I just picked up a pair of Acoustat Model 3's, and would like to replace the cloth grill socks, among other things. The original socks are still available (see me for details) but not in any color I like. I have heard that some ESLs use fabric to damp diaphram resonance, and so am left wondering if grill cloth other than the original will have adverse effects?
Thanks in advance for any advice. I can hardly wait to get these set up in my living room!
Thanks in advance for any advice. I can hardly wait to get these set up in my living room!
Personally, I prefer Acoustats without grill cloths at all, the panels in these speakers have individual resonance damping pads attached to the back of each one and that is all they really need. The grill cloths muffle the sound a bit and you can always turn down the high-frequency balance to compensate for any increased top end brightness without them. I plan to buy some very thin fabric to recover mine. (Have to keep the cat out!) 
Take care,
Doug
Take care,
Doug
grill socks
The Pesant speaks the truth. You can sock your stats with a sheer stretchy fabric the color of your choice. Stay with monofilament fabrics. Stay away from fiberous fabrics (fuzzy) as these will cause phase problems.
You might consider building a new simple set of frames and turn your Three's into 0ne plus 0ne's. The 0ne plus 0ne stages and images the best of all the acoustats and is visually more attractive than the fat short Three. Best of luck and regards Moray James.
The Pesant speaks the truth. You can sock your stats with a sheer stretchy fabric the color of your choice. Stay with monofilament fabrics. Stay away from fiberous fabrics (fuzzy) as these will cause phase problems.
You might consider building a new simple set of frames and turn your Three's into 0ne plus 0ne's. The 0ne plus 0ne stages and images the best of all the acoustats and is visually more attractive than the fat short Three. Best of luck and regards Moray James.
each to his own
I agree that the 3 configuration will make for better bass. However the three will not even come close to the stage and image qualities of a single wide Acoustat panel. Furthermore God made small high quality subs that will make better bass than a three. A couple of HSU 8 inch powered subs will make an excellent foundation for a set of 0ne plus 0ne's and the 10 inchers will drive a big room with ease. The combination will not be too expensive and one can always start off with no sub then move to mono sub and finally to stereo subs. As I said each to his own.
Here is a suggestion for the three's. This is one of those rare win win scenarios where we get the cake and eat it too. Set them up so that the narrower centre panel is firing straight ahead and is about 18 inches up off of the ground (in the frame with a solid panel below) and the two wider panels are situated on either side (at 90 degrees) running from the ground up. In this way you will get both the bass of a three configuration and the image of a 0ne plus 0ne. The extended height of the centre panel will ensure that you are not off axis of the panel when standing up. This should also offer a rather interesting architecture to the visual looks of the speaker. This configuration will also offer a very rigid structure which ought to also help in the bass dept.
Input is welcome regarding this idea. I have in the past done a number of Acoustats where there were two vertical stacks of panels fixed at right angles to each other. This resulted in the image and stage of a single wide stack with almost the bass of a two wide stack. Regards Moray James.
I agree that the 3 configuration will make for better bass. However the three will not even come close to the stage and image qualities of a single wide Acoustat panel. Furthermore God made small high quality subs that will make better bass than a three. A couple of HSU 8 inch powered subs will make an excellent foundation for a set of 0ne plus 0ne's and the 10 inchers will drive a big room with ease. The combination will not be too expensive and one can always start off with no sub then move to mono sub and finally to stereo subs. As I said each to his own.
Here is a suggestion for the three's. This is one of those rare win win scenarios where we get the cake and eat it too. Set them up so that the narrower centre panel is firing straight ahead and is about 18 inches up off of the ground (in the frame with a solid panel below) and the two wider panels are situated on either side (at 90 degrees) running from the ground up. In this way you will get both the bass of a three configuration and the image of a 0ne plus 0ne. The extended height of the centre panel will ensure that you are not off axis of the panel when standing up. This should also offer a rather interesting architecture to the visual looks of the speaker. This configuration will also offer a very rigid structure which ought to also help in the bass dept.
Input is welcome regarding this idea. I have in the past done a number of Acoustats where there were two vertical stacks of panels fixed at right angles to each other. This resulted in the image and stage of a single wide stack with almost the bass of a two wide stack. Regards Moray James.
the narrow path
All of the wider panels, 2,3 and four wide panels share the problem of poor image. Another part of the multi wide panels is that you get cancelation between the panels that are at angles to each other. Going to a single width panel (average 9 inches) will yield better image. A six inch wide panel will image better than a 9 inch one but then you start to loose low end response so it is a trade off. Hope this helps. Regards Moray James.
All of the wider panels, 2,3 and four wide panels share the problem of poor image. Another part of the multi wide panels is that you get cancelation between the panels that are at angles to each other. Going to a single width panel (average 9 inches) will yield better image. A six inch wide panel will image better than a 9 inch one but then you start to loose low end response so it is a trade off. Hope this helps. Regards Moray James.
more narrow path
Moray
Taking this further a 4" would have even better
sound stage & imaging which would be great playing
my singing chip monks collection. ( Jus' kidden')
But seriously is this because a narrow ESL has
more dispersion or is there more to it? Besides angle
cancelation between segments, does any kind of
segment in the panel degrade imaging?
Regards
Lucius
Moray
Taking this further a 4" would have even better
sound stage & imaging which would be great playing
my singing chip monks collection. ( Jus' kidden')
But seriously is this because a narrow ESL has
more dispersion or is there more to it? Besides angle
cancelation between segments, does any kind of
segment in the panel degrade imaging?
Regards
Lucius
Talk to the Captain
You are right. You might want to talk to jack seaton (captain jack) who is responsible for the zen speaker. Jack's zen is 4 inches wide and runs very wide range. If you segment a planel vertically with say a 1/4 inch wide stator spacer that will not have any adverse effect upon the performance of the panel. If you want you can PM me and we can see if the captain is available to talk to you. Regards Moray James.
You are right. You might want to talk to jack seaton (captain jack) who is responsible for the zen speaker. Jack's zen is 4 inches wide and runs very wide range. If you segment a planel vertically with say a 1/4 inch wide stator spacer that will not have any adverse effect upon the performance of the panel. If you want you can PM me and we can see if the captain is available to talk to you. Regards Moray James.
Moray
If leading you on to say dispersion is the key to sound stage
& imaging I guess I'm some kind of "right".
Before this I was thinking dispersion & imaging
were unrelated.
Coincidently in another thread "stacked acrylic esl"
i just posted an old link of Jack Sutton's as a good
example of off-set design but not to say the narrow
path is better. Here again:
http://mdarling.tripod.com/xencat.html
In the "Audio Circuit" You can find a picture of
this design. What would trouble me in the picture
is the 4" ESL is placed in a wide baffle. To me it
says for the same amount of work, why not just
build a wider ESL? Maybe nowadays cheap plug-in
D.S.P can make anyone a sound engineer where
the baffle could be eliminated.
Regards
Lucius
well.....
While you can build panels the same width as Jack's 4 inch (plus baffle) they will not have the same dispersion qualities. I think that what you ought to consider is to build some panels of different widths and learn for yourself exactly which you like the sound and presentation of. Regards Moray James.
While you can build panels the same width as Jack's 4 inch (plus baffle) they will not have the same dispersion qualities. I think that what you ought to consider is to build some panels of different widths and learn for yourself exactly which you like the sound and presentation of. Regards Moray James.
I'm gonna have to disagree here.
While it is likley that the single wide (thinner) arrangement will image slightly better - quite excellent imaging is available from the 3s & 4s.
There is an issue of room placement and listening position.
And, also with the single wide, say 1+1 there are several deficits:
- really worse bass
- a gap exactly at the ear height where the panels meet
- awful off axis response & imaging -- the 3s and 4s do much better there.
While a woofer could be employed to fill in the ~200Hz and down that a 1+1 likely requires, it's not going to have the coherency that the ESL alone will have. It's gonna be really really tough to get that impulse response to look the same once you add in the woofer! Does that matter to you or not, it makes a diff to me.
