Electrostatic speakers?

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

As far as I'm aware "speed" is one of those undefined audiophile terms like PRaT. I suspect that the common descriptors for electrostats fall into the same bias-bucket as silver cables sounding 'cool and detailed' or valves sounding 'warm'. So of course 'stats must be 'transparent' or 'fast' compared to box speakers which sound, well… boxy

 

[Blumlein 88]

As far as I'm aware "speed" is one of those undefined audiophile terms like PRaT. I suspect that the common descriptors for electrostats fall into the same bias-bucket as silver cables sounding 'cool and detailed' or valves sounding 'warm'. So of course 'stats must be 'transparent' or 'fast' compared to box speakers which sound, well… boxy

I find most people have the same subjective idea and understand the idea of speed much more widely than PRAT.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I find most people have the same subjective idea and understand the idea of speed much more widely than PRAT.

Possibly, but is there a measurement that correlates wit/explains this subjective understanding of speed?
There may be, I'm asking because I don't know.
If not, then I fear this thread is devolving into the very subjectivity that we try to avoid on ASR

 

[T.J. McKenna]

And nor should it! But not particularly because of any deficiencies of the speaker. Rather, because of the inherent limitations of stereophonic recording and reproduction (which literally no speaker can overcome)..

While I agree that it is probably impossible for any playback system to completely capture the original sound, I HAVE heard speakers that capture much of the tone-colour magic I was referring to. But they're rare, and the JBL is unequivocally not one of them.

 

[30 Ounce]

Some of the reasons an electrostatic speaker sounds “fast” is that the entire membrane is driven equally and the resulting distortion is vanishingly low compared cone and dome speakers. Also many lack the ability reach very low so on their own they don’t produce much bass. My MartinLogan CLS II’s would reach down to 40 by themselves when setup right but since the back wave was working against the front it would only do that at the seating position. The low distortion in the bass also makes bass sound leaner than it really is. My servo subs have the same issue.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Odd that that's how you interpreted my post. Perhaps you're projecting previous discussions you've had with others?

All I said was that the reason sound reproduction systems can never sound like real instruments is that recording and reproduction processes inherently prevent it - no matter how high the fidelity of the components is.

"Anything goes" (or indeed any comment about how things should be) was not part of the picture.

Well, surely stating that sound systems inherently "can never sound like real instruments" is tantamount to saying why bother trying?

 

[T.J. McKenna]

I would have been extremely surprised if a pair of two-grand-ballpark monitors + two subs DID sound like real voices and instruments to an experienced musician.






Very vivid. "Unearthly beauty"... not a musician but I think I get it.

Do the Apogees and Spatials come closer than the others in some respects?

Actually, I was paraphrasing Dr Toole who stated something like two grand a pair as the price in which most of the speaker problems had been solved. As for "ballpark" monitors they were JBL's top of the line and they were more like three grand fifteen years ago before the Federal Reserve went on the rampage (compare M2 in 2006 to now). The replacement 708s are around five. With the two subs the price for the system is close to ten grand. Not audiophile-crazy but still expensive in pro audio terms. One reason I concentrate on pro gear; it's realistically priced, because the consumers are business-oriented.

And yes, the Apogees and Spatials DO come closer in some respects. I'd describe it as a sense of unfettered freedom to the sound, as though it's being generated ex nihilo (out of nothing). I really believe future developments in loudspeakers are going to be with open baffles. Boxes are far too compromised. The only reason designers stick with them is their convenience.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Well, surely stating that sound systems inherently "can never sound like real instruments" is tantamount to saying why bother trying?

Sorry, I didn't mean that. I meant that it seems unfair to expect speakers to achieve a goal that the very system in which they are operating is fundamentally unable to achieve.

Anyway, I think we're more or less on the same page here in some respects. I certainly don't believe that the spinorama tells the whole story about a speaker (but I do believe it provides an excellent point of comparison, especially between speakers of similar size, cost, and type).

