..that be the qweschun.
I did search the forums (hoping an admin doesnt delete his account
)
Does N E 1 know of a review that pitches ESL's against Ribbon planars?
If so I would appreciate a pointer
thx
I did search the forums (hoping an admin doesnt delete his account
) Does N E 1 know of a review that pitches ESL's against Ribbon planars?
If so I would appreciate a pointer
thx
probably lots of reviews but...
why don't you listen to some Maggies listen to some Eminent Tech's listen to some Quads to some ML's to some Inner Sound (Roger Sanders). Decide what you like for yourself. If you don't know what you like or want then the best solution is to do some listening and you will.
why don't you listen to some Maggies listen to some Eminent Tech's listen to some Quads to some ML's to some Inner Sound (Roger Sanders). Decide what you like for yourself. If you don't know what you like or want then the best solution is to do some listening and you will.
Two important differences are that an ESL is easier to build, and the magnets you need for a planar magnetic are expensive.
Hi,
there´s another big difference!! Sound!
The resolution, detail, precision and naturality of a good ESL is unrivaled (if the ESL is built properly, which is unluckily more than often not the case). I disagree with el ol. about the ease of building...a ESL looks simple but to get outstanding results the effort literally explodes! Ribbons are the try to get the advantages of an ESL out of a dynamic drive system. Of course....this failed.
It´s quite similar to the story of high output-MC-pickups compared to MM- and true MC-pickups. While true MCs need more effort with regard to amplification, they won´t be beaten in their overall sonic qualities.
jauu
Calvin
there´s another big difference!! Sound!
The resolution, detail, precision and naturality of a good ESL is unrivaled (if the ESL is built properly, which is unluckily more than often not the case). I disagree with el ol. about the ease of building...a ESL looks simple but to get outstanding results the effort literally explodes! Ribbons are the try to get the advantages of an ESL out of a dynamic drive system. Of course....this failed.
It´s quite similar to the story of high output-MC-pickups compared to MM- and true MC-pickups. While true MCs need more effort with regard to amplification, they won´t be beaten in their overall sonic qualities.
jauu
Calvin
I'm interested in building my own planars -- but have not decided on which direction.
Do I opt for the simplicity of ribbon - but as someone pointed out - huge magnetic expense
Or the complexity of ESL and the refined design aspects to think about to get it right - but with comparitively less expense.
I was hoping to find a hi-fi review that pitched ESL's up against Ribbon to see the varying differences on paper.
Do I opt for the simplicity of ribbon - but as someone pointed out - huge magnetic expense
Or the complexity of ESL and the refined design aspects to think about to get it right - but with comparitively less expense.
I was hoping to find a hi-fi review that pitched ESL's up against Ribbon to see the varying differences on paper.
you ccould look at a kit...
that way all the difficult stuf has been taken care of and you can enjoy the construction assured of your finished results. Take a look here http://www.eraudio.com.au/. You can contact Toppsy via World Design forum who has experience with these speakers and he is close to you, http://wduk.worldomain.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3917
that way all the difficult stuf has been taken care of and you can enjoy the construction assured of your finished results. Take a look here http://www.eraudio.com.au/. You can contact Toppsy via World Design forum who has experience with these speakers and he is close to you, http://wduk.worldomain.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3917
Elektrotats are too wide 20 cm 
.Planars (my diy) is 2 cm wide
.Planars (my diy) is 2 cm wide
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi,,
Yeah, great stuff... You defy physics with a 2cm wide ribbon!
Size matters! This holds true even for ribbons.
btw. I can´t see that the speaker is 2cm in width. There´s a baffle of considerably more width. A ESL doesnt need a baffle at all, just a thin frame to hold it. And more active diaphragm area and less baffle is always better than the other way round.
Besides: compared to the weight of an ESL-membrane, coated with a sub-µm coating a ribbon is heavy like a tank (small ESL: 1.500cm² -->less than 10mg, large ESL: 6.000cm² --> less than 40mg, typical 25mm dome tweeter: 5cm² --> around 250mg). This membrane is driven by an inherently linear drive system, whereas the ribbon features a nonlinear magnetic circuit. So distortion in a ESL is magnitudes lower.
jauu
Calvin
Yeah, great stuff... You defy physics with a 2cm wide ribbon!
