Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:55:53 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:30:45 GMT, Alex wrote:

Please nominate your candidates for a poor man's 988, poor in money but
more importantlly poor in square feet.

Make room and get some used 63s. :-)

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

MINe 109 said:

Price for 988 but space as well. Otherwise I could afford a used
ESL-63. The Quads are too wide for my room. A narrower speaker (could
be taller) is what I need.

Did we say Magnaplanar 1.6 already?

No comparison other than that both are dipoles.

They have 'taller' and 'narrower' in their favor but, no, they won't
sound the same as Quads.

Stephen

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"MINe 109"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".


** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article , Alex wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

If you have a small room you do not want a "conventional tower"

Look at horns (controlled dispersion makes for minimal front/side wall
interactions) or something designed for on/in-wall placement.

For critical listening installations direct radiating speakers require more
space to the side walls because more energy is hitting them than with a
dipole. They require no less space to the front wall than dipoles because as
wave lengths become longer than their baffle width their radiation becomes
omnipolar. The narrow look that's popular (say under 12" wide) means that
there's significant mid-range energy hitting the front wall that needs to
be delayed and attenuated with distance (12" is 1130 Hz. A narrow 8"
speaker matches 1695Hz - meaning you'll be bouncing all your vocals off
the front wall!).


--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

They can have.

Just cos Quad ESL57s don't and the ESL63 has like rings and delay
lines and whatnot.

Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Fleetie wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

They can have.

Just cos Quad ESL57s don't and the ESL63 has like rings and delay
lines and whatnot.

I think I'll accept that they've done the necessary research...

Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.

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

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman

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

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must produce
a good square wave there.

Then, the reference speaker ( 2 metres on axis to the same mic ) is also
driven but with reverse phase. Not unless the resulting signal level as
seen on the scope drops by 20 dB or more is the new unit passed.

By this test, Quad check that each new speaker has the exact same frequency
and phase response.



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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Dave Plowman (News) 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.

--
Eiron.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I've had MGIII's, Apogee Caliper's, Dynaudio 1.8MKII's, Fried GII's, and
know what you should try. A pair of Carolina Audio JTM's. They are a
single driver in a transmission line cabinet which can be placed flat to
a wall and give you a LIVE sound your looking for without needing to be
played loud. They work well in a small room and have a wide sound stage.
Their bass doesn't match the Dynaudio's in depth but easly out perform
them in bass detail. That's the ability to make each bass note seperate
from another. I know, had to understand but once you hear it you'll know
what I'm talking about.
carolinaaudio.com

Happy listening
GTF

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I've had MGIII's, Apogee Caliper's, Dynaudio 1.8MKII's, Fried GII's, and
know what you should try. A pair of Carolina Audio JTM's. They are a
single driver in a transmission line cabinet which can be placed flat to
a wall and give you a LIVE sound your looking for without needing to be
played loud. They work well in a small room and have a wide sound stage.
Their bass doesn't match the Dynaudio's in depth but easly out perform
them in bass detail. That's the ability to make each bass note seperate
from another. I know, had to understand but once you hear it you'll know
what I'm talking about.
carolinaaudio.com

Happy listening
GTF

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I've had MGIII's, Apogee Caliper's, Dynaudio 1.8MKII's, Fried GII's, and
know what you should try. A pair of Carolina Audio JTM's. They are a
single driver in a transmission line cabinet which can be placed flat to
a wall and give you a LIVE sound your looking for without needing to be
played loud. They work well in a small room and have a wide sound stage.
Their bass doesn't match the Dynaudio's in depth but easly out perform
them in bass detail. That's the ability to make each bass note seperate
from another. I know, had to understand but once you hear it you'll know
what I'm talking about.
carolinaaudio.com

Happy listening
GTF

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"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.

**The Martin Logan CLS does. As do many others.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:23:04 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"MINe 109"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".


** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.

Try not to be such a **** here as you are in RAT. When Quad say they
are designed 'in house', that means in the UK, where the R&D
facilities are situated. Yes, they are *manufactured* in China, but to
a UK design suited to UK ears and rooms.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:32:47 GMT, alex wrote:

The Devil wrote:

: If the asking price of Quads is your main concern and you are able to work
: around the space requirements, look into second-hand 63s.

Price for 988 but space as well. Otherwise I could afford a used
ESL-63. The Quads are too wide for my room. A narrower speaker (could
be taller) is what I need.

Not to rain on your parade, but basically, forget it. The
characteristic sound of Quads and other large planars can *only* be
obtained by the use of a large planar dipole in a room large enough to
give the speaker lots of 'breathing room'. If your room size is such
that you don't have the space for Quads, then you don't have the space
to place *any* speaker far enough from the walls to avoid problems
with early reflections. There is one rather unusual solution, but it
*only* works with planar dipoles that have the tweeter down one edge,
such as Magneplanars or the old Apogees. See my page at
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ for how this is done.

