ESL Panel construction? - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Planars & Exotics

Planars & Exotics ESL's, planars, and alternative technologies

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st December 2010, 04:00 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
CharlieM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Savannah, GA
I will give you my opinions but I would seek other opinions as well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
Will I need the frame? Is the frame important?

A flat panel would be quite wimpy and would definitely need a supporting frame. A curved panel would be substantially more rigid but I can't imagine it being strong enough to resist flexing and deformation when handling it so I would use a frame with a curved panel as well.

It will add mass, rigidity and it might change resonance behavior as well.
Yes, all of those things-- but I assure you it will sound wonderful. I think resonance in the panel is not a good thing and a frame can help beneficially dampen that resonance

The panels will be 165x25cm (160x20cm actual active membrane area).
I'll be using 1.0mm Rv 3-4 perf steel stators.


The perf you mentioned should work well. You're panels are large so will surely yield high output but they will also have fairly high capacitance-- it would probably be OK but I'm not positive about that and too much capacitance will pull down the treble response and makes a harder load for an amp (the tranny type and step-up ratio plays into that as well). Calvin has far more experience than I do with capacitance issues so I would certainly ask his advice before committing to that panel size.

3M 1.6x25mm VHB tape (I'm considering 1.1mm thickness)
(25mm 5962 or 5952 since the stators will be powdercoated)
I'm not decided on the additional tape spacers needed, width and orientation will depend on the thickness of the tape.


I would definitely go with 1.6 mm tape for the spacers, no matter the panel coating thickness. My view is this: In a perfect world where stators are always perfectly straight and diaphragms retain perfect tension, 1 mm of d/s (diaphragm to stator spacing) might be fine provided that the distance between support spacers does not exceed 100x d/s (70-100x d/s is the Cookbook guidline). However, I have yet to see perfectly straight and true stators, even after straightening. Also, even though you will have separate woofers for the bass, the bass notes in the room will push the diaphragms to larger excursions than the signals fed to the stators. Roger Sanders's Cookbook recommends .070" minimum d/s and I think he's not far off the mark with that so I go with .062 (1.6mm) spacers.

I'll try to run them as low as possible (hybrid) without compromising the audiable qualities to badly. X-over <300Hz I think? Exactly how low depends on the final result and I won't know that until the panels are built.

A 24/db/oct crossover @ 300 hz would be fine but I would not go higher or much lower. Mine is currently set to 270hz (lower is certainly doable but you then need more EQ on the panels to compensate the dipole phase-cancellation so it's a matter of diminishing returns).

Will the vibrations be large enough to warrant a frame?
For vibration alone, probably not, but I would use a frame anyway for structural rigidity.

And now back to the original question.
I could do it without the extra holes but holes will make a better solution I think.
I need 2 holes for M8 screws on each side (L/R) for each panel. The stands will be mounted near the floor so the holes will need to be located a few inches above floor level.


Since I would use VHB tape to assemble and secure the panels together and also place the panel in a support frame, screws and added holes would not be needed.

Last edited by CharlieM; 31st December 2010 at 04:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2010, 04:23 PM   #12
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks for the detailed response.
My initial thoughts were 1.6mm spacers and a frame so your advice is kind of already the default plan.
I guess I'm just exploring another option.

A 1mm steel sheet is indeed very flimsy, I was thinking the layered build with tape would transfer any bending motion/force into shear forces making the construction stiff.
Yoy're probably right, a frame is probably the way to go.

(Swedish terminology might not translate 100%, if I'm saying strange things please tell me and I'll try to find the correct words.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2011, 02:42 PM   #13
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
I might just add a little side note...
It was the free samples of 1.1mm (43mil) VHB that got me thinking if it would be a viable option to go with the smaller d/s spacing. (I got a couple of sample rolls to try out the product...)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2011, 03:30 PM   #14
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
This 30 minute rule for editing posts is a nuisance. :P
Coating will be approx 6mil.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2011, 02:45 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
CharlieM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Savannah, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
I might just add a little side note...
It was the free samples of 1.1mm (43mil) VHB that got me thinking if it would be a viable option to go with the smaller d/s spacing. (I got a couple of sample rolls to try out the product...)
As I said in my earlier post, I think you should seek other opinions, not just mine.

