Electrostatic speakers?

[Blumlein 88]

Before more specific complaints about my generalization of big panels let me explain a bit. First it was a generalization. I am referring to large panels like the 2+2 or model Twos, Threes, Soundlabs and other full range large panel ESL's. They'll have a membrane resonance which causes a bit of a hump below 100 hz. They'll start to beam causing a slightly rising response somewhere in the midrange and up. Between these is a bit of a trough which is why I call it a mild smiley face. Of course EQ can mostly fix this. And they still don't sound like box speakers.

 

[RayDunzl]

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... ?

To me (deaf) , yes.

To others, well, nobody has spontaneously complained.

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 don't think the referenced testing provided any measurements, just the listener ratings and some discussion.

 

[carewser]

Despite no longer owning them, I do not regret my time with electrostats.

You have to own panel speakers at least once in your life to earn all the audiophile merit badges.

I agree, I always thought electrostatics were expensive but when I bought my latest set of speakers I saw some Quad's for sale in the shop and they were only $10,000/pair

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I don't think the referenced testing provided any measurements, just the listener ratings and some discussion.

I've always been intrigued by poor preference given to electrostats in the Harman tests. I love electrostats and wonder whether I'm falling for sighted bias?

But I also do wonder if anyone has any information about how the tests were performed? For example, were they done in a group or done with a single person at a time sitting in the "sweet spot"? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this

 

[watchnerd]

I've always been intrigued by poor preference given to electrostats in the Harman tests. I love electrostats and wonder whether I'm falling for sighted bias?

But I also do wonder if anyone has any information about how the tests were performed? For example, were they done in a group or done with a single person at a time sitting in the "sweet spot"? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this

Some people, by Harman's own admission, fall outside of the preference curve.

I might be one of them -- I recently got the AKG 371, which is supposed to be very close to the Harman curve out of the box, and while not offensive, I think it's really boring.

 

[watchnerd]

I agree, I always thought electrostatics were expensive but when I bought my latest set of speakers I saw some Quad's for sale in the shop and they were only $10,000/pair

Well, I didn't pay $10k for any of the ML's I've owned.

 

[Duke]

But I also do wonder if anyone has any information about how the tests were performed? For example, were they done in a group or done with a single person at a time sitting in the "sweet spot"? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this

My understanding is that the listening tests were done in Harman's "speaker shuffler" room. Single speaker vs single speaker, not sure how many listeners. The speakers were behind a curtain and three or four different speakers were quickly and randomly shuffled into place by the mechanical shuffler.

The room is shown and the testing described about halfway down this page:

The Harman Tour Part 1 - Loudspeaker Audio (audio-head.com)

Edit: This looks like an earlier article, the room may have been more like this when the Martin Logans were listened to:

A Visit To Harman Academy, Home of Revel, JBL Synthesis, Lexicon, Mark Levinson and More! (thescreeningroomav.com)

 

[Wombat]

Agreed, except I would say "sweet" is the opposite of "dry".

Wet or damp, more likely.

 

[Wombat]

I think the forum software allows splitting threads. Which if BDW thinks is appropriate, instead of deletion, it's an alternative.

Unfortunately too many threads become waylaid by ill-informed arguments, or otherwise waffle. It is not getting better.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

The Harman Tour Part 1 - Loudspeaker Audio (audio-head.com)[/QUOTE]

Edit: This looks like an earlier article, the room may have been more like this when the Martin Logans were listened to:

A Visit To Harman Academy, Home of Revel, JBL Synthesis, Lexicon, Mark Levinson and More! (thescreeningroomav.com)

Thanks Duke, '
Interesting that the article states that "Harman has an apparatus that can change out and place each speaker into the exact same listening position within three seconds …..." but the video shows the speakers just moving forward from their positions they do not replace each other in the same spot in the horizontal plane (in other words they are not in the exact same position).

It also appears that there are multiple listeners and therefore not everyone is listening from the same position. Again, I don't know the details of the conditions of the actual published test but if it was done in groups (with most people therefore not in the sweet spot) then my expectation is that results should be skewed towards favouring speakers with even off-axis response.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The problem with audio is that discussions of this nature are almost unavoidable because controlled experiments are extremely difficult to set up. Besides, the validity of these experiments is another bone of contention. So speculation and conjecture is likely to be the currency of the realm despite all the huffing and puffing about "science".

I'm curious, then: In terms of their objective performance, what is it about the KRK's that, in your opinion, allow them to reproduce most instruments with more timbral realism?

 

[SIY]

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

That would take a pretty large room, I'd think. My modification was a rebuild of the frames, which made the front-to-back path significantly longer. Looked horrible the way I did it, but it worked. Someone more skilled with wood could pull it off and have it look decent.