While I agree that it is probably impossible for any playback system to completely capture the original sound, I HAVE heard speakers that capture much of the tone-colour magic I was referring to. But they're rare, and the JBL is unequivocally not one of them.

Which speaker or speakers have done this best in your view?

 

[T.J. McKenna]

And I guarantee you if the virtuoso had played on your inferior instrument the sound would have been just as magical. IME the player has a much higher influence on sound than the instrument he plays.

I'm sure the sound would've been way better than mine, but I'm confident musicians don't fork over large amounts of money for the hell of it (although no doubt the "prestige" factor plays a part). I doubt if any violinist can emulate a Guarnieri on a cheap knockoff fiddle.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Doesn't really work that way. It is what many imagine. While the ESL membrane is very light, and moves a very short distance, it also has very little force behind it to move. Basically if the frequency response is pretty even it is fast enough box, membrane or plasma.

The subjective experience seems different though. Listen to a plucked string live and play it over most box speakers, and it is like half the initial attack has been missed. As if the cone didn't move fast enough until it was almost over. On an ESL the same thing sounds like it got nearly all of the initial attack of a plucked string. Maybe missing just a tiny portion of the initial transient. Hence the subjective impression of differing speed.

But surely the "subjective impression" is what counts?

 

[T.J. McKenna]

As far as I'm aware "speed" is one of those undefined audiophile terms like PRaT. I suspect that the common descriptors for electrostats fall into the same bias-bucket as silver cables sounding 'cool and detailed' or valves sounding 'warm'. So of course 'stats must be 'transparent' or 'fast' compared to box speakers which sound, well… boxy

I'm not sure it's undefined. It means how quickly the component reacts to the incoming signal. Now, I agree with you that audiophiles often think they hear differences in speed........

 

[Duke]

And yes, the Apogees and Spatials DO come closer in some respects. I'd describe it as a sense of unfettered freedom to the sound, as though it's being generated ex nihilo (out of nothing). I really believe future developments in loudspeakers are going to be with open baffles. Boxes are far too compromised. The only reason designers stick with them is their convenience.

As I read your description of what your teacher's clarinet sounded like, what came to mind was that a good dipole or bipole or possibly other polydirectional was a better candidate than a monopole. Imo much of the difference between live and reproduced sound lies in the nature of the reverberant field.

Which speaker or speakers have done this best in your view?

I share andreasmaaan's curiosity.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Possibly, but is there a measurement that correlates wit/explains this subjective understanding of speed?
There may be, I'm asking because I don't know.
If not, then I fear this thread is devolving into the very subjectivity that we try to avoid on ASR

So you're saying that nothing exists unless we can measure i?. I can think of plenty of very real things that can't be measured: the beauty of a melody; the aptness of a turn of phrase; the sense of the "right" word. In other words, the things that give this world a sense of wonder.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Some of the reasons an electrostatic speaker sounds “fast” is that the entire membrane is driven equally and the resulting distortion is vanishingly low compared cone and dome speakers. Also many lack the ability reach very low so on their own they don’t produce much bass. My MartinLogan CLS II’s would reach down to 40 by themselves when setup right but since the back wave was working against the front it would only do that at the seating position. The low distortion in the bass also makes bass sound leaner than it really is. My servo subs have the same issue.

"Vanishingly" low by comparison? We're not talking about the 1950s. The best dynamic drivers have distortion around 0.1% at normal listening levels. How much lower are stats? And turn it up just a wee bit.....

 

[MRC01]

... Some of the reasons an electrostatic speaker sounds “fast” is that the entire membrane is driven equally and the resulting distortion is vanishingly low compared cone and dome speakers. ...

I believe another contributing factor to the low distortion that panel speakers typically have, is that they hardly move at all. With such a large area, only a very small displacement of movement is needed for any given SPL. Distortion is correlated to displacement of movement. Among other factors of course, but displacement is an important one.

