Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On 15 Nov 2004 22:43:10 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) 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 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.

It's the hallmark of *any* good speaker, vide ATC, JMLab Utopia
series, Dynaudio, Spendor etc etc. Planars are not 'superior' in this
respect and indeed cannot match modern Beryllium and ceramic (and
short ribbon) tweeters for 'speed'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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.

I used to work in a dubbing suite where they'd built in both speakers and
the monitor. Looked very nice, but then that's what it was designed to do
- no thought for acoustics. The whole operation was owned by a firm who
started out as cabinet makers - and not speaker cabinets. ;-)

The speakers were Spendors - not BCI, but the later replacement. Sounded
perfectly awful with very poor imaging. Now normally in this sort of place
if working in mono I'll only use one speaker, but this show had a fair
amount of stereo. It sounded for all the world like they were out of
phase, but weren't, as it was the first thing I tried.

Ended up using a pair of nearfield monitors on stands.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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.

I didn't want to get into this.

I'm not talking about self-damping. I'm talking about the way the driver
itself -- regardless of what material it's made of -- is damped by the air load.
These are not the same things.


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.

Not irrelevant. Once the driver starts moving, it has kinetic energy, and the
fraction of that energy that is not converted into sound has to be dissipated
somewhere.

Ribbons and 'stats are superior not because they are easier to accelerate, but
because they are easier to decelerate.

No more comments from me. I don't want to get into an extended discussion of
this.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:40:33 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"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.

You just snipped the rest of my challenge to that statement, so ****
off, you hypocritical ignorant ****.

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.

The original claim was perfectly clear and well defined - he will
*not* obtain the sound of an ESL with any box speaker, since most of
the difference is in the dipole dispersion pattern.

*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.

OK, I don't know of *anyone* who has reported any box speaker as being
able to replicate the sound of a large planar.

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 an entirely different design to the 63, and
it is a true dipole.

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.

There's nothing unclear about "don't sound the same", and I'll happily
clarify 'normal' to mean any room less than 30x40 feet, and not being
an anechoic chamber. Now **** off, you ignorant ****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:48:32 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

** 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.

Agreed on the 'doesn't sound anything like a box speaker' bit, but it
isn't a true dipole, since the drivers are padded on the back to
reduce sound waves from the rear.

Agreed, but it remains a true dipole in concept, unlike the '63, and
many owners have removed the backwave damping, claiming that it 'opens
out' the sound.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:30:51 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.

I didn't want to get into this.

I'm sure............. :-)

I'm not talking about self-damping. I'm talking about the way the driver
itself -- regardless of what material it's made of -- is damped by the air load.
These are not the same things.

They both the damp the diaphragm, hence the have the same *effect*.

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.

Not irrelevant. Once the driver starts moving, it has kinetic energy, and the
fraction of that energy that is not converted into sound has to be dissipated
somewhere.

Sure, that's what the suspension is for, also heat in the voice coil,
just as in a planar diaphragm.

Ribbons and 'stats are superior not because they are easier to accelerate, but
because they are easier to decelerate.

Nope, they are no different in this respect, which has been shown by
many technical tests over the years. The only *real* difference is in
the dispersion pattern. Otherwise, they are no better and no worse
than any other design.

No more comments from me. I don't want to get into an extended discussion of
this.

I'm sure you don't, and I know why....................
--

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.


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

You just snipped the rest of my challenge to that statement,


** You did not address the statement or my post at all - you stinking
liar.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.




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.

The original claim was perfectly clear and well defined - he will
*not* obtain the sound of an ESL with any box speaker, since most of
the difference is in the dipole dispersion pattern.


** It is neither clear nor are the terms defined at all.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.


*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.

OK, I don't know of *anyone* who has reported any box speaker as being
able to replicate the sound of a large planar.



** Again - the crucial word "sound" is undefined - so you can define
any way you like it later.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.


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 an entirely different design to the 63, and
it is a true dipole.


** Total red-herring - irrelevant to the question.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.



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.

There's nothing unclear about "don't sound the same", and I'll happily
clarify 'normal' to mean any room less than 30x40 feet, and not being
an anechoic chamber.


** Nothing is clear with a stinking pommy liar like you Punkerton.


Now **** off, you ignorant ****.


** All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.



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



Punkerton is a Turd - knows SFA about audio and he lies.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"William Sommerwerck"


Ribbons and 'stats are superior not because they are easier to accelerate,
but
because they are easier to decelerate.

Nope, they are no different in this respect, which has been shown by
many technical tests over the years.

The only *real* difference is in the dispersion pattern.


** That last comment from Punkerton is utterly STUPID !!!

The posturing prick will NOT define his terms so preventing discussion.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.

Well, if you don't like pommies, why not stick to your own country's
newsgroups?

--
*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?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)"

Phil Allison
All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.

Well, if you don't like pommies, why not stick to your own country's
newsgroups?


** Pommy ****heads like Punkerton are all over the planet - you imbecile.

Australia is just crawling with pommies - no escape from them is possible.

I am posting on "rec.audio.pro" which is dominated by Septic Tanks.

Go complain to the OP ( Alex) for crossposting.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
Well, if you don't like pommies, why not stick to your own country's
newsgroups?


** Pommy ****heads like Punkerton are all over the planet - you
imbecile.

Didn't know he had been cloned. Perhaps you should call him Dolly?

Australia is just crawling with pommies - no escape from them is
possible.

Perhaps we could swap you Earls Court, then?

I am posting on "rec.audio.pro" which is dominated by Septic Tanks.

Given it's a US group, hardly surprising.

Go complain to the OP ( Alex) for crossposting.

No - his post was polite and welcome. You could learn a lot by it.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.

Well, if you don't like pommies, why not stick to your own country's
newsgroups?

You think people who can vote for a religious nutter can actually read
the two letter abbreviation for United Kingdom ?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)"
Phil Allison

Well, if you don't like pommies, why not stick to your own country's
newsgroups?


** Pommy ****heads like Punkerton are all over the planet - you
imbecile.

Didn't know he had been cloned. Perhaps you should call him Dolly?


** Sickening pommy smartarses like you Dave are even more widespread.



Australia is just crawling with pommies - no escape from them is
possible.

Perhaps we could swap you Earls Court, then?


** That's one small area - not the whole country, Mr Smartarse.



I am posting on "rec.audio.pro" which is dominated by Septic Tanks.

Given it's a US group, hardly surprising.


** Usenet groups do not *belong* to any one nation, Mr Smartarse .


Go complain to the OP ( Alex) for crossposting.

No - his post was polite and welcome.


** It was a crosspost you idiot - doing that causes all the trouble.


You could learn a lot by it.


** Punkerton might learn a bit if his head were shoved down a dunny
regularly.

OTOH yours is stuck down there permanently.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Phil Allison wrote:

** That last comment from Punkerton is utterly STUPID !!!

The posturing prick will NOT define his terms so preventing discussion.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.





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

Stop posting to usenet.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Bob Cain"

Phil Allison wrote:

** That last comment from Punkerton is utterly STUPID !!!

The posturing prick will NOT define his terms so preventing
discussion.

All bluster and bull**** - same as any pommy turd.


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

Stop posting to usenet.




** Kindly stop breathing - others need the air vermin like you are
stealing.




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Phil Allison wrote:

** Kindly stop breathing - others need the air vermin like you are
stealing.




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

Stop posting to usenet.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Bob Cain"

Phil Allison wrote:

** Kindly stop breathing - others need the air vermin like you are
stealing.


Stop posting to usenet.



** ROTFLMAO - the brainless goose is stuck in a groove !!






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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
** Sickening pommy smartarses like you Dave are even more widespread.

That's what comes of being the master race.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)"

Phil Allison

** Sickening pommy smartarses like you Dave are even more widespread.

That's what comes of being the master race.



** You missed out a word - Dave.

Should read " ...... the master baiter race" .





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

One truly final comment on dynamic versus electrostatic...

If anyone out there thinks that electrostatic (and the better true-planar)
speakers are not inherently superior to conventional dynamic speakers, I urge
them to compare the best dynamic headphones (such as Sennheisers) with good
electrostatics (such as Stax). Decide for yourself which reproduces the
recording most-accurately.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
That's what comes of being the master race.


** You missed out a word - Dave.

The dash standing for magnificent?

Should read " ...... the master baiter race" .

Well, you certainly accepted the bait. Hook line and sinker.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:25:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

One truly final comment on dynamic versus electrostatic...

If anyone out there thinks that electrostatic (and the better true-planar)
speakers are not inherently superior to conventional dynamic speakers, I urge
them to compare the best dynamic headphones (such as Sennheisers) with good
electrostatics (such as Stax). Decide for yourself which reproduces the
recording most-accurately.

Irrelevant, whichever you prefer, since speakers and headphones are
*miles* apart in necessary engineering compromises.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:05:53 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

snip

I am posting on "rec.audio.pro" which is dominated by Septic Tanks.


....and 3 more newsgroups who probably don't want you either?

Go complain to the OP ( Alex) for crossposting.


Why? You are free to set follow-ups to just "rec.audio.pro" in your reply
to Alex. It isn't hard. Pity you won't see this though, as I *can* get
rid of you on this part of the thread... :-)

FUs set to uk.rec.audio only.

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"William Sommerwerck" said:

One truly final comment on dynamic versus electrostatic...

If anyone out there thinks that electrostatic (and the better true-planar)
speakers are not inherently superior to conventional dynamic speakers, I urge
them to compare the best dynamic headphones (such as Sennheisers) with good
electrostatics (such as Stax). Decide for yourself which reproduces the
recording most-accurately.

The acoustical environments of speakers and headphones are not
comparable.
The room is the most important factor here.

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
Ignorant ****.
**** off, you hypocritical ignorant ****.
Ignorant ****. The 57 is an entirely different design to the 63, and
an anechoic chamber. Now **** off, you ignorant ****.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hmmm...looks like Pinkerton has contracted the Ferstler disease...

Cheers,

MvBB