Since I have not personally built an ESL with d/s spacing smaller than .062" (1.6mm) I can't say for sure that 1.1 mm spacing would create problems, provided that the distance between support spacers is within the 70-100x d/s guideline per Roger Sanders' ESL Cookbook (which also recommends .070" minimum [about 1.6mm] d/s spacing).

It is correct to say that closer spacing gives higher efficiency because the strength of the electrostatic force falls off quadratically with distance. So, for a given power input, 1.1 d/s would yield significantly higher efficiency, within the smaller space provided for the diaphragm to move in. The question then becomes at what point and loudness the diaphragm would be driven into the stators-- and I can't answer that question.

I will stick with my recommendation of 1.6 mm d/s for the reasons given in my earlier post. I can say with certainty that 1.6 mm d/s will give no problems in a hybrid panel and will yield good output too. This I know because my 30.5cm x 122cm panels with 1.6 mm d/s will play louder than I can stand to listen.

One more thing, your 25cm x 165cm panels are only about 12% larger than mine so I'm thinking their 12% higher capacitance would likely not be a problem. (of course, if you use the smaller 1.1 mm d/s, the capacitance would then be substantially higher). Again, I would ask Calvin's opinion on your panels size/capacitance and d/s spacing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2011, 02:49 PM   #16
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
Let's hope Calvin joins in then.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2011, 04:00 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
What's the downside to bigger spacing? Voltage is cheap but burning holes in your diaphragms sure isn't. If it is a conflict between engineering design perfection versus plain good sense, it really shouldn't be hard to decide.
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn + giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer; Behringer DSP
HiFi aspirations since 1956
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2011, 06:51 AM   #18
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
In my case here the 1.6mm (0.062") option is the default option. It's tried and true.
If 1.1mm (0.045") were an option it would make my life easier.
Inter-Spacer distance would be more optimal, I already have tape lying around, due to lower voltage demands a direct drive amplifier might be an option later on.

Active diapraghragm width will be 200mm.
Recommended inter-spacer distance is 70-100 x d/s spacing -> either 116-160mm or 77-110mm. Running a spacer down the centerline with 1.6mm d/s spacing would put me outside the recommended interval forcing me to go with horizontal spacers insted. -> Not as good for the active radiating area. -> possibly loosing efficiency/sensitivity?
Voltage requirements estimate 1.6kVrms vs 1.1kVrms. 3.1kVpp might be doable with a fairly simple OTL tube amplifier. I said might... I'm just keeping my options open at this point. 4.5kVpp is a harder nut to crack.

So I guess there are some incentives for me to explore the small d/s route.
If it's just a plain and simple bad idea I'll drop it and not look back, but abandoning it just because it's not the normal way of doing things just isn't my style.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2011, 07:41 AM   #19
SM7UYJ is offline SM7UYJ  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
SM7UYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Staffanstorp
markusA:
I would go with the 1.6mm spacers!
I use 2mm for my midpanel and 1mm for the tweeterpanels in my ESL-hybrids.
It will be a compromise as you want to cross over to your woffer as low as possible => the need off larger d/s, small d/s => lower EHT, transformers etc. as you previous stated. With 1.6mm d/s you should have no problem getting your XO below 300Hz!

Roger
__________________
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action.
- A. Kindsvater
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2011, 09:53 AM   #20
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

1.1mm is good for a maximum SPL-value of 110dB@4m for f>200Hz with my small panel.
Sounds sufficient eyyh? Gives any bass a good run for the money.

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adhesive for ESL panel repair 405man Planars & Exotics 7 26th June 2014 07:24 PM
Front panel construction - help with buttons! commoncollector Construction Tips 3 28th August 2009 05:33 AM
Acoustat two way esl panel pwgtang Planars & Exotics 18 19th November 2008 05:28 PM
Split an esl panel to two way panel pwgtang Multi-Way 1 13th August 2008 06:57 PM
Quad ESL 63 Panel Failure Atom66 Planars & Exotics 2 22nd January 2007 12:56 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2