Size matters! This holds true even for ribbons.
btw. I can´t see that the speaker is 2cm in width. There´s a baffle of considerably more width. A ESL doesnt need a baffle at all, just a thin frame to hold it. And more active diaphragm area and less baffle is always better than the other way round.
Besides: compared to the weight of an ESL-membrane, coated with a sub-µm coating a ribbon is heavy like a tank (small ESL: 1.500cm² -->less than 10mg, large ESL: 6.000cm² --> less than 40mg, typical 25mm dome tweeter: 5cm² --> around 250mg). This membrane is driven by an inherently linear drive system, whereas the ribbon features a nonlinear magnetic circuit. So distortion in a ESL is magnitudes lower.
jauu
Calvin
Hi Clavin
you are right size does matter. In this case it effekts the sweet spot.The active part of the membran is 20 mm wide.I am only saying what i can live with. Not what you can
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Kayfig07.jpg
Inner sound kaya
you are right size does matter. In this case it effekts the sweet spot.The active part of the membran is 20 mm wide.I am only saying what i can live with. Not what you can
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Kayfig07.jpg
Inner sound kaya
Hi,
Yes, You´re right and I fully agree with Yoor last posting.
The pic shows an example of a flat panel where no measurements are taken against the extrem narrow dispersion, like segmenting a flat panel, or curving the panel.
In my eyes this is a example for one of those rather unproperly built devices.
I know that it is the design philosophy of some designers, but to my opinion such a flat panel is of no sonic advantage. Instead are there severe penalties to pay, as for eg. an extrem small sweet spot which renders the system rather impractical for everyday usage.
jauu
Calvin
Yes, You´re right and I fully agree with Yoor last posting.
The pic shows an example of a flat panel where no measurements are taken against the extrem narrow dispersion, like segmenting a flat panel, or curving the panel.
In my eyes this is a example for one of those rather unproperly built devices.
I know that it is the design philosophy of some designers, but to my opinion such a flat panel is of no sonic advantage. Instead are there severe penalties to pay, as for eg. an extrem small sweet spot which renders the system rather impractical for everyday usage.
jauu
Calvin
where is the cart and where is the horse?
PLL has posted twice here and before we go farther into which is better I think that we should consider PLL's position. He is looking for a hi-fi review to discribe the difference between the two methods of design. I don't know how many hi-fi reviews PLL has read but most don't really tell you much of anything simply because the writter has not got a clue.
PLL does not discriminate between true ribbon designs and isodynamic designs (ie. Magnepan) nor does he seem to be considering fullrange Vs hybrid designs. Perhaps PLL needs to do an in depth study of what has been on the market and what is on the market and then ask some why type questions. A long time ago a guy by the name of Stan Kelly had a friend send him a small ribbon tweeter to evaluate. When Stan lifted the top off the small box to open it the vacuum created ripped the ribbon right out of the gap and Stan put the ribbon in the box onto the shelf. Some time later Stan went back to have a look at that ribbon and went on to design the London Decca Ribbon. Across the water a fellow by the name of Jim built a sturdy yet inexpensive ESL panel with a positive charge on the diaphragm (which will most often repell normally neg charged air particles) and did not even put a dust cover on his design. That designer bragged that he had never had a single field failure (panel) and to this day I have not seen one either. I think that Jim Strickland's Acoustat is the most robust and long lived esl panel the industry has known. PJ Walker's two esl designs are still today considered by many to be industry standards for more than thirty years. What lasts and what works and why are important things to know and to consider. Has PLL ever heard of a Hill Plasmatronic loudspeaker? Google has a patent search option if you click "more" the "even more". You can search the US patent office and find all kinds of interesting information on many famous designs for free, text as well as drawings. If this all seems like too much effort then just consider the alternate of figuring it all out on your own. I think a kit or the purchase of some used loudspeakers on which to experiment and modify would be the best and least expensive place to start such a journey. I can pretty much assure you that you are not going to find any revelations or overlooked gems in any hi-fi reviews those guys for the most part don't know and they don't care. Questions are good but you will not find any answers in the raggs. PS I did not forget Apogee I just like my bank cards the way they are magnetized and working.
