Hi!
Jeez, do you have to write such a long post..?
"Not true. You can likely get the same materials to work for your woofer and for your mid drivers, but not your tweeter."
First I did not suggest that you should use the same material, it was a concern raised by someone else than me. Second, Accutons ceramic material works very fine for all the range, and there are titanium drivers used all the way as well.
"The three drivers mentioned here will *each* have a unique and different harmonic signature due to structural, mechanical, size and construction differences. IF made of the same materials you might find them to be sufficiently similar. Might. Since the tweeter will be different, you no longer have the desired "signature" across the board."
What you say is purely speculative. IMO you can not really compare "sonic signatures" between different bands, even if all drivers are exactly equal except for size. It´s a hype I never bought into.
"it is a big problem, one that is often ignored or lived with. the polar response of most speakers is horrendous. I think Klang + Ton shows nice 3D graphics of the measured polar response of the speakers that they test. Look at it some time... ick!"
I know how the polar response looks like on a particular speaker, but this is to complex to go into here, it will take up a thread on its own. BTW a dynamic dipole with right crossing will be better than a ESL in general if you ask me. And a typical box speaker may be very good indeed... not everything is as simple and obvious as it seems. Power response is not something that is carved in stone so to speak. Low distortion and low stored energy is the only parameters that always should be low, the ultimate power response depends on the recording, the microphones used, the type of sound that is being reproduced and the room. No simple answers here.
"no you can't. You're going to have compromises throughout, if for no other reason than that you can't control the polar response vs. frequency without using a huge number of drivers. But, I'm not sure what a "TP" speaker is - so maybe I've missed something."
This was a reply to different inductance and resistance of drivers, and that is no problem as I said.
"While you might be able to build something that sums properly on axis, it won't anywhere else. "
Which is not a big problem IMO.... actually a small one in some situations.
"Not sure what this refers to exactly, but for certain the reflections back to the cone inside an enclosure absolutely will affect the output by creating sum+difference variations. "
Not if sufficently damped, which of course should be the case. Think transmission lines. The "problem" with boxes (if done right) is not due to cabinet resonances, internal reflections or diffraction, it is the way the omnipolar radiation drives the room, which may or may not be a problem, depending on.... NO matter how you put it, this is the explanation to the "box sound" we here.
"The delay from a dipole may or may not be long enough to be past the Haas effect threshold."
The strong backwave of dipoles are a big problem in most cases. The same goes for boxes. Even if the backwall is several meters away the reflection will affect the result very much. I´ve done a lot of experiments with dipoles as well as boxes in small 9m2 rooms up to 100m2 rooms using diffusion, absorbtion and "abflection".
"An ESL doesn't have to be a dipole. In which case the same problems apply as with cone drivers in a box."
Not at all..... or rather the problems will be huge for a ESL panel (compared to a dynamic driver) due to the small mass and the compliance. Of course tht is a weak point for dipole ESL´s as well, the light membrane being very sensitive to the acoustics/reflections/rooom modes.
"It is a good thing that ESLs use a low diaphragm mass, since the electrostatic force is weak! "
Absolutely.
"well constructed ESLs tend to have less stored energy than do cone loudspeakers, so I have no idea what plots you've been looking at."
I think it was a ML... not fun.
"Some modern ribbon drivers equal or exceed ESLs but they are not wide range devices, and you can't usually make a big ribbon do the same thing as a ribbon tweeter. Ribbons are good though."
The ribbons I have seen graphs on has suffered from increased stored energy in the low and high range of the passband. Low due to the low damping of the moving mass, high due to resonances in the foil (most likely). Also I still have not seen any measurements of ribbons that have lower distortion than the best dynamic tweeters in the top octaves. I know there are very good ribbons and that the technology has great potential.
It´s going to be interesting to see the new line of ribbons from Bo Bengtsson.
"The bottom line is that you have to chose the compromises that you can live with. Every speaker system has its own set of compromises."
Unfortunately that is the very bitter truth.
"There is no doubt that well done ESLs are superior means of making hi-fi sound. Probably the best ESLs are still superior in most categories to dynamic drivers still today. If you haven't heard a good ESL system that actually sounds good, then you've just missed out on something special."
I´m still very curious but so far I have not been very impressed. The best I have heard is from dynamic systems in well treated rooms, either dipoles or boxes... depending on.
"Dynamic speakers will do a great many things very well, when carefully created - and there is no doubt that digital correction will serve ultimately to improve dynamic drivers as well as everything else speaker wise - eventually."
Agree. And I do realize that ESL´s might very well be a more cost effective way of getting "true high end sound" than going with dynamic systems of same caliber.
/Peter
Jeez, do you have to write such a long post..?
"Not true. You can likely get the same materials to work for your woofer and for your mid drivers, but not your tweeter."
First I did not suggest that you should use the same material, it was a concern raised by someone else than me. Second, Accutons ceramic material works very fine for all the range, and there are titanium drivers used all the way as well.
"The three drivers mentioned here will *each* have a unique and different harmonic signature due to structural, mechanical, size and construction differences. IF made of the same materials you might find them to be sufficiently similar. Might. Since the tweeter will be different, you no longer have the desired "signature" across the board."
What you say is purely speculative. IMO you can not really compare "sonic signatures" between different bands, even if all drivers are exactly equal except for size. It´s a hype I never bought into.
"it is a big problem, one that is often ignored or lived with. the polar response of most speakers is horrendous. I think Klang + Ton shows nice 3D graphics of the measured polar response of the speakers that they test. Look at it some time... ick!"
I know how the polar response looks like on a particular speaker, but this is to complex to go into here, it will take up a thread on its own. BTW a dynamic dipole with right crossing will be better than a ESL in general if you ask me. And a typical box speaker may be very good indeed... not everything is as simple and obvious as it seems. Power response is not something that is carved in stone so to speak. Low distortion and low stored energy is the only parameters that always should be low, the ultimate power response depends on the recording, the microphones used, the type of sound that is being reproduced and the room. No simple answers here.
"no you can't. You're going to have compromises throughout, if for no other reason than that you can't control the polar response vs. frequency without using a huge number of drivers. But, I'm not sure what a "TP" speaker is - so maybe I've missed something."
This was a reply to different inductance and resistance of drivers, and that is no problem as I said.
"While you might be able to build something that sums properly on axis, it won't anywhere else. "
Which is not a big problem IMO.... actually a small one in some situations.
"Not sure what this refers to exactly, but for certain the reflections back to the cone inside an enclosure absolutely will affect the output by creating sum+difference variations. "
Not if sufficently damped, which of course should be the case. Think transmission lines. The "problem" with boxes (if done right) is not due to cabinet resonances, internal reflections or diffraction, it is the way the omnipolar radiation drives the room, which may or may not be a problem, depending on...
. NO matter how you put it, this is the explanation to the "box sound" we here."The delay from a dipole may or may not be long enough to be past the Haas effect threshold."
The strong backwave of dipoles are a big problem in most cases. The same goes for boxes. Even if the backwall is several meters away the reflection will affect the result very much. I´ve done a lot of experiments with dipoles as well as boxes in small 9m2 rooms up to 100m2 rooms using diffusion, absorbtion and "abflection".
"An ESL doesn't have to be a dipole. In which case the same problems apply as with cone drivers in a box."
Not at all..... or rather the problems will be huge for a ESL panel (compared to a dynamic driver) due to the small mass and the compliance. Of course tht is a weak point for dipole ESL´s as well, the light membrane being very sensitive to the acoustics/reflections/rooom modes.
"It is a good thing that ESLs use a low diaphragm mass, since the electrostatic force is weak! "
Absolutely.
"well constructed ESLs tend to have less stored energy than do cone loudspeakers, so I have no idea what plots you've been looking at."
I think it was a ML... not fun.
"Some modern ribbon drivers equal or exceed ESLs but they are not wide range devices, and you can't usually make a big ribbon do the same thing as a ribbon tweeter. Ribbons are good though."
The ribbons I have seen graphs on has suffered from increased stored energy in the low and high range of the passband. Low due to the low damping of the moving mass, high due to resonances in the foil (most likely). Also I still have not seen any measurements of ribbons that have lower distortion than the best dynamic tweeters in the top octaves. I know there are very good ribbons and that the technology has great potential.
It´s going to be interesting to see the new line of ribbons from Bo Bengtsson.
"The bottom line is that you have to chose the compromises that you can live with. Every speaker system has its own set of compromises."
Unfortunately that is the very bitter truth.
"There is no doubt that well done ESLs are superior means of making hi-fi sound. Probably the best ESLs are still superior in most categories to dynamic drivers still today. If you haven't heard a good ESL system that actually sounds good, then you've just missed out on something special."
I´m still very curious but so far I have not been very impressed. The best I have heard is from dynamic systems in well treated rooms, either dipoles or boxes... depending on.
"Dynamic speakers will do a great many things very well, when carefully created - and there is no doubt that digital correction will serve ultimately to improve dynamic drivers as well as everything else speaker wise - eventually."
Agree. And I do realize that ESL´s might very well be a more cost effective way of getting "true high end sound" than going with dynamic systems of same caliber.
/Peter
Hi Guys,
It looks like we are missing " Sixth Element ".
Fifth is Mila Jovovich discovered by Bruce Willis.
Really, there is something more about sound than pure
numbers and measurements. Actually I believe that SE is possible
to measure but we don't know what is it. Let me give you one
example we are all familiar with. AMPLIFIERS.
The best sounding amps have the worst specs. Good example is
tube amps. High distortions, almost non existent slave rate, very low
damping factor, limited bandwidth and power... And still, tube amps are good sounding amps.
Well this last statement can be questioned by some people.
Also, in this group is highly respected Pass amps.
On the other hand we have " Technics " with ideal specs.
If I remember right : distortion 0.000001% , bandwidth
-1GHz to1GHZ, slave rate 10 KV / ps...
And lets say Technics is not rated very high ( at least
not commercial models).
So what is that SE parameter that makes amps sound good, bad or ugly ?
Maybe same thing makes technically inferior speakers sound good and vice versa.
Until we find that missing element and convert it to numbers, endless debates will exist.
And if I can predict, audio reviewers will become jobless.
All that sweet talk and mumbo-jumbo meaningless phrases down the drain.
Regards!
It looks like we are missing " Sixth Element ".
Fifth is Mila Jovovich discovered by Bruce Willis.
Really, there is something more about sound than pure
numbers and measurements. Actually I believe that SE is possible
to measure but we don't know what is it. Let me give you one
example we are all familiar with. AMPLIFIERS.
The best sounding amps have the worst specs. Good example is
tube amps. High distortions, almost non existent slave rate, very low
damping factor, limited bandwidth and power... And still, tube amps are good sounding amps.
Well this last statement can be questioned by some people.
Also, in this group is highly respected Pass amps.
On the other hand we have " Technics " with ideal specs.
If I remember right : distortion 0.000001% , bandwidth
-1GHz to1GHZ, slave rate 10 KV / ps...
And lets say Technics is not rated very high ( at least
not commercial models).
So what is that SE parameter that makes amps sound good, bad or ugly ?
Maybe same thing makes technically inferior speakers sound good and vice versa.
Until we find that missing element and convert it to numbers, endless debates will exist.
And if I can predict, audio reviewers will become jobless.
All that sweet talk and mumbo-jumbo meaningless phrases down the drain.
Regards!
Hi Sasha,
"The best sounding amps have the worst specs."
You really should have included something like "in my opinion" to this phrase.
"And still, tube amps are good sounding amps."
Good sounding is something very subjective.
"Well this last statement can be questioned by some people.
Also, in this group is highly respected Pass amps."
Pass amps have relatively low dist. in the mids... but suffers from incresed dist. in the highs, which is very audible IMO.
"On the other hand we have " Technics " with ideal specs.
If I remember right : distortion 0.000001% , bandwidth
-1GHz to1GHZ, slave rate 10 KV / ps..."
First there are no amps with that specs. Second, those jap receivers from the 80-90´s with claimed ultra low distortion shows much larger numbers in real tests. High BW, slewrate and more important, settling time, is important in amps, especially with feedback.
"And if I can predict, audio reviewers will become jobless.
All that sweet talk and mumbo-jumbo meaningless phrases down the drain."
Reviewers will never go away, some people need guidance and someone to tell them what to do and what to like.
/Peter
"The best sounding amps have the worst specs."
You really should have included something like "in my opinion" to this phrase
."And still, tube amps are good sounding amps."
Good sounding is something very subjective.
"Well this last statement can be questioned by some people.
Also, in this group is highly respected Pass amps."
Pass amps have relatively low dist. in the mids... but suffers from incresed dist. in the highs, which is very audible IMO.
"On the other hand we have " Technics " with ideal specs.
If I remember right : distortion 0.000001% , bandwidth
-1GHz to1GHZ, slave rate 10 KV / ps..."
First there are no amps with that specs. Second, those jap receivers from the 80-90´s with claimed ultra low distortion shows much larger numbers in real tests. High BW, slewrate and more important, settling time, is important in amps, especially with feedback.
"And if I can predict, audio reviewers will become jobless.
All that sweet talk and mumbo-jumbo meaningless phrases down the drain."
Reviewers will never go away, some people need guidance and someone to tell them what to do and what to like.
/Peter
Hi Peter,
Technics specs was a joke. I thought You gonna get it, but...
"Reviewers will never go away, some people need guidance and someone to tell them what to do and what to like."
This sounds like communists propaganda and believe me I know communists.
Anyway, this is last replay from me regarding this thread.
Happy listening!
Technics specs was a joke. I thought You gonna get it, but...
"Reviewers will never go away, some people need guidance and someone to tell them what to do and what to like."
This sounds like communists propaganda and believe me I know communists.
Anyway, this is last replay from me regarding this thread.
Happy listening!
Pan said:Hi!
Jeez, do you have to write such a long post..?
First I did not suggest that you should use the same material, it was a concern raised by someone else than me. Second, Accutons ceramic material works very fine for all the range, and there are titanium drivers used all the way as well.
Ok, but I suspect that if you want to compare the harmonic structure or signature of a three way to an ESL (especially a full range ESL) you'll lose the "fight" to the ESL.
No speculation at all required.
A simple thought experiment is all that is required, plus a little knowledge of harmonic distortion in speakers. Assume a 1kHz xover for our example. Assume a high order xover for simplicity and to separate the outputs of the drivers near the xover point. Imagine a digital brick wall filter if you like. Now, play a piano note just below the xover point. The fundamental is reproduced only by the lower (larger) cone. All of the higher harmonics are reproduced by the smaller (higher freq) cone. The larger cone *also* adds whatever harmonic distortion products it produces to the fundamental.
Now, move the note up one note, past the xover point?
Suddenly the fundamental and the harmonics are reproduced by only the smaller cone, with its harmonic signature.
Which is empirically and audibly quite different than the note before which was produced by the two drivers, rather than one.
Admittedly, this is not the worst situation since the approximation in a well built and designed multi way speaker is pretty good. But it is audibly different than the single mylar surface doing the same thing without any xover present. It is audibly different.
This is one reason that the single wide range dynamic driver crowd (Lowther, etc) like them so much. They have other problems and issues, but this issue is not one of them.
Yes - simple answers to a great extent.
Multiway speaker systems in general suffer from a range of polar response abberrations that can not be eliminated. It is a compromise that you may be able to limit and live with. ESLs, depending on design have a different set of problems in this regard, but *can* be made (like with Beveridge) to avoid them entirely (for the most part) or are presented in a different form than are multiway cone speakers... they can be better or worse depending upon implementation and do vary in that respect. Cone multi-ways are fairly well fixed with respect to their problems in this area and clear in that regard.
Again, another compromise inherent in all speakers.
You have to chose the ones that are *least* problematic for your subjective ears.
Small points to argue... yin/yang, and a question of tastes and applications.
"Not sure what this refers to exactly, but for certain the reflections back to the cone inside an enclosure absolutely will affect the output by creating sum+difference variations. "
Not if sufficently damped, which of course should be the case. Think transmission lines. The "problem" with boxes (if done right) is not due to cabinet resonances, internal reflections or diffraction, it is the way the omnipolar radiation drives the room, which may or may not be a problem, depending on...
Well, there are no ported boxes that are so well damped that there are *no* measureable box reflection problems.
Transmission lines are a special case, and are only valid for the frequencies where the TL is effectively working... unless you stuff right up to the cone... I suppose you can argue that this would be a best case for a cone driver that is used wide range (like a Lowther). That of course is hard to do for a midrange driver, since the dimensions get smaller and the absorption of the loose stuffing is reduced as a result - so you're going to get more energy back to cone... and you have to be willing to accept the time delayed output of the TL. I don't generally like that.
However Marty King's TQWT stuff is a fairly impressive implementation of the idea... but large, very large for the performance level.
Perhaps the ultimate is a well done IB set up... it certainly measures well... you just have to like listening to and looking at your wall? heh.
... continued in next post... (too long!!) YIKES!!
Continued...
See Beveridge - sealed box. Apparently not much of a problem.
And if the backwave - I presume ur referring mostly to LF when you cite box speakers - is a problem then it is equally so to a great extent. So, we can wipe that one off the chart?
Odd. Might have been an ML with a cone bass/mid section??
ok.
Ok. Can't argue with your personal experience.
I'd suggest that the signal path and electronics driving the ESLs tend to be hyper critical - the problem is that you can hear all sorts of defects that usually get glossed over by typically high quaility dynamic speakers. This is a common problem with any high quality speaker system, imho, dynamic or whatever...
There's no doubt that it is possible to make an ESL speaker that just sounds so good that it gets scary good. But it is a yin/yang thing no matter what.
I'd suggest trying to find a system with a pair of just original Quads for a listen. They won't go loud or very low - but you'll hear a certain effortless magic without any doubt, especially if it is backed up with a really clean source and amplification.
That would a good point of reference to start with...
Interesting points!
I'm not sure that ESLs are more cost effective at all.
USED commercial ESLs will probably get you more bang for the $$ than will dynamic speakers (unless you get lucky there).