 

[misterdog]

That may well be the reason why a 'stat panel is often paired with a woofer. The trick is to get the woofer and 'stat to blend together well around the crossover region.

Which is where using a MiniDSP or Hypex plate amplifier for the sub/s works to perfection.
I have 2x 12" subs one boxed, one Dipole with my Quad 989's.
Interestingly the subs only engage on Synth bass, the Quads panels go down to around 40Hz.

Though one of my biggest upgrades over the years was placing the Quad panels in a solid steel frame, the flimsy nature of the 63/98 series frames especially on the 6 panel larger Quads severely limits their performance.
When they stretched the 63's by adding the 2 extra panels they merely elongated the 10x10mm x 1mm aluminium angle, so that it flexes even more !!.

 

[misterdog]

as I said in my Richard C. Heyser Memorial Lecture to the Audio Engineering Society in October 2011 (footnote 1), panel speakers behave in a mathematically chaotic manner, which leads to the production of subharmonics—this lies at –70dB (0.03%). The Quad ESL-2805 is considerably more linear than many tube amplifiers!

Cone drivers can have 3-10 % distortion.

As I reduce the distortion levels from my signal into my Quad 989's, they sound better and better.
SMSL M400 DAC - THD+N 0.00007 %
Bruno Putzeys designed preamp.
Neurochrome monoblock amplifiers - Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 0.00043% 1 kHz, 55 W, 8 ", 20 kHz BW
All through balanced shielded signal cable and 20cm speaker cables.
The panels are raised to reduce floor reflection, with the 3degree tilt back removed.

Some argue that THD+N 0.00007 % is non sense as no one can hear that, though this is then added to the distortion of the preamp and then the power amp, cumulatively, plus any noise picked up through the cabling.
So what is the total level of distortion that you are listening to ?

The head in a vice sweet spot becomes a fallacy of poorly implemented systems. As does the lack of dynamics and bass.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive to listening to distortion than others, but listening to crossovers and loudspeaker boxes just irritates me these days.

 

[misterdog]

But don't real instruments do this? Hit a snare and everything emanates from what is more or less a single point. Can you think of a single instrument where the sound is generated in similar fashion to an ESL?

Though people like to compare the sound of an electric guitar and electric bass to their system, no one knows how these instruments 'sound' as they are only ever heard through the amps and box speakers of the musicians choice.

Go and stand next to a cello, violin, or drum kit played acoustically and compare it to panel or box speakers.

 

[watchnerd]

Though people like to compare the sound of an electric guitar and electric bass to their system, no one knows how these instruments 'sound' as they are only ever heard through the amps and box speakers of the musicians choice.
.

You're misunderstanding the role of instrument amplification.

A guitar amp / bass amp, plus instrument and effects, is the sound. It's part of the musical instrument.

Instrument amps are producers, not reproducers.

 

[RayDunzl]

The head in a vice sweet spot becomes a fallacy of poorly implemented systems.

That makes me wonder why anyone likes headphones, then.

 

[thewas]

That makes me wonder why anyone likes headphones, then.

For example I like headphones for their easy to EQ tonality, low distortions, high SPL for money, great isolation for ambient noises and no room acoustics problems, but don't like them for their unnatural in-head localisation compared to a good loudspeaker setup unless you combine them with something laborious and expensive like the Smyth Realiser.
This disadvantage is for me personally so big that I prefer listening to 99% of the time from my loudspeaker setups.

 

[richard12511]

I agree, I always thought electrostatics were expensive but when I bought my latest set of speakers I saw some Quad's for sale in the shop and they were only $10,000/pair

"Only $10,000"?

Apologies if I've missed some sarcasm

 

[Wes]

"Science is the attempt to conceive of the world under the category of quantity. From the standpoint of observation, science is never satisfied with mere observation. Scientific observation is designed expressly to replace observations in terms of personal feelings by observations of an absolute stability, by quantitative measurements. All scientific observation whatever is measurement of one kind or another. The scientific method is a method of measurement; and in scientific observation measurement is anterior even to enumeration. When we say that scientific observation is 'exact', we mean no more than that it is conceived in terms of quantitative measurement. Similarly, from the standpoint of explanation, the scientific method is dominated by quantitative categories. Scientific explanation is always in terms of quantitative concepts. The scientific method offers us an escape from the world of merely personal explanations and descriptions in terms of the unstable categories of personal experience as such, by substituting for these an explanation in terms of categories which are absolutely stable, common and communicable, in terms of purely quantitative concepts".

Poll: "overly verbose" or "dry and succinct"?

How about ignorant?