Full Range Electrostatic Question - Page 3 - 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 23rd June 2014, 12:29 AM   #21
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

Quote:
I arrive at a different conclusion since the most important parameter to me is audible performance. Theory works only to a point.
.....
Two hundred watt amps drive SLs quite well.
Audible performance of ESLs is the prominent parameter on a personal level only
On the technical side better performance is directly related to the panels efficiency.
And guess what ... audible and technical performance coincide.
Most obvious are the differences in dynamic performance and lively 'dynamic' sound impression.
The lower the panel's inherent efficiency, the more lame and boring it sounds, the Quads beeing the prime example.
And a ESL uncapable to reproduce a fff peak realistically, or loud Rock music or Techno, etc. is imho sonically restricted.

Why should one choose for 200W that do quite well, when You can do with 20W really well?

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 01:19 AM   #22
EStat is offline EStat  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
And a ESL uncapable to reproduce a fff peak realistically, or loud Rock music or Techno, etc. is imho sonically restricted.
I certainly wouldn't want a speaker uncapable of playing rock or techno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
Why should one choose for 200W that do quite well, when You can do with 20W really well?
What stat(s) are you thinking of that can be driven to "loud rock music or Techno" with a 20 watt amp? I'm all ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 10:21 AM   #23
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

well, mine of course
My small panel requires only equivalent ~20W to achieve full modulation and an SPLmax of 110dB@4m (recalculated to 1m distance and a global distribution character and assuming 3dB of heat compression for a dynamic driver, the result would be impressive 125dB).
Now that´s what I call decent dynamics
The larger panel requires ~50W to achieve the same, of course over a larger bandwidth.
The Us are 1:68 resp. 1:50 and bias voltages are lowish ~2kV.
Sonics profit from low U factors of the Audio trannies.
The low required drive and bias voltages are also very positive with regard to safety, lower risk of flashover and ageing.
All this can´t be reached with FR panels within practical dimensions, probabely not at all.
Going hybrid allows to remain compact without sacrificing all the goodies.
If done right hybrids play as homogenous as any FR and tonally more even.

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 11:17 AM   #24
EStat is offline EStat  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
The larger panel requires ~50W to achieve the same, of course over a larger bandwidth.
So they're not flat to 30 hz?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
Going hybrid allows to remain compact without sacrificing all the goodies.If done right hybrids play as homogenous as any FR and tonally more even.
As for me I prefer the absolute coherence of a single dipole driver. And the realism that a 7 foot tall line source can provide.

To each his own.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 12:07 PM   #25
tyu is offline tyu  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
I prefer the absolute coherence of a single dipole driver. And the realism that a 7 foot tall line source can provide...............

Geeessss E.......have you ever diyed a ESL?...
I think most here would say the same as you!..if...cash ....Amps....room...was as ezey for them...justsaying.
You sound like you on the SL Site.....not a diy site.....lot of people say biger is better.....but i find less can be more some times....
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 12:28 PM   #26
EStat is offline EStat  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyu View Post
.but i find less can be more some times....
If you follow my comments, they were in response to Calvin's notion of "best engineering" referring to what appears to be a hybrid using a monopolar woofer (like many commercial products) and using small panels.

The question of who makes them is irrelevant.

Last edited by EStat; 23rd June 2014 at 12:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 03:14 PM   #27
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

Quote:
...what appears to be a hybrid using a monopolar woofer
Oh no mon Cher, didn´t I say: "Hybrid, done right"?
This means nothing other than that the pairing of a monopolar woofer and dipolar cylindrical distributing panel doesn´t add to ´absolute coherence´.
In that I agree, You´re totally right.
Instead, You have to guarantee that the lower-mids/woofer branch shows at least +-1 octave around the x-over the same distribution character as the panel.
That´s why ML used - and I still use- the dipolar tower with their Statement2.
A hybrid built that way can fulfill the coherence requirements and does away with the inherent flaws of FRs.
Besides the coherence in time and distribution character behaviour, there´s for example also the requirement for a linear amplitude response and high SPL, which a FR always compromises on.
Also the low dampened high-Q Fs will never sound as precise and dynamic as a (alot more compact) dipolar bass tower.
Even with some resistive damping the Q remains >>1.
No one will expect highly precise bass from similar specced dynamic woofer.
But there´s no theoretical nor practical hint -let alone a proof- that a ESL woofer differs from a dynamic woofer in this regard.
The only mechanism that saves the ESL bass from desaster is its usual open baffle mountage and associated distribution character and room interaction.

What remains a real con for Hybrids, is the rather bad image in general and the fact that they cost considerably more effort and more budget in manufacturing than a FR or a Hybrid featuring a monopolar Bass.
In almost all other respects they have a higher performance potential than FRs.

