I have read up on transmission lines and was wondering if its possible to use an electrostatic panel in a transmission line?
I tried to google it but didnt find any information on this.
I was thinking of a design like this:
It will be roughly 30x30x140cm, placed on my desk 50cm away from my head.
The ESL panel will be 20x20cm
What are your opinions on this design?
Alternatively:
I tried to google it but didnt find any information on this.
I was thinking of a design like this:
It will be roughly 30x30x140cm, placed on my desk 50cm away from my head.
The ESL panel will be 20x20cm
What are your opinions on this design?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Alternatively:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Hi,
it´s just one of the advantages of ESLs.....it dosen´t need a casing to pimp its performance to acceptable quality. Still though a ESL is no good bass in first place. Too many problems with decreasing frequency and increasing excursion demand.
If put into a casing the same physics apply to ESL panels as applys to dynamic drivers. Results are increasing Fs and increasing Qt. Especially the first will rise way too high. A transmissionline, in its true technical sense, not the resonator-style line as usually appears in praxis, could be of use. But this would mean a very large and deep casing, similar to what B&W showed in their Nautilus prototype. And You wouldn´t want reflecting surfaces behind the membrane as in the TL-sketches of Yours, since the ESL membrane is acoustically transparent.
>I have read up on transmission lines and was wondering if its possible to use an electrostatic panel in a transmission line?<
A: Yes, possible in principle and praxis, but it means just a lot of effort without appropriate yield.
>What are your opinions on this design?<
A: Lots of effort for inferior output compared to an openbaffle ESL.
jauu
Calvin
it´s just one of the advantages of ESLs.....it dosen´t need a casing to pimp its performance to acceptable quality. Still though a ESL is no good bass in first place. Too many problems with decreasing frequency and increasing excursion demand.
If put into a casing the same physics apply to ESL panels as applys to dynamic drivers. Results are increasing Fs and increasing Qt. Especially the first will rise way too high. A transmissionline, in its true technical sense, not the resonator-style line as usually appears in praxis, could be of use. But this would mean a very large and deep casing, similar to what B&W showed in their Nautilus prototype. And You wouldn´t want reflecting surfaces behind the membrane as in the TL-sketches of Yours, since the ESL membrane is acoustically transparent.
>I have read up on transmission lines and was wondering if its possible to use an electrostatic panel in a transmission line?<
A: Yes, possible in principle and praxis, but it means just a lot of effort without appropriate yield.
>What are your opinions on this design?<
A: Lots of effort for inferior output compared to an openbaffle ESL.
jauu
Calvin
I was thinking of using a transmission line because I don't have much space, so my speaker will be right up against a wall.
Are there any other methods to have an ESL near a wall without the out of phase signal being reflected?
And is this any better?
Are there any other methods to have an ESL near a wall without the out of phase signal being reflected?
And is this any better?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The worst situation would be a parallel wall behind the speaker bouncing the backwaves back into the diaphragm. Another bad situation would be having a speaker in a corner where the backwaves do bank shots off the sidewall and backwall, sending early reflections to the listener. I'm thinking it's OK to have the speaker close to a wall provided the angle doesn't bounce sound back to the diaphragm and there are no adjacent walls close enough to bounce any early reflections to the listener. It's the early reflections that create phasing problems and muddle imaging; whereas, the brain tends to ignore the later arriving reflections.
I've also read that placing a curved reflector behind the speaker to disperse the backwaves can be effective in neutralizing the effects of too-close walls-- if it's positioned and angled just right.
I use a beam splitter behind my panels, which allows me to place the speakers very close to the back wall.. Still, I wouldn't place my speakers in a corner, for the reasons explained above.
Last edited:
Hi,
ESL-headphones are sure a fine thing ;-)
As CharlieM already said it is important to treat the backside soundwaves right. You need to avoid, that reflected backwaves arrive at the ear too early after the directly send waves. Instead highly diffused scattered backwaves with rather long delay are demanded. Reflectors, guides and damping may help. See Charlie´s beam splitter, which is basically of a simply V-style crossection. You may use other crossectional shapes like a half-cylinder or similar instead....just prevent direct reflections back through the membrane.
jauuu
Calvin
ESL-headphones are sure a fine thing ;-)
As CharlieM already said it is important to treat the backside soundwaves right. You need to avoid, that reflected backwaves arrive at the ear too early after the directly send waves. Instead highly diffused scattered backwaves with rather long delay are demanded. Reflectors, guides and damping may help. See Charlie´s beam splitter, which is basically of a simply V-style crossection. You may use other crossectional shapes like a half-cylinder or similar instead....just prevent direct reflections back through the membrane.
jauuu
Calvin
Actually I have positioned my Acoustat 0ne plus 0nes directly int the room corners as tightly as the base would allow. It might seem counter intuitive but when you fire the panel into a corner there is no reflection back into the panel as it rear wave loads into the corner and shoots out along the side walls.
With the panel parallel to a flat wall yes lots of cancelation problems but not into a corner. Best regards Moray James.
A paradox in there somewhere.
We value ESLs for their precision but use the backside output as a Toole-endorsed mushy ambient fullness.
So the principle is to get the backside output dispersed by virtue of geometry or room placement and leaving enough distance from rear wall(s).
I know some people have experimented with absorbtion of the backside sound. My experience (and perhaps the consensus) is that it isn't as satisfactory as just relishing the ambience.
Ben
We value ESLs for their precision but use the backside output as a Toole-endorsed mushy ambient fullness.
So the principle is to get the backside output dispersed by virtue of geometry or room placement and leaving enough distance from rear wall(s).
I know some people have experimented with absorbtion of the backside sound. My experience (and perhaps the consensus) is that it isn't as satisfactory as just relishing the ambience.
Ben
that may be true, but the recording is never made with the intention of having so much spaceness. i know it was the major thing that struck me most when lsiteneing to a ESL for the first time, the amazing sound seems everywhere. but as a sound designer for telveision and film, its kind of weird to listen to my own mixes on them. because this is not the way i mixed it. so trying to get rid of the backwave at least for the mid and high frequency without losing the verry low distortion is not such a stupid idea at all.
Ah, the paradoxes continue.
First, you offer testimony based on expertise that I would never (almost never) argue with.
Would it be true to say you are mostly interested in getting speech to the listener? For sure, speech and music are two rather distinct worlds in the practice of architectural acoustics.
Toole's endorsement of ambience in music reproduction (a big fuzzy imprecise concept and imprecise engineering) is not a matter of taste so much as a matter of his long career of testing people. It is one of key "take-away" points of his great book.
Ben
First, you offer testimony based on expertise that I would never (almost never) argue with.
Would it be true to say you are mostly interested in getting speech to the listener? For sure, speech and music are two rather distinct worlds in the practice of architectural acoustics.
Toole's endorsement of ambience in music reproduction (a big fuzzy imprecise concept and imprecise engineering) is not a matter of taste so much as a matter of his long career of testing people. It is one of key "take-away" points of his great book.
Ben
Have you got a wood floor with a space underneath?, if so I would recommend using underfloor loading. I have done this myself, and the bass was phenomenal. As long as the sound can escape under the floorboards, you can put your ESL right on the wall, with a cut out in the floorboards.The only problem is the neighbours, you would be OK if you live in a detached house. If not forget it. I had to curtail my layout because of the effect it had on my neighbour. Although this was with 18" cone speaker. I have built a planar full range speaker with a diaphragm about 15 x 10".This is a bit small for a good bass response.It would be simpler to build you wouldn't need any fancy inserts just a big slim box with your ESL on the front, with good damping against the wall, simple.Or you could build a 4' x 2' full range planar diaphragm using 50 x 18 x 10 mm ferrite magnets with 12 um mylar and 3 mm aluminium tape. You could even cover the front with a photo canvas, with a nice photo to keep the wife happy if that is a problem.
Attachments
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong I like the way esl sounds but it would not make Sence to me for instance to mix on them, because I could produce a verry dull sounding mix for everyone on "normal" speakers. Ofc there remains the question should everybody have esl then ur problem is gone. But it more common to use dynamic drivers in mix studios so a mix would sound more spatial (is that a word) on esl speakers. An usually I like it on a esl. But it is less close to what the engineer heard when he made it.
Btw movie is not all about speech ofc
and even is so rember that almost al sound that define a room acoustic or point of hearing is designed by the mixer. And is for a big part about spatial and ambience. Let's not forget ambience as wel. So I like almost al mixes on a esl , but mixes made on a esl could sound rather **** on normal speakers.
Don't get me wrong I like the way esl sounds but it would not make Sence to me for instance to mix on them, because I could produce a verry dull sounding mix for everyone on "normal" speakers. Ofc there remains the question should everybody have esl then ur problem is gone. But it more common to use dynamic drivers in mix studios so a mix would sound more spatial (is that a word) on esl speakers. An usually I like it on a esl. But it is less close to what the engineer heard when he made it.
Btw movie is not all about speech ofc
So I like almost al mixes on a esl , but mixes made on a esl could sound rather **** on normal speakers.
OK, I've been trying to keep it a secret, but I consider the folks who "create" music in the backroom as you do as the problem. It should be obvious to all that the honest conclusion to your line of thinking is to mix your stuff on the kind of average crap speakers used in cars, iPhones, and boom boxes. Right?
Short of standing on a soapbox and insisting you mix for the best systems, I don't have a better idea... except to make two mixes or maybe three for ESL advocates. It is a real problem.