It is a yin/yang situation...
I've tried single cells, 1+1, 2s, 3s, & 4s, heard 6s... the best so far is a "space frame" custom set of 3s... (adjustable toe in angle on the outer cells, btw)
If you had to opt for the vertical config, I think that if you want to do it right, one would really need to add back the width in the form of "wings" to pull the bass region back from the world of cancellation... but then ur back to the original size, (or more like a Model 6) but without the increased output, headroom and sensitivity!
If you were image "crazy" perhaps the way to go is to keep it as a three, and do a pseudo "Spectra" keeping the middle cell full range and rolling off the outer two at an appropriate freq?
_-_-bear
PS. the description of Sutton's design seems identical to the one published in The Audio Amateur as "Amber" and that was a DIY clone of the Acoustat - so what is special about it?
While it is likley that the single wide (thinner) arrangement will image slightly better - quite excellent imaging is available from the 3s & 4s.
There is an issue of room placement and listening position.
And, also with the single wide, say 1+1 there are several deficits:
- really worse bass
- a gap exactly at the ear height where the panels meet
- awful off axis response & imaging -- the 3s and 4s do much better there.
While a woofer could be employed to fill in the ~200Hz and down that a 1+1 likely requires, it's not going to have the coherency that the ESL alone will have. It's gonna be really really tough to get that impulse response to look the same once you add in the woofer! Does that matter to you or not, it makes a diff to me.
It is a yin/yang situation...
I've tried single cells, 1+1, 2s, 3s, & 4s, heard 6s... the best so far is a "space frame" custom set of 3s... (adjustable toe in angle on the outer cells, btw)
If you had to opt for the vertical config, I think that if you want to do it right, one would really need to add back the width in the form of "wings" to pull the bass region back from the world of cancellation... but then ur back to the original size, (or more like a Model 6) but without the increased output, headroom and sensitivity!
If you were image "crazy" perhaps the way to go is to keep it as a three, and do a pseudo "Spectra" keeping the middle cell full range and rolling off the outer two at an appropriate freq?
_-_-bear
PS. the description of Sutton's design seems identical to the one published in The Audio Amateur as "Amber" and that was a DIY clone of the Acoustat - so what is special about it?
each to his own
Bear: I guess that I should say that you are right that the multiwide Acoustats can image. I don't think that I did a good job at saying what I did about that aspect of thier performance. I should have said that while muli panels can image I find that you are stuck to small don't move spots and there is a lot more lobing with hot and cold spots Vs a single wide narrow panel.
As for less bass with a 0ne plus 0ne well that just goes with the reduced panel area and I really don't think that most people want to try and make bass with ESL anyway. If you get the chance to hear the 0ne plus 0ne with an amp like the NuForce 9's you might also be surprised at just how much bass they can actually make, they still need a sub but there are lots of folks who would be satisfied with them with the right amp. You can get superb bass from a small size dynamic speaker or just add a sub of the powered variety. Narrow vertical panels also look very nice as opposed to squat wide ones but that too is really a matter of personal preference. The gap at ear height is probably a factor of your height and seating position. If you are building a diy you can place the panel gap anywhere that you want it. I have found that if your ear is even just a few inches off of the gap you cannot tell it is there. As to your comment to "awful off axis response" of narrower panels well there I will have to disagree with you. I have found that with good electronics and good placement thoe off axix response can be quite acceptable.
For the most part I think that you and I just have a different set of listening priorities and likes. The great thing about diy is that you get to have what you like.
Regarding "Caaptian Jack's" design and the Amber design well you need to give them a reread as they are quite different. All the best regards Moray James.
Bear: I guess that I should say that you are right that the multiwide Acoustats can image. I don't think that I did a good job at saying what I did about that aspect of thier performance. I should have said that while muli panels can image I find that you are stuck to small don't move spots and there is a lot more lobing with hot and cold spots Vs a single wide narrow panel.
