Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:35:04 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

The Devil said:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

Schizophrenia! You two are the same person!

God. Please don't wish that on me. Or him.

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:00:20 GMT, alex wrote:

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

None.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: : them to produce the family sound, but do they? ...
: : How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

None do, I'm afraid. There are some narrow ESLs. I think they're
called Wings, or something like that. I don't know how they sound as
I've never heard them, however. Also, I think they cost about the same
as 988s.

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

No they don't, we try to stick to facts on UKRA.

Don't have a cow. Next time I'll swap the smiley for this so you
know I'm only joking.

ooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o o$ $$ o$
o $ oo o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$o $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$o $$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ """$$$
"$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ "$$$
$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ "$$$o
o$$" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $$$o
$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
o$$$oooo$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$"$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$""""""""
"""" $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" o$$$
"$$$o """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$" $$$
$$$o "$$""$$$$$$"""" o$$$
$$$$o oo o$$$"
"$$$$o o$$$$$$o"$$$$o o$$$$
"$$$$$oo ""$$$$o$$$$$o o$$$$""
""$$$$$oooo "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
""$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
""""$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$"
"$$$""""

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote

If foreigners bother you so much, maybe you shouldn't keep cross-posting.
Perhaps you're mentally handicapped, though, and you have difficulty
understanding cause and effect.


Cross-posting? Pot, kettle, calling, black the - rearrange into a wll known
phrase or idiom :o)

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

snipped bits and pieces

mick wrote:

Ian Molton said:


Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?


grin
I don't think Ian is particularly anti-foreigner, just anti-Phil (who is
a clued up bloke, but has the attitude of a belligerent kangeroo at
times!). Have you read rec.audio.tubes? It can be "enlightening". ;-)


Did you mean to say rec.audio.tubes is "enlightening" or did you mean
Phil's posts on rec.audio.tubes are "enlightening"?


Btw, doesn't "Pommy" mean "English" instead of "British"? Going back to
the original insult, Stewart sure isn't English!

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:12:45 +1100, Tat Chan wrote:

snipped bits and pieces

mick wrote:

Ian Molton said:


Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?


grin
I don't think Ian is particularly anti-foreigner, just anti-Phil (who is
a clued up bloke, but has the attitude of a belligerent kangeroo at
times!). Have you read rec.audio.tubes? It can be "enlightening". ;-)


Did you mean to say rec.audio.tubes is "enlightening" or did you mean
Phil's posts on rec.audio.tubes are "enlightening"?


erm... well... yeah... grin
r.a.t can be enlightening at times - Phil's posts can vary wildly in
their enlightenment capability! He has a wonderful vocabulary of
insults. ;-)

Btw, doesn't "Pommy" mean "English" instead of "British"? Going back to
the original insult, Stewart sure isn't English!

Good point!

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.
--

Don't forget the entire Thiel line.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"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.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:58:19 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

Americans.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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.

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

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