PLL has posted twice here and before we go farther into which is better I think that we should consider PLL's position. He is looking for a hi-fi review to discribe the difference between the two methods of design. I don't know how many hi-fi reviews PLL has read but most don't really tell you much of anything simply because the writter has not got a clue.
PLL does not discriminate between true ribbon designs and isodynamic designs (ie. Magnepan) nor does he seem to be considering fullrange Vs hybrid designs. Perhaps PLL needs to do an in depth study of what has been on the market and what is on the market and then ask some why type questions. A long time ago a guy by the name of Stan Kelly had a friend send him a small ribbon tweeter to evaluate. When Stan lifted the top off the small box to open it the vacuum created ripped the ribbon right out of the gap and Stan put the ribbon in the box onto the shelf. Some time later Stan went back to have a look at that ribbon and went on to design the London Decca Ribbon. Across the water a fellow by the name of Jim built a sturdy yet inexpensive ESL panel with a positive charge on the diaphragm (which will most often repell normally neg charged air particles) and did not even put a dust cover on his design. That designer bragged that he had never had a single field failure (panel) and to this day I have not seen one either. I think that Jim Strickland's Acoustat is the most robust and long lived esl panel the industry has known. PJ Walker's two esl designs are still today considered by many to be industry standards for more than thirty years. What lasts and what works and why are important things to know and to consider. Has PLL ever heard of a Hill Plasmatronic loudspeaker? Google has a patent search option if you click "more" the "even more". You can search the US patent office and find all kinds of interesting information on many famous designs for free, text as well as drawings. If this all seems like too much effort then just consider the alternate of figuring it all out on your own. I think a kit or the purchase of some used loudspeakers on which to experiment and modify would be the best and least expensive place to start such a journey. I can pretty much assure you that you are not going to find any revelations or overlooked gems in any hi-fi reviews those guys for the most part don't know and they don't care. Questions are good but you will not find any answers in the raggs. PS I did not forget Apogee I just like my bank cards the way they are magnetized and working.
Calvin said:Hi,,
Yeah, great stuff... You defy physics with a 2cm wide ribbon!
Size matters! This holds true even for ribbons.
btw. I can´t see that the speaker is 2cm in width. There´s a baffle of considerably more width. A ESL doesnt need a baffle at all, just a thin frame to hold it. And more active diaphragm area and less baffle is always better than the other way round.
Besides: compared to the weight of an ESL-membrane, coated with a sub-µm coating a ribbon is heavy like a tank (small ESL: 1.500cm² -->less than 10mg, large ESL: 6.000cm² --> less than 40mg, typical 25mm dome tweeter: 5cm² --> around 250mg). This membrane is driven by an inherently linear drive system, whereas the ribbon features a nonlinear magnetic circuit. So distortion in a ESL is magnitudes lower.
jauu
Calvin
Hello ,
Are you describing a planer magnetic as being non-linear or a RIbbon as being non-linear?
Both speakers ( ESL /Ribbon) has it's pros and con and for the original poster i would suggest to build a hybrid RIbbon , the electrostatic's would be more complex for a novice and more expensive to build. The heart of an ESL is the power supply and a good PS and AT makes it more expensive than the ribbon...
Personally i prefer the sound of a Ribbon/dynamic hybrid over an ESL, ultimately i would do a RIbbon /ESL /Dynamic drive Speaker for the ultimate listening weapon.
a.wayne said:
The large benefit of ESL & Ribbon panels up to 3kHz is the absence of a box IMO. I would prefer a well chosen pro 15inch and a 10inch open back handing over to a RAAL ribbon. From low sens to high sens is another world all together. Plus no membrane jigs and transverse modes. Sorry for the OT.
each to his own...