Quote:
So they're not flat to 30 hz?
Not the panels themselves, but the system as a whole is certainly more linear in amplitude response than a FR possibly could.
The smaller system is equalized down to (sensible) 35Hz.
It could in theory be equalized to whatever bandwidth limit one wishes for.
The bigger system -coming with a subwoofer- runs down to 50 Hz, where the sub takes over till into the infrasonic range.
The system is more compact than a 7 foot tall venetian blinds, but if pushed with 200W it´d probably blow them right off their stands

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2014, 03:21 PM   #28
EStat is offline EStat  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
That´s why ML used - and I still use- the dipolar tower with their Statement2.
Better, but they still didn't sound like they had uniform directivity across the spectrum to me. I'll stay with a single driver, than you very much. Once again, to each his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
The system is more compact than a 7 foot tall venetian blinds
Do you have particularly low ceilings? My other pair, Acoustat 1+1s, are nearly eight feet tall. Which fits just fine in most every American home.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2014, 06:23 AM   #29
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

would You elobarate what You mean by 'uniform directivity across the spectrum'?
No single driver performs one single, constant-over-the-whole-audio-band, distribution or directivity character.
It all depends on dimensions and boundary conditions.
And even if there were transducer capable of such a performance, where's the proof that such a behaviour would be sonically superior?
I'd rather say that each directivity character has its pros and cons only over a certain restricted frequency range.
Is a dipolar cylindrical wave as advantageous at 20Hz as it is at 2kHz?
Can it be generated anyhow within practical dimensional boundaries?
I'd rather opt for the directivity that suits best within the working range of the transducer or a certain restricted frequency range, and transiting swiftly into different characters in its neighbouring frequency ranges.
With regard to my Hybrids this means that the panel exhibits a dipolar cylindrical pattern, that begins to transit into a dipolar lobed pattern at the lower bandwidth limit.
The dipolar woofer tower begins with a dipolar cylindical pattern, that soon transits into a dipolar lobed pattern that widens up with sinking frequencies.
Towards its lower bandwith limit it transits into the well known dipolar fig.8 pattern.
The subwoofer performed a global pattern under freefield conditions.
Due to the acoustic behaviour of the listening room with regard to the associated wavelengths, there is no pattern any more, but just pressurization of the room.
So, within the frequency range where modes can develop in the room, the Panel and woofer tower perform a swift transition from a widespread dipolar lobed pattern to a narrow dipolar cylindrical pattern.
No sharp breaks in the pattern, as those would be clearly audible.
Its the same behaviour that a single FR shows.
The only difference beeing the use of two Transducers that are highly optimized for their working frequency range and as such allow for improved behaviour against a single transducer.

Coming back to dipoles and 'uniform directivity':
A dipole is unable to pressurize a room, hence there's no output at all below the lowest mode of the room.....in theory.
That we can hear and measure some output -admittedly little- busts the uniform directivity myth, as it prooves that the dipole doesn't behave fully like a dipole at lowest audio frequencies underpractical, non-freefield conditions.

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2014, 12:10 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
A bit of confusion here because different people advocating for different parameters.

It seems to me that nobody claims ESLs do super side-drum low bass or atmospheric effects like thunderstorms or railroad trains. (Minor note: my cone sub-sub is a large irregularly shaped dipole with a passband 23-45 Hz and does its job just fine on those very rare moments when call upon to play.)

But at the other hybrid end (shaking cardboard to produce LF sound), you want the magic of an ESL to cover most of the musical range where your ear is sensitive. Or maybe another way to define the range is in terms of stereo effect. I'd say you'd want to be ESL down to 120, at the highest and then mix-and-match woofers below that (I have two heterogeneously located mixed-bass woofers). Of course, we've all heard great systems with just ESL tweeters or highish crossovers... but more range is even better. I suppose it is challenging (esp for commercial systems) to push the ESL range down that low.

I wish EStat could provide the more conventional loudness plot used frequently at DIYaudio like REW, 1/12 smoothing. THAT would clarify what his high-end system is doing much better than the data he posted. All it takes is a Radio Shack SPL meter and free/sharware REW software.

Yes, this is a DIY forum, but that includes sophisticated folks like EStat who are deep into system building.

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 24th June 2014 at 12:18 PM.
  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
Full range drivers a question Ronj Full Range 19 6th February 2012 03:47 PM
Novice Question, Why Full Range? Musiccynic Full Range 10 24th April 2010 07:44 AM
Question full range speaker nandax Full Range 16 16th December 2008 02:06 PM
Old Sony full range question woody Full Range 1 21st September 2006 10:42 PM
Pioneer 8" Full Range Question prerunnerv6 Full Range 3 11th April 2006 09:30 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 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