So add in the bottom end and you're upwards of 110db give or take?
That'll do
Yes it works very well. Here’s the link to the plans. It’s available as a flat pack as well.
E-250 Front Horn 3D CAD Files + Drawings – Joseph Crowe
Attachments
maybe you had not considered that ESL are the most dynamic devices short of plasma designs. They have a high tension film diaphragm and they are set into motion with insignificant electrostatic forces. Ribbons horn and ESL are the most dynamic devices in the loudspeaker world. Problem is they are difficult to drive and that is where the catch is.
Why planar is physically dynamic but it does not sound dynamic?
I think the answer is the recorded music is not dynamic. All of the recording are dynamically compressed from the beginning once the sound wave goes through microphone, but some are less compressed at the end.
The less compressed music such as classical chamber music sounds good with planners, while more compressed music like Beatles is not very convincing with planars. It is not the bass response. Beatles usually sound great with full range speakers which also has very limited low frequency response.
In my experience, the speakers with large surface MID/HIGH FREQUENCY transducer do not sound good with heavily compressed music, probably because the large surface area reveal the mid/high frequency compression needlessly, which makes us feel music less dynamic. Those recordings are not intended be reproduced by ESL anyway.
I think the answer is the recorded music is not dynamic. All of the recording are dynamically compressed from the beginning once the sound wave goes through microphone, but some are less compressed at the end.
The less compressed music such as classical chamber music sounds good with planners, while more compressed music like Beatles is not very convincing with planars. It is not the bass response. Beatles usually sound great with full range speakers which also has very limited low frequency response.
In my experience, the speakers with large surface MID/HIGH FREQUENCY transducer do not sound good with heavily compressed music, probably because the large surface area reveal the mid/high frequency compression needlessly, which makes us feel music less dynamic. Those recordings are not intended be reproduced by ESL anyway.
Last edited:
@Discopete,
I can't agree more about what Plasnu is saying as a Beatles lover, I will add, many cd players are weak in the mid bass as well in the way they manage the slam (dynamic is good on digital when the reccording allow it but this snap is a little flatted in many DAC designs) vs some older vynils...at least It's my feeling with beatles whatever the remasterisation. All of that to say there is a website that rate reccordings by dynamic range to the less compressed to the most. Great help to test yourself your system with all sort of music from Led Zepelin to Bach.... I don't remenber the link but I used to surf on it. Perhaps someone would help here to provide you this link.
I can't agree more about what Plasnu is saying as a Beatles lover, I will add, many cd players are weak in the mid bass as well in the way they manage the slam (dynamic is good on digital when the reccording allow it but this snap is a little flatted in many DAC designs) vs some older vynils...at least It's my feeling with beatles whatever the remasterisation. All of that to say there is a website that rate reccordings by dynamic range to the less compressed to the most. Great help to test yourself your system with all sort of music from Led Zepelin to Bach.... I don't remenber the link but I used to surf on it. Perhaps someone would help here to provide you this link.
Last edited:
Nothing better than a good non compressed reccording of an unpluged event in a good enough venue to understand what dynamic is about...halas analog to digital doesn t help often, and as stated by many in this thread compressed and mixed music is made for tiny headphones and bookshelves speakers...
This generally describes music with limited bass energy and limited loudness. In some parlance this is also called great microdynamics.
Which is exactly the same way i feel about electrostats.
Then again, how realistic is it to expect that something light, thin, soft and with a huge surface area would move as a perfect piston?
... imho it,s about the room below its Helmothz frequency and also the dipole nature which have pain to presurize that can pollute out of phase the harmonics of the slam, impact...
Theorically, when the perfect puston behavior is lost at the maximal tight and surface...then increase the surface for bass with several pannels... indeed short horn because its progressive air impedance adaptation should help and back sealed should help if the back wave don t play ping pong too much with the thin planar...below 60 to 80 hz i m not sure planars are usefull. However Magneplanar claims theit little woofers help in the 40 to 200 hz...imho they just renforce the spl...and if it,s below the 2 ms it s ok...under 2 ms, eats and brain don t see the difference then we are in the bias area...
Theorically, when the perfect puston behavior is lost at the maximal tight and surface...then increase the surface for bass with several pannels... indeed short horn because its progressive air impedance adaptation should help and back sealed should help if the back wave don t play ping pong too much with the thin planar...below 60 to 80 hz i m not sure planars are usefull. However Magneplanar claims theit little woofers help in the 40 to 200 hz...imho they just renforce the spl...and if it,s below the 2 ms it s ok...under 2 ms, eats and brain don t see the difference then we are in the bias area...
Personally I think the approach is brilliant. Commercially the acoustic lens (not horn) was a dead end, but the lens works well. FWIW, the panels were not that large, ranging from 1'x3' to 1'x6'. I disagree with some of the engineering choices they made, but the lens itself is magnificent.
Temper my opinion with the fact that I own both the Beveridge Model 3 and 5.
Temper my opinion with the fact that I own both the Beveridge Model 3 and 5.
They are very good, up to a certain point. Bevs never were known for playing very loud, and these are no exceptions. I've not pulled out my SPL meter to see where I listen, but I listen mainly to piano, chamber, jazz and symphony music. My wife is more of a rock and roll girl, and they work fine. Neither of us listen at particularly loud levels.
I will give a strong qualifier that these speakers are now 40 years old or so, and need some attention. The Model 5 will be rebuilt completely. The Model 3 sounds decent, and may just need some panel cleanup and attention to the bias supply. I intend to biamp them, so I don't care much about the crossover.
It also does not help that the room where the Model 3 is located has awful acoustics. Also, that the ultimate SPL is lower makes sense when you consider how widely the panel sound is dispersed.
