What would you choose for Quad ESL-63, dipole or TL?

[tf1216]

Hi guys,

I read what I could from threads here. I would like to know if anyone has experience of their own in the past couple of years with dipole vs. TL alignments with ESL's.

I have $1,000 to spend for the bass drivers and I have a DCX2496 ready for use.

I was thinking of using four of these in a push-pull configuration:
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=8

Does anyone have input?

Thank you

[qwad]

l assume you are wanting to build a subwoofer for them, some time ago in a issue of HI-FI WORLD there was a project pubished for a di pole sub using audax woofers with an active x-over, l probably still have the article but have no way of scanning it and sending it to you: sorry l cant be more help but some of the other bright sparks on this forum might be able to suggest something else, so in a nutshell its do-able
cheerrs T.C.

[LineSource]

I have two friends who added bass woofers to Quad ESL 63.

1) used stereo sealed servo woofers. Friend used stereo Entec servo woofers crossed LR4 at 60 Hz. The Rhythmik Audio servo sub has gotten good reviews in diyAudio. This sealed servo design solution can pressurize any room to 20Hz bass. amazing powerful bass

2) used dipole stereo woofers. Two low Mms 12" woofers per side in standard dipole baffle with short rear facing sides to increase effective baffle length. He put both woofers facing foward for appearance. Crossed LR4 at 80Hz. He used 12" to match the ESL-63 26: width: Dimensions: 36" H by 26" W by 6" D (base 10" D). Dipoles cannot pressurize a room, so the room dimensions will set the deepest bass wavelength - very good integration to my ears

The AES 15" infinite baffle woofer you mentioned has very high Mms, which many ESL 63 owners have commented will not match the "speed/tone" of the ESL.

AES also makes a much more expensive $279 15" dipole woofer with lower Mms and under hung motor that would likely be a better match. Low Mms and high Bl woofers are mentioned on some diy websites as necessary to match the ESL 63.

If you search diyAudio for dipole woofers with low Mms and good BL, you should find several other options. The Peerless XLS is used by designers like Linkwitz.


Lambda Infinite Baffle
Fs: 16Hz
Qms: 6.8
Vas: 439L
Cms: .45mm/N
Mms: 220g very heavy*****
Rms: 3.239
Xmax: 18.5mm
Xmech: 25mm
Sd: 830sqcm
Vd: 3.07L (p-p)
Qes: .78
Re: 5.5ohm
Le: .33mH
Bl:12.49
Pe: 500W
Qts: .7
1WSPL: 86dB
2.83V: 87.3dB


T/S specs Lambda 15" dipoles. The speaker uses an underhung motor
Fs 21.66Hz
Vas 623L
Qms 15.16
Qes 1.002
Qts 0.94
Re 12.3 ohms
Impedance 16 ohms
Bl 12.26Tm
Mms 90g
Le 0.3mH
1Wspl90dB
xmax 13mm peak
voice coil height 12.4mm
air gap 38.4mm
Sd 855cm2
Pmax ~100W

[tf1216]

The Lambda driver is perfect other than for it's size, two 12" subs would be optimum as you explained. Their 12" version is not quite as special for this application.

Anyone out there try an 8" or 10" driver in a TL cabinet?

If I had the resources I would try both the dipole and TL paths.

[Mitch Alsup]

Disclaimer: My ESLs are ML CLSs revZ.

I recently bought a Velodyne DD-15 (ebay at $1200). And after getting the system setup and the sub-woofer tweeked for flat* responce, the system sound very well indeed. (*) flat is +/- 1 db from 17Hz through 135 Hz as shown on the DD-15 TV output. (This was not easy to achieve -- see below).

However, the HF roll off in the sub-woofer to power amp is slow enough (12dB/oct) that significant amounts of power are being delivered to the ESLs at the frequencies where the sub-woofer is operating (quite well). So, even though the sub-woofer has a HF filter to (partially) isolate the ESL from the sub, its not good enough. I had considerable difficulty matching sub and ESL responce as the sub passed over to the mains. Thus, the current plan is to build a (audiophile quality) LR-4 filter at 105 Hz and split the audio before the sub gets ahold of it. 105 Hz was chosen because the CLSs have a decending responce starting at 120 and bottoms out at 100, so the LR-4 filter would simply continue this decreasing responce. (Obviously QUADs will be a little different in frequency selection).

Second point: My ML CLSs do not produce big amounts of audio power (nor will most ESLs), so part of the issue with the big (1500 Watts) sub is turning it down LOW enough to mate with the speaker responce and to make recorded instruments sound like real instruments (not too much bass--just the right amount). So while my main power amp likes 2Vrms to drive the speakers as loud as my wife allows, the sub only needs 0.2Vrms. Thus attenuation is in order when I get around to building the LR-4 filter. Luckily there is a volume switch in the DD-15 to make this manageable.

[Andersonix]

Presumably you're familiar with the bespoke Gradient dipole subs for these? Depending on the crossover, they can be very good. I would think with better drivers, they could be better still. And you can't beat the totally integrated appearance...

[gainphile]

You need to read the Contrapunt subwoofer:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/dipolesub.htm

The guy had similiar Quad 63.

[tf1216]

Tosh, I am aware of the Gradient dipole subs. I have read mixed reviews about the integration between the Quads and the Gradients. The subwoofers can be found on the used market easily but I wanted to create my own version of the dipole subs gainphile posted in his reply to this thread.

I think the AE Speakers would take that design up a leave or two. At least I would hope.

[moray james]

dipole would be the way to go down to 30 Hz or so then reflex or Tap would be the best bet below that.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/i...?topic=57919.0

[owenhamburg]

Having just gone wild and bought a reconditioned ESL63 from Quad I am very impressed. Especially with Acoustic music, such as World, Jazz and folk music I mostly listen too. The low bass on the quads is lovely for night time low level listening as the dipole bass does not disturb the neighbors I guess because of the directive nature of the Bass, but it is a little low on output and does not sound right for my electronic or dub music when I want daytime listening levels. The bass is very directional from the Quad's which as I said above is a strength late at night, with guests round for a beer or three its not ideal. To answer the original question, Dipole bass has this disadvantage and advantage. I have never heard a good transmission line speaker, but only experimented with a probably unsuitable driver of unknown specification gave a boom or muffled response, with a large pipe 3 meters long stuffed wool jumpers

My CX3400.aspx was nice for making my Linn Helix two ways active but is not tuned for Quad / Woofer integration but this experience showed the reason for getting a variable cross over before building a custom cross over. Then I found Mc Crypt Active switch X-Over 80 MK III which is tuned for the right cross over frequencies.

A high pass 12dB/Octave active filter on the Quad ESL 63's at 90-110 Hz seems to clean up the Quad ESL 63 bass no end with my electronic or dub music, but the bass was still missing. So I crossed over to a pair of Linn Helix Speakers. These have 7/8" bass units in a slot loaded bass reflex. This also has the benefit of greatly reducing the voltage I drive the Quads at so increasing my headroom particularly on TV, movies and web sites which often drop in very powerful bass notes.

The result was to my surprise a very good solution I do think the cross over should be improved upon.

All the comments on bass integration with Quad ESL 63's you get from particularly UK people are either due to not using an active cross over or alternatively obsessions for people with far bigger budgets than me (the Quad reconditioned Quad ESL 63's are hard for me to justify as is). This said I would love a new Quad 2905 if some one wants to give me one. The electrostatic bass sounds great what I have of it.

Since my recapped pairs of Quad 303 and unserviced Quad 306 amplifiers are both Cheap and excellent with the ESL's (The Quad 306 has better bass on speakers that can do it eg the Linn Helix, and the Quad 303 has marginally better midrange treble, I should recap the 306 and see if it can match the 303's here) I see no reason not to go for active cross overs as these amplifiers typically sell for far less than they should on the UK ebay site.

I am currently thinking I may get slightly better bass from a infinite baffle (closed baffle) 10" drivers and am wondering if the following drivers would make a nice sealed enclosure.

• Dayton RS225S-8 8" Reference Shielded Woofer 8 Ohm
• Dayton RS270S-8 10" Reference Shielded Woofer 8 Ohm
• Peerless 830668 SLS 10" Subwoofer

The Dayton RS225S-8 8" drivers should be good enough with just one, judging from my Linn speakers, That said I would want an improvement and so I am considering at least two of them, or even two of the alternative 10" speakers.

I notice Martin Logan have both sealed and ported woofers on their hybrids so if the bass extension is unsatisfying (I doubt it will be) I may try them in a ported enclosure.