Unless you do have a boxed woofer just under the panel like Hybrid Logans (post CLS)
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Electrostatic speakers?
- Thread starter Pearljam5000
- Start date
Unless you do have a boxed woofer just under the panel like Hybrid Logans (post CLS)
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Doesn't really work that well, though, if the crossover is too high, which it is on some of the smaller panels.
400 Hz in the case of the ESL X.
Yep, it's even 500 Hz in my panels.
Cross mine at 110 Hz for music, and 90 Hz for Movies. But this would mostly be dependent upon setup, room acoustics, room placement and/or if your ruining a powered sub in combination.
Sanders Electrostats with BACCH in the sweet spot = (subjectively) the best sound I've heard on pretty much any system
T.J. McKenna
Active Member
You constantly hear how amazingly "quick" stats are but I wonder how much this is a psycho-acoustic artifact., resulting partly from the tonal balance - generally "bright" - as well as the absence of the box. Open-baffle designs using dynamic drivers sound equally "quick" and much more dynamic and powerful. My other quibble with the electrostatic "sound" is that it over-emphasizes "delicacy"; while live music sounds "delicate" to some extent, the spurious all-pervading "delicacy" I hear with electrostatics sounds very unnatural to me. Of course, audiophiles who crave delicacy, delicacy, and more delicacy cannot get enough of the sound. Everything else sounds coarse, brutish, and, worst-of-all, low-rent.
Same here.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,403
I suspect this perception (to the extent it may have a real basis) is more about the directional properties of the speakers than the absence of a box: because electrostats emit very little energy to the sides and tend to also have very narrow vertical dispersion, first reflections are greatly diminished/delayed relative to box monopoles.
I think the subjective quickness may at least partially stem from the extent to which electrostatic speakers beam at high frequencies. More beaming means less reflected sound and a more subjectively detailed presentation.
Beat me to it and said it better.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,403
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
This is why I ultimately got rid of mine.
I couldn't spend my life listening only to chamber music.
T.J. McKenna
Active Member
The other basis for the perception of "quickness" is probably one of preconception. Most listeners "know" that esl diaphragms are extremely light and ceteris paribus lightness means quick response.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,335
- Likes
- 6,702
Better than your 8c with BACCH?
Thank you for mentioning overhang. I've been looking for (and hadn't yet found) that word.
T.J. McKenna
Active Member
Well, this is easily solved: one set of speakers for chamber music; another for full orchestra; another for unamplified popular music; another for techno; yet another for metal; etc
In absolute terms, no, but there have been significant enhancements to BACCH software--particuarly with respect to bass performance--since I heard the Sanders electrostatic speakers with a BACCH-SP unit in early 2015. My system with 8Cs is close, but I don't get quite as much crosstalk cancellation with the 8Cs as one can get with the Sanders speakers in a BACCH setup. I think the Sanders speakers with BACCH are a true endgame setup.
The main reason I don't own Sanders loudspeakers is that I don't like the way they sound without BACCH. I also think my room is a little small for them.
All that said, I love the 8Cs, my system is great, I'm very lucky, and I don't listen to it enough. And thanks to Keith of Purite Audio because, but for his demo of the 8Cs, I would never have bought them.
Last edited:
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I would expect dipole designs with dynamic drivers to have all the advantages (lack of box resonances, no side wall reflections, tons of treble reverb and envelopment) with none of the disadvantages (crazy panel resonances, no bass dynamic abilities without an 8' panel, incredibly narrow dispersion). I listened to some of the really big Acoustats a while ago and they are very impressive, no woofer, 4+4 model I think. Sounded a bit dark but I completely understand the appeal. The lack of boxiness is wonderful and an underrated issue in speakers imho.
The problem, really the only problem with dynamic dipoles is that they need active crossovers, and the demands put on the bass drivers are pretty extreme. I'm always designing a dynamic dipole with a 12" sealed sub, a 10" dipole low-mid, a 4" upper mid and two 26mm tweeters. If I can figure out an elegant way to get 8 channels of amplification into two speakon cables I'll probably build it.
The Nao and Linkwitz LX521 designs are the best known but there are a handful of other commercial offerings. The ones with PA drivers (Emerald Physics or something) and the ones with Lowthers/Full Range are not worth pursuing in my opinion. Troels Gravesen made an interesting dipole design.
The problem, really the only problem with dynamic dipoles is that they need active crossovers, and the demands put on the bass drivers are pretty extreme. I'm always designing a dynamic dipole with a 12" sealed sub, a 10" dipole low-mid, a 4" upper mid and two 26mm tweeters. If I can figure out an elegant way to get 8 channels of amplification into two speakon cables I'll probably build it.
The Nao and Linkwitz LX521 designs are the best known but there are a handful of other commercial offerings. The ones with PA drivers (Emerald Physics or something) and the ones with Lowthers/Full Range are not worth pursuing in my opinion. Troels Gravesen made an interesting dipole design.
Similar threads
