Electrostatic speakers?

[SIY]

Having some Harman speakers and ESL's in the same room can be somewhat enlightening. The Harman designs do seem to be more transparent and get out of the way of the music more than the ESL. It primarily comes through as a perceived FR difference. This seems so on things I've recorded and know what the sound was like.

It is worth noting that a speaker meeting the guidelines from Harman avoid any significant resonance. So the boxiness often perceived in box speakers is low in level if not absent.

In a position to switch between them pretty quickly the valued qualities of the ESL don't seem much in evidence though a coloration does.

None of this has been rigorously pursued much less probed with extensive measurements about how the dipolar radiation interacts with everything else.

Yet, put the ESL's in a room, listen to them, and you'll be enjoying them. Of course I also enjoy the Harman box speakers too. Enough that it makes me question if putting up with the care and feeding of big panel ESL's is worth it anymore.

Would you distinguish between the "big panel sound" and something like an ESL-63 that radiates more like a point source? Or do they both have common colorations to you?

My last ESLs were 1+1s, which were sort of a pseudo-line-source.

 

[RayDunzl]

Having some Harman speakers and ESL's in the same room can be somewhat enlightening.

I do!

The Harman designs do seem to be more transparent and get out of the way of the music more than the ESL.

Opinion:

Nope. Not what I would call transparent.

It primarily comes through as a perceived FR difference.

Nope. Not when both are EQ'd to a similar slope.

In a position to switch between them pretty quickly the valued qualities of the ESL don't seem much in evidence though a coloration does.

Imaging is the major difference here. and SPL, since the little guys give up too soon.

None of this has been rigorously pursued much less probed with extensive measurements about how the dipolar radiation interacts with everything else.

I've done the best I can.

Yet, put the ESL's in a room, listen to them, and you'll be enjoying them. Of course I also enjoy the Harman box speakers too.

Both have their place here. The JBLs are the econobox good gas mileage speakers here.

Enough that it makes me question if putting up with the care and feeding of big panel ESL's is worth it anymore.

It is for me when I exceed the capabilities of the little JBLs on Beer Saturdays.

---

Ok, so it's an unfair competition in my case.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Would you distinguish between the "big panel sound" and something like an ESL-63 that radiates more like a point source? Or do they both have common colorations to you?

My last ESLs were 1+1s, which were sort of a pseudo-line-source.

The ESL-63 is sort of unique. It has some of the big panel sound, but not all of it. The Acoustat Two, Three, 2+2's and Soundlabs have the full big panel sound. The 1+1 does not have what I'm referring to. It just sounds like it hasn't got the low end, which it doesn't.

In perceived FR it is a mild smiley face. The panels have some hump in the upper bass which give it a bigger sound like it has real bass. Yet from the dipole nature I assume it doesn't sound whatsoever resonant like the same hump in a box does. There is a mild dip around male voices, and lower female voices before response recovers giving a detailed, but not bright sound. Then of course an airiness not usually heard form regular tweeters.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I do!



Opinion:

Nope. Not what I would call transparent.



Nope. Not when both are EQ'd to a similar slope.



Imaging is the major difference here. and SPL, since the little guys give up too soon.



I've done the best I can.



Both have their place here. The JBLs are the econobox good gas mileage speakers here.



It is for me when I exceed the capabilities of the little JBLs on Beer Saturdays.

---

Ok, so it's an unfair competition in my case.

Yes, you've given us more real measures than most. Thank you.

I wouldn't include the JBL's the way you use them in the far field. Bigger Revels are what I had in mind or using the JBLs as intended for nearfield monitoring. But there is no way to use the ESL's as near field monitors. I have set up my 305's on a table for near field use and further out in the room were my ESLs. And again the FR difference is noticeable. This is all uncorrected. Once you start EQ'ing then it is a different story.

 

[RayDunzl]

Raw Frequency Response, no EQ, at the 10 foot listening position (it's where I listen), Martin Logan hybrid ESL (the worst speakers ever scientifically
tested) vs JBL LSR 308 (Harman Approved), normalized at 1kHz, with 1/3 smoothing:

The JBL are adjacent to the mid-panel and placed alongside (outboard) of the panels.

It's where they are and where they've been, about 50" off the floor.

 

[RayDunzl]

I wouldn't include the JBL's the way you use them in the far field.

I use them for casual listening - the Daily Drivers - at moderate SPL, for TV and anything coming out of the TV, but not for spirited musical episodes, or Feature Presentations.

They're fine for that, in my estimation.

 

[Duke]

But there is no way to use the ESL's as near field monitors.

I have a customer who set up his full-size SoundLabs close enough that he could lean forward and touch them. They were about ten or twelve feet in front of the wall. Whether the direct sound dominated enough to qualify as "nearfield" I'm not sure, but I think that was his intention.

The panels have some hump in the upper bass which give it a bigger sound like it has real bass. Yet from the dipole nature I assume it doesn't sound whatsoever resonant like the same hump in a box does. There is a mild dip around male voices, and lower female voices before response recovers giving a detailed, but not bright sound. Then of course an airiness not usually heard form regular tweeters.

When I watched a big SoundLab being measured at the factory a few years ago, its in-room (a very big room) curve was amazingly well-behaved. Ignoring the "grass" (it was unsmoothed, and the curve was almost a straight line sloping gently downward from the bass region on up, broken only by a 3 dB up-and-down jog at about 500 Hz (the crossover between the two transformers).

Obviously @RayDunzl's curves (I'm talking about loudspeaker measaurements, not his avatar pic) are likewise ... sorry... lost my train of thought...

 

[RayDunzl]

Ok, and with "flat" EQ, the rest as above:

 

[Duke]

Ok, and with "flat" EQ, the rest as above:

View attachment 107035

How similar is the sound when EQ'd? Any clear preference?

 

[RayDunzl]

I have a customer who set up his full-size SoundLabs close enough that he could lean forward and touch them.

I set up my SL3 in 1995 about two feet apart and listened nearfield once.

The result was extraordinary.

Center was inside my head but still biased toward the front, the stereo had no bounds.

I haven't tried to repeat it, and don't know if it is repeatable,

---

Note:

Old experiment.

The sound from the panels appears to come from behind them.

Close eyes, spin around, try to locate a speaker audibly, waking toward the speaker.

My nose touched the panel while it still sounded like it was two or three feet away.

Regular speakers are easily located.

 

[RayDunzl]

How similar is the sound when EQ'd? Any clear preference?

I'm deaf, but if I don't remember which is playing, and I'm not in the sweet spot, they're indistinguishable (I have to look at the gear to see which are active).

Loud, the panels win (lots of power, low distortion).

On Axis, at the listening position, the JBL create the dreaded "wall of sound" here in my relatively untreated room, where the panels locate sounds much more precisely,

 

[richard12511]

Ok, and with "flat" EQ, the rest as above:

View attachment 107035

I'm be curious what they look like off axis. Even if EQed to the same target, the off axis of those speakers will be very different. I'm guessing the difference in off axis is the primary reason you prefer the MLs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

But Ray, your ESL s have woofers. I'm thinking of panels only.

 

[brimble]

there is no way to use the ESL's as near field monitors

Stax Sigmas are pretty much electrostatic near field monitors!

 

[RayDunzl]

I'm be curious what they look like off axis.

There isn't a lot of off axis.

The reflections of note are low in level relative to the direct sound and come from the same direction as the speakers, not from the walls, and floor and ceiling.

You like it or you don't.

 

[RayDunzl]

But Ray, your ESL s have woofers. I'm thinking of panels only.

Then only look above the crossover frequency - 180Hz.

 

[SIY]

The 1+1 does not have what I'm referring to. It just sounds like it hasn't got the low end, which it doesn't.

With one trick, you can get another half octave or so. If I can find a photo (this was 15 years ago), I'll post that.

 

[Duke]

I'm deaf

BEST audio forum disclaimer EVER.

... but if I don't remember which is playing, and I'm not in the sweet spot, they're indistinguishable (I have to look at the gear to see which are active)...

On Axis, at the listening position, the JBL create the dreaded "wall of sound" here in my relatively untreated room, where the panels locate sounds much more precisely,

So if I understand correctly, their presentations are audibly (in particular spatially) different from the sweet spot, but indistinguishable from outside of the sweet spot... ?

I would have expected the wide-pattern JBLs to "win" outside of the sweet spot. Very interesting!

To the extent that "treated rooms" = "overdamped rooms", I prefer "relatively untreated" rooms too.

Raw Frequency Response, no EQ, at the 10 foot listening position (it's where I listen), Martin Logan hybrid ESL (the worst speakers ever scientifically tested)...

You may have posted this elsewhere and I missed it:

What are your thought on how the Martin Logans measured (and scored in listening tests) at Harman, versus your own un-EQ'd in-room measurements and subjective impressions? (I'm NOT trying to start something - I'm genuinely interested in your analysis!)

 

[Blumlein 88]

With one trick, you can get another half octave or so. If I can find a photo (this was 15 years ago), I'll post that.

Are you referring to adjusting the distance to the wall behind so it reinforces the front side with the reflection?

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip
What are your thought on how the Martin Logans measured (and scored in listening tests) at Harman, versus your own un-EQ'd in-room measurements and subjective impressions? (I'm NOT trying to start something - I'm genuinely interested in your analysis!)

Ray flunked out of Harman listener school.