OTOH, you can certainly obtain good, but different, sound in a small
room if you choose speakers that were *designed* to work close to a
wall, such as the classic Naim SBL.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:55:42 GMT, "Fleetie"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

They can have.

Just cos Quad ESL57s don't and the ESL63 has like rings and delay
lines and whatnot.

Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.

As do Sound Labs and the Martin-Logan CLS. And the Quad's annuli are
specifically designed to simulate a point source 300mm behind the
speaker, so they certainly do count as a single driver acoustically.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:09:23 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fleetie wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

They can have.

Just cos Quad ESL57s don't and the ESL63 has like rings and delay
lines and whatnot.

I think I'll accept that they've done the necessary research...

Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.

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

Stax loudspeakers also have a single diaphragm.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

"MINe 109"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".


** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.

Try not to be such a **** here as you are in RAT.


** Go to *straight into hell* you vile lump of pommy excrement.



When Quad say they are designed 'in house', that means in the UK, where
the R&D
facilities are situated.


** Shame that none of Peter Walker's old team are to be found there.

Shame all the components are made in the Chinese factory.


Yes, they are *manufactured* in China, but to a UK design suited to UK
ears and rooms.


** It is a Chinese made speaker - badged "Quad" to dramatically increased
the price and fleece the gullible.




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"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.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

A pair of Carolina Audio JTM's.

Are these the thin and wide boxes with Jordan JX92S units? I must say, I never
managed to like them, though I tried hard. Something not quite right in the
Jordan driver - some upper mid resonance maybe. Frustrating, since it is indeed
very clear.

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

: If your room size is such that you don't have the space for Quads,
: then you don't have the space to place *any* speaker far enough from
: the walls...

Walls are not the problem, even for Quads. The back wall can be several
feet away. Their width is problematic but because of the passage space
to a window and to another room, not because of walls. Placing slim
speakers and surrounding them w/plenty of air should be no problem.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

GTF wrote:

: I've had MGIII's, Apogee Caliper's, Dynaudio 1.8MKII's, Fried GII's, and
: know what you should try. A pair of Carolina Audio JTM's. They are a
: single driver in a transmission line cabinet which can be placed flat to
: a wall and give you a LIVE sound your looking for without needing to be
: played loud. They work well in a small room and have a wide sound stage.
: Their bass doesn't match the Dynaudio's in depth but easly out perform
: them in bass detail. That's the ability to make each bass note seperate
: from another. I know, had to understand but once you hear it you'll know
: what I'm talking about.
: carolinaaudio.com

Thanks. It is always nice to discover possibilites I knew nothing
about. I probably won't find any local dealers to audition them, but
sent an email to the company to see what can be worked out. If they
have a happy customer near me, maybe he'd let me listen. What is a
transmission line? :) Sorry, I am no tech wizard here.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.


What!???


They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in Seattle.

Wierd that Googling "orthodynamic speaker" or "orthodynamic
loudspeaker" turns up nothing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:51:23 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


** Go to *straight into hell* you vile lump of pommy excrement.


Hi Phil!
Thought I heard you come in... ;-)


Follow ups set to this group only.
--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:55:42 -0700, Drew Eckhardt wrote:

In article , Alex wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: Well, I love the sound of Quads
but they just won't fit into my small living room. They are simply too
wide. I need a conventional "tower" speaker. Which one(s) would you
recommend?

If you have a small room you do not want a "conventional tower"

Look at horns (controlled dispersion makes for minimal front/side wall
interactions) or something designed for on/in-wall placement.


Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms, close to rear
walls? This is one design that I have seriously considered having a go at,
in both straight and folded configurations. My drivers probably won't go
down too low, so the height of the pipe and hence its floor area shouldn't
be too scary! My own theory is that with a front port at the bottom of a
standard pipe the bass frequencies would be further extended by the
floor-wall corner of the room - effectively extending the horn to some
extent, although it may need some kind of hard surface reflector inside
the cab along the bottom rear corner.

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Dave Plowman

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

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

--
Tony Sayer

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Alex" wrote in message
Arny Krueger 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?

IOW, a wannabe speaker?

Rule of thumb - you get better results when you seek things that are
true to their own identity.

Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

Last towers I bought were NHT 2.5i speakers which are now out of production.
On balance, I probably should have bought 2.9s, but they didn't exist when I
was buying.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
When it first came out, the LS3/5a (mfg. by Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth,
KEF and several others) was compared to the original Quad ESL by
Stereophile. I'm not sure the comparison was really valid -- the
spatial qualities are very different -- but there's a certain tonal
commonality to them.

Not really - the Quad didn't have lumpy fake bass..........

