Electrostatic speakers?

[T.J. McKenna]

The Spatial Audio and GR Research OB's don't have active crossovers. To be honest, I think they should be entirely active but as they're catering for an audiophile market that seems to be anti-active I see why they might have taken that decision. And yes, you're right about the demands on the bass driver. Basically fifteen-inch or multiple smaller drivers are the minimum and then you're still struggling to equal the bass power of even a small powered monitor.

 

[richard12511]

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.

Very interesting. My current future plan is to finish my Genelec Ones multi-channel system, then add a dedicated 2 channel system with BACCH. Future plans always subject to change, though . Leading candidate is the D&D 8C for that system, after a comparison I did with the Genelec 8351b. Also considering Kii and Grimm, but I don't like the aesthetics of the Kii as much, and it would take a pretty clear preference in a blind test for me to think the Grimm is worth the extra cost. I'm a little skeptical of the Grimm's flat baffle and lack of waveguide. Your post has me wondering if I should be looking at other options, like those from Sanders, or other panels.

These are the only measurements I can find. Not sure what to make of them, as they're so different from traditional speakers.

 

[Mikechw]

I have a pair of planar headphones and compare them with my other dynamic headphones.
They run shy on the bass department..

 

[Pearljam5000]

BACCH-SP

Very interesting. My current future plan is to finish my Genelec Ones multi-channel system, then add a dedicated 2 channel system with BACCH. Future plans always subject to change, though . Leading candidate for that system is the D&D 8C for that system, after a comparison I did with the Genelec 8351b. Also considering Kii and Grimm, but I don't like the aesthetics of the Kii as much, and it would take a pretty clear preference in a blind test for me to think the Grimm is worth the extra cost. I'm a little skeptical of the Grimm's flat baffle and lack of waveguide. Your post has me wondering if I should be looking at other options, like those from Sanders, or other panels.

These are the only measurements I can find. Not sure what to make of them, as they're so different from traditional speakers.

Is it possible for you to compare 8351B to Kii Three and 8C?
Thanks!

 

[Dialectic]

Very interesting. My current future plan is to finish my Genelec Ones multi-channel system, then add a dedicated 2 channel system with BACCH. Future plans always subject to change, though . Leading candidate is the D&D 8C for that system, after a comparison I did with the Genelec 8351b. Also considering Kii and Grimm, but I don't like the aesthetics of the Kii as much, and it would take a pretty clear preference in a blind test for me to think the Grimm is worth the extra cost. I'm a little skeptical of the Grimm's flat baffle and lack of waveguide. Your post has me wondering if I should be looking at other options, like those from Sanders, or other panels.

These are the only measurements I can find. Not sure what to make of them, as they're so different from traditional speakers.

With BACCH, the Toole/Olive conventional wisdom about loudspeakers goes out the window. The key to achieving the best results with BACCH is maximum directivity. Constant directivity is not important, and the beaminess of electrostatic speakers at high frequencies becomes an attractive feature, not a problem to be engineered away.

Because Sanders electrostats are essentially huge flat panels, they beam heavily, which is good for BACCH.

 

[Dialectic]

Is it possible for you to compare 8351B to Kii Three and 8C?
Thanks!

I have not heard the Genelec 8351Bs, but I'm sure they're good speakers. I don't think they are capable of the cardioid effect of the 8Cs and Kii Threes.

 

[richard12511]

Is it possible for you to compare 8351B to Kii Three and 8C?
Thanks!

If I get the 8C, I'll likely do a blind test with the 8351B. Likelihood of the same for the Kii is pretty low, though, as I don't know anyone who owns it, and there is no dealer near me . If anyone in Texas owns a Kii Three and would be willing to do a blind with the 8351b, PM me . I also prefer the aesthetic of the 8C.

 

[richard12511]

With BACCH, the Toole/Olive conventional wisdom about loudspeakers goes out the window. The key to achieving the best results with BACCH is maximum directivity. Constant directivity is not important, and the beaminess of electrostatic speakers at high frequencies becomes an attractive feature, not a problem to be engineered away.

Because Sanders electrostats are essentially huge flat panels, they beam heavily, which is good for BACCH.

Interesting, maybe I'll test run BACCH with my JTR speakers. The JTR speakers are super narrow(30°x 30°) and image insanely well(better than the Genelecs). Makes me think they might do well with BACCH. Do you have any experience with the basic version(think it's like ~$900?)?, and if so, how does it compare to the pro version. I'd like to try the cheap version first just for testing purposes, but only if the effect is comparable.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is why I ultimately got rid of mine.

I couldn't spend my life listening only to chamber music.

Well, there are worse things. Stats on chamber music is certainly the best way to hear chamber music.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

With BACCH, the Toole/Olive conventional wisdom about loudspeakers goes out the window. The key to achieving the best results with BACCH is maximum directivity. Constant directivity is not important, and the beaminess of electrostatic speakers at high frequencies becomes an attractive feature, not a problem to be engineered away.

Because Sanders electrostats are essentially huge flat panels, they beam heavily, which is good for BACCH.

I have heard BACCH on my Sanders and also on a pair of Kii3s.
Whilst not as good, the result on the Kiis was very impressive. In fact my friend who owns the Kiis actually preferred what BACCH does on them versus the Sanders. On one particular track (Dead can Dance - the Ubiquitous Mr. Lovegrove), the Sanders put sound behind your head whereas the Kiis just present a massive soundstage which my friend felt was more 'natural'

Anyways, I know it's not quite on topic but I think anyone with electrostats or other 'beaming' speakers should give BACCH a go

 

[Dialectic]

Interesting, maybe I'll test run BACCH with my JTR speakers. The JTR speakers are super narrow(30°x 30°) and image insanely well(better than the Genelecs). Makes me think they might do well with BACCH. Do you have any experience with the basic version(think it's like ~$900?)?, and if so, how does it compare to the pro version. I'd like to try the cheap version first just for testing purposes, but only if the effect is comparable.

The effect with the Basic version is not nearly as powerful as that with the Audiophile or Pro versions, as Basic does not use filters specifically calibrated for the user's system, room, and head and does not support head tracking. If there is anyone in your area who has BACCH4Mac Audiophile or Pro, you might ask them if you can get an A/B demo of their system with and without BACCH (easy to turn the effect on and off in the software).

Sorry to have hijacked the theread.

 

[watchnerd]

Well, there are worse things. Stats on chamber music is certainly the best way to hear chamber music.

Maybe.

I've heard some ultra mini monitors (e.g. original / classic Acoustic Energy AE1) that were just as good.

 

[Duke]

They will measure terrible for sure. Mine fit your sound description as well. Reference sound though measured they will have a very poor rating.

I watched a SoundLab speaker being measured on the factory floor years ago. The microphone had to be a considerable distance away to get a representative capture, as up close to a dipole the frontwave drowns out the backwave in the bass region (higher up it doesn't matter).

I wrote about what I saw in this post.

 

[PaulD]

Well, there are worse things. Stats on chamber music is certainly the best way to hear chamber music.

I agree, but best of both worlds here - that is an SVS SB2000 sub integrated underneath the Quad 63. Xover is 95 Hz or so, 24dB. Last night it rocked ACDC and Beethoven's 9th at very loud levels. I agree that you need subs with electrostatic speakers to get the bottom couple of octaves.

I'm lucky enough to be able to compare these to JBL M2s on a daily basis - they both sound excellent, and both do some things very very well.

 

[Blujackaal]

Dynamic drivers are still better in many ways. The electrostatic sound seems really overhyped when the resting issue on DD's is gone on newer headphones/Speakers. The sweet spot on Dynamic speakers seems to be 2 way or full range with a woofer crossed at 90Hz. The bass on the non dynamic's sound unnatural on Metal, EDM, pop like decay's to fast and sounds like farting when bass boosted, Eg: My ER2XR/DT 770 sound way more clean & natural than the ER4SR in my view. The 4SR was too harsh in the treble & the mids sounded fake from it being quite tin can like at the 1.9 ~ 3.2KHz area.

The durability aspect even more off putting since you can kill LCD's by taking them of your head suddenly.

 

[Dialectic]

Well, there are worse things. Stats on chamber music is certainly the best way to hear chamber music.

The second best way.

 

[AdamG]

Jus an FYI since there seems to be some dated knowledge floating about here. Almost all of the ML Electrostatic speakers are now Hybrid build types. They have also curved the panels to reduce the head in a vice problem. The only product line left that is not a hybrid is the CLX Art and the EFX surround model.

‘The ESL-X’s have two 8” Low Frequency Drivers in a ported enclosure.

https://www.martinlogan.com/en/category/our-speakers

 

[watchnerd]

They have also curved the panels to reduce the head in a vice problem.

They've had curved panels for 30+ years.

I owned ML hybrid speakers for 10+ years.

They help a little, but they don't make the problem go away, by any means.

 

[Dialectic]

Jus an FYI since there seems to be some dated knowledge floating about here. Almost all of the ML Electrostatic speakers are now Hybrid build types. They have also curved the panels to reduce the head in a vice problem.

I believe the curved electrostatic panel was invented by none other than Roger Sanders. He has since changed his views and manufactures loudspeakers with flat electrostatic panels that are designed to be "beamy."

 

[Frank Dernie]

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.

This is my opinion too.
I find panels even more sensitive to room position and angle than box speakers too, so, IME, the sound can vary from the sublime to the ridiculous with the same speakers in the same room just because of the figire-of-eight(ish) radiation pattern.