Incidentally, this is also why panel speaker distortion rises quickly at loud volumes and low frequencies. My Magnepans (3.6/R) measure 0.1 % distortion in the mids and treble. But they are 1% at 60 Hz, 10% at 45 Hz and almost 100% (-5 dB) at 30 Hz. Note: this is total distortion, including from the mic & preamp used to measure it. The speaker distortion is so low [in the mids & treble, where our perception is most sensitive to it] it reveals the difference in distortion between the UMIK-1 and Rode NT1A.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Sorry, I didn't mean that. I meant that it seems unfair to expect speakers to achieve a goal that the very system in which they are operating is fundamentally unable to achieve.

Anyway, I think we're more or less on the same page here in some respects. I certainly don't believe that the spinorama tells the whole story about a speaker (but I do believe it provides an excellent point of comparison, especially between speakers of similar size, cost, and type).



Which speaker or speakers have done this best in your view?

I think the Barefoot MM12 does this as well as anything I've heard and the Apogee Stage captures a good deal of the vivid tone-colours I'm searching for (albeit with a "silvery" overlay to the sound). And, believe it or not, the much-maligned KRK monitors do a remarkably decent job in this area (though not in others). The flat honeycomb speakers Sony and Technics made years ago were likewise very good at timbre (though once again poor in other respects). And the ancient Stax SR-XIII headphone was very good at getting tone-colours right, far far better than any of the later Stax models (although I haven't heard the Omega line). But all my other speakers fail to a greater or lesser extent in conveying the tonal allure of beautiful instruments.

My guess is that the ability to capture timbre realistically has very little to do with FR but has more to do with being able to faithfully reproduce ALL the very low-amplitude harmonics that make real instruments sound as they do.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Microphone technique and mixing are the third ingredient to a good overall recorded sound. (The first is musicianship, then probably the venue). You are certainly right to point out that some of the material produced in the '50s and early '60s sounds a lot better than what came after. With the advent of multi-track tape recorders and mixing consoles, then final mix down for stereo LPs, producers and engineers often went mad.

My favourite recordings come from the 50s. Just listen to jazz recordings like John Coltrane's "Blue Train' for sheer explosive vividness of sound. By 64 or so this magic had been lost, for some reason, even on simply produced recordings. Compare Bill Evans' output for Riverside Records with his later stuff on Verve for an example of this.

 

[30 Ounce]

"Vanishingly" low by comparison? We're not talking about the 1950s. The best dynamic drivers have distortion around 0.1% at normal listening levels. How much lower are stats? And turn it up just a wee bit.....

Couple of quotes from Wiki

In virtually all electrostatic loudspeakers the diaphragm is driven by two grids, one on either side, because the force exerted on the diaphragm by a single grid will be unacceptably non-linear, thus causing harmonic distortion. Using grids on both sides cancels out voltage dependent part of non-linearity but leaves charge (attractive force) dependent part.[1] The result is near complete absence of harmonic distortion. In one recent design, the diaphragm is driven with the audio signal, with the static charge located on the grids


Advantages Edit

Advantages of electrostatic loudspeakers include:

levels of distortion one to two orders of magnitude lower than conventional cone drivers in a box[citation needed]
the extremely light weight of the diaphragm which is driven across its whole surface
exemplary frequency response (both in amplitude and phase) because the principle of generating force and pressure is almost free from resonances unlike the more common electrodynamic driver.

 

[andreasmaaan]

levels of distortion one to two orders of magnitude lower than conventional cone drivers in a box[citation needed]
the extremely light weight of the diaphragm which is driven across its whole surface
exemplary frequency response (both in amplitude and phase) because the principle of generating force and pressure is almost free from resonances unlike the more common electrodynamic driver.

I think "citation needed" is operative phrase there

 

[MRC01]

... My guess is that the ability to capture timbre realistically has very little to do with FR but has more to do with being able to faithfully reproduce ALL the very low-amplitude harmonics that make real instruments sound as they do.

I agree with the perception, that the best panel speakers portray the timbre of acoustic instruments in a more lifelike way than the best conventional dynamic speakers. Most noticeably with piano, but also with voice and other instruments. Whether that is due to having low distortion (thus preserving the instrument harmonics captured in the recording), having flat FR, or some other reason, who knows?