I have heard a really good horn setup with a Raal tweeter driven by (I think) a single-ended triode. The dynamics simply were outstanding. The Bevs are close, but not quite in the same class.
I will give a strong qualifier that these speakers are now 40 years old or so, and need some attention. The Model 5 will be rebuilt completely. The Model 3 sounds decent, and may just need some panel cleanup and attention to the bias supply. I intend to biamp them, so I don't care much about the crossover.
It also does not help that the room where the Model 3 is located has awful acoustics. Also, that the ultimate SPL is lower makes sense when you consider how widely the panel sound is dispersed.
I have heard a really good horn setup with a Raal tweeter driven by (I think) a single-ended triode. The dynamics simply were outstanding. The Bevs are close, but not quite in the same class.
I suppose the lenses quiet down the panels significantly also. To my ear, the Acoustats are not lacking from about 200hz up. They remain very dynamic even 12 ft. away. The bottom end is the issue so I do have a couple of powered subs. That fixes it. It's the dispersion I'd like to help but not at the expense of 115db at 20ft. performance. That ability makes them very life like. I regularly listen at 105-110db at 13ft. away. With the servo OTLs they are very transparent.
You won't get that SPL out of the Bevs. The Model 3 claims to do 100 db (distance not remembered) with 115 db peaks, but to me it just is not that important. I'd bet we rarely listen above 85 or 90 db at 6 to 12 feet, and usually SPLs are lower.
I'm trying to get a DD OTL for the Model 3, and I have a solid lead, and intend to use free-standing subwoofers. We'll see. I will say that once you get used to line sources, which you probably have, having lateral positioning latitude (no "head in the vice" syndrome) it is awfully hard to give up.
The SPL topic was one that Bev struggled with over the years. The first was a full-range, DD electrostatic. Pretty much everyone agreed that they just did not play loud enough. He then modified the lens a bit, and added free-standing subwoofers (2-SW) crossed over at about 70 or 100 Hz. That added 10 db of SPL, and it satisfied many. Then he increased the Xover to 200 Hz, included the woofers in the cabinet (a mistake in my book), and took out the DD amps -- that's the Model 3. I won't go into the later models, but you get the idea.
Detail, air, imaging, and micro- and macrodynamics are great up to a certain point. But 115 db at 20 ft just will not happen with them unless you raise the Xover to, say 500 Hz and use a separate woofer tower to match the radiation pattern of the line source. There are other concerns, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I'm trying to get a DD OTL for the Model 3, and I have a solid lead, and intend to use free-standing subwoofers. We'll see. I will say that once you get used to line sources, which you probably have, having lateral positioning latitude (no "head in the vice" syndrome) it is awfully hard to give up.
The SPL topic was one that Bev struggled with over the years. The first was a full-range, DD electrostatic. Pretty much everyone agreed that they just did not play loud enough. He then modified the lens a bit, and added free-standing subwoofers (2-SW) crossed over at about 70 or 100 Hz. That added 10 db of SPL, and it satisfied many. Then he increased the Xover to 200 Hz, included the woofers in the cabinet (a mistake in my book), and took out the DD amps -- that's the Model 3. I won't go into the later models, but you get the idea.
Detail, air, imaging, and micro- and macrodynamics are great up to a certain point. But 115 db at 20 ft just will not happen with them unless you raise the Xover to, say 500 Hz and use a separate woofer tower to match the radiation pattern of the line source. There are other concerns, but I'll leave it at that for now.
If you want to listen at these SPLs, you really should look into horns. Modern ones have gotten quite good, and their efficiency helps them a LOT to achieve these sorts of SPLs with very low distortion. The sweet spot is larger than the old Quads (for example) but is not anything like the Bevs.
But if you want such high SPLs (really!?) then you really should move to horns.
In principle you can do this with electrostatics, but that just is not what they do best.
I disagree. 115 db is 115 db. You want reasonable frequency response, decent dispersion (or power response), both of which which horns do well if designed properly, and low distortion. Their transient response also usually is superb. Ringing and mouth reflections have been reduced substantially.
Simply, if you want to listen at high SPLs, you should use horns. But if you are happy with what you have, who am I to quibble?
Simply, if you want to listen at high SPLs, you should use horns. But if you are happy with what you have, who am I to quibble?
I saw Beveridge's son has designed a model with separate enclosure for the lows....
I have please a question about what you experienced with your Beveridges. Do the imaging/3D scaling and spl equilibrium change with the front wall distance ? For instance, does it work with the towers on the front wall or better few inches from it ?
With all the good skills at diyaudio, it could be fun to carpenter a Beveridge tower...
For ESLs that cut off at 200 to 500 Hz, there would be not so much subwoofer servo controlled able to climb well that highs.... Certainly a transmission line as made by several with its little bump where the ears like is an answer, but imho a 6" (with towers option to increase the patern quality and reduce drivers size) or several in a sealed enclosure at Qtc 0.5 to 0.7 would match better...DSP, etc...As Logan did and the cool system seen above with the mid bass towers and distributed sub behind the sofa.... coool
I have please a question about what you experienced with your Beveridges. Do the imaging/3D scaling and spl equilibrium change with the front wall distance ? For instance, does it work with the towers on the front wall or better few inches from it ?
With all the good skills at diyaudio, it could be fun to carpenter a Beveridge tower...
For ESLs that cut off at 200 to 500 Hz, there would be not so much subwoofer servo controlled able to climb well that highs.... Certainly a transmission line as made by several with its little bump where the ears like is an answer, but imho a 6" (with towers option to increase the patern quality and reduce drivers size) or several in a sealed enclosure at Qtc 0.5 to 0.7 would match better...DSP, etc...As Logan did and the cool system seen above with the mid bass towers and distributed sub behind the sofa.... coool
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.