Steve doesn't take pictures - but that doesn't mean that there aren't any laying around!
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi Borat,
the earlier cited 110dB@4m were measured with one panel of 25x125cm (d/s: 1mm, Bias: 1.7kV, U: 1/68) in a anechoic halfspace room above 200Hz. SPL was limited by the membrane hitting the stators. No arcing or flashover occured. With a pair of panels and some correllation of signals You can add up to 6dB. Further the listening room response will add some dBs. Distortion level was ~ 0.3% measured with B&K capsule, most of which was K2 (according to B&K the Mic alone generates distortion levels around 0.2% under these SPL-conditions!).
If You increase d/s slightly (to 1.5mm) and increase the membrane area considerably its possible to squeeze out even more dBs. PAS built panels that they claimed to reach 113dB@4m@3%THD with a panel of same size and up to 123dB@3%THD with a panel of 50x160cm outlining dimensions.
jauu
Calvin
the earlier cited 110dB@4m were measured with one panel of 25x125cm (d/s: 1mm, Bias: 1.7kV, U: 1/68) in a anechoic halfspace room above 200Hz. SPL was limited by the membrane hitting the stators. No arcing or flashover occured. With a pair of panels and some correllation of signals You can add up to 6dB. Further the listening room response will add some dBs. Distortion level was ~ 0.3% measured with B&K capsule, most of which was K2 (according to B&K the Mic alone generates distortion levels around 0.2% under these SPL-conditions!).
If You increase d/s slightly (to 1.5mm) and increase the membrane area considerably its possible to squeeze out even more dBs. PAS built panels that they claimed to reach 113dB@4m@3%THD with a panel of same size and up to 123dB@3%THD with a panel of 50x160cm outlining dimensions.
jauu
Calvin
It can be done with ribbon mids and tweets.
http://www.transmissionaudio.com/
My attempt, 11x2000cm ribbon:![URL]](/community/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5BURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimg15.imageshack.us%2Fi%2F11x2000cmribbon800x600.jpg%2F%5D%5BIMGHTTPDEAD%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimg15.imageshack.us%2Fimg15%2F3241%2F11x2000cmribbon800x600.th.jpg%5B%2FIMGHTTPDEAD%5D%5B%2FURL%5D&hash=82c2e342a6653099d075e751ad65e99a)
The Analysis magnetostats (the larger ones) can do it as well.
@fivestring: Have you heard them, too? And if so, how do the Transmissions compare to them? The Transmissions are currently on top of my wish-to-hear list.
Nobody outside Sweden ever heard TA. I have heard Analysis Epsilon model, which is the second smallest in their range and an excellent speaker. I guess their Amphytrion model must be serious stuff, but this is IMHO only, as I hate cones and domes (fullrange drivers as well) in the mid high range. For 15 years I listened to the industry telling me cones`n`domes are already so much improved that it makes planar loudspeakers obsolete - it makes me sick when I think of that.
For somewhat more serious approach to higher quality reproduction, you need large effective diaphragm area, low mass and small displacement.
But, it is my opinion the current technology is actually still in the dark ages...
For somewhat more serious approach to higher quality reproduction, you need large effective diaphragm area, low mass and small displacement.
But, it is my opinion the current technology is actually still in the dark ages...
Last edited:
yeah. what a load of crap. if that were the case then why do so many people still use vintage cones ?
the only real progress on the side of the cones was cheap amplifier power enabling speakers to become smaller, less efficient and crappier sounding.
a cone speaker is an entire symphony of distortions.
well ... i would say your description of what ultimate quality requires is theoretically wrong but in practice is probably well correlated with reality.
i won't tell you what the ACTUAL definition of perfection would be because i don't want you guys thinking too much in the right direction
Last edited:
well ... i would say your description of what ultimate quality requires is theoretically wrong but in practice is probably well correlated with reality.
i won't tell you what the ACTUAL definition of perfection would be because i don't want you guys thinking too much in the right direction
Low surface loudness is my personal mantra.
