Electrostatic speakers?

[dlaloum]

He had them much too close to the wall while having plenty of space to move them out. Was my first thoughts when I first saw that picture.

Possibly staged for the photo?

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Sanders also offers a 30 day in-home trial.
I’m an owner and my subjective opinion is that, in the (very small) sweet spot they are up there with the best speakers I’ve heard anywhere.

Sir
Can I ask, can one buy, just the speakers and use them with one's own amplification, and, without subwoofers?

 

[Willem]

I have had Quad electrostats ever since 1977. First the ESL57s, and for the last fourteen years the 2805s. I have always loved their undistorted clarity, but the ELS 57 suffered from limited bass output, limited spl capability and a narrow listening window. The 2805 reduced all of these problems significantly. For the last 25 years I have been listening in a large room and I found the improvements brought by the 2805 very useful. Even so, I have added first one, and finally a total of three subwoofers (and a high pass filter to the power amp). I quickly discovered that integrating subwoofers with the Quads was not easy. However, it was not because of an alleged difference in "speed" or anything, but quite simply because as dipoles the Quads were so good at dealing with room modes that a traditional subwoofer could only disappoint. Adding simple ANtimode 8033 dsp room eq cured the room modes at subwoofer frequencies, and integration was suddenly seamless, and combined with a high pass filter combined output power is now also much greater. Adding first one, and then two subwoofers for a total of three, and equalized by MSO/miniDSP 2x4HD improved all this even further, and across a far wider listening area. It is still not the most dynamic of speaker systems, but for me it is close enough. The spatial representation is out of this world, and across a pretty wide listening window. You are not at all aware that you are listening to speakers.
I am a great fan of measurements, but if this type of speakers does not measure well, it may well be the measurement methodology.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Sir
Can I ask, can one buy, just the speakers and use them with one's own amplification, and, without subwoofers?

The speakers are the panels plus the bass units.
When you say "without subwoofers" are you referring to the bass units? If so, I don't think it's really possible (or sensible) to buy the panels on their own. All the wiring and panel mounting and step up transformer (to supply voltage to the panels) is part of the bass units.
Also the panels on their own go down to ~175 Hz, so you really do need to have something else taking over from there

Regarding using your own amps, yes you could. They are fully active hybrids so you need 4 channels of amplification but the crossover and amps are external to the speakers so you can use your own amps. Bear in mind that you get two channels of amplification (via a magtech amp) and the crossover when you buy the speakers.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

The speakers are the panels plus the bass units.
When you say "without subwoofers" are you referring to the bass units? If so, I don't think it's really possible (or sensible) to buy the panels on their own. All the wiring and panel mounting and step up transformer (to supply voltage to the panels) is part of the bass units.
Also the panels on their own go down to ~175 Hz, so you really do need to have something else taking over from there

Regarding using your own amps, yes you could. They are fully active hybrids so you need 4 channels of amplification but the crossover and amps are external to the speakers so you can use your own amps. Bear in mind that you get two channels of amplification (via a magtech amp) and the crossover when you buy the speakers.

Thank you Sir
I'm a bit thick, perhaps you won't mind one further clarification. Really, one needs to buy two panels with two bass units. The one magtech amp which comes with this package provides amplification for both bass units? One panel and one bass unit? Perhaps, if I just ask you. For $20,000, I would just need to connect my two Quad monobloks to the resultant package? Dispense with the current two subs that I use, and that would be all I would need for sonic perfection?
Thank you for.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Thank you Sir
I'm a bit thick, perhaps you won't mind one further clarification. Really, one needs to buy two panels with two bass units. The one magtech amp which comes with this package provides amplification for both bass units? One panel and one bass unit? Perhaps, if I just ask you. For $20,000, I would just need to connect my two Quad monobloks to the resultant package? Dispense with the current two subs that I use, and that would be all I would need for sonic perfection?
Thank you for.

From the sanders website (with my comments in green)

This price includes:

*Electrostatic Speakers with 1) aluminum bass driver and 2) revised transmission line This means two panels and two bass units. In combination their stated frequency response is 20Hz to 27kHz +/- 2dB
*Magtech Amplifier This can be used for any two channels. It could be both bass units or both panels (or even one panel and one bass uni)t. Your Quads would be used to drive the other two channels - I'm not familiar with Quads so they may or may not be a great match
*New LMS (Loudspeaker Management System) includes digital crossover with a Room Correction System, Digital Signal Processor, and Real Time Analyzer This is the digital crossover unit (and it also does basic automatic room measurement and correction). You connect your preamp to the inputs and it sends 4 channels of outputs to your amplifiers

Whether or not this is sonic perfection is not for me to say. I love them. but from an objective perspective speakers like these don't rate very well - they beam strongly and other electrostats have fared poorly in Toole's double blind speaker tests.
The beaming means that the sweet spot is very small. If you like listening with other people around, this is a problem. They really are a 'selfish' speaker

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

From the sanders website (with my comments in green)

This price includes:

*Electrostatic Speakers with 1) aluminum bass driver and 2) revised transmission line This means two panels and two bass units. In combination their stated frequency response is 20Hz to 27kHz +/- 2dB
*Magtech Amplifier This can be used for any two channels. It could be both bass units or both panels (or even one panel and one bass uni)t. Your Quads would be used to drive the other two channels - I'm not familiar with Quads so they may or may not be a great match
*New LMS (Loudspeaker Management System) includes digital crossover with a Room Correction System, Digital Signal Processor, and Real Time Analyzer This is the digital crossover unit (and it also does basic automatic room measurement and correction). You connect your preamp to the inputs and it sends 4 channels of outputs to your amplifiers

Whether or not this is sonic perfection is not for me to say. I love them. but from an objective perspective speakers like these don't rate very well - they beam strongly and other electrostats have fared poorly in Toole's double blind speaker tests.
The beaming means that the sweet spot is very small. If you like listening with other people around, this is a problem. They really are a 'selfish' speaker

Thank you for that comprehensive reply! You have left me fully up to speed!

 

[anmpr1]

To the best of my knowledge, only the Sanders ESL has a lifetime warranty. The industry-standard is 5 years.

That certainly speaks for the manufacturer's QC, and their commitment to long term service. However from a practical standpoint it's all uncertain. Acoustat panels had a 'lifetime of the product' warranty (as did some ReVox open reel tape decks--sans heads and belts). '70s JBL monitors came with a 'limited' warranty, but the company was known to replace drivers gratis if they ever blew up.

Those practices and support went the way of the products themselves.

 

[Newman]

I quickly discovered that integrating subwoofers with the Quads was not easy. However, it was not because of an alleged difference in "speed" or anything, but quite simply because as dipoles the Quads were so good at dealing with room modes that a traditional subwoofer could only disappoint.

“Good”? Earl Geddes takes the view that reducing the number of room modes excited is a bad thing, not a good thing. Modal density, as he calls it, helps to improve the perception of good bass.

Adding simple ANtimode 8033 dsp room eq cured the room modes at subwoofer frequencies, and integration was suddenly seamless, and combined with a high pass filter combined output power is now also much greater.

Regardless of the speaker type, bass EQ is a profound improvement.

I suspect that the only issue you were having with “traditional subwoofers” (whatever that means: aren’t you still using them?) before EQ, is that untreated bass is bad bass.

I am a great fan of measurements, but if this type of speakers does not measure well, it may well be the measurement methodology.

Spoken like a true fan. “I’ll only endorse measurements when they confirm my sighted listening impressions/biases.”

 

[TLEDDY]

Sir
Can I ask, can one buy, just the speakers and use them with one's own amplification, and, without subwoofers?

Yes to amplification; no to subs

i am using Benchmark amps on mine to great success!

My Sanders 10e are my last speakers at age 82. I am blessed to be able to acquire, up to a rational cost, any speaker
I want. The Sanders are in the middle of my budget, but for my own taste, they are ideal - nothing else appeals to me.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Yes to amplification; no to subs

i am using Benchmark amps on mine to great success!

My Sanders 10e are my last speakers at age 82. I am blessed to be able to acquire, up to a rational cost, any speaker
I want. The Sanders are in the middle of my budget, but for my own taste, they are ideal - nothing else appeals to me.

Thank you TLEDDY. Are you saying there is no need for subs? I would be using Quad monobloks. 170 into 8 ohms.

 

[misterdog]

I quickly discovered that integrating subwoofers with the Quads was not easy.

I have Quad 989's built into custom made steel stands, which allows the centre of the panel to be at ear height (the factory version employs a tilt back using the feet) and massively increases rigidity.

I have two 12" subwoofers to provide the bottom octave.

A MiniDSP plate amp provides power for the subs and full tuneability in real time via my laptop.
I split the source signal to both the plate amp (subs) and Benchmark AHB2 for the panels.

Works a treat.

 

[Willem]

I would think our experiences are quite similar. The 2805/2905's have a more rigid frame than the 988/989's so I gues there is less need for a more rigid frame such as you use. I could not have the larger Quads because the speakers are sitting under a wide panorama window, so using subwoofers became even more important. Equalizing the subs to remove room modes turned out to be crucial for integration, as it seems to have been in your case.

 

[misterdog]

When Quad added two extra panels to the 989 series, from the 63's (four panels) adding more bass and general output, all they did was extend the same aluminium L section by around 400mm in length.
This L section was already flimsy, as is it is only slotted into the top and bottom plastic sections. All the panels are only attached to this L section by 4 screws.
Given that the actual Mylar membrane only has an excursion of C.1mm and the L section can deflect around 10mm from just the weight of the panels when the speaker is laid down, I considered this a design flaw.

Though one internet sage stated - Peter Walker designed them to be lossy.......
After I stiffened the frame I proved that to be nonsense.

I also removed the dust covers and protective metal grills (disclaimer- the exposed high voltages could kill you if touched)
Also the grills are an integral part of the holding the structure together.

The dust covers loose tension over time and flap around like a spinnaker with little wind, so off they went.
An internet sage told me that in doing so the Mylar membranes would attract dust/increase in mass and hence reduce in quality/output.
After around 5 years with no dust covers there is no visible accumulation of dust, though I do gently vacuum them.

The Quad speakers were built to minimise weight, presumably for shipping to keep the weight (and build cost) down.
Though the later 20 series have an added centre brace to the rear and also a 4Kg 'ballast' plate to prevent toppling.

Great speakers, though they do dominate the room....

 

[anmpr1]

I am a great fan of measurements, but if this type of speakers does not measure well, it may well be the measurement methodology.

It is probably better to say that although the microphone does not lie, you prefer a certain type of sound that might not be considered textbook 'ideal'. Is there anything wrong with your preference? I don't think so.

I'm reminded of Richard Heyser (really the first reviewer I recall that attempted to rigorously measure loudspeaker performance) stating that on one particular loudspeaker he reviewed he couldn't get the recorded piano to sound like a piano. When I heard the loudspeaker I thought it did very well with the piano--in fact, one of the best I'd heard.

Obviously Heyser knew more about loudspeaker design in his deepest darkest sleep than I'll ever know in my most lucid waking hours. But that was what I heard, and that was my conclusion, nevertheless.

 

[Bwmr]

Is the primary reason why electrostats measure poorly because they're dipole? If so what about JansZen's e-stats? They're enclosed in a backbox w/ glass fill in them supposedly. They're also working on a headphone now. I've always wondered what directivity of an e-stat is supposed to look like, curious if they're hyper focused and narrow or more like AMT / Ribbons that are a little more wide.


View attachment 362411

I own a pair. If I have to describe them subjectively, I would say they are "focused" and "narrow beam" both horizontally and vertically.

 

[steve f]

Sanders also offers a 30 day in-home trial.
I’m an owner and my subjective opinion is that, in the (very small) sweet spot they are up there with the best speakers I’ve heard anywhere.

I’m another Sanders ESL owner. If you are willing to sit in the sweet spot, they are excellent. It’s not a head in a vice tiny sweet spot, but at 12 feet away, it’s only 2 people wide. I’ve owned Quad 989s which allowed a wider listening area. The segmented Sound Labs, just my opinion, are very good. I don’t care for M-L. There’s just something wrong about the curved diaphragm. It looks cool though.

 

[dlaloum]

I’m another Sanders ESL owner. If you are willing to sit in the sweet spot, they are excellent. It’s not a head in a vice tiny sweet spot, but at 12 feet away, it’s only 2 people wide. I’ve owned Quad 989s which allowed a wider listening area. The segmented Sound Labs, just my opinion, are very good. I don’t care for M-L. There’s just something wrong about the curved diaphragm. It looks cool though.

Also the M-L's integration with their woofer has never been quite 100% in my opinion...

Perhaps in this day and age of digital roomEQ bass management, the woofer integration issues can be resolved...

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I’m another Sanders ESL owner. If you are willing to sit in the sweet spot, they are excellent. It’s not a head in a vice tiny sweet spot, but at 12 feet away, it’s only 2 people wide. I’ve owned Quad 989s which allowed a wider listening area. The segmented Sound Labs, just my opinion, are very good. I don’t care for M-L. There’s just something wrong about the curved diaphragm. It looks cool though.

Forgive my ignorance. If you sit closer than your 12 feet, is the sweet spot wider or narrower?

 

[Jazzman53]

I was an ESL builder for many years, and I concede that I've become quite opinionated about what I think works, and doesn't.

My first ESLs were hybrids, with the woofer in a transmission line enclosure, and a perf-metal stator, flat panel ESL. These beamed like a lasers but sounded great in their minuscule sweet spot.

My latest ESLs are also hybrids, but with wide-dispersion, symmetrically segmented wire-stator flat-panels, and an open baffle woofer.

Anyone who hasn't experienced sitting at the focal point of a pair of an un-segmented flat panel ESL's, like Sanders' speakers, would have no reference to imagine how directional they are, or how magical their imaging is at the focal sweet spot. Any description its sound should include the caveat "in the focal sweet spot" because its sound changes profoundly as one moves outside its tightly focused sweet spot.

I don't consider beaming a fault, insofar is it gives pinpoint imaging that seems rather magical... but it's not good for entertaining guests.

It's been my experience that a woofer mounted in a sealed or ported enclosure (like the ML's) can't blend seamlessly with the ESL panel in the critical crossover-overlap.

My engineer's mind is also critical of the asymmetric drive forces and hoop restraint imposed by curving an ESL panel, which hurts efficiency but I can't say that it's audibly objectionable.

I've also found that a transmission line woofer blends much better, but an open baffle-mounted woofer with low inductance (< 0.8mH) and Qts =/< 0.5 blends so seamlessly that it sounds like a single driver. The downside with an OB is that it rolls off the bass higher (i.e. the dipole roll-off) so it needs subs < 60Hz.

My 2 cents...