The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass
light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction.

You'd need to qualify 'bass light'.

The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical
construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic.


Aw, hell, Poopie, do you have zero imagination? I've built ESL into
the walls between rooms. That makes each room an IB electrostatic. You
get *very* convincing bass living *inside* your speakers.

That's not very practical for most people.

Graham

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has
nothing to do with the bass.

It has everything to do with the bass. Because the bass of an
electrostat is so clean, you can turn it up higher.

And then they arc !

Graham

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open
backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad
electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz.


IIRC with the '57s 42 Hz springs to mind. Low enough for the lowest
fundamental from most traditional musical instruments except for some
organs and bass drums.

FWIW what most thing of as deep bass is nothing of the sort but centred
around 100 Hz.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:

On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly
second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value.
In the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it
was only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light'
to me. But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence
of a box boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... :-)

It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at
low frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional
speaker of similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not
frequency response.

In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety.
What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that
they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and
imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless?

Cheers,

Bob.


Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....
--
Tony Sayer

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are
bass light. It's

Coloration light you mean;)...

Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but
that has nothing to do with the bass.

Define bass;)

The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will
always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear
radiation cancels the front

radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size).

So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?..

Harmonics?

Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an open
backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on Quad
electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz.

I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro
statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f extension
and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines. Of all the speakers
made in the world which one is most common to see two pairs stacked
together in an attempt to get some extension out of them. Wasn't the guy
who started SME famous for having stacked Quads in his listening room?


Yes but that was the ESL57 series and quite well that worked, but the
modern designs are sufficient for purpose if you want to hear what
really went on;)...

For making -pleasant sounds- I've got some boxed speakers in another
room...

--
Tony Sayer

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Okay, that was unfair but you're not going to get deep bass from an
open backed speaker unless its huge. Anyone know the -3db point on
Quad electros? I think my KEFS (TEB) are -2db at 38Hz.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php...id=1&conten t
=3#details
"Axis band limits -6dB at 35Hz (3rd Order)" Not much different to your
KEFs.

Oh I think they are different. Its not only the roll off, its also how
much spl they can provide that gives the overall impression of bass I
think. Certainly, I found Quads (admittedly not recent) a bit thin and
most surprisingly to me a bit dull too though I'm sure they don't measure
badly at the top.

Yes of course .. chose your sound and flavour;!...

I'll go along with low coloration but it is well accepted that electro
statics of moderate size suffer the two weaknesses of poor l/f
extension and lower spl than TEBs, reflex or transmission lines.

How loud do you need in your lounge? I wouldn't use ESLs for parties but
they are adequate for normal domestic use.

I don't think I could agree with that for some types of music but I could
for others.


Cheers,

Bob.


--
Tony Sayer

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus

The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always
have
poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels
the
front

radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size).

So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?..

You'll still hear it of course. The lower frequencies will simply be attenuated
somewhat..

Graham


Dunno.. Was there when it was recorded and unless I don't remember it
that well....
--
Tony Sayer

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that
has
nothing to do with the bass.

It has everything to do with the bass. Because the bass of an
electrostat is so clean, you can turn it up higher.

And then they arc !

Graham


Can't remember that last time that happened tho I will admit they can
fizz a bit on humid days;!...
--
Tony Sayer

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57
variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them
such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric
rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered
useless?


Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....

I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is
limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the
most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent
imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to
really decide how well it worked.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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

The damping factor and the sound of real music
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:


In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57
variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them
such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric
rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered
useless?

Pass. :-) I suspect it would be quite difficult to get improved results
simply by 'stacking' sets of 63s, but would depend even more than usual on
the predictable factors like room acoustics, etc. Not something I have ever
tried, of felt the urge to try! ;-

The late owner of SME did apparently get good results using an array of 63s
in a large room. I think he did more than simply stack a pair, and probably
spent a lot of time and effort on twiddling with the arrangements to get
the results he wanted. I think he deliberately aimed some pairs well away
from the listener direction to get a controlled added 'ambience', etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html