Horn loaded electrostatic ?? - 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 5th June 2011, 10:12 PM   #11
brsanko is offline brsanko  United States
diyAudio Member
 
brsanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Duluth, MN
Send a message via MSN to brsanko
So what kind of movementvin terms of mm can you get from an EL?
I'm trying to figure out how big the panel would need to be.
__________________
PASSIONN
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 10:47 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
I have actualy wittnessed clipping at th lower frequency's using a microphone and a scope.
From the diagphram hitting the stator.

You can get quite a bit of excursion.
I tried to measure it but it is very difficult to do so.

But since I have had slapping of the diagphram to the stator should give you some kind of idea.

I also had I slight bit of it on my 7.75" wide panels using a d/s of .070" to .080".
But using a d/s of around .1" to .11" it pretty much disappeared but I never got the chance to drive them hard properly.

As I haven't ran them since 2003 when I built them.
All I need to do is rebuild some new frames and bolt them back together.

Remember that this is at very low frequency's as I was running them fullrange.
If they are crossed over at 300hz to even 500hz like most do these problems most likely would not occur at all.

jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 10:54 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
I had done some static test and the forces are large enough to suck the diagphram compleatly to one stator if they are not balanced or if the diagphram tension is not high enough on either size.

I had this problem on the bigger ones until I got everthing just right.
Then they worked great once I did.


jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 11:02 PM   #14
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

The coupling efficiency, diaphragm to air, of an electrostatic is already high.
Horn loading will simply not help, it helps only for low coupling efficiency.

Never done commercially AFAIK, because it simply does not work.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 11:13 PM   #15
brsanko is offline brsanko  United States
diyAudio Member
 
brsanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Duluth, MN
Send a message via MSN to brsanko
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi,

The coupling efficiency, diaphragm to air, of an electrostatic is already high.
Horn loading will simply not help, it helps only for low coupling efficiency.
I could be wrong but it seem that would be true of a large panel but perhaps not so much for a smaller one. I was considering something on the order of an 8"(20cm) diameter circular panel. If i could get 1mm of movement the bass extension to 80hz shouldn't be a problem, right? I guess I don't understand what determines coupling efficiency.
__________________
PASSIONN
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 11:16 PM   #16
brsanko is offline brsanko  United States
diyAudio Member
 
brsanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Duluth, MN
Send a message via MSN to brsanko
But I suppose a large panel would be easier to impliment than a large horn for a small panel. But a smaller one would have fewer issues with beaming and probably image better due to being closer to a point source. Again I'm just guessing. I need to do more research.
__________________
PASSIONN
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2011, 11:21 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
I am just wondering if it might widen the dispersion pattern and help cut down the beaming effect using a smaller width panel.
That it my only curiousity.

Like I said earlier I already have the driver and drive electronics and all I need is a shape and size.

As a simple horn can be easily constructed very cheaply for use at 300hz and/or above.
I am excluding driver parameters and going by air displacment only.

I am new to horn design so it is virgin grounds for me.
But it is an experiment that would not cost me anything to find out.

At best it would cut back on the low frequency dipole cancelations and hoping that the horn flare won't cause any diffractions in the wave front as it travels through the horn.

Won't know if it works unles you try it!
I already know that it is not pheasible with a wider diagphram.
I have seen a project where it was tried.

jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 08:39 AM   #18
brsanko is offline brsanko  United States
diyAudio Member
 
brsanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Duluth, MN
Send a message via MSN to brsanko
Quote:
Originally Posted by geraldfryjr View Post
hoping that the horn flare won't cause any diffractions in the wave front as it travels through the horn.

jer
You can avoid this by incorperating a phase plug suspended in the center of the horn.
__________________
PASSIONN
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 09:51 PM   #19
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by brsanko View Post
I could be wrong but it seem that would be true of a large panel but perhaps not so much for a smaller one. I was considering something on the order of an 8"(20cm) diameter circular panel. If i could get 1mm of movement the bass extension to 80hz shouldn't be a problem, right? I guess I don't understand what determines coupling efficiency.

Hi,

No. The ratio of diaphragm mass to air load mass is independent of size.
1mm of movement ? You don't understand electrostatics at all it seems.
(Well at least their basic limitations, Quads with 1mm would kick ****.
Problem is maximum excursion determines efficiency, 1mm its very low.)

Electrostatics have very high coupling efficiency, diaphragm to air, it
is not the issue. The air load on a electrostatic diaphragm exceeds
its mass, not remotely the case for a moving coil driver, hence in
the latter case an acoustic transformer, i.e. a horn, helps.

rgds, sreten.

Think of a normal driver moving in air, the air load although crucial
is relatively small and efficiency is low. Then consider the same
driver in a much heavier gas, such that the gas dominates.
Horn loading works for the former, but not the latter.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow

Last edited by sreten; 6th June 2011 at 10:03 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 11:15 PM   #20
brsanko is offline brsanko  United States
diyAudio Member
 
brsanko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Duluth, MN
Send a message via MSN to brsanko
Okay that was helpful info, but then it would seem to me that electrostatics should be very efficient but it seems that the opposite is what I've heard. Why is it that electrostatics are known for their almost problematic inefficiency? I guess my goal as as self-appointed audio engineer is to find the absolute best way to recreate an audio signal. I have been dedicating every spare minute of my time for the last 12 years to this very cause. There are many schools of thought all of which seem to have valid points and I try to give equal consideration to them all in a quest for the truth. from what I've read and experienced the ultimate path seems to stem from minimizing sources of distortion and compression. The best way to do this seems to be through ultimate efficiency and the path to ultimate efficiency seems to be minimizing weight and maximizing motor strength. I have so far been trying to achieve this through horn loading high Q speakers with light weight cones. Electrostatics should achieve these same goals but they seem to be famous for low efficiency. It seems like a paradox, the only reason I can think of for this is the losses due to the transformers necissary due to the high voltages necissary. Am I missing something? I'm sure I am, what is it?
__________________
PASSIONN
  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
Front loaded and back loaded horn DrWoofer.com Subwoofers 0 3rd August 2007 06:55 PM
rear loaded horn farriswheel Car Audio 2 27th July 2007 05:03 AM
Rear Loaded Horn David R. Carlso Full Range 3 9th January 2006 10:04 PM
Need help with horn-loaded sub slicemaster101 Multi-Way 26 17th September 2002 01:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42 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