I got the electrostatic loudspeaker design cookbook for christmas (i asked for it).
Its very interesting. Has anyone built the intergrated hybrids as he describes in the book?
Ive searched but didnt find much, has anyone built them pretty much exactly as he suggests, with the suggested equalization and crossovers?
I dont know much about ESL's but have recently aquired some quad 63's. I think a hybrid design may suit me better. Is the info in teh sanders book still up to date and recomended? There are certain views i dont agree with (like putting all your vinyl on tape and selling your TT🙄) so wondered if people with more ESL experience can see any 'issues' in his ESL thinking.
Its very interesting. Has anyone built the intergrated hybrids as he describes in the book?
Ive searched but didnt find much, has anyone built them pretty much exactly as he suggests, with the suggested equalization and crossovers?
I dont know much about ESL's but have recently aquired some quad 63's. I think a hybrid design may suit me better. Is the info in teh sanders book still up to date and recomended? There are certain views i dont agree with (like putting all your vinyl on tape and selling your TT🙄) so wondered if people with more ESL experience can see any 'issues' in his ESL thinking.
Yes, I have
I used Sanders' book and guidelines for my esl's and I am very pleased with the results. Not being experienced at building circuits, I opted to use a DBX 223 adjustable active crossover set to 380 Hz in lieu of a building a crossover and I'm using a 10-band graphic EQ in lieu of a dedicated shelving circuit to compensate the dipole "suckout", per Sanders' data. I believe that Sanders' data and recommendations are sound. I even used a beam-splitter TL bass cabinet but mine is configured a bit differently than the corner design shown in Sanders' book. The 3 links below give details. The CarverSite link has the build photos:
The Jazzman's Electrostatic Loudspeaker Blog
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/125928-its-alive.html?highlight=it's+alive!
http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1500
I used Sanders' book and guidelines for my esl's and I am very pleased with the results. Not being experienced at building circuits, I opted to use a DBX 223 adjustable active crossover set to 380 Hz in lieu of a building a crossover and I'm using a 10-band graphic EQ in lieu of a dedicated shelving circuit to compensate the dipole "suckout", per Sanders' data. I believe that Sanders' data and recommendations are sound. I even used a beam-splitter TL bass cabinet but mine is configured a bit differently than the corner design shown in Sanders' book. The 3 links below give details. The CarverSite link has the build photos:
The Jazzman's Electrostatic Loudspeaker Blog
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/125928-its-alive.html?highlight=it's+alive!
http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1500
Except for stators
I should add that I did not use the thin (.020") Lincaine aluminum material for stators as described in Sanders' book. Rather, I opted for heavier 18-gauge steel perforated stators with .141" diameter holes and 51% open area; which I believe is optimum and a better choice.
I should add that I did not use the thin (.020") Lincaine aluminum material for stators as described in Sanders' book. Rather, I opted for heavier 18-gauge steel perforated stators with .141" diameter holes and 51% open area; which I believe is optimum and a better choice.
Hi,
R.Sanders book is still a valuable resource, especially to begin wuith building ESLs since it cioncentrates on practical solutions. Some information is now outdated (like the ´non-coated-stators´), but most of it is still all right.
I don´t agree with him in some points regarding hybrids.
That are:
a) high crossover frequency between panel and bass
b) transmissionline as bass
a) Sonically its my experience that a somewhat lower crossover frequency around 150Hz-250Hz (depending on panel size) than Sanders suggests is favourable. You need more equing which makes active circuitry even more desirable or even necessary. If You cross over passively You have to cross over at higher frequencies. But then...going passive doesn´t exploit the full potential of an ESL.
b) ESL bass tends to be rather soft sounding because of the highish Q-values. Dynamically a ESL bass is quite restricted.
Used as bass drivers dynamic speakers are far superior and more compact than ESLs. Transmissionlines tend to produce a similar soft bass, but reach higher dynamics. So a hybrid of TML and ESL could sound similar to what one knows from common fullrange ESLs. If You like that fine, but a lot of music that relies on a powerful and precise bass simply doesn´t sound well, like Rock and Pop. Dipolar bases and closed boxes are imho the more compact and superior solution and integrate better with the panel and sound more precise than an TML.
jauu
Calvin
R.Sanders book is still a valuable resource, especially to begin wuith building ESLs since it cioncentrates on practical solutions. Some information is now outdated (like the ´non-coated-stators´), but most of it is still all right.
I don´t agree with him in some points regarding hybrids.
