Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.

Yes. I remember hearing some that were let flush into a wall - but open to
the 'room' on the other side. They sounded similar to normal - albeit
rather quiet. ;-)

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I can't agree with that. The Quad ESL diaphragm is driven very
symmetrically, so you would expect low-distortion, but even the
old iso-dynamic Magneplanars such as my MG2.5Rs which have
asymmetrical drive (the magnets are all on one side of the
diaphragm), and therefore should have noticeable even-harmonic
distortion still sound more like other planar speakers than they do
like a box speaker.

I think what you're hearing is the fact they're both "large" sound sources. It
took Magneplanar many years to produce a speaker that approached the overall
transparency of the better dynamics.

One of the "proofs" (???) of the superiority of good planar speakers can be
demonstrated by disconnecting the mid/tweeter in an Apogee and driving the
woofer panel with the full-range signal. Try _that_ with a cone woofer!

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In message , William Sommerwerck
writes
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 can't agree with that. The Quad ESL diaphragm is driven very
symmetrically, so you would expect low-distortion, but even the old
iso-dynamic Magneplanars such as my MG2.5Rs which have asymmetrical
drive (the magnets are all on one side of the diaphragm), and therefore
should have noticeable even-harmonic distortion still sound more like
other planar speakers than they do like a box speaker.
--
Chris Morriss

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

..... 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.


** You original claim was bull**** since it was riddled with undefined
terms - no doubt deliberately made like that so you could define them
later to suit any counter argument proposed.

*Now* you change it to " ... I have never heard.... " which is nothing
more than a pompous comment about *yourself* - the one topic a person
can always claim to hold unique expertise over.


The Quads are of course an exception, since
they are not true dipoles.


** The Quad 57s and 63s are however the worlds best known ESLs - making
your original "bull****" claim even more worthless when they are excluded by
the use of tardy definitions of convenience.


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.



** I fear that pinning down Pinkerton's "sound" and "normal" is going to
become harder that catching a fish with bare hands.



.......... Phil



Pinkerton is a Fart - Audio is his Nemesis

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.

Yes I agree - I think a lot of 'soundstaging' - though a pleasant illusion - is
a bit of a red herring as a goal in itself. The uncoloured tonal accuracy,
speed and timbre is really the planar's hallmark.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:07:49 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.

Or of course you could just use materials with good self-damping, such
as the Focal 'W' sandwich, or B&Ws Kevlar.

* 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.

Irrelevant. F=ma, so to get the same 'speed' from a driver, you can
reduce m, as in ESLs and other large planars, or you can increase F,
as in ATC and Focal drivers with massive magnets.

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.

Actually, it's the fact that it's not true, that makes it difficult to
work 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.

Sez who?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:31:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.

Yes. I remember hearing some that were let flush into a wall - but open to
the 'room' on the other side. They sounded similar to normal - albeit
rather quiet. ;-)

Funny you should mention that. One of the most dynamic systems I ever
heard was just a pair of olde worlde Tannoy Monitor Gold drivers let
into the listening room wall, open to the integral garage on the other
side of the wall. Simple, unobtrusive, but *great* sound and of course
no cabinet effects.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:41:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I can't agree with that. The Quad ESL diaphragm is driven very
symmetrically, so you would expect low-distortion, but even the
old iso-dynamic Magneplanars such as my MG2.5Rs which have
asymmetrical drive (the magnets are all on one side of the
diaphragm), and therefore should have noticeable even-harmonic
distortion still sound more like other planar speakers than they do
like a box speaker.

I think what you're hearing is the fact they're both "large" sound sources. It
took Magneplanar many years to produce a speaker that approached the overall
transparency of the better dynamics.

One of the "proofs" (???) of the superiority of good planar speakers can be
demonstrated by disconnecting the mid/tweeter in an Apogee and driving the
woofer panel with the full-range signal. Try _that_ with a cone woofer!

Works pretty well with Lowthers and Eclipses - perhaps less well with
the Bose 901! Your argument is of course quite spurious, since a
conventional woofer is not *designed* to handle a full range signal. I
happen to prefer the sound of large planars myself, but I wouldn't
argue that they're 'inherently superior' to well-designed dynamic
speakers.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:05:41 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

The Quads are of course an exception, since
they are not true dipoles.

** The Quad 57s and 63s are however the worlds best known ESLs - making
your original "bull****" claim even more worthless when they are excluded by
the use of tardy definitions of convenience.

Ignorant ****. The '57 is a totally different design, and *is* a true
dipole. And doesn't sound anything like a box speaker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

The Quads are of course an exception, since
they are not true dipoles.

** The Quad 57s and 63s are however the worlds best known ESLs - making
your original "bull****" claim even more worthless when they are excluded
by
the use of tardy definitions of convenience.

Ignorant ****.


** You snipped all my post except for one comment - then DELIBERATELY
misinterpreted it so you could post abuse.


I will post it all again since it remains unchallenged.


"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.


** You original claim was bull**** since it was riddled with undefined
terms - no doubt deliberately made like that so you could define them
later to suit any counter argument proposed.

*Now* you change it to " ... I have never heard.... " which is nothing
more than a pompous comment about *yourself* - the one topic a person
can always claim to hold unique expertise over.


The Quads are of course an exception, since
they are not true dipoles.


** The Quad 57s and 63s are however the worlds best known ESLs - making
your original "bull****" claim even more worthless when they are excluded by
the use of tardy definitions of convenience.


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.



** I fear that pinning down Pinkerton's "sound" and "normal" is going to
become harder that catching a fish with bare hands.


.......... Phil




Pinkerton is a Vile Turd - Audio is his Nemesis