INVOLVE HISTORY IN ELECTROSTATICS AND STUFF X 4 = QUAD!!!!!!

[chucky3042]

My Martin Logans did have boomy bass. I came close to buying the all electrostatic CLS panels but didn't know of a good subwoofer at the time. and the CLS panels have a sweet spot the size of a mosquito's head. Now since Stereo Integrity subs are made, it's possible to cross over speakers around 100hz and have incredibly tight/accurate bass. 85 to 125 pound magnets control the cones like Putin controls things. The tightness of kick drums are as tight as the buttocks of a single digit aged Asian gymnast. And they play down into the single digits unlike 90% of the so-called subwoofers out there that peter out at 25hz.

The tightness of kick drums are as tight as the buttocks of a single digit aged Asian gymnast.

You have a great way with words sir!

 

[chucky3042]

Back to speakers and stuff.

Here is a nice bunch of tech stuff from the same report but focusing on cone speakers:

 

[ar surround]

As an offshoot question about mask wearing, do speaker grills adversely affect what we hear coming out of them? I see many people using their speakers without the grilles.

 

[chucky3042]

As an offshoot question about mask wearing, do speaker grills adversely affect what we hear coming out of them? I see many people using their speakers without the grilles.

It helps largely with electrostatics as it helps tame the panel mylar free resonance. With no cloth (as in our Y4 system) you end up having to compensate in the electronics

 

[J. PUPSTER]

It helps largely with electrostatics as it helps tame the panel mylar free resonance. With no cloth (as in our Y4 system) you end up having to compensate in the electronics

Gosh, that begs the question, what does “panel mylar free resonance” sound like?

 

[Soundfield]

Gosh, that begs the question, what does “panel mylar free resonance” sound like?

I imagine a sort of low frequency buzzing noise whose frequency is dependent on the size, shape, mass and tension of the panel.

I think you normally have to make sure your design places the fundamental free resonance frequency below the lowest frequency you wish to reproduce, but I'm sure Chucky will be able to confirm.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I imagine a sort of low frequency buzzing noise whose frequency is dependent on the size, shape, mass and tension of the panel.

I think you normally have to make sure your design places the fundamental free resonance frequency below the lowest frequency you wish to reproduce, but I'm sure Chucky will be able to confirm.

So I’m guessing, electronics like some kind of low frequency crossover limiter, since it’s an end of line physical attribute of the speaker?

 

[Nyad]

This is why I've soldiered on with my flawed but still sublime Martin Logan Sequel 2 panels, (now with new Sequel 3 panels at great cost). Inherited them from my folks who were moving, after many years the top end began to fade (even took them in the shower in futile hope of a fix). They are power hungry beasts, the panels are driven by a 300W Mosfet Perreaux amp while the subs use a 100W Plinius, the Perreaux has limiters so I can dial up the right ratio of juice (usually around 80%). Sweet spot of a pea, but mono records seem to work really well, you really need a big room to get them away from walls and corners. The new panels were quite bright/harsh when new, took a month or two to mellow out, but still I don't want to go back to cone speakers.

 

[stevendive]

That article on M Gerzon’s earlier work does show his general direction that resulted in FOA ambisonics, which laid the foundations for the current higher order uses. It’s frustrating that HOA hasn’t made it into our more domestically based area.

On use of Quad ESLs, I have 4 ESL63s in my ambisonic system along with a pair of KEF LS50s as sides in a (near as possible) hexagon. Way back in around 1982, I asked the maker of the Minim AD10 (and AD7 & 8) whether the ESL63 would be a good speaker and he was very enthusiastic. I can say, they work very well in this arrangement, via my now current Meridian G61RSL DSP.

 

[kfbkfb]

This might be OT, however, what is the current thinking about the best speaker polar response?

My Polk T15s are typical bookshelf speakers in their polar response (and suitable for my downstairs Quad system).

Electrostatic panels are by default dipoles and the ESL-63 simulates a point source sound source.

If a point source still represents current thinking, digital technology could be easily used to provide the small time delays for an ESL-63 type speaker and a combined speaker and specially designed amplifier(s) [to cope with the unusual electrical characteristics of electrostatic speakers] would solve the problem of finding an appropriate amplifier.


Maybe Involve Audio could build an updated ESL-63 type speaker combined with an amplifier.


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

I imagine a sort of low frequency buzzing noise whose frequency is dependent on the size, shape, mass and tension of the panel.

I think you normally have to make sure your design places the fundamental free resonance frequency below the lowest frequency you wish to reproduce, but I'm sure Chucky will be able to confirm.

Yeah it leads to a one note lumpy bass and the sound of the mylar thwacking against the stators

 

[chucky3042]

This might be OT, however, what is the current thinking about the best speaker polar response?

My Polk T15s are typical bookshelf speakers in their polar response (and suitable for my downstairs Quad system).

Electrostatic panels are by default dipoles and the ESL-63 simulates a point source sound source.

If a point source still represents current thinking, digital technology could be easily used to provide the small time delays for an ESL-63 type speaker and a combined speaker and specially designed amplifier(s) [to cope with the unusual electrical characteristics of electrostatic speakers] would solve the problem of finding an appropriate amplifier.


Maybe Involve Audio could build an updated ESL-63 type speaker combined with an amplifier.


Kirk Bayne

Hi Kirk

Really good question!
But first to discuss the issue of the point source as advocated in the Quad 63's . I never really understood the industry wide obsession that the perfect sound radiation source is the dot point. There are many issues that I would argue indicates that it is the opposite of what you want!

1 Not a lot of sounds are emitted from a point source....piano, orchestra, harp, drums, more a bunch of point sources possibly. This is quite unnatural.