That are:
a) high crossover frequency between panel and bass
b) transmissionline as bass
a) Sonically its my experience that a somewhat lower crossover frequency around 150Hz-250Hz (depending on panel size) than Sanders suggests is favourable. You need more equing which makes active circuitry even more desirable or even necessary. If You cross over passively You have to cross over at higher frequencies. But then...going passive doesn´t exploit the full potential of an ESL.
b) ESL bass tends to be rather soft sounding because of the highish Q-values. Dynamically a ESL bass is quite restricted.
Used as bass drivers dynamic speakers are far superior and more compact than ESLs. Transmissionlines tend to produce a similar soft bass, but reach higher dynamics. So a hybrid of TML and ESL could sound similar to what one knows from common fullrange ESLs. If You like that fine, but a lot of music that relies on a powerful and precise bass simply doesn´t sound well, like Rock and Pop. Dipolar bases and closed boxes are imho the more compact and superior solution and integrate better with the panel and sound more precise than an TML.
jauu
Calvin
Great, thatnks. Thats just the kind of info i was after.
I have some quad 63's but although there very good im not entirely convinced. I think a hybrid will b better for me as i listen to alot of rock.
I think other bass enclosure designs would be better then.
I will probably build a complete new speaker but may mess with adding woofers and a crossover to my 63's for now to get a feel for the sound.
I would like to drive the esl's from my el84 valve amp. It isnt really up to powering the 63's properly but if i build a panel specificaly for say 150hz and up i can use less spacing and make it easier to drive right?
Then use a seperate, probably SS amp for the woofers.
I have some quad 63's but although there very good im not entirely convinced. I think a hybrid will b better for me as i listen to alot of rock.
I think other bass enclosure designs would be better then.
I will probably build a complete new speaker but may mess with adding woofers and a crossover to my 63's for now to get a feel for the sound.
I would like to drive the esl's from my el84 valve amp. It isnt really up to powering the 63's properly but if i build a panel specificaly for say 150hz and up i can use less spacing and make it easier to drive right?
Then use a seperate, probably SS amp for the woofers.
Did you ever try the ESL63 with a more powerful amplifier? It will sound a lot better especially the bass. This speaker needs more power.
Hi,
the Quad is designed as Fullrange ESL and as such underlies all the restrictions of a FR. To this the special ´problems´ of the 63 series add, as are primarily lousy dynamics. Especially when listening to Rock, the dynamic deficiencies fully apply. For such music something like a ML is far more appropiate.
I assume Your EL84 amp is a two tube ultra-linear design delivering something around 10W? If so You´ll hardly find any ESL-panel thatr can be driven properly with such low wattage amps. 20-25W should be minimum.
jauu
Calvin
the Quad is designed as Fullrange ESL and as such underlies all the restrictions of a FR. To this the special ´problems´ of the 63 series add, as are primarily lousy dynamics. Especially when listening to Rock, the dynamic deficiencies fully apply. For such music something like a ML is far more appropiate.
I assume Your EL84 amp is a two tube ultra-linear design delivering something around 10W? If so You´ll hardly find any ESL-panel thatr can be driven properly with such low wattage amps. 20-25W should be minimum.
jauu
Calvin
The el84 is PP, cant remember how its currently wired, ive tried a few options.
It provides about 15w per channel according to the manufacturer.
I know this isnt ideal and a new amp will need to be built eventualy.
Is it easier to drive a mid/top esl than a full range esl?
I like the quads but they are a little bright and fatigueing, i believe this is due to the amp distorting as it cant cope?
They also lack a little low down. (i knew all this before i bought them)
I could do with decent response down to 30hz and i could do with a little more punch to give rock and similar the drive that it needs.
Hence me considering selling the quads and building a hybrid.
Do you think its possible to build a mid/top panel that could be driven by my el84? Obviously a seperate amp for the lows.
It provides about 15w per channel according to the manufacturer.
I know this isnt ideal and a new amp will need to be built eventualy.
Is it easier to drive a mid/top esl than a full range esl?
I like the quads but they are a little bright and fatigueing, i believe this is due to the amp distorting as it cant cope?
They also lack a little low down. (i knew all this before i bought them)
I could do with decent response down to 30hz and i could do with a little more punch to give rock and similar the drive that it needs.
Hence me considering selling the quads and building a hybrid.
Do you think its possible to build a mid/top panel that could be driven by my el84? Obviously a seperate amp for the lows.
Hello Calvin.
Agree on X-over points around the 200-300 hz range , disagree that a sealed bass enclosure is the way to go ( i find this to be the worst ) IMO, but open for persuasion, if i encounter such
In regards to Quad speakers . I used to feel the same way until i heard a double stacked PK setup. Very high SPL's and good bass slam. Of course i would agree it would benefit from a good subwoofer setup , but i would also wager 90% of those hearing it would be happy with the Bass response as is ..
Ohh , I, must mention , I'm not a fan of the quads , due to it's lack of dynamics and soft top end , so i was taken by surprise of the sonics. I would absolutely say it was easily a huge improvement over stock and easily place the quads right up there with the best ESl's.
I have also heard PK's triple stacked version but felt it did not sound as good as that double stacked version, both played with excellent dynamics and power , unbelievable for a quad and on Par with other big ESL's i have heard .
Yes the old quad has a new lease( i would look into this graeme uk ) on life and worth a listen to those of such persuasion and for the record .... I have no affiliation with PK or old quad speakers ....
.
For the OP , Sanders no longer makes or recommends a curved ESL s . Favoring straight flat panels.
Cheers ...
Last edited:
Hi,
@a.wayne: So whas Your proposal for a good bass instead?
Imho the ESL draws some of its favourite qualities from the fact that it reduces on the number of energy storing mechanisms. The spring force of the tightly stretched membrane remaining the last one. The idea of reducing the number count of those mechanisms is favoured and postulated by Mr. Manger and his transducer follows this conceptual idea. ESL and Manger share certain sonic advantages over dynamic speakers which might have their reason in that above mentioned idea.
If You apply this idea to a dynamic bass every such energy storing mechanism should be avoided. Starting with open baffle systems over Closed Box to Bassreflex/TML and to Bandpass the filter order and as such the number of energy storing mechanisms increase (btw. group delay numbers follow in same order). Imho the sonic quality decreases accordingly.
Isn´t stacking two quads of the segmented ESL63-type like adding more flaws to the system? There should occur some nasty venetian blind effects. And I seriously doubt that a system that is dynamically so low value will become a top notch performer just by stacking. From the numbers I have in mind I would say that a mid size panel (like the old ML Sequel) still allows for app +10dB higher dynamic values.
Well I don´t know the eaxact reason that R. Sanders favours flat panels, but as long as You restrict Yourself to hybrid panels, both options are on par, with both concepts featuring their special little advantages or flaws.
It depends which set of parameters You define or favour.
Flat panels are alot cheaper and easier to build, allow for Fullrange drive and electrical segmentation makes it an easier load for an amplifier.
Curved (mostly metal sheet) panels typically achieve higher dynamics, need less drive voltage (the less the audio transformer needs to transform up the better). The curvature is mechanically a lot stiffer (less rattling and resonance) and panels build less thick and allow for more pleasant, transparent optics.
@graeme uk:
Every time I heard Quads I disliked the sound and I wanted somebody to take the blanket off of the speaker. It sounded dull with tilted down highs. So I wonder about You experiencing them as a little bright sounding. Maybe its really Your amp that mismatches with the speakers.
jauu
Calvin
@a.wayne: So whas Your proposal for a good bass instead?
Imho the ESL draws some of its favourite qualities from the fact that it reduces on the number of energy storing mechanisms. The spring force of the tightly stretched membrane remaining the last one. The idea of reducing the number count of those mechanisms is favoured and postulated by Mr. Manger and his transducer follows this conceptual idea. ESL and Manger share certain sonic advantages over dynamic speakers which might have their reason in that above mentioned idea.
If You apply this idea to a dynamic bass every such energy storing mechanism should be avoided. Starting with open baffle systems over Closed Box to Bassreflex/TML and to Bandpass the filter order and as such the number of energy storing mechanisms increase (btw. group delay numbers follow in same order). Imho the sonic quality decreases accordingly.
Isn´t stacking two quads of the segmented ESL63-type like adding more flaws to the system? There should occur some nasty venetian blind effects. And I seriously doubt that a system that is dynamically so low value will become a top notch performer just by stacking. From the numbers I have in mind I would say that a mid size panel (like the old ML Sequel) still allows for app +10dB higher dynamic values.
Well I don´t know the eaxact reason that R. Sanders favours flat panels, but as long as You restrict Yourself to hybrid panels, both options are on par, with both concepts featuring their special little advantages or flaws.
It depends which set of parameters You define or favour.
Flat panels are alot cheaper and easier to build, allow for Fullrange drive and electrical segmentation makes it an easier load for an amplifier.
Curved (mostly metal sheet) panels typically achieve higher dynamics, need less drive voltage (the less the audio transformer needs to transform up the better). The curvature is mechanically a lot stiffer (less rattling and resonance) and panels build less thick and allow for more pleasant, transparent optics.
@graeme uk:
Every time I heard Quads I disliked the sound and I wanted somebody to take the blanket off of the speaker. It sounded dull with tilted down highs. So I wonder about You experiencing them as a little bright sounding. Maybe its really Your amp that mismatches with the speakers.
jauu
Calvin
I think it is an amp missmatch issue.
I dont think my el84 amp is really up to powering esl's at all.
Thats why i wondered if it would drive a mid/treble panel better.
I think i have 2 options at the moment, either see if i can build a hybrid that will work with my kel84 (and seperate woofer amp) or build a new main amp and see where that takes me.
I dont think my el84 amp is really up to powering esl's at all.
Thats why i wondered if it would drive a mid/treble panel better.
I think i have 2 options at the moment, either see if i can build a hybrid that will work with my kel84 (and seperate woofer amp) or build a new main amp and see where that takes me.
curved panel and directivity
@Calvin
did you measure the directivity (or frequency response at different angles) of your curved panels? I would like to know how much improvement in directivity you get with a curved design. Thanks.
@Calvin
did you measure the directivity (or frequency response at different angles) of your curved panels? I would like to know how much improvement in directivity you get with a curved design. Thanks.
Hi arend-jan,
curved panels are quite beamy. The dispersion is very good as long your offset angle corresponds to the curvature of the panels. if you further increase the measurement angle, a significant drop of level is the result.
Thats why ML speakers have a small sweet spot within +/- 10 to +/-15 degrees. If you sit more off-centered, you will recognize a significant "breakdown" of the stage.
Capaciti
curved panels are quite beamy. The dispersion is very good as long your offset angle corresponds to the curvature of the panels. if you further increase the measurement angle, a significant drop of level is the result.
Thats why ML speakers have a small sweet spot within +/- 10 to +/-15 degrees. If you sit more off-centered, you will recognize a significant "breakdown" of the stage.
Capaciti
+10 Capaciti , the best of the curved panels IMO is the AE1 by soundlabs...even sanders himself have given up on curved panels .
sanders : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xbkBwsxyM
Calvin ,
I do agree with your assessment on quads and all the technical oddities involved in making them bad .... I went in with the same thoughts and mind set and i can absolutely tell you that what i heard blew all of that out of the water .
They had dynamics, imaging , power and i could play them as loud as i desired. Off course , the setup had a custom room , treatment, custom built amplifiers ( SS) and top notch associated equipment .
The sound on classical was fantastic , large scale Chorus ..fantastic .. easily placing it at the top of what i have heard from ESL's. These were PK modified quads and the sound is different from regular quads . The triple stacked ones to me does not sound as cohesive as the double , much more SPL , but has that horrible big mouth effect all the time . The double does not .
Highs : No problem almost as good as my ribbons .
Imaging : The best i have heard from big flat panel speakers and pretty good . The room was treated in a way , that appears to help in this respect .
Bass: Was also fantastic ,but of course became very place dependent. We lost some of the mids detail when the bass was at it 's absolute best , so there was some compromise there , sacrificing deep bass for better mid/highs, hence his intent now for adding subs.
Dynamics : fantastic and frightening at first when you hear how big these things can get , as quads are notorious for arching .
Graeme : throw away that dinky toy amp , get about 70-100w/ch , have the mods done and enjoy ,,, i do believe you will ..
The PK stacked Quads vs my reference RIbbon .Hybrid system ...
The Quads were better in the mids and midbass, had better macro dynamics ( i think the amplifiers are much better here for the quads) not as good with the micro dynamics , no big mouth effect on the quads , it got big when the music did and small when it was small ( same as my reference) bass not as powerful , but just as defined as my hybrid , overall i thought that his setup was better, especially with classical music and a definite cheese to chalk improvement over standard quads , the sound was controlled and smooth ...
SPL has been thrown around a lot as a negative /positive and it is understood by those trying to reproduce live music to be an essential , but there is a difference between loud and energy . I have heard many ESL systems play loud , but lack energy , which is essential for live music , the Double stacked ESL had energy , where the triple setups i have heard just sounded loud and does not have the same balance as a double ...
regards,
Last edited:
Calvin,
Which of the above alignment do you think stores the most energy .. has the biggest spring , has the most effective Mass and suffers the most from cone breakup and flexing ....
Hmmm could it be the one that is a monopole requiring considerable force just to move it's diaphragm while trying to imitate a dipole.. 😛
regards,
quote
'Graeme : throw away that dinky toy amp , get about 70-100w/ch , have the mods done and enjoy ,,, i do believe you will ..'
thats not so easy with valves though.
Im not blinkered though, i will consider SS, but i am a valve fan.
Its the overall results that matter though, if valves cant really do justice to esl's. it will come down to valves and paper cones or SS and esl's.
'Graeme : throw away that dinky toy amp , get about 70-100w/ch , have the mods done and enjoy ,,, i do believe you will ..'
thats not so easy with valves though.
Im not blinkered though, i will consider SS, but i am a valve fan.
Its the overall results that matter though, if valves cant really do justice to esl's. it will come down to valves and paper cones or SS and esl's.
Didn't build from scratch but...
Anyone built roger sanders designs?
Graeme, as pointed out in my title to this, I didn't build from "scratch" but I did acquire a set of panels that Sanders was making available to the DIYers through Barry Waldren (the fellow who did the forward to TELDC), and they can be played very loud without a hint of distortion, and no long term listener fatigue. The panels are about 14.5" W by 42" H
and I built a 8' long folded TL housing a Peerless 10" that these set on.
As far as playing rock music through them I admit that the improvement in SQ is less pronounced than it is with other genres (classical, jazz etc.) but still worlds away from listening on dynamic speakers, but as has been pointed out, a TL's bass is definitely different than ported or sealed. That being said, the only type of bass that would match up with an ESL would be some sort of (huge) dipole setup IMHO (I don't have the room for such a beast), the TL I built has a measured f3 of 36 hz and an f10 of 24hz, which isn't bad for a 10" with a usable FR up to around 1k (I have them crossed at around 380 right now), MLs aren't the only ESLs that can "rock" because mine certainly do!
Getting back to your thinking of building a set of hybrids, I don't think you own that book for nothing, and building something that is without the typical commercial limits can be really satisfying, and you are certainly at the right site if you need help from other folks here. Cheers!
Just one more thing, if you do decide to build with a TL that's really the only place I have enough experience to be able to help at all, as cal and cap are the ESL experts "round these parts" again in my humble 1st post opinion..
Steve
Anyone built roger sanders designs?
Graeme, as pointed out in my title to this, I didn't build from "scratch" but I did acquire a set of panels that Sanders was making available to the DIYers through Barry Waldren (the fellow who did the forward to TELDC), and they can be played very loud without a hint of distortion, and no long term listener fatigue. The panels are about 14.5" W by 42" H
and I built a 8' long folded TL housing a Peerless 10" that these set on.
As far as playing rock music through them I admit that the improvement in SQ is less pronounced than it is with other genres (classical, jazz etc.) but still worlds away from listening on dynamic speakers, but as has been pointed out, a TL's bass is definitely different than ported or sealed. That being said, the only type of bass that would match up with an ESL would be some sort of (huge) dipole setup IMHO (I don't have the room for such a beast), the TL I built has a measured f3 of 36 hz and an f10 of 24hz, which isn't bad for a 10" with a usable FR up to around 1k (I have them crossed at around 380 right now), MLs aren't the only ESLs that can "rock" because mine certainly do!
Getting back to your thinking of building a set of hybrids, I don't think you own that book for nothing, and building something that is without the typical commercial limits can be really satisfying, and you are certainly at the right site if you need help from other folks here. Cheers!
Just one more thing, if you do decide to build with a TL that's really the only place I have enough experience to be able to help at all, as cal and cap are the ESL experts "round these parts" again in my humble 1st post opinion..
Steve
Hi Grame UK,
I'm also a tube amp fan. I'm building a pair of hybrid ESL. So far I am able to play nice music with them using a 6528 SE amp. It's only about 7 watts per channel. To do the job you required, I think it is a matter of choosing the right transformer for your ESL.
Wachara C.
I'm also a tube amp fan. I'm building a pair of hybrid ESL. So far I am able to play nice music with them using a 6528 SE amp. It's only about 7 watts per channel. To do the job you required, I think it is a matter of choosing the right transformer for your ESL.
Wachara C.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.