BTW, my larger philosophical position is that music at home is an art-form of its own and can't be thought of objectively or as bringing Carnegie Hall into my living room (which is meaningless). Maybe bringing Bach's intentions into my living room is a defenible concept.
Ben
Last edited:
Don't want to be rude but maybe you read? Film an television. .... No iPhone , car or boom box there. Theatre ever heard of it ? Music ? I don't produce or mix music. An yeah dynaudio airs are boomboxes.... Dude for real don't give me the mubojumbo high end version. So it's it seems that al mixers or "back room" hobbyist are making stuff which is crap, and then you listening to it on a expensive system ? How many of ur favorite recordings are mastered on the so called **** there using?
There is no and I mean no no no way around this..... They made the stuff according to what they heard according to what the intention was of there product, that of the producer director etc. if you listen to it on a system that's soo different spatial wise it will be different for the good or the bad. I say as long as studios don't mix for dipools keep the. Backwave as small as possible, even while it sound great. Ofc you don't need to , as I like my music on esl. Still there is a huge difference, and if you want to hear what was I intended by the artist director or whatever you either listen to it on on esl without much of the back wave or dynamic speakers (which I don't prefer )
I really don't know why ur being so hostile about the fact that YOU listen to music wich apparently is mixed for boomboxes and iPhones.
I just told that it is not that kind of a stupid thought about catching the rear wave. So you got a sound that matches the mixing studio better with less distortion then they had, and less acoustical problems at least for the mud and high then you and me have on an esl in any given room.
And one last thing I would be really happy to mix on a esl , but it stil has to translate to most speakers. (and I'm again not talking about iPhones car radios or boomboxes) and if I should use one no as a pure dipool I think it would not
There is no and I mean no no no way around this..... They made the stuff according to what they heard according to what the intention was of there product, that of the producer director etc. if you listen to it on a system that's soo different spatial wise it will be different for the good or the bad. I say as long as studios don't mix for dipools keep the. Backwave as small as possible, even while it sound great. Ofc you don't need to , as I like my music on esl. Still there is a huge difference, and if you want to hear what was I intended by the artist director or whatever you either listen to it on on esl without much of the back wave or dynamic speakers (which I don't prefer )
I really don't know why ur being so hostile about the fact that YOU listen to music wich apparently is mixed for boomboxes and iPhones.
I just told that it is not that kind of a stupid thought about catching the rear wave. So you got a sound that matches the mixing studio better with less distortion then they had, and less acoustical problems at least for the mud and high then you and me have on an esl in any given room.
And one last thing I would be really happy to mix on a esl , but it stil has to translate to most speakers. (and I'm again not talking about iPhones car radios or boomboxes) and if I should use one no as a pure dipool I think it would not
Last edited:
How sad, WrineX, you mix for movies that never make it to DVD. But that is good because they never get played on the crap speakers most people have in their junky home theatres (which, I suppose, represents the bulk of viewing today). Well, at least your sound must sound great in theatres... if nowhere else.
As I said earlier, I can see no simple solution. Multiple releases for different audiences would be OK, when feasible.
In the meantime, producers of CDs luckily tend to take the noble path and mix for reproduction on quality sound systems. If they followed WrineX's idea, they would aim for audience satisfaction on boombox speakers and iPod earphones, those being the VAST majority of plays back. Keep up the good work, producers! Ignore the mixers!
If I had WrineX's sensitive hearing, maybe I would bemoan the sound on my dipole ESLs on music mixed on bookshelf speakers in a studio. Till then, with that and other shortcomings of ESLs, I think I'll keep 'em.
Ben
As I said earlier, I can see no simple solution. Multiple releases for different audiences would be OK, when feasible.
In the meantime, producers of CDs luckily tend to take the noble path and mix for reproduction on quality sound systems. If they followed WrineX's idea, they would aim for audience satisfaction on boombox speakers and iPod earphones, those being the VAST majority of plays back. Keep up the good work, producers! Ignore the mixers!
If I had WrineX's sensitive hearing, maybe I would bemoan the sound on my dipole ESLs on music mixed on bookshelf speakers in a studio. Till then, with that and other shortcomings of ESLs, I think I'll keep 'em.
Ben
Last edited:
Nice insults , btw there's no logic in ur pOst ur just trying to turn thing around an be an ***. Still pls tell me where I say I mix on crap speakers also define ur so called good music systems on cd releases ??? nd trying to insult me is not at all a way of convincing nore is is it verry nice.
Btw seem you like theatre speakers. Klipisch .... Funny they used that 80 years ago in cinema they must thought lets go back to boom boxes much beter.
And about me sensitive hearing ...1956 yes , I probable have a more sensitive hearing.
Btw seem you like theatre speakers. Klipisch .... Funny they used that 80 years ago in cinema they must thought lets go back to boom boxes much beter.
And about me sensitive hearing ...1956 yes , I probable have a more sensitive hearing.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.