blasphemy i know, but anyway
i think ML CLX is probably a perfect tranducer. but that's all it is - a tranducer. i wouldn't call it a speaker because it still needs bass.
problem is it's going to take up half a room by itself and there is simply not going to be any space left for a bass tower as in statements.
if i had a mansion i would just build a DIY sub to combine with CLX for an improvide statement speaker but i am too poor for that.
so i was thinking of how the whole setup can be made compact enough to fit into an average living room. there seems to be only one way. you have to enclose the back of the ESL and screw a flat subwoofer cabinet to the back of that.
so the whole speaker would be about 2 feet deep. the first foot would be the enclosure for ESL ( with a few thousand dollars worth of damping material in there ) and the second foot would be a subwoofer enclosure comprised of multiple sealed compartments each for lets say a 12" driver.
of course the curved and flat sections of ESL would have separate enclosing volumes. the one for flat section much larger than one for curved one.
what do you say to that ?
after all STAX has closed headphones ...
the reason i wouldn't just put a bass tower behind an open CLX is because the bass would go through the panel causing it to max out on excursion before it even started playing. the enclosing volume would be primarily to limit ESL excursion due to the adjacent subwoofers.
i think ML CLX is probably a perfect tranducer. but that's all it is - a tranducer. i wouldn't call it a speaker because it still needs bass.
problem is it's going to take up half a room by itself and there is simply not going to be any space left for a bass tower as in statements.
if i had a mansion i would just build a DIY sub to combine with CLX for an improvide statement speaker but i am too poor for that.
so i was thinking of how the whole setup can be made compact enough to fit into an average living room. there seems to be only one way. you have to enclose the back of the ESL and screw a flat subwoofer cabinet to the back of that.
so the whole speaker would be about 2 feet deep. the first foot would be the enclosure for ESL ( with a few thousand dollars worth of damping material in there ) and the second foot would be a subwoofer enclosure comprised of multiple sealed compartments each for lets say a 12" driver.
of course the curved and flat sections of ESL would have separate enclosing volumes. the one for flat section much larger than one for curved one.
what do you say to that ?
after all STAX has closed headphones ...
the reason i wouldn't just put a bass tower behind an open CLX is because the bass would go through the panel causing it to max out on excursion before it even started playing. the enclosing volume would be primarily to limit ESL excursion due to the adjacent subwoofers.
Last edited:
Hi Borat,
Have you listened to the closed STAX headphones?
I have, and I prefer mine to be open. Why? Because the sound is more open and transparent. It's just more real. I think most of the people who build ESL like the fact that they are dipole, and the sound stage is just different from what you can get from the boxed speakers. But of course, you might prefer differently. And the only way to find out is to try it.
Wachara C.
Have you listened to the closed STAX headphones?
I have, and I prefer mine to be open. Why? Because the sound is more open and transparent. It's just more real. I think most of the people who build ESL like the fact that they are dipole, and the sound stage is just different from what you can get from the boxed speakers. But of course, you might prefer differently. And the only way to find out is to try it.
Wachara C.
Stax, closed?
Mines are open!
So are all models I've recently seen in the magazines.
If you move your hands towards the stax headphone you will notice that sound changes. This is because your hands reflects the sound and the reflected sound just goes right through the stax back to your ears. It sounds like a colouration, no trouble in hearing the difference.
Nice experiment to try yourself. You will be amazed how far your hands must be away from the stax without having colouration.
Mines are open!
So are all models I've recently seen in the magazines.
If you move your hands towards the stax headphone you will notice that sound changes. This is because your hands reflects the sound and the reflected sound just goes right through the stax back to your ears. It sounds like a colouration, no trouble in hearing the difference.
Nice experiment to try yourself. You will be amazed how far your hands must be away from the stax without having colouration.
If you think of it as a tranduser what is the fs and VAS ? I would guess if you
put it in a closed box any reasonable size say 8 cubic feet or less you would push
the fs way way up with a realy high qts. So you would have one heck of a peak
at fs the speaker would be rooling off at a much higher frequency.
put it in a closed box any reasonable size say 8 cubic feet or less you would push
the fs way way up with a realy high qts. So you would have one heck of a peak
at fs the speaker would be rooling off at a much higher frequency.
wrong.
they would go deeper due to less out of phase cancellation and there would not be any peak because i would use an appropriate damping strategy.
Hi drs M.J. Dijkstra
maybe you look here:
stax4070.html
There should be the closed STAX.
This is the studio version.
I beleve what you mentioned,
and as you can read that STAX
only have this version for the professional use,
because there it is needed to be closed.
Frank
maybe you look here:
stax4070.html
There should be the closed STAX.
This is the studio version.
I beleve what you mentioned,
and as you can read that STAX
only have this version for the professional use,
because there it is needed to be closed.
Frank
Yes, as I wrote in the studios they need to have it like this.
