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.