 80% humidity....most of the year ….Just saying