The decision to discontinue the DD amp was driven by the potential liability issues due to the lethal voltages present and Mr. Strickland's conscience. The superiority of the DDs was well established by the time they were discontinued since both they and the interface were available until their demise. As Stereophile conceded, "the king is dead". Subsequently, and probably consequently, so was Acoustat. There's a short history at Audio Circuit. Marketing promoted the ostensible supersession of the interface. It's interesting discussion about further improvement/development of the DDs is conspicuously non existent. I can attest to my own experience having both the Monitor 3 and Model 3 with the best interfaces that the Monitor 3 simply spanks them. They are in a different league.
mr
mr
I think that the DD amps could be improved a lot (input and driver part). There was no choice in amps just this 1 model. With transformers different amp types could be used with far superior circuitry. So the comparisson is unfair. If the cheap opamps in the DD amps are replaced by something more advanced then the story would be different. Yes the amps are dangerous when opened but were very stable (for a tube amp). Only when modified these became unreliable.
The reason for me to build my own was simple. They sounded just not good enough for me.
Not all DD drive amps are Acoustat (for me that is)!
We must try not to generalize all DD amps just because we do not like the Acoustat amps.
One can say that no tube amp is good as i have heard one ....
Then you also would ask... wich one did you hear... no ?
In 2007 i have demoed my amps at a ESL club meeting as can be see on the picture.. The other picteres show a rebuild of a Beveridge DD amp.
The reason for me to build my own was simple. They sounded just not good enough for me.
Not all DD drive amps are Acoustat (for me that is)!
We must try not to generalize all DD amps just because we do not like the Acoustat amps.
One can say that no tube amp is good as i have heard one ....
Then you also would ask... wich one did you hear... no ?
In 2007 i have demoed my amps at a ESL club meeting as can be see on the picture.. The other picteres show a rebuild of a Beveridge DD amp.
Attachments
Last edited:
Unfortunately? The panels are virtually indestructable. Mine are all still as new. I had Roy Esposito, one of the principal EEs rebuild 2 TNT200 amps with mono switches. Yes they are good but I would not say “great”. He also rebuilt a TNT120 that I thought was better sounding. The thing is the interface puts the speakers at an even comparative playing field with other conventional speakers but directly driving ESLs raises the bar.
At this moment a new frame is made for my panels as i added some 1+1 to my Monitor 4's. It doesn't look nice this way. All panels will be put in one frame like in the Monitor 3's just 2 on top of each other. Some baffles on each side, so they will be as wide as the Monitor 4's. When the frames arrive i will make some pictures.
So you will have 5 panels side by side per speaker? It's been a very long time since I listened to Model 4s. But they apparently had problems in terms of vertical dispersion because of their overall width. I was contemplating on a pair of 6s, 3 stacked on 3, but I'll have to think about it some more now. The damped isobaric configuration really tightens and cleans up the sound. I want to keep that performance. I will probably leave it as is. I was going to use some seriously heavy guage piano hinges as frame work to be able to set the angle between panels optimally to listening position. They are available here in 7' lengths and 1/8" thick steel.
i have now 5 panels side by side but would like to change that to 3. The mid panels are a bit slimmer then the outside panels. The 1+1 is a stacked ESL with wider panels (same as the outer panels of the Model 4's). So if i stack the mid panels and then also the outer panels plus the 1+1 i wil have a stacked Model 3.
Attachments
I am contemplating a new frame for four Acoustat 3 wire panels - two over two, like the original 2+2, but top two in front and over the two in back - about 6" overlap - to get the overall height to 7 feet tall.
Since the amplitude of the mylar movement gets smaller and smaller as you get to the fixed edge of panel, I should only be taking a couple inches of music making panel out of commission, only real issue is the 3" distance of diagram front top panel to back bottom panel...
I always loved my 2+2, but I had to cut out a hole in my ceiling tile for them to fit...
Since the amplitude of the mylar movement gets smaller and smaller as you get to the fixed edge of panel, I should only be taking a couple inches of music making panel out of commission, only real issue is the 3" distance of diagram front top panel to back bottom panel...
I always loved my 2+2, but I had to cut out a hole in my ceiling tile for them to fit...
I would not do this. Instead i would have them arranged side by side on different hights. So the total speaker will be from floor to ceiling but never overlap, maybe even diagonal but never overlap unless it is overall like a sandwich construction.
Attachments
![XABP9637[1].JPG](/community/data/attachments/845/845421-befff9655c95a0c67a4f611fa12ac764.jpg)
![PYGI2749[1].JPG](/community/data/attachments/845/845426-58c7565e6e369daf3f46b8a3c6d2b901.jpg)
Last edited:
No, mine are exactly in line with each other. If you set one the way you suggest, I think there would be a time alignment issue.