You will automatically get some things that you will not get with a dynamic speaker until you get into the really *big* $$ range for commercial speakers (and you get lucky there too), or until you spend serious bucks on a really good set of drivers and get them to *work* together properly (not so simple or easy) in a DIY project situation.
On the other hand it is very likely simpler and less expensive to find a suitable power amp for a dynamic speaker than an ESL, but both situations present some subtle and performance affecting issues, imho. But having said that, I have found some fairly inexpensive higher power tube gear that was easy to modify (necessary to modify...) that was simply exquisite with ESLs beyond any reasonable expectation.
As with all of this hobby it is still a matter of balance and compromise selection... but ESLs do represent a really fabulous solution that is hard to achieve by other technologies.
My personal view is that as you reach the peak of performance for any part of a system, any technology, they start to converge as far as subjective impression and the differences become more subtle and less significant - but this is still hard to achieve.
ESLs = very good in my book.
Darn! Did I write too much again??
_-_-bear
See Beveridge - sealed box. Apparently not much of a problem.
And if the backwave - I presume ur referring mostly to LF when you cite box speakers - is a problem then it is equally so to a great extent. So, we can wipe that one off the chart?
"It is a good thing that ESLs use a low diaphragm mass, since the electrostatic force is weak! "
Absolutely.
"well constructed ESLs tend to have less stored energy than do cone loudspeakers, so I have no idea what plots you've been looking at."
I think it was a ML... not fun.
Odd. Might have been an ML with a cone bass/mid section??
ok.
"The bottom line is that you have to chose the compromises that you can live with. Every speaker system has its own set of compromises."
Unfortunately that is the very bitter truth.
"There is no doubt that well done ESLs are superior means of making hi-fi sound. Probably the best ESLs are still superior in most categories to dynamic drivers still today. If you haven't heard a good ESL system that actually sounds good, then you've just missed out on something special."
I´m still very curious but so far I have not been very impressed. The best I have heard is from dynamic systems in well treated rooms, either dipoles or boxes... depending on.
Ok. Can't argue with your personal experience.
I'd suggest that the signal path and electronics driving the ESLs tend to be hyper critical - the problem is that you can hear all sorts of defects that usually get glossed over by typically high quaility dynamic speakers. This is a common problem with any high quality speaker system, imho, dynamic or whatever...
There's no doubt that it is possible to make an ESL speaker that just sounds so good that it gets scary good. But it is a yin/yang thing no matter what.
I'd suggest trying to find a system with a pair of just original Quads for a listen. They won't go loud or very low - but you'll hear a certain effortless magic without any doubt, especially if it is backed up with a really clean source and amplification.
That would a good point of reference to start with...
Interesting points!
I'm not sure that ESLs are more cost effective at all.
USED commercial ESLs will probably get you more bang for the $$ than will dynamic speakers (unless you get lucky there).
You will automatically get some things that you will not get with a dynamic speaker until you get into the really *big* $$ range for commercial speakers (and you get lucky there too), or until you spend serious bucks on a really good set of drivers and get them to *work* together properly (not so simple or easy) in a DIY project situation.
On the other hand it is very likely simpler and less expensive to find a suitable power amp for a dynamic speaker than an ESL, but both situations present some subtle and performance affecting issues, imho. But having said that, I have found some fairly inexpensive higher power tube gear that was easy to modify (necessary to modify...) that was simply exquisite with ESLs beyond any reasonable expectation.
As with all of this hobby it is still a matter of balance and compromise selection... but ESLs do represent a really fabulous solution that is hard to achieve by other technologies.
My personal view is that as you reach the peak of performance for any part of a system, any technology, they start to converge as far as subjective impression and the differences become more subtle and less significant - but this is still hard to achieve.
ESLs = very good in my book.
Darn! Did I write too much again??
_-_-bear
sasha said:Hi Peter,
Technics specs was a joke. I thought You gonna get it, but...
"Reviewers will never go away, some people need guidance and someone to tell them what to do and what to like."
This sounds like communists propaganda and believe me I know communists.
Anyway, this is last replay from me regarding this thread.
Happy listening!
You made some typos + I´m stupid and have a total lack of humor..
And no, I´m no communist. Was it something you did not understand in that line? Please keep it simple, I´m a little stupid.
/Peter
"Admittedly, this is not the worst situation since the approximation in a well built and designed multi way speaker is pretty good. But it is audibly different than the single mylar surface doing the same thing without any xover present. It is audibly different."
But even a mylar film will not have the same distortion characteristics in all of the range only becasue it is one driver. A dynamic driver has very different distortion in itself depending on the frequency... the effect you describe is real but also a problem for a single driver, not only a multi way speaker, and nom atter what it´s made off.
But in general I agree. For example I do not think it´s a good solution to use pistonic drivers in the low range and then pass over to a driver operating in non pistonic mode. But if you use pistonic operation and low distortion motors, then I can´t see that there would be a problem with different voices from the drivers in a multiway speaker.
"Multiway speaker systems in general suffer from a range of polar response abberrations that can not be eliminated."
Are you thinking on loobing (from overlapping non coincident drivers) or dispersion/polar response going from low to high frequencies?
The former is only a small problem IMO. It´s possible to have only one crossing cuasing problems with lobing. However the power response may be relatively flat using odd order network and first reflection points should IMO always be dealt with and thereby reducing the influence of the spectral content in those directions.
The fact that a boxed speaker normally have a more and more narrow dispersion as we go up in frequency is not a problem per se. In fact the power response you get from a typical box monitor will have a power response very similar to the human voice. A closed miced recording of a voice, played back on a box monitor will be more ideal in room than a dipole or line source for instance. IF you want to "place the performer" in your room.... see what I´m getting at?
Regarding TL´s. I was thinking closed TL´s or operated well above the TL resonance. You can damp a boxed speaker so no ripple occur in the output, and no glitches in impedance curves.
"And if the backwave - I presume ur referring mostly to LF when you cite box speakers - is a problem then it is equally so to a great extent. So, we can wipe that one off the chart?"
Yea I guess so meaning if the box is very well damped, no problem with cones or ESLs looking at reflections inside the box.. or rather the absence of the same . Still the lightness of the ESL still make it more sensitive to room sounds/moodes bouncing back on the surface.
Regarding the CSD plot I saw it probably was a hybrid as you suggest, however if memory serves me the problems was in the higher range, and that was a little surprising to me since I had heard that ESLs ws so "fast" and "quick" to respond and stop to/after signals.
My listening impressions with ESLs has been with three different ML set ups and one ESL63/Gradient sub.
Possibly the electronics was not the best but still considered good (very costly anyway) with the ML set ups, but I was never really touched or impressed. The Quad was very good though and I´d like to learn more about them, especially with a dipole sub.
"As with all of this hobby it is still a matter of balance and compromise selection"
Absolutely.
"My personal view is that as you reach the peak of performance for any part of a system, any technology, they start to converge as far as subjective impression and the differences become more subtle and less significant - but this is still hard to achieve."
Agree.
"Darn! Did I write too much again??"
Absolutely... and so did I.
/Peter
But even a mylar film will not have the same distortion characteristics in all of the range only becasue it is one driver. A dynamic driver has very different distortion in itself depending on the frequency... the effect you describe is real but also a problem for a single driver, not only a multi way speaker, and nom atter what it´s made off.
But in general I agree. For example I do not think it´s a good solution to use pistonic drivers in the low range and then pass over to a driver operating in non pistonic mode. But if you use pistonic operation and low distortion motors, then I can´t see that there would be a problem with different voices from the drivers in a multiway speaker.
"Multiway speaker systems in general suffer from a range of polar response abberrations that can not be eliminated."
Are you thinking on loobing (from overlapping non coincident drivers) or dispersion/polar response going from low to high frequencies?
The former is only a small problem IMO. It´s possible to have only one crossing cuasing problems with lobing. However the power response may be relatively flat using odd order network and first reflection points should IMO always be dealt with and thereby reducing the influence of the spectral content in those directions.
The fact that a boxed speaker normally have a more and more narrow dispersion as we go up in frequency is not a problem per se. In fact the power response you get from a typical box monitor will have a power response very similar to the human voice. A closed miced recording of a voice, played back on a box monitor will be more ideal in room than a dipole or line source for instance. IF you want to "place the performer" in your room.... see what I´m getting at?
Regarding TL´s. I was thinking closed TL´s or operated well above the TL resonance. You can damp a boxed speaker so no ripple occur in the output, and no glitches in impedance curves.
"And if the backwave - I presume ur referring mostly to LF when you cite box speakers - is a problem then it is equally so to a great extent. So, we can wipe that one off the chart?"
Yea I guess so
meaning if the box is very well damped, no problem with cones or ESLs looking at reflections inside the box.. or rather the absence of the same . Still the lightness of the ESL still make it more sensitive to room sounds/moodes bouncing back on the surface.Regarding the CSD plot I saw it probably was a hybrid as you suggest, however if memory serves me the problems was in the higher range, and that was a little surprising to me since I had heard that ESLs ws so "fast" and "quick" to respond and stop to/after signals.
My listening impressions with ESLs has been with three different ML set ups and one ESL63/Gradient sub.
Possibly the electronics was not the best but still considered good (very costly anyway) with the ML set ups, but I was never really touched or impressed. The Quad was very good though and I´d like to learn more about them, especially with a dipole sub.
"As with all of this hobby it is still a matter of balance and compromise selection"
Absolutely.
"My personal view is that as you reach the peak of performance for any part of a system, any technology, they start to converge as far as subjective impression and the differences become more subtle and less significant - but this is still hard to achieve."
Agree.
"Darn! Did I write too much again??"
Absolutely... and so did I.
/Peter
Sasha,
no worries. You didn´t really insult me but I sensed a little bad wibe there, no big deal. Maybe I did overreact, or misunderstood I´m sorry too mate
And to make myself clear, I do not mean that all people need someone to say what they should like and think, however many people in the hifi hobby seem to have a hard time trusting themselfs.... so I meant that there will always be a bunch of guys looking for recommendations and pointers instead of going with their own hearts. That´s a loss IMO and hopefully most people gain confidence enough to make their own choices so to speak.
Cheers!
/Peter
no worries. You didn´t really insult me but I sensed a little bad wibe there, no big deal.
Maybe I did overreact, or misunderstood I´m sorry too mate And to make myself clear, I do not mean that all people need someone to say what they should like and think, however many people in the hifi hobby seem to have a hard time trusting themselfs.... so I meant that there will always be a bunch of guys looking for recommendations and pointers instead of going with their own hearts. That´s a loss IMO and hopefully most people gain confidence enough to make their own choices so to speak.
Cheers!
/Peter
I am new to electrostatics but from what i have heard and made so far, they are for me, better.
subjective and personal i know but in a typical 2 way there is a very real lack of linkage between a 6 inch driver and a 1 inch tweeter.
A harmonic feel, they just do not seem to be as one body, there is a hole compared to electrostatics, large domes are good but still there is a feeling of glass infront of you, no matter how clean or clear you know there is a glass, this would mean its not real, i dont think we will ever find a way to fool the human ear with our present level of technology.
Garavity drive speakers, light power speakers who knows, to me this argument is like the jet engine over the piston engine.
I know which one is better.
subjective and personal i know but in a typical 2 way there is a very real lack of linkage between a 6 inch driver and a 1 inch tweeter.
A harmonic feel, they just do not seem to be as one body, there is a hole compared to electrostatics, large domes are good but still there is a feeling of glass infront of you, no matter how clean or clear you know there is a glass, this would mean its not real, i dont think we will ever find a way to fool the human ear with our present level of technology.
Garavity drive speakers, light power speakers who knows, to me this argument is like the jet engine over the piston engine.
I know which one is better.
Nicely and simply said about the hear-through character of ESLs...
I have access to many systems from ESLs to Accuton/Raven ribbon combinations and if I had to choose one above all it would be the elctrostatic speaker.
ESLs sound the least distorted to me (no box resonance and more speed = elegance and grace) and this is manifested in a tonally correct sound.
The glass analogy is a good one, no matter how good box/cone speakers are they just never manage to remove that last layer of veiling.
Having recently heard an Acoustat 121 (excellent ESL overall with very good bass) and then comparing it to my 3.8 micron ultra thin membraned ER Audio ESL-3, I would suggest to all ESL users that if you want even more detail and 'truth' go for the thin membranes ...they remove the glass completely and lay the music bare at the molecular level !
Regards,
Steve M.
I have access to many systems from ESLs to Accuton/Raven ribbon combinations and if I had to choose one above all it would be the elctrostatic speaker.
ESLs sound the least distorted to me (no box resonance and more speed = elegance and grace) and this is manifested in a tonally correct sound.
The glass analogy is a good one, no matter how good box/cone speakers are they just never manage to remove that last layer of veiling.
Having recently heard an Acoustat 121 (excellent ESL overall with very good bass) and then comparing it to my 3.8 micron ultra thin membraned ER Audio ESL-3, I would suggest to all ESL users that if you want even more detail and 'truth' go for the thin membranes ...they remove the glass completely and lay the music bare at the molecular level !
Regards,
Steve M.
Comparison
Hi,
to compare or not to compare that´s the problem.
Lets look at two basical types of ESLs, the Fullrange and the ESL as a Mid-High driver. As in any system bandwith and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Giving up on bandwith improves efficiency and vice versa. Like dynamic drivers efficiency can be risen by a stronger motor, or by area. Stronger motor always leads to less diaphragm travel because of smaller stator-distances needed, so it´s useful to make the area bigger. Giving the ESL a narrow strip-like appearance leads to a very desirable state of working. The diaphragm works on a resistive airload in their complete frequency range, the state of the highest efficiency.
The impedance of a ESL is very high by nature. This leads to a very high efficiency of the panel itself. Test show efficiencies of up to 30%, even more than most horns can do and still with a greater bandwidth. Problems regarding the efficiency of driving the ESL only occur, when transformers are used to match the ESL-impedance to an normal audio-amplifier. Using direct coupled amplifiers is the only consequent -but seldomly used- way.
As in any system distortion rises when the diaphragm travel reaches certain levels. Most panels show very low distortion above 200Hz and quickly rising values below 200Hz. The low values in the upper frequency range are preserved to very high levels and are much better than any dynamic driver can do. The soundpressure levels can be extreme high. More so the soundpressure level of a strip like panel is much more constant over distance, because of the cylindrical waveform.
All this leads to following design-rules:
Use a ESL-panel above 200Hz,
use small spacings to rise efficiency,
use a narrow strip-like design,
use direct coupled amplifiers (or at least really good trannies)....
...You can get efficiencies well above 90dB/2.83V/m, maximum soundpressure levels way above 110dB with still less than 1%distortion, exceptional transient response and linearity.....
..and Youll´hardly find any dynamic driver on the market that will be superior in one of these parameters and You´ll be definitvely unable to find just one dynamic driver that tops the ESL in all categories.
Calvin
Hi,
to compare or not to compare that´s the problem.
Lets look at two basical types of ESLs, the Fullrange and the ESL as a Mid-High driver. As in any system bandwith and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Giving up on bandwith improves efficiency and vice versa. Like dynamic drivers efficiency can be risen by a stronger motor, or by area. Stronger motor always leads to less diaphragm travel because of smaller stator-distances needed, so it´s useful to make the area bigger. Giving the ESL a narrow strip-like appearance leads to a very desirable state of working. The diaphragm works on a resistive airload in their complete frequency range, the state of the highest efficiency.
The impedance of a ESL is very high by nature. This leads to a very high efficiency of the panel itself. Test show efficiencies of up to 30%, even more than most horns can do and still with a greater bandwidth. Problems regarding the efficiency of driving the ESL only occur, when transformers are used to match the ESL-impedance to an normal audio-amplifier. Using direct coupled amplifiers is the only consequent -but seldomly used- way.
As in any system distortion rises when the diaphragm travel reaches certain levels. Most panels show very low distortion above 200Hz and quickly rising values below 200Hz. The low values in the upper frequency range are preserved to very high levels and are much better than any dynamic driver can do. The soundpressure levels can be extreme high. More so the soundpressure level of a strip like panel is much more constant over distance, because of the cylindrical waveform.
All this leads to following design-rules:
Use a ESL-panel above 200Hz,
use small spacings to rise efficiency,
use a narrow strip-like design,
use direct coupled amplifiers (or at least really good trannies)....
...You can get efficiencies well above 90dB/2.83V/m, maximum soundpressure levels way above 110dB with still less than 1%distortion, exceptional transient response and linearity.....
..and Youll´hardly find any dynamic driver on the market that will be superior in one of these parameters and You´ll be definitvely unable to find just one dynamic driver that tops the ESL in all categories.
Calvin
Anyone know what happened to the site for these DIY giant fullrange ESL speakers?
http://www.ele.tut.fi/~artoko/audio/speakers/fullrange_esl.html
I'm gettint a 404 Not Found.
http://www.ele.tut.fi/~artoko/audio/speakers/fullrange_esl.html
I'm gettint a 404 Not Found.
Prune, It works here too.
What do the esl 3's use for a xover between the two panels. Can you multi amp these panels. How do you use these without transformers-direct coupled. If these sound better than the raven 3 then they must sound pretty good. I use to own a pair of quad esl 57 ( with 6 B139s )about 15 years ago and I still remember the beauty of the sound, alittle hard to blend the bass though. At the moment I use the Dynaudio Esotar for mid and hi, not bad but I'm looking for an improvement. A friend has basically the same setup as me, but with Raven 3 and they sure sound nice(multi amped systems).
What do the esl 3's use for a xover between the two panels. Can you multi amp these panels. How do you use these without transformers-direct coupled. If these sound better than the raven 3 then they must sound pretty good. I use to own a pair of quad esl 57 ( with 6 B139s )about 15 years ago and I still remember the beauty of the sound, alittle hard to blend the bass though. At the moment I use the Dynaudio Esotar for mid and hi, not bad but I'm looking for an improvement. A friend has basically the same setup as me, but with Raven 3 and they sure sound nice(multi amped systems).