Nobody outside Sweden ever heard TA. I have heard Analysis Epsilon model, which is the second smallest in their range and an excellent speaker. I guess their Amphytrion model must be serious stuff, but this is IMHO only, as I hate cones and domes (fullrange drivers as well) in the mid high range. For 15 years I listened to the industry telling me cones`n`domes are already so much improved that it makes planar loudspeakers obsolete - it makes me sick when I think of that.
For somewhat more serious approach to higher quality reproduction, you need large effective diaphragm area, low mass and small displacement.
But, it is my opinion the current technology is actually still in the dark ages...
Ahhh Audio , so objective ....
more objectivity
well ... i would say your description of what ultimate quality requires is theoretically wrong but in practice is probably well correlated with reality.
i won't tell you what the ACTUAL definition of perfection would be because i don't want you guys thinking too much in the right direction
What no consensus.............
Hi,
what could it possibly be??? To sing Yourself?
jauu
Calvin
ps. please forgive for kidding
System on or off ....
Ultralow distortion at ANY but especially high frequencies is mine
Ahhh more consensus .....
Now that we are all in agreement which to use
, ESL or PM ? *PM for tweeter
*ESL for midrange
*Dynamic for bass
Those are the strengths , enjoy integrating ...
Last edited:
Well being "as" objective , i would have to say PM works better for me than the being big all the time ESL sound ...
I would also like to point out that PM represents a much better resistor and with better phase angle vs ESL..
There is also considerable smearing from Punch hole stator ESL , much better with Open wired stator , but not as good as Pure ribbon . PM with grille work or in push pull configuration tend to suffer alot from this also for sure the BG's do ...
Again ,
*PM for tweeter
*ESL for midrange
*Dynamic for bass
would be the ideal situation IMO for making the ultimate speaker ( if such a beast can exist ) . I have never heard a planer speaker worth crap for Bass, the best being the Very large Appogee's.
Ohhh low surface noise or back ground of silence is very much obtainable with dynamic speakers , more so than any ESL i have ever heard ....
I would also like to point out that PM represents a much better resistor and with better phase angle vs ESL..
There is also considerable smearing from Punch hole stator ESL , much better with Open wired stator , but not as good as Pure ribbon . PM with grille work or in push pull configuration tend to suffer alot from this also for sure the BG's do ...
Again ,
*PM for tweeter
*ESL for midrange
*Dynamic for bass
would be the ideal situation IMO for making the ultimate speaker ( if such a beast can exist ) . I have never heard a planer speaker worth crap for Bass, the best being the Very large Appogee's.
Ohhh low surface noise or back ground of silence is very much obtainable with dynamic speakers , more so than any ESL i have ever heard ....
Last edited:
Now you`re talking, but read again:
small drivers, small effective surface area, long excursion - high surface loudness
large planar drivers, large effective surface area, small excursion - low surface loudness
If you try to mimic the sound of acoustic instruments as close as possible then the later should be your goal.
I never mentioned surface noise, which is what you hear when you listen to cones`n`domes "superior" speaker technology. Cones are only good for low frequency spectrum, up to say 500 Hz, but that`s about it.
small drivers, small effective surface area, long excursion - high surface loudness
large planar drivers, large effective surface area, small excursion - low surface loudness
If you try to mimic the sound of acoustic instruments as close as possible then the later should be your goal.
I never mentioned surface noise, which is what you hear when you listen to cones`n`domes "superior" speaker technology. Cones are only good for low frequency spectrum, up to say 500 Hz, but that`s about it.
Hello Five string ,
I think you said " Low surface loudness is my personal mantra " previously .
What would you consider to be a small driver ?
Considering the disadvantages of having a wide beaming board, I would have to strongly disagree with all of the above as horses for courses and they all have their strengths and weakness's.
yes there is an advantage to having Sq area , that said a big sound board has it's problems 2 , big speakers work better in big rooms and small, well you understand ..
With that said , your design criteria and use will determine the direction to follow . In regards to reproducing live instruments planers miss the lower registers( 500 down) and excel above this , but due to there large displacement area and sound board effect cannot accurately reproduce space and time and while i know this is part of the recording process and not fundamentally attached to live music it is very essential to have low distortion here , because we listen to recordings of live music and not live Music itself..