2 It makes it very easy for the human ear to directionalise the distance to the point source.....meaning typically puts the sound stage 6 to 10 feet in front of you

3 The energy radiation from the point source is omnidirectional (good start) but it infers an inverse cube relationship with displacement with respect to distance.....meaning its bloody loud near the driver and real quiet say 3 meters out.

Back at my old factory 20 years ago (Vass Electronics) we were developing several electrostatic speakers....one was the ELS 3 as shown in Robs ER Audio site. We invited around 10 persons from the Melbourne Audio society to participate in a shoot out between the Quad 63 and our ELS 3. The result was 8 preferring our ELS3 and 2 preferring the Quad 63! Of the 2 that preferred the Quad, one was the owner and the other was an older lady with a hearing aid !!!!! All remarked that the ELS3 had a much deeper "image".

My verdict on the Quads was they are a very good speaker but suffered badly from being as flat as a tack on the depth of the apparent image and had a maximum SPL of a puny 96 db. So much for the magic of the concentric ring delay line point source myth.

Around 12 years ago Dave the ***** and I investigated "What makes a good loudspeaker sound bad and a bad loudspeaker sound good" And we did a 76 page report on it chock full of every known plot, THD, IMD, Impulse decay waterfall, frequency response etc. The result was totally unclear with often speakers with the poorer plots actually sounding more "real" and visa versa.

The end result..............................Roll drums.....................


A concentric Dipole (Bipole second best). It is not subtle, it really is dramatic. When compared to the crud being sold today (99.9%) nonconcentric monopoles no one preferred them . Comments were all like sharpening the image and position , like putting on a pair of glasses on a vision impaired person. We constructed very good instant A/ B test jigs so in a blind manner and me with my best polka face could instantly switch between non concentric monopole/ concentric dipole/ concentric bipole. I still have the jigs.

The dipole has typically a figure 8 polar pattern but can also be an omni (as in the Naka Dragon)

Another feature of the electrostatic is that it creates a planar wave (imagine an infinite number of point sources in an array - think of the Huygens principle). This effectively gives the listener no ability to triangulate distance, if you walk up to a large electrostatic panel with your eyes closed you will end up whacking your nose! Hence the creation of artificial depth.

Now I can feel an argument coming on, I might hide in my bunker.

 

[stevendive]

This might be OT, however, what is the current thinking about the best speaker polar response?

My Polk T15s are typical bookshelf speakers in their polar response (and suitable for my downstairs Quad system).

Electrostatic panels are by default dipoles and the ESL-63 simulates a point source sound source.

If a point source still represents current thinking, digital technology could be easily used to provide the small time delays for an ESL-63 type speaker and a combined speaker and specially designed amplifier(s) [to cope with the unusual electrical characteristics of electrostatic speakers] would solve the problem of finding an appropriate amplifier.


Maybe Involve Audio could build an updated ESL-63 type speaker combined with an amplifier.


Kirk Bayne

On point sources first. It’s not just coincidence in time that the Quads have, it’s coincidence in space. There is no angular difference in the Quads related to having separate radiators for different frequency ranges. Their response off axis varies evenly (asympotically) without significant colouration caused by bumps and notches related to spacing between drivers.

The thing is, if we can’t make assumptions about the angular separation between real sources WRT frequency then it’s simpler to make the speaker coincident. Real sound sources are usually wide range emitters.

(Nb. Stereo microphone setups only give lateral separation information and then only over a fairly narrow front sector. Periphonic (spherical) mics, such as Soundfield or Coresound TetraMic or Eigenmic and others, make full axial and elevation information available but using this requires something based on ambisonics and would still be better using point source loudspeakers.)

Second, any Quad amp with current dumping, from the 405 onwards, will drive many full range ESLs perfectly well. These Quads are unconditionally stable with any load. As for other brands that are suitably stable, you pays your money & you takes your choice. Any well designed amp that can cope with a reactive load may be worth auditioning.

Way back when the 63s first appeared, Naim amps were known to expire in a puff of blue smoke if used with them.

 

[Soundfield]

But first to discuss the issue of the point source as advocated in the Quad 63's . I never really understood the industry wide obsession that the perfect sound radiation source is the dot point. There are many issues that I would argue indicates that it is the opposite of what you want!

1 Not a lot of sounds are emitted from a point source....piano, orchestra, harp, drums, more a bunch of point sources possibly. This is quite unnatural.

But regardless of how they are emitted, those sounds are recorded at a point (i.e. a tiny microphone capsule). It is that point source information you are trying to replicate.

 

[kfbkfb]

...we did a 76 page report on it...

Maybe summarize this report and write a paper for the AES Journal, it seems to me it would be useful to share these speaker polar response findings with the World.


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

But regardless of how they are emitted, those sounds are recorded at a point (i.e. a tiny microphone capsule). It is that point source information you are trying to replicate.

Yes but as in the Quads 63' sthey then sound totally flat unlike the 57's that sound deep

 

[hobie1dog]

My verdict on the Quads was they are a very good speaker but suffered badly from being as flat as a tack on the depth of the apparent image and had a maximum SPL of a puny 96 db. So much for the magic of the concentric ring delay line point source myth.

96 db is the minimum level to listen to "Boston"

 

[chucky3042]

96 db is the minimum level to listen to "Boston"

I am pushing out 105 dB at the moment aiming at 112 db

 

[DuncanS]

96 db is the minimum level to listen to "Boston"

I am pushing out 105 dB at the moment aiming at 112 db

Certainly "More than a Feeling"!

 

[chucky3042]

This is one of our favorite LOUD tracks