A.Wayne hopefully I have attached a schematic that as you will see is simple and not expensive to make. With some basic mods this supply will work very well. This is what Jim Strickland used in the Acoustat. I have seen simple converter HT blocks that are the size of your thumb that you run off of a small wall wart for $10.00 that would probably work as well. The supply does not have to cost a lot. I would say that you will end up spending the bulk of your budget on the step up transformers though used deals are out there.
If my attachment does not connect you can see theis supply at this page. http://www.izzy-wizzy.com/audio/spkrif.html
A.Wayne hopefully I have attached a schematic that as you will see is simple and not expensive to make. With some basic mods this supply will work very well. This is what Jim Strickland used in the Acoustat. I have seen simple converter HT blocks that are the size of your thumb that you run off of a small wall wart for $10.00 that would probably work as well. The supply does not have to cost a lot. I would say that you will end up spending the bulk of your budget on the step up transformers though used deals are out there.
If my attachment does not connect you can see theis supply at this page. http://www.izzy-wizzy.com/audio/spkrif.html
Attachments
Hi Phaselock
Sound advice from Moray....go out and listen if you can find dealers...I'll guess that in the sales environments you won't hear much difference between the two formats....but....the difference in being able to build will be much greater...
The parts for ESL are readily available and a kit build is very practical....check out ERaudio, for parts if not for a full kit. There is a precis of my review for HiFi World on my web site for an Eraudio build which explains just how easy it can be.
Ed
Sound advice from Moray....go out and listen if you can find dealers...I'll guess that in the sales environments you won't hear much difference between the two formats....but....the difference in being able to build will be much greater...
The parts for ESL are readily available and a kit build is very practical....check out ERaudio, for parts if not for a full kit. There is a precis of my review for HiFi World on my web site for an Eraudio build which explains just how easy it can be.
Ed
Hi Chaps
Thanks for all your replies
The prob for me is that there are no dealers around where I live that carry that sort of calibre.
I would have to go into London and have salesmen try and get me in the posh room -- take my wallet and sequestrate my assets.
I'm an engineer like most of you here and I take Morays points seriously -- however, I'm looking to get a project started because I'd like to have a go at building my own planar.
The few snippits of information I glean from knowing the Quad 57 and 63's is that the former had what they called"ventian blind treble" polar response - which was solved on the annular electroded 63. I used to own stacked 57's driven by Quad 303's converted to mono-blocs ( my own work back in 1986)
The 63's are weak -- live cathedral organ music makes them arc out (not on my stacked 57's btw)
Having this prior knowledge on electrostats as a user - I was wondering how things were faring in the performance of ESL against Ribbons -- and I like to read the perspective of reviewers if the review is scientific and they contrast and compare between both types. If that doesn t exist -- - then well - I'll just crack on and start thinking about my design parameters.
I'd like to see Quad 989 or Martin Logans - pitched against the equivalent Maggie, for example.
Once made - I could then set about designing and building the mono-blocs to run them. And have a good hi-fi again instead of the shite I have right now
If you have a look in image -- you'll see my old stacked set up - and YES ! the long haired schmuck is me.
😉
Thanks for all your replies
The prob for me is that there are no dealers around where I live that carry that sort of calibre.
I would have to go into London and have salesmen try and get me in the posh room -- take my wallet and sequestrate my assets.
I'm an engineer like most of you here and I take Morays points seriously -- however, I'm looking to get a project started because I'd like to have a go at building my own planar.
The few snippits of information I glean from knowing the Quad 57 and 63's is that the former had what they called"ventian blind treble" polar response - which was solved on the annular electroded 63. I used to own stacked 57's driven by Quad 303's converted to mono-blocs ( my own work back in 1986)
The 63's are weak -- live cathedral organ music makes them arc out (not on my stacked 57's btw)
Having this prior knowledge on electrostats as a user - I was wondering how things were faring in the performance of ESL against Ribbons -- and I like to read the perspective of reviewers if the review is scientific and they contrast and compare between both types. If that doesn t exist -- - then well - I'll just crack on and start thinking about my design parameters.
I'd like to see Quad 989 or Martin Logans - pitched against the equivalent Maggie, for example.