That said i currently favor PM ( ribbons mostly ) for mid/highs over ESL , mostly due to the fact that a correct baffle can be made for it without the smearing that is associated with having a large sound board as in most ESL loudspeakers and yes , i have notice some trying to deal with this with new " type " of hybrid ESL with smaller baffles (The ESL does excel in the midrange) Again dynamic for the bass as nothing else sounds transiently or as dynamically like real bass as a dynamic speaker ...
Regards,
Last edited:
Hi a.wayne,
I really did said low surface loudness and not low surface noise, like you said.
I`m not saying wide beaming boards are better, although my 2m tall, 35/25cm wide planar magnetic unit has some special qualities even in the high frequency range, but of course it has a narrow sweet spot.
Planar magnetic (megnetostat) bass has the edge over cones at least when used down to 100 Hz or so, with ribbon mid/high frequency units on top, that is my favorite personal solution, but if crossed over low enough, say no higher than 500 Hz, even cones come into equation.
This topic is not about big versus small loudspeakers, but about ESL vs planar magnetic and as it happens, these two technologies do not respond well to miniaturization - just my experience.
Regarding smearing of the large baffles... well, recordings are made close miked predominantly, here lies your answer.
If you would like to convince me that pinpoint imaging resembles live sound experience, then I`ll have to disagree.
I`ve spent to many years developing and listening to dynamic mid high units (although planar magnetics and ribbons are a special variant of dynamic drivers as well), and my listening experience tells me they`re useless for anything but the casual listening - sorry I can`t put it more politely...
But of course, don`t listen to me, do what you feel is the best.
Best regards,
Miro
Hello Miro ,
I guess you have miss understood my response.. We do not listen to live music when we listen to hi-fi , we are listening to recordings of live music , Hence no hi-fi will sound like live music , just a recording of such and yes losing details in the recording is distortion , favoring one over the other ?.
I'm also aware the discussion is about ESl vs Planer , i was responding to what you said here :
small drivers, small effective surface area, long excursion - high surface loudness
Could you expound more on this and also what do you consider to be a small driver ..
I have also spent more than a couple decades developing and designing dynamic speakers, including OB designs ( 20 + yrs, commercially ) and understand there limitation , i also understand Audio is not absolute , there is no mine is better than yours and there never will, such discourse is nothing more than to exchange one's philosophy and preferred topology , as one mans symphony is another's anathema and as you i prefer the open sound of a line source over point source and do agree that it's openness does sound more like live music , but will have to acknowledge the tradoff's of using one topology over another. Again there is no absolute....
But of course, don`t listen to me, do what you feel is the best.
regards,
Last edited:
I think that to avoid the further deterioration of this thread, we should ask Borat what are his impressions (what he liked and didn't like or whatever?) about the ESLs and PMs he has heard so far. Otherwise it's just bench top racing....
ESLs can play VERY loud crossed over above 200Hz or so. I feel my ML SL3 (250Hz XO) are ear splitting in a medium room (and limited only by the 10 inch driver's excursion).
ESLs can play VERY loud crossed over above 200Hz or so. I feel my ML SL3 (250Hz XO) are ear splitting in a medium room (and limited only by the 10 inch driver's excursion).
lets make it low surface speed.
theoretically any diaphragm speed will result in doppler distortion so the less the better.
but speed and loudness is not the same. at lower frequencies less loudness will result in more speed.
its just that most drivers are so utterly horrible that doppler never comes into the picture obscured by other distortions. but if we assume that we can eliminate all other distortions then we have to start worrying about diaphragm speed.
there has to be some data on frequency resolution of human ear. for example can the ear tell between 999 hz and 1001 hz ? we could directly calculate maximum allowable speed from such data if it exists.
Last edited:
10" ? they better be headphones then
upon my advice a fella at AVSForum is building a system using 8 x LMS 5400 subwoofers. he will probably use 20+ kilowatts of power. would your ML be able to keep up with such a setup ?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.