Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

I had magneplanar SMGas for a while (I have them in storage - I'll sell for
£150, downsized my room). Before that stacked quads. I think probably the
biggest difference with box speakers, apart from the rear radiation and
soundstage, is that there's no cabinet resonance. Remove the cabinet resonances
from box speakers and you might get something of the planar sound. This may be
why small 2 ways with stiffer boxes can have that 'clean' sound which in larger
enclosures you'd have to engineer in with sand, marble, concrete, corian and
all kinds of resonance-killing solutions. Once you hear the sound of the wooden
boxes, I think all hope of a clean sound is sunk.

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

AKT wrote in message ...
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...

Celestion SL600s for wonderful soundstaging.
Dave

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Alex" wrote in message

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.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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

What!???

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

Basically, they're ribbons backed with Kapton, Mylar, etc. (A true ribbon is a
pure metal strip, with no backing.) The backing eliminates the ribbon's
fragility and adds mass that lowers the driver's fundamental resonance.

The classic Infinity EMIT and EMIM drivers are orthodynamic. The drivers in
Apogee speakers are orthodynamic, not ribbon (except for the tweeter used in the
Diva and one or two others). There have been orthodynamic headphones, such as
the Yamaha YP-1 [sic] of a few years back.

Orthodynamic drivers have much of the "speed" and low coloration of
electrostatics. Having owned Acoustat Sixes and Apogee Divas, I actually find
the latter to be (subjectively) more accurate -- and the Sixes were hardly
chopped liver.

If you look in audio eXpress, you'll see ads for companies selling hybrid
systems comprising a long orthodynamic "stick" on top of a dynamic woofer. If
they're well-designed and executed, they should be very good speakers -- no
cabinet, excellent loading by the air mass, etc.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Not IMO. The big reason why ESLs sound like ESLs, IMO, is the coherent
nature of a single, full range driver and the lack of cabinet diffraction
problems.

IMHO ESLs sound like ESLs because of their radiation pattern.

Where driver directivity is low enough for the front and back waves to meet,
dipoles have a cosine alpha radiation pattern: -3dB 45 degrees off axis,
-6dB at 60 degrees, -12dB @ 75 degrees. Side wall reflections are therefore
weaker than a monopole. Off-axis response anomalies have a lower magnitude.
Power response at low frequencies is closer to that at high frequencies where
the drivers have more directivity. The ratio of on-axis sound to total power
response is 3X (4.8dB) that of a monopole. These are _huge_ differences.

Open baffle dynamic driver dipole midrange sounds a lot like ESLs.

The wide panels also become substantially more directive at high
frequencies compared to a thin ribbon or small dome tweeter.

A monopole dome tweeter on an otherwise dipolar speaker sounds different from
an ESL as one expects.

Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the Crown Prince
(but not the Sovereign).

The result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.

Corelation != causality. Dunlavy also paid close attention to
off-axis response and stored energy...

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:30:45 GMT, 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? [Answers from friends have ranged from
well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't
know about (DCM Time Window).]

None, unfortunately. I've had an adulterous relationship with Quads.
Some types of speaker do some things so compellingly I have at times
been temporarily charmed away from Quads. Horns and transmission lines
come to mind. But nothing else sounds like Quad--not even other
electrostatics. 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.

I heard the DCM Time Window speaker many years ago. Aside from looking
a bit like a Quad, that was it really.

I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect them to
produce the family sound, but do they?

No--if by 'family sound' you mean do they sound like Quad
electrostats.

How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?

Much better.

(I don't have a Quad dealer near me to check them
out myself.)

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. :-)

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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.

: I heard the DCM Time Window speaker many years ago. Aside from looking
: a bit like a Quad, that was it really.

Thanks. No experience myself. I understand it is no longer made. It was
recommended and I remebered the catchy name. That's about it.

: I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: them to produce the family sound, but do they?
:
: No--if by 'family sound' you mean do they sound like Quad electrostats.

Yes that's what I had meant/hoped. :-(
:
: How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
:
: Much better.

Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3 of the
very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers (small in floor
area, as tall as need be)? There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

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

I have thought of that and not quite given up yet. However, it does run
into hard limitations, like my wife's opinion, room size, why we must
live in an urban situation, etc.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article , 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.

Did we say Magnaplanar 1.6 already?

: I heard the DCM Time Window speaker many years ago. Aside from looking
: a bit like a Quad, that was it really.

Thanks. No experience myself. I understand it is no longer made. It was
recommended and I remebered the catchy name. That's about it.

Old Dahlquists look like Quads, too.

: I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: them to produce the family sound, but do they?
:
: No--if by 'family sound' you mean do they sound like Quad electrostats.

Yes that's what I had meant/hoped. :-(
:
: How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
:
: Much better.

Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3 of the
very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers (small in floor
area, as tall as need be)? 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". Other than that,
they seem up to audiophile standards for build quality and nice wood and
all that stuff if pictures and reviews are any indication. Even if they
were rebadged, like Music Hall, would that be so bad?

Plus, you can get deals for them on Audiogon, etc.

I wish I could tell you more about them, but that would require an
hour's drive each way to the nearest dealer!

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

I have thought of that and not quite given up yet. However, it does run
into hard limitations, like my wife's opinion, room size, why we must
live in an urban situation, etc.

I do okay with 63s in a room approximately 12 by 20. Fortunately, my
girlfriend likes vocal-friendly speakers.

Stephen

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "