|
|
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
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).] 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? (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. |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
In article , 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).] You might look at the low end Magnepans. They are pretty inexpensive, and while they don't have the solid low end that you can get from the ESLs, they do surprisingly well given the small surface area. Used Quad ESLs are available out there at reasonable prices, though, and Sheldon Stokes (www.quadesl.com) does a fine job of rebuilding broken ones. 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? (I don't have a Quad dealer near me to check them out myself.) I have never heard them. Please nominate your candidates for a poor man's 988, poor in money but more importantlly poor in square feet. Where the Quads really shine is in small rooms... I think the real problem with them is that they aren't able to produce good low end in a large room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
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? [Answers from friends have ranged from well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't know about (DCM Time Window).] I have a pair of Ruark Paladins and have seen them described as having 'a sound not unlike electrostatics'. They are extremely nice and Weasel Breath at The Emporium had a pair listed at £500 last time I scanned his ad. An easy 89 dB and go down to 38 Hz (215 mm bass cones) - rendering a sub *utterly* redundant.... (Beautiful 'furniture' if nothing else.... ;-) |
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? [Answers from friends have ranged from well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't know about (DCM Time Window).] 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? (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. **The old Duntech Crown Prince. Very ELS-like. With bass. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"Dodge McRodgered" wrote
IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a Planer sounds quite like a Planer. "Oh no, man! Heavy!" -- M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890 Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
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. Peace, Paul |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"Dodge McRodgered" wrote in message ... "Alex" emitted : 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).] For a box speaker, Yamaha NS1000 perhaps?? **Nope. IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a planer sounds quite like a planer. **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. 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) as a pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. Except for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid VERY careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. Whilst I have not done direct ESL comparisons, I reckon the B&W 802 Nautilus probably comes mighty close too. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.
|
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
Trevor Wilson wrote:
: 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) as a : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. Except : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid VERY : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. Dunlavy that good? |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
Dodge McRodgered wrote:
"Fleetie" emitted : IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a Planer sounds quite like a Planer. Oops.. that should be "planar". "Oh no, man! Heavy!" Have you been munching on Camberwell carrots?? Some of the young ones on uk.rec.audio will appreciate the joke. Don't know about the rest of you though. -- Eiron. |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
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... |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"Alex" wrote in message ... 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? (I don't have a Quad dealer near me to check them out myself.) I recently auditioned the Quad 22L, the top of Quad's box-speaker lineup. They're a decent box speaker, but they don't even approach the sound of a full-range electrostatic in terms of soundstaging and imaging. No box speaker really does. |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"AKT" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: : 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) as a : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. Except : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid VERY : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. Dunlavy that good? **I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with ESLs, in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything else, is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:30:45 +0000, 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).] I have only ever heard the Quad "radiators" in demo, but I was very impressed at the time. Many years later I built some tube-loaded speakers from a Babani book - the Kapelmeisters (by Vivian Capel). They used a cheap eliptical driver with a parasitic cone tweeter, arranged vertically (for max midrange dispersion) and loaded with a folded, damped tube on the rear. The sound was pretty close in some ways to what I remembered of the Quads! They had pretty good imaging in the "sweet spot" (probably because of the single point driver and narrow baffle). Bass was weak, but I don't remember the Quads being impressive in that region when I heard them. They did have that lovely "clarity" that I remembered though. I would recommend a design using a single full-range paper-coned driver if you can find one. The Quads use concentric conductive rings on the fixed electrode IIRC (unlikely for me...), giving an effect similar to one of those. I found a couple of old paper-coned "full range" speakers (i.e. with parasitic tweeter cones) on a car boot sale some years ago. I might just measure them & stick them in ported boxes to see what they sound like! 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 Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:32:06 +0000, Eiron wrote:
Dodge McRodgered wrote: "Fleetie" emitted : IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a Planer sounds quite like a Planer. Oops.. that should be "planar". "Oh no, man! Heavy!" Have you been munching on Camberwell carrots?? Some of the young ones on uk.rec.audio will appreciate the joke. Don't know about the rest of you though. Probably only Nige will really empathise.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:29:28 GMT, "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. Not really - the Quad didn't have lumpy fake bass.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:54:59 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Dodge McRodgered" wrote in message .. . "Alex" emitted : 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).] For a box speaker, Yamaha NS1000 perhaps?? **Nope. Agreed. A classic in its own right, but absolutely *nothing* like a Quad! Almost diametrically opposite in strengths and weaknesses, in fact. IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a planer sounds quite like a planer. **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. More importantly, it's a dipole. 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) as a pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. Except for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid VERY careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. Whilst I have not done direct ESL comparisons, I reckon the B&W 802 Nautilus probably comes mighty close too. Nope, just about as far from a good planar as it gets. Great speaker, but *totally* different sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
In article , says...
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).] 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? (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. Appogees are really nice. Too bad the company that bought them let them die. --------------- Alex |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"Alex"
I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect them to produce the family sound, but do they? ** The box speakers branded "Quad" are *not* products of the famous Acoustical Manufacturing Company. Quad's founder and chief designer Peter Walker (RIP) had nothing to do with them. They are manufactured entirely in China then budged "Quad" in order to market them at a very nice profit. .............. Phil |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:29:28 GMT, "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. 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. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
Trevor Wilson wrote:
: : 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) : as a : : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. : Except : : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid : VERY : : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The : : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. : : Dunlavy that good? : : **I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with ESLs, : in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything else, : is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass. I read the thread again and figured out what was bothering me. You obviously mean Duntech, which you mentioned earlier? I am not familiar with the Crown Prince (or Duntechs in general). Returning to the originating post's spirit, how big/expensive is it? |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
"AKT" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: : : 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). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) : as a : : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. : Except : : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid : VERY : : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The : : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass. : : Dunlavy that good? : : **I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with ESLs, : in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything else, : is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass. I read the thread again and figured out what was bothering me. You obviously mean Duntech, which you mentioned earlier? **Correct. Duntech was owned by Dunlavy, before he started the company which bore his name. I am not familiar with the Crown Prince (or Duntechs in general). Returning to the originating post's spirit, how big/expensive is it? **It WAS a large (nearly 2 Metres tall, but with a miniscule footprint), expensive (approx US$5,000.00, in Australia) speaker. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
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? [Answers from friends have ranged from well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't know about (DCM Time Window).] 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? (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. The Dahlquist DQ-10 was intended by the designer to imitate the Quad sound. It also imitated the looks. The crossover design even attempted to time-align the drivers. Imitation was also the goal of an earlier speaker Dahlquist was involved in, the Rectilinear III. I've heard both and can vouch that he was at least partially successful. The characteristics that are most easily imitated are overdamped bass, clarity, and a general impression of analytic sound. It's not really possible to get the radiation pattern of a Quad point resonator with a box speaker. However, any speaker which uses open back mid drivers could conceivably come closer to the peculiarities of radiation pattern of a Quad. So might a Spica TC-50 or TC-60, the front of which is heavily adorned with felt. However, the bass quality of a small box speaker is necessarily very different from an electrostat. Spendors definitely do not have this sound. Any small box speaker that attempts to produce a sound with a natural balance puts a little bump in the upper bass. In other words, like virtually all box speakers, but to a greater extent, it uses acoustic resonance to flatten the frequency response, at the expense of phase delay. Electrostats don't do this. Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a single driver, the impulse response must necessarily be very different from a multiple driver speaker with the common high order crossover. This latter reproduces a single impulse as a train of separated impulses from each of the constituent drivers. This characteristic would be best emulated by a Lowther full range driver, or a multiple driver system with a first order crossover and a slanted baffle: Spicas come to mind. I have a set of Acoustat 2+2's, a very large, full range electrostat. Because the ear-brain system is so easily fooled, I could not honestly say that every characteristic of the speaker sounds markedly different to my ears than every dynamic speaker I own. However, one thing is striking, and this may be the most useful practical guide: intelligibility of vocals is so much higher than any two way speaker I am familiar with that it sometimes causes a recording to sound completely unfamiliar. It makes me check the label. Of my collection of dynamic speakers, the Polk LS-15 and the Spica TC-50 seem to do the best at emulating these, inspite of the fact that the design philosophy of these speakers is completely different. |
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? My Duntechs come the closest I've heard however they are more expensive. The Quads are actually quite a bargain. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
|
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:33:05 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote: In article , says... 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).] 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? (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. Appogees are really nice. Too bad the company that bought them let them die. However, if he's looking for something *smaller* than Quads, then most Apogees ain't it! In fact, of the real Apogees, i.e. the pure planars, only the Stage is even close to the Quad in size. Agreed however that you can't get the ELS sound from a box, howevr good the box. In terms of overall quality and bang for the buck in a reasonably compact enclosure, I'd be looking at something like the B&W 703, which is a slim and elegant speaker at half the price of the 988. Equivalents from Dynaudio, Spendor and JMLab will also be worth a listen. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:31:09 GMT, mick wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:30:45 +0000, 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).] I have only ever heard the Quad "radiators" in demo, but I was very impressed at the time. Many years later I built some tube-loaded speakers from a Babani book - the Kapelmeisters (by Vivian Capel). They used a cheap eliptical driver with a parasitic cone tweeter, arranged vertically (for max midrange dispersion) and loaded with a folded, damped tube on the rear. The sound was pretty close in some ways to what I remembered of the Quads! They had pretty good imaging in the "sweet spot" (probably because of the single point driver and narrow baffle). Bass was weak, but I don't remember the Quads being impressive in that region when I heard them. They did have that lovely "clarity" that I remembered though. I would recommend a design using a single full-range paper-coned driver if you can find one. The Quads use concentric conductive rings on the fixed electrode IIRC (unlikely for me...), giving an effect similar to one of those. The Quads do indeed use annular radiators to form a simulated point source, unlike most planar speakers, but otherwise you'll find that they sound entirely different from any paper-coned speaker, particularly the obvious one - Lowther. I found a couple of old paper-coned "full range" speakers (i.e. with parasitic tweeter cones) on a car boot sale some years ago. I might just measure them & stick them in ported boxes to see what they sound like! You'll be horrified by how your memory plays tricks! Progress works. -- 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? [Answers from friends have ranged from well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't know about (DCM Time Window).] Magnepan. |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
William Sommerwerck wrote: Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate. What!??? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:48:39 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
The Quads do indeed use annular radiators to form a simulated point source, unlike most planar speakers, but otherwise you'll find that they sound entirely different from any paper-coned speaker, particularly the obvious one - Lowther. I'd like to hear Lowther units. I'm not likely to buy any to find out what they sound like though! I found a couple of old paper-coned "full range" speakers (i.e. with parasitic tweeter cones) on a car boot sale some years ago. I might just measure them & stick them in ported boxes to see what they sound like! You'll be horrified by how your memory plays tricks! Progress works. Yep - I'm sure you're right. They are probably absolutely horrible... (my old car boot sale drivers - not the Lowthers... :-) ). They were just an impulse buy in aid of charity. I think I paid about £3 or £4 for the pair! NOS in original boxes though. An interesting bit of history, and quite in keeping with bottled amps! ;-) -- Mick (no M$ software on here... :-) ) Web: http://www.nascom.info |
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. " |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk