I am currently using the Gradient SW63 with the Quad ESL. The woofers are tired and the XO unit is getting noisy. I began looking at re-driver'ing the Gradient but then started considering other possibilities. Surely in the past 30 years there are better approaches that I can put four new drivers into.
The Gradient kept up well with the Quad. I have another set of subs, the Dayton RSS315, which put out plenty, but just don't sync with the speed of the Quad. And they start to drop fast after 40Hz.
I like the concept of the dipole and have been looking at a number of H, W, Z, V etc. configurations. The Linkwitz design for his LX521 seems to have some interesting advantages but I'd really prefer to avoid the active equalization.
In the end, I'm open to whatever the best solution is- I'm not married to any particular approach.
Thanks in advance for the suggestions and guidance.
The Gradient kept up well with the Quad. I have another set of subs, the Dayton RSS315, which put out plenty, but just don't sync with the speed of the Quad. And they start to drop fast after 40Hz.
I like the concept of the dipole and have been looking at a number of H, W, Z, V etc. configurations. The Linkwitz design for his LX521 seems to have some interesting advantages but I'd really prefer to avoid the active equalization.
In the end, I'm open to whatever the best solution is- I'm not married to any particular approach.
Thanks in advance for the suggestions and guidance.
This was discussed without much resolution back in 2008-
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...u-choose-for-quad-esl-63-dipole-or-tl.125238/And even so, the info would be 14 years old.
Most of the links are dead now, but this is one I have seen before, and it's essentially the Gradient solution with an H-frame instead of the shared baffle.
https://www.meddens.eu/audio/dipolesub.htmIt still uses active EQ. And I'd really prefer to not have op amps and pots.
I did find during my fix-the-Gradient searching a reference to an Audio Elegance driver designed specifically for dipole. Not a ton of info on their site and the email is an automated response of "we're really busy..." But I'll see if they get back. Maybe try calling.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...u-choose-for-quad-esl-63-dipole-or-tl.125238/And even so, the info would be 14 years old.
Most of the links are dead now, but this is one I have seen before, and it's essentially the Gradient solution with an H-frame instead of the shared baffle.
https://www.meddens.eu/audio/dipolesub.htmIt still uses active EQ. And I'd really prefer to not have op amps and pots.
I did find during my fix-the-Gradient searching a reference to an Audio Elegance driver designed specifically for dipole. Not a ton of info on their site and the email is an automated response of "we're really busy..." But I'll see if they get back. Maybe try calling.
"Matching" a sub to ESLs is an old question. My impression is there's no there there*, except maybe you could ask "What is it that I like about ESLs?". For example, razor-sharp clarity? Room filling diffuse orchestral sound? Transients like the real instruments? Thinking about stuff like that might light the path.**
B.
* some (quite old) folks can recall the first time they heard Janzen tweeters crossed over to an AR-like bass at 1000 Hz (my guess), like in 1965. Can you think of a worse "match" at a more revealing freq? But the sound astonished everybody.
** OK, my favourite that does it all: true horn, like Klipschorn
B.
* some (quite old) folks can recall the first time they heard Janzen tweeters crossed over to an AR-like bass at 1000 Hz (my guess), like in 1965. Can you think of a worse "match" at a more revealing freq? But the sound astonished everybody.
** OK, my favourite that does it all: true horn, like Klipschorn
You might get better suggestions is you give more info:
1. room size
2. source
3. music you listen to
4. whats the best bass you've had
5. are you open to digital crossovers
A little tough love here:
"Speed" has NOTHING to do with it. That is a made up imaginary problem. Frequency response does. All that speed crap in upper base and midrange, not the sub. Have you ever listened to just the sub?
Look carefully at your crossover. Many are very poor and miss-aligned. I would suggest looking into DSP for the crossover so you can deal with time ( not phase) and eq far better.
I remain a strong advocate of low Q sealed subs. They blend with the room far easier than ported and don't have all the port problems. Many many good drivers out there that have flat response into the low hundreds.
What you listen to is irrelevant. Air pressure disturbance ( sound) does not care if it is a fiddle player, or a violin concerto.
Source does not matter. Source is source. Does your system do what it is told? All that matters.
