look here for more info on advantages and disadvantages: wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_speaker
Although I never tried 'boxing in' my electrostatic speakers, I would think you will lose some transparency as well.
Although I never tried 'boxing in' my electrostatic speakers, I would think you will lose some transparency as well.
With any cabinet you will have resonances to deal with.
A dipole source can be good in combination with a beam splitter, you could just use the back wall corner behind the speaker. The reflected waves will combine with the front waves. This can in most cases cause destructive interferences (in the low end) but help support mids and highs.
To isolate the back from the front without the use of a cabinet try making a baffle, what you mount the cell into much much larger then the cells driven area.
happy building
bry
A dipole source can be good in combination with a beam splitter, you could just use the back wall corner behind the speaker. The reflected waves will combine with the front waves. This can in most cases cause destructive interferences (in the low end) but help support mids and highs.
To isolate the back from the front without the use of a cabinet try making a baffle, what you mount the cell into much much larger then the cells driven area.
happy building
bry
Hi,
ElZombre You have to distuinguish between a working principle (ESL or dynamic speaker) and the way the membrane is coupled to the surrounding air.
Basically there´s nothing to say against putting an ESL into a cabinet, since it works like a mass-spring-system, similar to the dynamic speaker! This has been done for example by Beveridge.
But while the mass of a dynamic speaker is relatively large, the mass of a ESL-diaphragm is very small. So apart from ridicoulously low membrane tension (low spring rates) the ESL would show high Fs-values. Its lower Bandwidth limit would be too high --> no bass.
The Alternative would be to lower the spring rate of the cabinet, which means more volume and larger size and leads to other practical problems.
The very thin membrane is acoustically transparent over the complete audio frequency range. So any reflection coming from within the cabinet would pass the membrane without any attanuation. A reflection-free cabinet would have to be very deep (think of the Nautilus-concept of Bowers&Wilkins). Anyway the cabinet for a ESL would have to be built different than that for a dynamic speaker and it would have to be impractically large.
Since a ESL cannot develop as much power per area of membrane unit like a dynamic speaker, its membrane area must be larger to achieve the same acoustic power. A large membrane though is clearly advantageous when it comes to the degree of coupling to the air. The ´energy-transfer´of a large membrane to air is far better than that of a small membrane. The typically small membranes of a dynamic speaker are so mismatched to the surrounding air that it needs a cabinet to beef up (match) the performance. ESL membranes can be of a size and shape that allows ideal coupling to the air. So no cabinet at all is needed with regard to this point.
A open system suffers from acoustic phase cancellation which reduces the bass level. Again the ESL counters this by large membrane area and its shape. Using dynamic speaklers you need as well large membrane areas, which is why most open baffle speakers use multiple bass drivers.
The open baffle alters the distribution character, i.e. the way sound energy is spread over the room. This leads to a different, typically very precise and ´boomless´ and natural sounding bass that suits the exceptional qualities an ESL is capable in the mid-and high-frequency range very well.
You could place the ESL in a cabinet and gain something, but you would loose on other things. So in this ´compromise-game´ most designers opt for the open system.
jauu
Calvin
ElZombre You have to distuinguish between a working principle (ESL or dynamic speaker) and the way the membrane is coupled to the surrounding air.
Basically there´s nothing to say against putting an ESL into a cabinet, since it works like a mass-spring-system, similar to the dynamic speaker! This has been done for example by Beveridge.
But while the mass of a dynamic speaker is relatively large, the mass of a ESL-diaphragm is very small. So apart from ridicoulously low membrane tension (low spring rates) the ESL would show high Fs-values. Its lower Bandwidth limit would be too high --> no bass.
The Alternative would be to lower the spring rate of the cabinet, which means more volume and larger size and leads to other practical problems.
The very thin membrane is acoustically transparent over the complete audio frequency range. So any reflection coming from within the cabinet would pass the membrane without any attanuation. A reflection-free cabinet would have to be very deep (think of the Nautilus-concept of Bowers&Wilkins). Anyway the cabinet for a ESL would have to be built different than that for a dynamic speaker and it would have to be impractically large.
Since a ESL cannot develop as much power per area of membrane unit like a dynamic speaker, its membrane area must be larger to achieve the same acoustic power. A large membrane though is clearly advantageous when it comes to the degree of coupling to the air. The ´energy-transfer´of a large membrane to air is far better than that of a small membrane. The typically small membranes of a dynamic speaker are so mismatched to the surrounding air that it needs a cabinet to beef up (match) the performance. ESL membranes can be of a size and shape that allows ideal coupling to the air. So no cabinet at all is needed with regard to this point.
A open system suffers from acoustic phase cancellation which reduces the bass level. Again the ESL counters this by large membrane area and its shape. Using dynamic speaklers you need as well large membrane areas, which is why most open baffle speakers use multiple bass drivers.