Once made - I could then set about designing and building the mono-blocs to run them. And have a good hi-fi again instead of the shite I have right now
If you have a look in image -- you'll see my old stacked set up - and YES ! the long haired schmuck is me.
😉
Attachments
Talk to Stewart...
you can contact Stewart Penketh at this address http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/esl_repair_penketh.htm. Stewart is one of the best Quad rebuildere there is. His configuration for stacking Quad 63 panels is excellent. Not only does it bring the concentric ring section up to ear level it also rotated the panels 90 degrees from stock which has the benefit of placeing the long axis of the inner most section in the vertical position which provides more horizontal dispersion and a little less vertical. So the sweet spot is wider and you have less floor and ceiling bounce (a good thing). There is from Stewart's reports no lack of bass. In fact you get eight panels to Quads new veersion with only six. The 63 panel is a direct drop in to the current Quad line up. My guess is that if you liked your old 57 stacked Quads you will like these better. O course you can build up all new panels of your own design and runn them off of a Quad 63 interface. That way you get to roll your own.
The Dutch ESL club has a host of design projects to read some are very interesting. http://esl.hifi.nl/index.htm
you can contact Stewart Penketh at this address http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/esl_repair_penketh.htm. Stewart is one of the best Quad rebuildere there is. His configuration for stacking Quad 63 panels is excellent. Not only does it bring the concentric ring section up to ear level it also rotated the panels 90 degrees from stock which has the benefit of placeing the long axis of the inner most section in the vertical position which provides more horizontal dispersion and a little less vertical. So the sweet spot is wider and you have less floor and ceiling bounce (a good thing). There is from Stewart's reports no lack of bass. In fact you get eight panels to Quads new veersion with only six. The 63 panel is a direct drop in to the current Quad line up. My guess is that if you liked your old 57 stacked Quads you will like these better. O course you can build up all new panels of your own design and runn them off of a Quad 63 interface. That way you get to roll your own.
The Dutch ESL club has a host of design projects to read some are very interesting. http://esl.hifi.nl/index.htm
You can have a look at William Cowans site and his experience with ribbons as well as his friends system
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~googong/spn.html
http://www.cowanaudio.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~googong/spn.html
http://www.cowanaudio.com/
Hi,
the suggestion: "Go to a dealer" might help, maybe not.
The first problem simply is that there are just very few dealers who have Ribbons and ESLs on display.
The second is that You can count the good examples of both technologies with just by 3 or 4 fingers. I regard Quad (m p o) as vastly overestimated. They have had their merits, which in part result out of history, but nowadays a good ESL looks and plays on a very much higher level. I never liked this dull and undynamik sound which is a result of the serious technical flaws of this special concept (I´m prepared to take on some bashing for ´slaughtering a holy cow´) 😀 To my taste a Maggie outperforms Quads easily. But a (tweaked) ML Prodigy knocks the Maggie off of their Feet in seconds.
Thirdly, very few dealers have the knowlege and interest to correctly handle this stuff. Therefore the chance of a badly executed audition far away from optimal is rather high.
@ a.wayne
It doesn´t matter, both types´s motor are non-linear, with planar magnetics its much worse though.
the suggestion: "Go to a dealer" might help, maybe not.
The first problem simply is that there are just very few dealers who have Ribbons and ESLs on display.
The second is that You can count the good examples of both technologies with just by 3 or 4 fingers. I regard Quad (m p o) as vastly overestimated. They have had their merits, which in part result out of history, but nowadays a good ESL looks and plays on a very much higher level. I never liked this dull and undynamik sound which is a result of the serious technical flaws of this special concept (I´m prepared to take on some bashing for ´slaughtering a holy cow´) 😀 To my taste a Maggie outperforms Quads easily. But a (tweaked) ML Prodigy knocks the Maggie off of their Feet in seconds.
Thirdly, very few dealers have the knowlege and interest to correctly handle this stuff. Therefore the chance of a badly executed audition far away from optimal is rather high.
@ a.wayne
It doesn´t matter, both types´s motor are non-linear, with planar magnetics its much worse though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.