Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Robert Morein wrote:

"TonyP" wrote in message
. net...

Robert Morein wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

Alright, they have four panels, which I know, having a bunch of spares in my
closet, but they are identical in size and frequency response.
The substance of the discussion is not changed by this revelation.

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"? The 1+1's did,
so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong. And 4 drivers are not a
single driver.
Have a nice day.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"William Sommerwerck"

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full
audio
range.


** Shame about all those tube amplifies with output transformers that are
flat from a few Hz to 100 kHz .

Shame about the Quad ESL 57, 63, 988 etc which use step up transformers
covering the whole audio range.





.............. Phil

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:57:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

Curious that Sound Lab, Quad, Martin-Logan, C-J, ARC et al seem to
have no trouble finding high power wideband trannies..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.


You've not noticed the odd fundamental difference between speakers and
headphones?

If you are hinting that headphones have only one driver,
I have a pair of old Pioneer dual-concentric phones.

A fine example of marketing leading engineering.


I have a pair of AKG K340's, elecrostatic plus dynamic for LF.
So, 2 drivers for engineering reasons in a headphone.

Regards
Ian

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:57:41 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

audio range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary
outputs of a large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small
transformer (with poor HF performance) using a simple first-order
crossover. This was the Medallion system, I believe.

Duh? Did I read that the right way? Both transformers had a poor HF
performance? I trust that they had super hong-kong tweeters to go with
them then... ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary
outputs of a large transformer (with poor HF performance) with
a small transformer (with poor HF performance) using a simple
first-order crossover.

Duh? Did I read that the right way? Both transformers had a poor
HF performance? I trust that they had super hong-kong tweeters
to go with them then... ;-)

It was a copy-and-paste oversight. It should have been HF and LF, respectively.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Ian wrote:
A fine example of marketing leading engineering.


I have a pair of AKG K340's, elecrostatic plus dynamic for LF.
So, 2 drivers for engineering reasons in a headphone.

Only if electrostatic drivers had any real benefit in headphones. Which I
doubt.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:33:35 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:


It was a copy-and-paste oversight. It should have been HF and LF,
respectively.

grin I think we figured that out ok.
I was only being a pita just out of badness. :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

Thanks Bill. I sold my 1+1's and gave away all the literature I had for
it (bought the speakers new back in the 80's). I know that the panels
were full range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

I enjoyed the speakers for many years. I heard some that sounded better,
but not worth the cost. The high end of the speakers was there, although
slightly veiled. I never messed with the "slider" where you could
increase the high frequency tilt by +2db or so. I left it in a "flat"
position.