Is it possible to activate ESL57’s, would it be necessary to use more than one TX?
I would like to tailor frequency response and time alignment using DSP. I would also like to filter system with high pass at circa 100-120hz and use a dipole sub so that higher dynamic range can be exploited with reduced risk of arcing
Many thanks for any insights
Gary
I would like to tailor frequency response and time alignment using DSP. I would also like to filter system with high pass at circa 100-120hz and use a dipole sub so that higher dynamic range can be exploited with reduced risk of arcing
Many thanks for any insights
Gary
The arcing comes from the treble, not the bass. You can drive the bejesus out of the bass panels with little risk. The treble panel arcs at about 3000v across it. So for the quad to play louder, you'd filter out everything ABOVE 120 hz and use the quad as the worst possible subwoofer you could imagine. You can get 3dB increase in output by stacking two pairs.
As to your first question, you'd need three input transformers to tri-amp the speaker.
But why would you want to? IF you are going to that level of pain, why not build something that isn't as compromised as the 57. Start with a clean slate. Use slotted circuit boards for stators with the copper buried in a middle layer for insulation. Segment in vertical strips for better horizontal dispersion, and combine that with a transmission line woofer crossed over low and steeply like at 120Hz with a high quality active crossover. Then you've got a speaker that will outperform the 57 in just about every imaginable way.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
As to your first question, you'd need three input transformers to tri-amp the speaker.
But why would you want to? IF you are going to that level of pain, why not build something that isn't as compromised as the 57. Start with a clean slate. Use slotted circuit boards for stators with the copper buried in a middle layer for insulation. Segment in vertical strips for better horizontal dispersion, and combine that with a transmission line woofer crossed over low and steeply like at 120Hz with a high quality active crossover. Then you've got a speaker that will outperform the 57 in just about every imaginable way.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
Hi, yes, a High pass filter, so that the ESL57 doesn’t get to see the LF that might compromise its bass panels. I thought that this is what I tried to described. It is the way that I might split the amplifier load for LF and HF that I’d like to try to understand, or does the fact that the panels are driven from Transformer secondary’s mean that the accepted advantages of activating speakers are no longer applicable for an ESL of this type?
1. While bi-amping has monumental benefits for shaking-cardboard cone drivers, not the same scale of benefits for ESLs to bi-amp or to use two transformers.*
2. DSP works just fine without bi-amping or bi-transforming. So if the speaker works OK, why bother?
While we ESL people think our systems are already great, I found DSP quite beneficial.
B.
*anyone who has played with matching circuits can see how hard it is to mate an amp to the impedances of an ESL if the bandwidth is broad. So bi-amping or bi-transforming has some benefits.
Yes, you described what you want to do clearly and I understand. You want the 57's to play more loudly and think that you might get there by bi-amping them. Do I have that correct?
What I'm saying is that the bass isn't the problem. you can pump a TON of power to the bass panels. The treble panel is the problem and it will only play so loudly before it arcs. So I was saying that you can't get there with tri-amping (you'll need three, since it's a three way speaker), because no amount of bass relief will prevent the quad 57 treble panel from arcing at about 3000v. So you can't get the speaker to play more loudly that way.
The other thing I was saying is that you are taking a very old and compromised speaker and trying to do a major rework on it. And for less effort you can start from scratch with modern materials and techniques and have a much better product at the end.
Humor me through an analogy: Let's say you have an Austin-Healey bug eyed sprite car. It's a great and fun little roadster that is well balanced. But looking at it along side any modern car, it's a complete piece of crap. You would like to get closer to modern car performance, and are planning to rip out the engine, drivetrain. and suspension in hopes of improving the performance. You labor away at great time and expense and at the end you indeed have improved the sprite. But the sprite is now worthless if you ever wanted to sell it, and is such a white elephant that nobody would want to touch it if it needs repairs. Plus it cost you more in time and money than if you went out and built a modern kit car.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.