What would you choose for Quad ESL-63, dipole or TL?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hi guys,

I read what I could from threads here. I would like to know if anyone has experience of their own in the past couple of years with dipole vs. TL alignments with ESL's.

I have $1,000 to spend for the bass drivers and I have a DCX2496 ready for use.

I was thinking of using four of these in a push-pull configuration:
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=8

Does anyone have input?

Thank you
 
l assume you are wanting to build a subwoofer for them, some time ago in a issue of HI-FI WORLD there was a project pubished for a di pole sub using audax woofers with an active x-over, l probably still have the article but have no way of scanning it and sending it to you: :bawling: sorry l cant be more help but some of the other bright sparks on this forum might be able to suggest something else, so in a nutshell its do-able :D
cheerrs T.C.
 
I have two friends who added bass woofers to Quad ESL 63.

1) used stereo sealed servo woofers. Friend used stereo Entec servo woofers crossed LR4 at 60 Hz. The Rhythmik Audio servo sub has gotten good reviews in diyAudio. This sealed servo design solution can pressurize any room to 20Hz bass. amazing powerful bass

2) used dipole stereo woofers. Two low Mms 12" woofers per side in standard dipole baffle with short rear facing sides to increase effective baffle length. He put both woofers facing foward for appearance. Crossed LR4 at 80Hz. He used 12" to match the ESL-63 26: width: Dimensions: 36" H by 26" W by 6" D (base 10" D). Dipoles cannot pressurize a room, so the room dimensions will set the deepest bass wavelength - very good integration to my ears

The AES 15" infinite baffle woofer you mentioned has very high Mms, which many ESL 63 owners have commented will not match the "speed/tone" of the ESL.

AES also makes a much more expensive $279 15" dipole woofer with lower Mms and under hung motor that would likely be a better match. Low Mms and high Bl woofers are mentioned on some diy websites as necessary to match the ESL 63.

If you search diyAudio for dipole woofers with low Mms and good BL, you should find several other options. The Peerless XLS is used by designers like Linkwitz.


Lambda Infinite Baffle
Fs: 16Hz
Qms: 6.8
Vas: 439L
Cms: .45mm/N
Mms: 220g very heavy*****
Rms: 3.239
Xmax: 18.5mm
Xmech: 25mm
Sd: 830sqcm
Vd: 3.07L (p-p)
Qes: .78
Re: 5.5ohm
Le: .33mH
Bl:12.49
Pe: 500W
Qts: .7
1WSPL: 86dB
2.83V: 87.3dB


T/S specs Lambda 15" dipoles. The speaker uses an underhung motor
Fs 21.66Hz
Vas 623L
Qms 15.16
Qes 1.002
Qts 0.94
Re 12.3 ohms
Impedance 16 ohms
Bl 12.26Tm
Mms 90g
Le 0.3mH
1Wspl90dB
xmax 13mm peak
voice coil height 12.4mm
air gap 38.4mm
Sd 855cm2
Pmax ~100W
 
The Lambda driver is perfect other than for it's size, two 12" subs would be optimum as you explained. Their 12" version is not quite as special for this application.

Anyone out there try an 8" or 10" driver in a TL cabinet?

If I had the resources I would try both the dipole and TL paths.
 
Disclaimer: My ESLs are ML CLSs revZ.

I recently bought a Velodyne DD-15 (ebay at $1200). And after getting the system setup and the sub-woofer tweeked for flat* responce, the system sound very well indeed. (*) flat is +/- 1 db from 17Hz through 135 Hz as shown on the DD-15 TV output. (This was not easy to achieve -- see below).

However, the HF roll off in the sub-woofer to power amp is slow enough (12dB/oct) that significant amounts of power are being delivered to the ESLs at the frequencies where the sub-woofer is operating (quite well). So, even though the sub-woofer has a HF filter to (partially) isolate the ESL from the sub, its not good enough. I had considerable difficulty matching sub and ESL responce as the sub passed over to the mains. Thus, the current plan is to build a (audiophile quality) LR-4 filter at 105 Hz and split the audio before the sub gets ahold of it. 105 Hz was chosen because the CLSs have a decending responce starting at 120 and bottoms out at 100, so the LR-4 filter would simply continue this decreasing responce. (Obviously QUADs will be a little different in frequency selection).

Second point: My ML CLSs do not produce big amounts of audio power (nor will most ESLs), so part of the issue with the big (1500 Watts) sub is turning it down LOW enough to mate with the speaker responce and to make recorded instruments sound like real instruments (not too much bass--just the right amount). So while my main power amp likes 2Vrms to drive the speakers as loud as my wife allows, the sub only needs 0.2Vrms. Thus attenuation is in order when I get around to building the LR-4 filter. Luckily there is a volume switch in the DD-15 to make this manageable.
 
Tosh, I am aware of the Gradient dipole subs. I have read mixed reviews about the integration between the Quads and the Gradients. The subwoofers can be found on the used market easily but I wanted to create my own version of the dipole subs gainphile posted in his reply to this thread.

I think the AE Speakers would take that design up a leave or two. At least I would hope.
 
Trying to solve the same problem differently (sealed woofers or bass reflex)

Having just gone wild and bought a reconditioned ESL63 from Quad I am very impressed. Especially with Acoustic music, such as World, Jazz and folk music I mostly listen too. The low bass on the quads is lovely for night time low level listening as the dipole bass does not disturb the neighbors I guess because of the directive nature of the Bass, but it is a little low on output and does not sound right for my electronic or dub music when I want daytime listening levels. The bass is very directional from the Quad's which as I said above is a strength late at night, with guests round for a beer or three its not ideal. To answer the original question, Dipole bass has this disadvantage and advantage. I have never heard a good transmission line speaker, but only experimented with a probably unsuitable driver of unknown specification gave a boom or muffled response, with a large pipe 3 meters long stuffed wool jumpers :)

My CX3400.aspx was nice for making my Linn Helix two ways active but is not tuned for Quad / Woofer integration but this experience showed the reason for getting a variable cross over before building a custom cross over. Then I found Mc Crypt Active switch X-Over 80 MK III which is tuned for the right cross over frequencies.

A high pass 12dB/Octave active filter on the Quad ESL 63's at 90-110 Hz seems to clean up the Quad ESL 63 bass no end with my electronic or dub music, but the bass was still missing. So I crossed over to a pair of Linn Helix Speakers. These have 7/8" bass units in a slot loaded bass reflex. This also has the benefit of greatly reducing the voltage I drive the Quads at so increasing my headroom particularly on TV, movies and web sites which often drop in very powerful bass notes.

The result was to my surprise a very good solution I do think the cross over should be improved upon.

All the comments on bass integration with Quad ESL 63's you get from particularly UK people are either due to not using an active cross over or alternatively obsessions for people with far bigger budgets than me (the Quad reconditioned Quad ESL 63's are hard for me to justify as is). This said I would love a new Quad 2905 if some one wants to give me one. The electrostatic bass sounds great what I have of it.

Since my recapped pairs of Quad 303 and unserviced Quad 306 amplifiers are both Cheap and excellent with the ESL's (The Quad 306 has better bass on speakers that can do it eg the Linn Helix, and the Quad 303 has marginally better midrange treble, I should recap the 306 and see if it can match the 303's here) I see no reason not to go for active cross overs as these amplifiers typically sell for far less than they should on the UK ebay site.

I am currently thinking I may get slightly better bass from a infinite baffle (closed baffle) 10" drivers and am wondering if the following drivers would make a nice sealed enclosure.

The Dayton RS225S-8 8" drivers should be good enough with just one, judging from my Linn speakers, That said I would want an improvement and so I am considering at least two of them, or even two of the alternative 10" speakers.

I notice Martin Logan have both sealed and ported woofers on their hybrids so if the bass extension is unsatisfying (I doubt it will be) I may try them in a ported enclosure.
 
I think the good smarts are in Owenhamburg's post.

A good woofer will woof good and at the frequencies of interest there's little to choose except for frequency response; with issues such as "speed" (whatever that could mean for a sub) or dispersion meaning little. Likewise, any crossover below say 150 Hz means a single mixed-bass woofer is great.

The key is, back to Owenhamburg, having a crossover that lets you tune. Like Owenhamburg, I have a Behringer CX3400, as flexible and tunable unit as any heart could desire. And cheap too. You'll need tools to measure the CX3400 to ensure the outputs are where you want them (rather than relying on the tiny silk-screened labels and wee knobs).

Funny, the old rule about 400,000 matters. You won't like the effect of adding profound bass unless you also have profound treble. Maybe my bad memory, but it seems the Quads have that excellent balance (my polite way of saying they are far below many modern speakers in tweeter power). Hence, adding bass spoils the balance.... unless you add more tweet too.

Ben
 
Last edited:
A good woofer will woof good and at the frequencies of interest there's little to choose except for frequency response; with issues such as "speed" (whatever that could mean for a sub) or dispersion meaning little. Likewise, any crossover below say 150 Hz means a single mixed-bass woofer is great.

The key is, back to Owenhamburg, having a crossover that lets you tune. Like Owenhamburg, I have a Behringer CX3400, as flexible and tunable unit as any heart could desire.

There are three keys to great bass response with ESL speakers: A) low frequency response, B) matched output levels, C) smooth transition between Bass and ESL.

What you really want is for the low frequency to blend in naturally with the lower mid range of the ESL so that the pair of speakers and the woofer have a room-integrated smooth flat response. By tweeking all the controls on the DD15, I got mine better than 2dB over 24Hz through 200 Hz. It took about an hour of screwing around to pull it off.

Funny, the old rule about 400,000 matters. You won't like the effect of adding profound bass unless you also have profound treble. <snip> Hence, adding bass spoils the balance.... unless you add more tweet too.

Balance is the key. One wants the sub woofer just to add that richness that the ESLs lack in the lower end, but stay hidden and out of the way. Most people don't realize that I even have a sub in the system, it is so well balanced (and hidden behind a console holding the TV above.)
 
Don't look at ML, because ML's main objective is high WAF (small box) so they're using ported boxes with active XO and EQ on several models.
Well, don't look at the more recent hybrids then.

There are some subwoofers being mated to the CLS series (single panel), one example I can think of uses the Martin Logan Depth subwoofer.

AudiogoN Forums: MartinLogan CLSIIz+Depth+MC275 McToobie
The omnidirectional woofer arrangement really makes two units unnecessary for good imaging,.....
 
Well, don't look at the more recent hybrids then.

There are some subwoofers being mated to the CLS series (single panel), one example I can think of uses the Martin Logan Depth subwoofer.

AudiogoN Forums: MartinLogan CLSIIz+Depth+MC275 McToobie

All woofers are omnidirectional. If the woofer is kind of behind the speakers and doesn't make any give-away squeaks, you can cross them in as high as 150 and no/little imaging or other charm is lost.

(Please don't reply with lab tests of low frequency localization. Not relevant.)

Ben
 
All woofers are omnidirectional.
If true (I'll take your word for it) then he just needs to find one fast enough and in proper phase/time in order to keep up with the Quads, right?

This looks interesting:
http://shackman-neu-test.reromanus.net/refurbish_quad.htm
Riipole_Subwoofer%2015Zoll%20VL.jpg

We recommend dipole/ripole subwoofers for Quads

.............and of course the classic solution:
The Gradient subwoofer
http://www.onethingaudio.net/FOR/QUA/63/9512-QUA-63-PIC-GRA.htm
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

Gradient subwoofer SW63
(provided by Mats Tornquist)
 
Last edited:
Nice pictures and stuff.

But what could you mean by "fast"?

Yes, a non-boxy ESL listener is not likely to like a boxy-sounding woofer, I would guess. But I don't know what fast means in a woofer... and if it has a meaning, whether that matters.

And about your comment about phase, aside from getting your two main L-R drivers to be in phase and maybe subtly on other occasions like having two mixed-bass same-signal subs close to one another, I can't say I ever found any better or worse phase in setting up a sub when using ESLs and/or the sub is off in a corner somewhere. Yes, when you are poking around with sine waves, you can find frequencies that are boosted or cut but overall, no superiority.

(Please, no references to lab studies that prove people are sensitive to phase issues.)

Sorry to be so grouchy. Must be the stock market.

Ben

Footnote: on the weekend, was working to integrate my AR-1W (sealed box) with my Klipschorn. No coherent way to do it (just think about it a minute) but any way works equally fine.
 
Last edited:
But what could you mean by "fast"?
I mean what ever sounds right to your ears.

Problems with room, location, matching up with the main speakers and measurements aside.

More on that Riipole_Subwoofer.
Strassacker: Speaker, Do-it-yourself
The RiPole 30 is a special dipole variety. This subwoofer design - patented by Axel Ridtahler - doesn't increase the woofer's resonance frequency (in free air it's at around 27 Hz), on the contrary, the resonance frequency of the mounted bass driver is reduced to 20.7 Hz.
ripol.jpg

ripol_double.jpg


About $120 per driver
98 EUR USD - Euro US Dollar Currency Exchange
98.0 EUR = 119.514527113 USD

Strassacker: Speaker, Do-it-yourself
RiPol RBS 512/8 Order No.: ga-gbs512 EUR 98,00
gbs512_v.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.