As for less bass with a 0ne plus 0ne well that just goes with the reduced panel area and I really don't think that most people want to try and make bass with ESL anyway. If you get the chance to hear the 0ne plus 0ne with an amp like the NuForce 9's you might also be surprised at just how much bass they can actually make, they still need a sub but there are lots of folks who would be satisfied with them with the right amp. You can get superb bass from a small size dynamic speaker or just add a sub of the powered variety. Narrow vertical panels also look very nice as opposed to squat wide ones but that too is really a matter of personal preference. The gap at ear height is probably a factor of your height and seating position. If you are building a diy you can place the panel gap anywhere that you want it. I have found that if your ear is even just a few inches off of the gap you cannot tell it is there. As to your comment to "awful off axis response" of narrower panels well there I will have to disagree with you. I have found that with good electronics and good placement thoe off axix response can be quite acceptable.
For the most part I think that you and I just have a different set of listening priorities and likes. The great thing about diy is that you get to have what you like.
Regarding "Caaptian Jack's" design and the Amber design well you need to give them a reread as they are quite different. All the best regards Moray James.
Ok, what's inside a "NuForce" amplifier??
I think that you can make pretty significant bass with a 4 and really intense bass with 6s or 8s!!
Room placement plays a role.
Room reverberation plays a much larger role than you might expect!!
I have taken my Acoustats outside away from any surfaces except for the earth (not terribly reflective btw). Without a room in place it's a wholely different eye-opening experience! You want to talk about directional?? Whoa! Seriously directional and laser beam on axis required for highs... all that off axis stuff is due to the room reflections! Try it.
Now what is special about Captain Jack's design? His website shows no pix or illustrations, all I see from the read is that he uses foam double stick tape to bind the two stator halfs together?? Beyond that? I don't follow the bit something about offset something or other creating less stray capacitance... the site's not terribly useful in that regard.
_-_-bear
I think that you can make pretty significant bass with a 4 and really intense bass with 6s or 8s!!
Room placement plays a role.
Room reverberation plays a much larger role than you might expect!!
I have taken my Acoustats outside away from any surfaces except for the earth (not terribly reflective btw). Without a room in place it's a wholely different eye-opening experience! You want to talk about directional?? Whoa! Seriously directional and laser beam on axis required for highs... all that off axis stuff is due to the room reflections! Try it.
Now what is special about Captain Jack's design? His website shows no pix or illustrations, all I see from the read is that he uses foam double stick tape to bind the two stator halfs together?? Beyond that? I don't follow the bit something about offset something or other creating less stray capacitance... the site's not terribly useful in that regard.
_-_-bear
differences
Bear: I mentioned the NuForce amp simply because it is one amp that is capable of making bass. I have listende to the Acoustat 0ne plus 0ne's with the Ref 9's and it realy is a surprise just how much bass these can produce when the amp can handle thier load. Most amplifiers out there are just not all that happy to have a set of ESL's hanging on the output and I think that most people don't realize this and so think that the sound they hear is that of an ESL when it is really the sound of an unhappy amplifier. I agree about the bass capabilities of larger Acoustat models. I have listened to a set of Two plus Two's running on Meither MTR 101 mono blocks that had me up and looking around the room for the likes of a 24 inch Hartley subwoofer. Those speakers were braced to the ceiling with turnbuckles and about a year later developed cracks right across both side frames right where the two sets of panels meet, something that I would not have believed if I had not seen it myself. Where we diverge is I think on the overall size (panel) of what most would want in thier home. I think that if you look at the commercial market place you will find that big panels have come and gone for the most part with short lived stays. Yes there are still some excellent big ESL's out there but they occupy a small neich in the market. Small 8 and 10 inch powered subs that do not cost a lot can and do blend well with stats and make for a reasonable size combination that most still see as rather large.
Due to the polar response of tall line source panels like 0ne plus 0ne's they can be positioned close to side walls which will help thier bass response without destroying thie image and sound stage. In this kind of position they also get physically out of the way and can take up less apparent space than a small two way on a stand positioned well into the room.
Regarding the Captian's design I simply stated that it is indeed different ftom the Amber design. One being a narrow insulated wire stator with a low tension Saran diaphragm the other a aluminum screen stator with twin Mylar diaphragms with the static layer in between so the diaphragms provide the dielectric insulation. Different approaches that's all. Regards Moray James.
Bear: I mentioned the NuForce amp simply because it is one amp that is capable of making bass. I have listende to the Acoustat 0ne plus 0ne's with the Ref 9's and it realy is a surprise just how much bass these can produce when the amp can handle thier load. Most amplifiers out there are just not all that happy to have a set of ESL's hanging on the output and I think that most people don't realize this and so think that the sound they hear is that of an ESL when it is really the sound of an unhappy amplifier. I agree about the bass capabilities of larger Acoustat models. I have listened to a set of Two plus Two's running on Meither MTR 101 mono blocks that had me up and looking around the room for the likes of a 24 inch Hartley subwoofer. Those speakers were braced to the ceiling with turnbuckles and about a year later developed cracks right across both side frames right where the two sets of panels meet, something that I would not have believed if I had not seen it myself. Where we diverge is I think on the overall size (panel) of what most would want in thier home. I think that if you look at the commercial market place you will find that big panels have come and gone for the most part with short lived stays. Yes there are still some excellent big ESL's out there but they occupy a small neich in the market. Small 8 and 10 inch powered subs that do not cost a lot can and do blend well with stats and make for a reasonable size combination that most still see as rather large.
Due to the polar response of tall line source panels like 0ne plus 0ne's they can be positioned close to side walls which will help thier bass response without destroying thie image and sound stage. In this kind of position they also get physically out of the way and can take up less apparent space than a small two way on a stand positioned well into the room.
Regarding the Captian's design I simply stated that it is indeed different ftom the Amber design. One being a narrow insulated wire stator with a low tension Saran diaphragm the other a aluminum screen stator with twin Mylar diaphragms with the static layer in between so the diaphragms provide the dielectric insulation. Different approaches that's all. Regards Moray James.
Moray,
I have no idea what a "NuForce" amp is!
What is the circuit toopology/design?? Got a URL with any info?
I still have no idea what Captain Jack's designs are at all.
Saran wrap?
Static layer for insulation??
Can we have some more information/diagrams/description/jpegs?
And how is it different than the "Amber/Acoustat" if it uses plastic grid and wire?
Regards,
_-_-bear
PS. as far as WAF/acceptability - I'm only talking about absolute perfomance, not pleasing looks for a non-audiophile situation!
I have no idea what a "NuForce" amp is!
What is the circuit toopology/design?? Got a URL with any info?
I still have no idea what Captain Jack's designs are at all.
Saran wrap?
Static layer for insulation??
Can we have some more information/diagrams/description/jpegs?
And how is it different than the "Amber/Acoustat" if it uses plastic grid and wire?
Regards,
_-_-bear
PS. as far as WAF/acceptability - I'm only talking about absolute perfomance, not pleasing looks for a non-audiophile situation!
I am not aware that there was any intentional damping effect due to Acoustat's choice of grille cloth. That is not to say that the original cloth doesn't provide a small measure of damping, but it can't be very much. Acoustat did, however, provide intentional damping through the use of the felt block glued to the rear of each panel. They are there to control LF resonances. Some people will swear an improvement by removing them, but I'll leave that choice up to you. My preference is to leave them in place. In some cases the glue fails after many years, but can easily be re-applied using a spray contact cement like 3M #77. Apply the glue to the felt (NOT the panel), allow the glue to tack-up, and simply press back into position.
The original grille cloth was a double-knit polyester (yup, just like those pants you wore back in the 70's). It was chosen partially due to its visual opacity to hide the not-so-pretty innards of the speaker, but it does tend to muffle the sound slightly. Certainly, changing the cloth to a more shear single-knit will give better sonic results, although you'll be able to see the innards more easily. Running the speakers without grille socks is possible, but it's ugly and counter to domestic tranquility, and the grille cloth does provide a small measure of protection against dust, small fingers and other potentially damaging objects.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.