But they do not do it because it is better -
it is an exeption for this case.
wow you guys really aren't capable of thinking beyond just repeating what has already been done by others for decades after decades.
i can tell you with 100% certainty WHY there aren't any sealed electrostatic speakers - COST.
sealed STAX headphones cost 3 times as much as their open ones. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that MORE WORK goes into producing a sealed STAX than open one.
regular STAX cost $1,000. sealed ones about $4,000.
regular Martin Logan CLX costs $20,000. sealed one would cost $80,000.
you would need about $1,000 worth of just damping material for EACH of the two speakers. and then you would have to develop a damping strategy FROM SCRATCH unlike anything that has ever been done EVER. you would probably have to spend a year in development before you could absorb the backwave completely and the resulting design of the chamber would cost more than the speaker itself including power supply, transformer and crossover.
but it CAN be done.
the question is - what would you GAIN from doing it ?
i think you would gain:
1 - greater low frequency output
2 - better imaging and dynamics.
3 - MUCH greater placement flexibility
4 - ability to integrate a world class subwoofer into the back of the speaker
would it be worth it ?
no if your living room is 30 x 30 feet and you aren't limited in placement options. in fact it is almost 100% guaranteed that in such a room the sealed speaker will sound WORSE than open one just as with STAX headphones.
on the other hand you would be able to fit a system with performance of the statements into a normal sized living room.
i think.
i can tell you with 100% certainty WHY there aren't any sealed electrostatic speakers - COST.
sealed STAX headphones cost 3 times as much as their open ones. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that MORE WORK goes into producing a sealed STAX than open one.
regular STAX cost $1,000. sealed ones about $4,000.
regular Martin Logan CLX costs $20,000. sealed one would cost $80,000.
you would need about $1,000 worth of just damping material for EACH of the two speakers. and then you would have to develop a damping strategy FROM SCRATCH unlike anything that has ever been done EVER. you would probably have to spend a year in development before you could absorb the backwave completely and the resulting design of the chamber would cost more than the speaker itself including power supply, transformer and crossover.
but it CAN be done.
the question is - what would you GAIN from doing it ?
i think you would gain:
1 - greater low frequency output
2 - better imaging and dynamics.
3 - MUCH greater placement flexibility
4 - ability to integrate a world class subwoofer into the back of the speaker
would it be worth it ?
no if your living room is 30 x 30 feet and you aren't limited in placement options. in fact it is almost 100% guaranteed that in such a room the sealed speaker will sound WORSE than open one just as with STAX headphones.
on the other hand you would be able to fit a system with performance of the statements into a normal sized living room.
i think.
Hi Borat,
Why are you so sure of what you think? I have tried to seal my headphones. I didn't like it. As far as cost is concern, a piece of back cover on each side and some damping material will never cost 3 times as much.
About low frequencies output, in my own experiments, open back is better.
Wachara C.
Why are you so sure of what you think? I have tried to seal my headphones. I didn't like it. As far as cost is concern, a piece of back cover on each side and some damping material will never cost 3 times as much.
About low frequencies output, in my own experiments, open back is better.
Wachara C.
Hi Borat,
Why are you so sure of what you think? I have tried to seal my headphones. I didn't like it. As far as cost is concern, a piece of back cover on each side and some damping material will never cost 3 times as much.
About low frequencies output, in my own experiments, open back is better.
Wachara C.
FAIL !
this post follows the same trend as every other one in this thread - it is internally inconsistent / self contradictory.
you are saying how damping is easy to do and at the same time how you couldn't do it.
think harder.
ps: i am NOT sure. but i have yet to hear a good reason why what i am saying may be wrong.
Borat-
The original Beveridge 2 used a closed thin-walled box that behaved like a tuned resonator below about 75Hz and was thought by many to be the most transparent transducer of its era. The new Janszen, which I haven't heard, is also a monopole esl, but is a hybrid. Please see the link: Electrostatic Speakers - JansZen
So, obviously your idea has merit.
Good luck with your experiments.
The original Beveridge 2 used a closed thin-walled box that behaved like a tuned resonator below about 75Hz and was thought by many to be the most transparent transducer of its era. The new Janszen, which I haven't heard, is also a monopole esl, but is a hybrid. Please see the link: Electrostatic Speakers - JansZen
So, obviously your idea has merit.
Good luck with your experiments.
@ borat,
Some informations about an attempt to use a Quad ESL63 as a midrange unit can be found in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/149655-box-around-esl.html
Wishes
Some informations about an attempt to use a Quad ESL63 as a midrange unit can be found in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/149655-box-around-esl.html
Wishes
Very peculiar man... "Dark matter". Quite enthusiastic. Has done some nice trasducers.
P.S.That's a good example of the computerized translation.
In regard to transparency of the transducer.
Beveridge says that the tuned port (or Helmholtz resonator) configuration works just perfecly.
On the other hand his speaker's cabinet is huge.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.