The open baffle alters the distribution character, i.e. the way sound energy is spread over the room. This leads to a different, typically very precise and ´boomless´ and natural sounding bass that suits the exceptional qualities an ESL is capable in the mid-and high-frequency range very well.
You could place the ESL in a cabinet and gain something, but you would loose on other things. So in this ´compromise-game´ most designers opt for the open system.
jauu
Calvin
Hi,
I once put a very large sewer pipe (cut across its length) behind the esl. This way, I created a small enclosure with non-parallel walls with open ends at top and bottem. Some BAF wadding was used as well. Despite being open, this killed bass. I quickly removed this enclosure. I didn't experiment any further with enclosures as they probably will become unacceptable large.
I've heard someone build a quad57 in a wall with the room behind acting as an enclosure and that would sound great.
I once put a very large sewer pipe (cut across its length) behind the esl. This way, I created a small enclosure with non-parallel walls with open ends at top and bottem. Some BAF wadding was used as well. Despite being open, this killed bass. I quickly removed this enclosure. I didn't experiment any further with enclosures as they probably will become unacceptable large.
I've heard someone build a quad57 in a wall with the room behind acting as an enclosure and that would sound great.
bear,
an "infinite" baffle is an idea, but mounting into a wall is no good, the sound will be trapped in between the walls this will give the sound a boomy appearance. The insulation may help. Very nice amps, i am looking for two stereo amps. One to drive esl panels and one to drive the woofers. Any ideas, thinking 300wpc
bryan
an "infinite" baffle is an idea, but mounting into a wall is no good, the sound will be trapped in between the walls this will give the sound a boomy appearance. The insulation may help. Very nice amps, i am looking for two stereo amps. One to drive esl panels and one to drive the woofers. Any ideas, thinking 300wpc
bryan
Hi,
while in theory the rough calculation I did before suggests the need of a >200W amp for the panel, You will in praxis need much less wattage.
It´s of more importance that the amp remains unconditionally stable under this complex load situation.
Class-D amps will be a good choice, though they often tend to a very analytical partly even a bit ´cold´ sound.
jauu
Calvin
while in theory the rough calculation I did before suggests the need of a >200W amp for the panel, You will in praxis need much less wattage.
It´s of more importance that the amp remains unconditionally stable under this complex load situation.
Class-D amps will be a good choice, though they often tend to a very analytical partly even a bit ´cold´ sound.
jauu
Calvin
bshaw147 said:
You are making an assumption that is not necessarily going to be correct.
If you open the speaker to the other side, no wall will be present.
Also, the "boomy" sonics you predict is a function of "Q" at the lower resonant frequency of the diaphragm... that may or may not be made higher depending on the specifics of the "wall cavity" that you mount the ESL in to. Also, the size of the baffle will be made very large, which will improve the LF response of the ESL substantially - a variation in Q that is undesireable might be correctable via an electronic means, if so required. But, assuming that you are making your own ESLs you can control that to some extent in the construction, for the particular application.
In terms of higher frequency effects, mounting in a standard "wall" cavity has its issues, and absorption of reflections would be very important - but assuming you have the option of modifying a wall in your home, then nothing prevents you from building out a wall intended specifically for this purpose and made appropriately for this purpose (enclosing a much larger volume) at some distance from an existing wall (like as much as 3 feet?
)._-_-bear
bear,
I thought you were cutting out from the existing wall, yes it would help the LF response since the back and front don't mix. Thank you to Calvin for help clarifying amps and the rated wires to use.
Calvin,
One of my colleagues at school can coat thin films professional. I told him the objective is to get the charge to stick to the film and not move around in operation. We may try a SiO coating. What success have you had with coatings? Sorry for thread-jacking
Thanks
bryan
I thought you were cutting out from the existing wall, yes it would help the LF response since the back and front don't mix. Thank you to Calvin for help clarifying amps and the rated wires to use.
Calvin,
One of my colleagues at school can coat thin films professional. I told him the objective is to get the charge to stick to the film and not move around in operation. We may try a SiO coating. What success have you had with coatings? Sorry for thread-jacking
Thanks
bryan
Hi,
it seems that nearly all plasma-coated or sputtered membranes do have their problems with longtime stability in this special application. I prefer conductive polymere laqueres or the magic glue formula which are easy to be applied where it needs to be, can be controlled in conductivity, work stable over years and are optically transparent.
Too, it might be a problem to find a coater capable of sputtering thinner than 12µm-films.
jauu
Calvin
it seems that nearly all plasma-coated or sputtered membranes do have their problems with longtime stability in this special application. I prefer conductive polymere laqueres or the magic glue formula
which are easy to be applied where it needs to be, can be controlled in conductivity, work stable over years and are optically transparent.Too, it might be a problem to find a coater capable of sputtering thinner than 12µm-films.
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.