Lumpy fake bass?
The LS 3/5a has no bass at all, fake or not.

You'd need to define 'bass'.

The LS3/5a was firstly designed by the BBC for use in a compact outside
broadcast unit where space was at a premium. Secondary applications would
be where consistent monitoring might be needed again in a small room.
Perhaps an edit suite of some sort.

It was never intended as a full range monitor for music balancing - such
OB vehicles will have room for conventional sized monitors. The more usual
application would be for news and current affairs units - ie speech.

However, it was soon adopted by many as one of the best solutions for any
application where its small size was an advantage - and its relative
immunity to room positioning. Integrate a good separate bass unit and you
have a pretty good full range system which still retains many of the
original design requirements.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

mick wrote:

Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms,

If you had an SACD player feeding a current-dumping amp into
a pair of Voigt pipes, all linked with Russ Andrews cables,
then every part of your system would be based on fallacies. :-)

--
Eiron.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"tony sayer"
In article

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

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....



** None - when you include both the good square wave and close frequency
/ phase matching.




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)"
Scott Dorsey
The LS 3/5a has no bass at all, fake or not.

You'd need to define 'bass'.




** The Euro definition:

Bass - the low frequency portion of the musical spectrum, below the mid
range.


The US definition:

Bass - what a speaker produces that makes the floor shake.

Corollary: No bass - when floor is not shaking.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:35:38 +0000, Eiron wrote:

mick wrote:

Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms,

If you had an SACD player feeding a current-dumping amp into a pair of
Voigt pipes, all linked with Russ Andrews cables, then every part of your
system would be based on fallacies. :-)

lol!
Care to join me in a snake-oil cocktail?

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article , AKT
writes
Paul Stamler wrote:

: When it first came out, the LS3/5a (mfg. by Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth, KEF
: and several others) was compared to the original Quad ESL by Stereophile.
: I'm not sure the comparison was really valid -- the spatial qualities are
: very different -- but there's a certain tonal commonality to them.

Many moons ago I was in the situation summarized by OP: I would have
loved to buy the Quads but there was no room for them. I listened to a
large number of "box" speakers, including the LS3/5a's, and ended up
buying Spendors BC1's. My target was great affordable sound, not
British speakers or BBC inspired designs per se, which is why I was
quite impressed when precisely such speakers ended up dominating my
short list. Still, good as LS3/5a's and my BC1s were, I could never
mistake the sound for Quad ESL...

I think apart from the sound, or rather, lack of it, from the ESL the
BBC influenced designs that are very neutral are what appeal to you.

Course these designs are totally lacking "character", are "lifeless"
posses "no dynamics" etc.. All the positive qualities that endear them
to moi!.

Being the proud owner of said ESL's and BC1's and LS3/5A....
--
Tony Sayer

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Here's one:

http://www.newformresearch.com/

-------------

Bob Cain wrote:


William Sommerwerck wrote:

Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.



What!???



They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in
Seattle.


Wierd that Googling "orthodynamic speaker" or "orthodynamic loudspeaker"
turns up nothing.


Bob

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:51:23 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

"MINe 109"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".

** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.

Try not to be such a **** here as you are in RAT.

** Go to *straight into hell* you vile lump of pommy excrement.

Argued with your usual wit and brilliance.............

When Quad say they are designed 'in house', that means in the UK, where
the R&D facilities are situated.

** Shame that none of Peter Walker's old team are to be found there.

They'd all be dead by now.....................

Shame all the components are made in the Chinese factory.

No shame at all, lots of good stuff is made in China these days. What
matters is where it was designed and specified.

Yes, they are *manufactured* in China, but to a UK design suited to UK
ears and rooms.

** It is a Chinese made speaker - badged "Quad" to dramatically increased
the price and fleece the gullible.

Xenophobic ****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:33:36 GMT, Alex wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

: If your room size is such that you don't have the space for Quads,
: then you don't have the space to place *any* speaker far enough from
: the walls...

Walls are not the problem, even for Quads. The back wall can be several
feet away. Their width is problematic but because of the passage space
to a window and to another room, not because of walls. Placing slim
speakers and surrounding them w/plenty of air should be no problem.

If you want the Quad sound, you'll need to be using a dipole. To get
any bass from a dipole, it needs to be wide.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:52:27 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.

What!???

They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in Seattle.

Wierd that Googling "orthodynamic speaker" or "orthodynamic
loudspeaker" turns up nothing.

I get 37 hits - maybe you need a new ISP? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:08:20 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Dave Plowman

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

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:39:04 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"tony sayer"
In article

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

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

** None - when you include both the good square wave and close frequency
/ phase matching.

Bull****. Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around. All Dunlavys, all
single-driver KEF Uni-Qs, and those egg-shaped ones with a single
driver, whose name I forget, just for starters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering