Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In message , Eiron
writes
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. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.
--
Chris Morriss

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Don Richardson wrote:

Here's one:

http://www.newformresearch.com/


Not even in their glossary. Is "orthodynamic" just another
name for "ribbon."?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Don Richardson" wrote in message
...
Here's one:

http://www.newformresearch.com/

Have you heard these?



Bob Cain wrote:


William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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? :-)

Ah, I was searching on them as a phrase rather than as
either word appearing independantly. Looked at all 37 and
the word seems to be used a fair bit but not defined often.
Two sources indicated that orthodynamic and isodynamic are
a distinction based on how the force is applied. They both
say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a single
point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers.
They say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their
whole surface driven and would encompass, electrostatics,
magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning
surface driven.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Here's one:
http://www.newformresearch.com/

Not even in their glossary. Is "orthodynamic" just another
name for "ribbon."?

Only from their point of view. They're not the same thing. A ribbon is pure
metal -- it has no backing.

I've never heard the Newform speakers, but if they're properly engineered and
executed, they should be very good.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Eiron
writes

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. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.

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.

--
Eiron.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:43:02 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Eiron
writes

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. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.

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.

If you like.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

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?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
"tony sayer"

** 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****.


** Kindly post evidence of another speaker that passes the *same* out of
phase matching test the ESL 63s do.

I will not hold my breath.


Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around.



** The phrase back then was "time aligned" - ie drivers mounted on
stepped baffles.

None came even close to the ESL63's synthesised point source




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



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

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.




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