Your environment does.
"Speed" has NOTHING to do with it. That is a made up imaginary problem. Frequency response does. All that speed crap in upper base and midrange, not the sub. Have you ever listened to just the sub?
Look carefully at your crossover. Many are very poor and miss-aligned. I would suggest looking into DSP for the crossover so you can deal with time ( not phase) and eq far better.
I remain a strong advocate of low Q sealed subs. They blend with the room far easier than ported and don't have all the port problems. Many many good drivers out there that have flat response into the low hundreds.
What you listen to is irrelevant. Air pressure disturbance ( sound) does not care if it is a fiddle player, or a violin concerto.
Source does not matter. Source is source. Does your system do what it is told? All that matters.
Your environment does.
The Quad is very good at presenting a broad soundstage with very little coloration. But they lack realism below 50HZ. The inherent mismatch with any subwoofer is going to be transient response. I'm apt to use the term "bass smear". The virtually massless diaphragm of the stat accelerates and decelerates much differently than a diaphragm driver.
I agree in theory. The approach was at that time the best thing out there. However the advances in materials and our understanding of manufacturing processes have yielded audio drivers that are a quantum leap from what Peerless was producing 30-plus years ago. I'd like to find what Gradient would build and Walker would embrace given the tools and materials available today. Second, I'm looking to explore a solution that doesn't require line-level equalization. Eliminating the additional interconnects, connections, circuitry is a plus.
As above, if the Gradient was really good, applying all the knowledge gained over the 30+ years since the development of the Gradient would expectedly lead to improvement. My primary goal is to get rid of the active EQ and that circuitry in the signal path. If I can get an improvement on the driver side at the same time, that's an additional win.
Room is 18 x 28, concrete floor with an insulated overlay of 2" foam board and 3 plys of 3/4 plywood. Source is primarily vinyl. Some CD. Listen to a broad range, mostly jazz and lighter rock and a smattering of classical. Best bass? Modified Acoustat 8 with side wings crossed over at 120HZ. Incredibly impractical. Others? I have the WATT/Puppy that has amazing bass but doesn't extend to those deepest depths. I will be honest- I'm not a huge digital fan. Not saying I'm adverse to experimenting with something new, but with digital I don't know what I don't know.
Yes, good points. I will follow you.
There's an interesting article on line for the type of drivers (regarding Q etc) that would be best for this type of enclosure.
I'll see if I can find it and post it.
Edit: found it.
My own plan is to get a miniDSP Flex with Dirac Live! and do the equalization in the digital domain before the DAC.
We'll see how that goes.
Jan
Last edited:
I believe many here are hung up on slick-page magazine terms and not based in the laws of physics.
50 Hz is a bit low to push Quads. I might suggest a slightly higher crossover. 70 maybe.
IMHO, best sub enclosure is a "critical Q" i.e. QTS .5. though about anything less than .6 I find just fine. ( .5 is sometimes not possible. Driver dependent) One might consider a LR4 crossover as second order might be some of the cause of what is being described as " smear, but actually the Quad trying to do things it can't.
50 Hz is a bit low to push Quads. I might suggest a slightly higher crossover. 70 maybe.
IMHO, best sub enclosure is a "critical Q" i.e. QTS .5. though about anything less than .6 I find just fine. ( .5 is sometimes not possible. Driver dependent) One might consider a LR4 crossover as second order might be some of the cause of what is being described as " smear, but actually the Quad trying to do things it can't.
The article that I linked to above makes the case for Qts above 0.7.
What's your reasoning for 0.5 or less?
Don't forget this is an open baffle so there will be no Qts increase due to an enclosure.
Jan
Would you by any chance, have the TS parameters of the drivers?
I, too, have been looking for a solution for my '57, on and off, for the last half century or so, but so far no luck.
There's a way around it: I used to run a sort of hybrid x-over: 1st order on the Quad side (one single polypropylene capacitor), and 4th order on the subwoofer side. You can EQ all you want with the subwoofer, the transparency of the '57 is preserved.
I strongly doubt there's any "quantum" leap in transducers during the last 30 years. We wouldn't be listening to 65 years old speakers otherwise.
Last edited:
Open baffle sub is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Basic physics. I see the argument for OB in mids and tweeters, though the constraints it puts on rooms can be very difficult.
Low Q sealed subs sound considerably cleaner. Do a little research on "critical Q" subs. Higher than .7 will seriously reduce the LF extension and cause a hump in the response. Go model it and see.
I suggest first on the Quad is a bit shallow, but it is what you hear that counts. "transparency" is not related to deep bass.
Speakers have made steady progress in two areas. Mostly for dynamic speakers, materials design and in motor design. "quantum" or not is a subjective measure. I can't speak for electrostatics as I can't afford them.
Why do we use 65 year old speakers? Well some people listen to LPs and tube amps with 65 dB dynamic range, ticks, pops, hum, and 5% distortion. They think it is great. No problem, it is all what you like that counts.
Low Q sealed subs sound considerably cleaner. Do a little research on "critical Q" subs. Higher than .7 will seriously reduce the LF extension and cause a hump in the response. Go model it and see.
I suggest first on the Quad is a bit shallow, but it is what you hear that counts. "transparency" is not related to deep bass.
Speakers have made steady progress in two areas. Mostly for dynamic speakers, materials design and in motor design. "quantum" or not is a subjective measure. I can't speak for electrostatics as I can't afford them.
Why do we use 65 year old speakers? Well some people listen to LPs and tube amps with 65 dB dynamic range, ticks, pops, hum, and 5% distortion. They think it is great. No problem, it is all what you like that counts.
Considering basic physics in a less apodictic and more differentiated way then only one thing speak against a dipole sub: It's loss of SPL towards low frequencies. That's it. An a well installed dipole woofer does sound very (!) clean, indeed. But what is a well installed dipole woofer, then?
First, consider basic physics for a dipole close to walls: A parallel dipole will loose further efficiency, when radiating in a perpendicular related to a close wall. See the trace "dipole normal" below.
And you should toe in your dipole woofer by some 35° ... 45° for best results. Then the curves for the normal and the parallel situation will more or less cancel out, by providing a more than fair polar beam into the listening position. And you also might place it away from the room's walls. For best results, you may place it in front of the ESL, between the ESL and the listening position. With this position, you also can juggle with the room response, e.g. place it at a location 1/3 and 2/3 between the walls. Placing it closer to your ears will gain some dB's which is welcome.
And then, if you resort to a simple baffle, you can even counter the floor reflection of the main ESL. Below is a measurement series of a baffle 60cm x 60cm placed midway between a Quad 63 and the listening position. Either on an oak floor, or a carpeted one. You will note that the baffle redirects the floor reflection elsewhere. Red curve is the result on the oak floor without any baffle, e.g. the full floor reflection.
Maybe these approaches will encourage you to play a little with basic physics ...
Dipole Woofers are really great!
We are talking SUBS.
Unless your OB is about 30 feet wide, it is a very bad idea. Now, some prefer an IB if they can find a driver with a suspension designed to flap in the breeze.
But if you have any clue how transducers work. you will understand above F3, a low Q sub will be identical to an IB and actually be manageable.
Unless your OB is about 30 feet wide, it is a very bad idea. Now, some prefer an IB if they can find a driver with a suspension designed to flap in the breeze.
But if you have any clue how transducers work. you will understand above F3, a low Q sub will be identical to an IB and actually be manageable.
+1 - hooray for Daihedz for dipole defence. With a bit of DSP boost and not too skimpy on panel size, can be pretty good sub.
For sure, as lots of forum readers are moving to dipoles, maybe it is the room-filling clean sound.
The high-school physics model omits to consider the scrambling phases on the backside reflections.
Also, a dipole can use the driver resonance constructively (say, a welcome boost at 25-35 Hz) while other systems raise the freq or try to stifle the boom.
B
For sure, as lots of forum readers are moving to dipoles, maybe it is the room-filling clean sound.
The high-school physics model omits to consider the scrambling phases on the backside reflections.
Also, a dipole can use the driver resonance constructively (say, a welcome boost at 25-35 Hz) while other systems raise the freq or try to stifle the boom.
B