Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:30:18 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

It does depend on the summing point having zero impedance for perfect
operation, but otherwise I've always thought it an elegant design,
eminently suited for large scale production.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Alex wrote:

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the
budget, or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come
closest to that magical electrostatic sound?

The full tone Heill two-way with a heill bass element. Budgetary
consequences were not considered.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:07:39 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Alex wrote:

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the
budget, or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come
closest to that magical electrostatic sound?

The full tone Heill two-way with a heill bass element. Budgetary
consequences were not considered.

Alternatively, any Apogee pure planar, i.e. not Slant series. Very
cheap since the company went bust.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Hardly helpful, Stewart. If he hasn't got the room for Quad 988s, he can
hardly accommodate a pair of Scintillas!

Georgie Charles
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:07:39 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Alex wrote:

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the
budget, or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come
closest to that magical electrostatic sound?

The full tone Heill two-way with a heill bass element. Budgetary
consequences were not considered.

Alternatively, any Apogee pure planar, i.e. not Slant series. Very
cheap since the company went bust.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:51:47 GMT, "Georgie Charles"
wrote:

Hardly helpful, Stewart. If he hasn't got the room for Quad 988s, he can
hardly accommodate a pair of Scintillas!

Actually, he *could* accomodate Scintillas by using a little trick
which I discovered, and which you'll see explained at
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

It only works with planars which have the tweeter down one edge, and
mirror imaged. Basically, he will *not* obtain the sound of an ESL
with any box speaker, since most of the difference is in the dipole
dispersion pattern.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"

..... Basically, he will *not* obtain the sound of an ESL
with any box speaker, since most of the difference is in the dipole
dispersion pattern.



** Absolute bull****.

There is no basis for those assertions in reality.


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



( Pinkerton is a Fart - Audio is his Nemesis.)

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Actually, he *could* accommodate Scintillas by using
a little trick which I discovered, and which you'll see
explained at http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

It only works with planars which have the tweeter down
one edge, and mirror imaged. Basically, he will *not*
obtain the sound of an ESL with any box speaker, since
most of the difference is in the dipole dispersion pattern.

I respectfully disagree. The superiority of good planar speakers is due to the
superiority of their drivers, and is audible even if the rear wave is damped.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I respectfully disagree. The superiority of good planar speakers
is due to the superiority of their drivers, and is audible even if the
rear wave is damped.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. :-)

Many top-quality box speakers, such as the B&W N800 and the
JMLab Utopia, have very superior drivers indeed, and produce superb
sound quality, arguably better than almost any planar, but they most
certainly do not sound *the same* as large planars, which IME is
down to their completely different dispersion pattern. The Quad ESL
is of course unique, since it looks like a planar dipole, but is actually
a simulated point source.

I'll comment on this once more, than let it drop.

An "ideal" driver, among other things, would have a very low mass per unit area,
so it would be highly damped by its air load. * As good as some conventional
dynamic drivers are, none have as low a unit mass as an electrostatic or ribbon,
and I doubt many can match an ortho/iso-dynamic driver, when you take into
account the mass of the voice coil.

I have sporadically tried to work this out mathematically, to show that, the
lower the unit mass, the more-accurately the driver follows the input waveform,
and that there is an inherent upper limit to any driver's "fidelity," determined
simply by its unit mass. It is not an inherently complex problem, but my weak
understanding of electroacoustic systems has kept me from fully working it out.

* Peter Walker makes this point in his 1980 AES paper about the ESL-63.
Extremely low mass = a low reactive component in the equations, because the
driver's low mass means low stored energy. An ideal driver would have zero
mechanical reactance.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:07:58 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton"

..... Basically, he will *not* obtain the sound of an ESL
with any box speaker, since most of the difference is in the dipole
dispersion pattern.

** Absolute bull****.

There is no basis for those assertions in reality.

Bull**** yourself. I have owned dozens of speakers over the years, and
I have *never* heard a box speaker which could replicate the sound of
any large planar speaker. The Quads are of course an exception, since
they are not true dipoles. That's not to say that box speakers can't
be of the same or better quality, but they certainly don't sound *the
same* as large planars in any normal listening room.

( Pinkerton is a Fart - Audio is his Nemesis.)

Allison, you're a pathetic loser, as is obvious from that line alone.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:19:21 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Actually, he *could* accommodate Scintillas by using
a little trick which I discovered, and which you'll see
explained at http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

It only works with planars which have the tweeter down
one edge, and mirror imaged. Basically, he will *not*
obtain the sound of an ESL with any box speaker, since
most of the difference is in the dipole dispersion pattern.

I respectfully disagree. The superiority of good planar speakers is due to the
superiority of their drivers, and is audible even if the rear wave is damped.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. :-)

Many top-quality box speakers, such as the B&W N800 and the JMLab
Utopia, have very superior drivers indeed, and produce superb sound
quality, arguably better than almost any planar, but they most
certainly do not sound *the same* as large planars, which IME is down
to their completely different dispersion pattern. The Quad ESL is of
course unique, since it looks like a planar dipole, but is actually a
simulated point source.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering