Electrostatic speakers?

[Newman]

....However, when ESLs participate in properly controlled listening tests, they don't do well. ...

I suppose, as proponent of science, you have handy relevant sources and data for your statement.

See below from NTK and me.

...per Dr. Toole, conventional measurements (i.e. spinorama) are equally applicable to panel dipole speakers as to conventional forward firing ones.

Yes, and Dr Olive has also reiterated that they haven't found a speaker type yet that is exempt from correctly deducing from Spinorama how they will perform in listening tests. "I have yet to find a case where the sound quality could not be predicted based on the spinorama measurements unless it had sufficiently audible distortion." link

Furthermore, Dr Olive has commented that they have put multiple brands of stat and panel speakers in their controlled listening tests and they don't win, and in the case of Martin Logan that's putting it mildly. When challenged that they probably didn't position the MLs optimally, he replied IIRC that they did, and actually tried multiple positions and setups and eventually concluded that the preferred position was outside the room, turned off.

Plus, Dr Toole was asked on ASR for comment on panel speakers including ESL, and he said, "They are just different transducers - different ways of moving air. The diaphragms cannot move very far so to generate adequate sound levels at lower frequencies they need to be large. This makes them directional, especially at higher frequencies. They cannot be enclosed, so they are inherently dipoles, which is a characteristic, not a defect. The diaphragms are very light membranes because the motive forces are not as high as the powerful linear motors in moving-coil transducers. This fact has led a lot of people to think that they can move more quickly, reveal more detail, etc. than "conventional" cones and domes. This is not the case. They also allude to more "open" sound, lacking "boxiness". This also is fantasy.

Conventional anechoic measurements are capable of revealing how such speakers can sound, and there are good and less good examples of the breed. One can easily find examples of panel loudspeakers with audible resonances, disruptive directivity characteristics, limited power handling capability, and so on. In the 3rd edition Figure , Figure 18.1(c) shows a Quad ESL Mark 1, 7.12 shows data on a Quad ESL 63, Figure 18.7(a) shows a Magnaplanar 3.6. The 1st and 2nd editions show a Martin Logan Prodigy as Speaker M in Figure 18.4. In every case the results of double-blind listening tests revealed evidence of what the measurements show." (my emphasis) link

cheers

 

[Newman]

Ah it's the elitism and expense that is the issue. The same as with vinyl.

I'll leave your belief system with you, supported by your hand picked scientific proof.

I'm providing real reasons and you are lowering the level of discourse. And not just with this latest post.

 

[Keith_W]

They also allude to more "open" sound, lacking "boxiness". This also is fantasy.

I have always wondered what dipole enthusiasts mean when they complain that conventional speakers sound "boxy". I have asked whether they think whether "boxy" sound is distinct from the dipole effect, and whether a box speaker with drivers at the back that mimics a dipole would sound "boxy" or not. I have never had a satisfactory answer, and to this day I have no idea what "boxy" sound is. So if anybody has a good explanation, I would like to hear it.

 

[Gwreck]

See below from NTK and me.

Yes, and Dr Olive has also reiterated that they haven't found a speaker type yet that is exempt from correctly deducing from Spinorama how they will perform in listening tests. "I have yet to find a case where the sound quality could not be predicted based on the spinorama measurements unless it had sufficiently audible distortion." link

Furthermore, Dr Olive has commented that they have put multiple brands of stat and panel speakers in their controlled listening tests and they don't win, and in the case of Martin Logan that's putting it mildly. When challenged that they probably didn't position the MLs optimally, he replied IIRC that they did, and actually tried multiple positions and setups and eventually concluded that the preferred position was outside the room, turned off.

Plus, Dr Toole was asked on ASR for comment on panel speakers including ESL, and he said, "They are just different transducers - different ways of moving air. The diaphragms cannot move very far so to generate adequate sound levels at lower frequencies they need to be large. This makes them directional, especially at higher frequencies. They cannot be enclosed, so they are inherently dipoles, which is a characteristic, not a defect. The diaphragms are very light membranes because the motive forces are not as high as the powerful linear motors in moving-coil transducers. This fact has led a lot of people to think that they can move more quickly, reveal more detail, etc. than "conventional" cones and domes. This is not the case. They also allude to more "open" sound, lacking "boxiness". This also is fantasy.

Conventional anechoic measurements are capable of revealing how such speakers can sound, and there are good and less good examples of the breed. One can easily find examples of panel loudspeakers with audible resonances, disruptive directivity characteristics, limited power handling capability, and so on. In the 3rd edition Figure , Figure 18.1(c) shows a Quad ESL Mark 1, 7.12 shows data on a Quad ESL 63, Figure 18.7(a) shows a Magnaplanar 3.6. The 1st and 2nd editions show a Martin Logan Prodigy as Speaker M in Figure 18.4. In every case the results of double-blind listening tests revealed evidence of what the measurements show." (my emphasis) link

cheers

As an owner of dynamic and esl speakers(not ML) if they were testing a single speaker it’s easy to know why they didn’t like listening to one ESL speaker. There is one single small sweet spot with ESL’s in stereo and no sweet spot in mono.

 

[Arindal]

Dr Olive has also reiterated that they haven't found a speaker type yet that is exempt from correctly deducing from Spinorama how they will perform in listening tests

If controlled polling on subjective sound quality preference is itself caught in a circle, that is to be expected. If I understood Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive correctly, they were mainly testing speakers in an optimized room under monaural conditions with either dry recordings without meaningful reverb pattern, or recordings not mastered for mono setups, to put it mildly, declaring to the world that mono is the way to go because it is easier to identify minor tonal shifts (which is absolutely correct but the opposite of speaker´s sound quality evaluation).

If you develop an algorithm to predict subjective preference ratings based on wrong assumptions how a meaningful listening test for reproduction properties like imaging actually works, it is to be expected that you find your own model confirmed over and over again. Circle of confusion is it called. And knowing measurements like anechoic frequency response is in my understanding causing the most decisive bias when it comes to judging speakers.

Maybe we can leave this whole Harman method aside, as seemingly the company itself decided some 15 (?) years ago that it does not bring any positive results for high end speaker development, so first repurposed Dr. Olive´s institution and finally discontinued it.

Dr Olive has commented that they have put multiple brands of stat and panel speakers in their controlled listening tests and they don't win, and in the case of Martin Logan that's putting it mildly.

If I am not mistaken, the testing institution did not dohigh end speakers tests anymore in the times ML´s were really becoming listenable. So ´in the case of Martin Logan´ means nothing newer than a chunky 1999 model which surely has its flaws?

I have always wondered what dipole enthusiasts mean when they complain that conventional speakers sound "boxy". I have asked whether they think whether "boxy" sound is distinct from the dipole effect, and whether a box speaker with drivers at the back that mimics a dipole would sound "boxy" or not.

In my understanding it is a combination of overshoot indirect sound level in the room for frequency bands below the baffle step when a box speaker tends towards omnidirectional behavior, leading to the impression of muddled lower mids, plus general resonance effects of closed-box or vented designs forming a resonator with a certain quality factor with the help of the air inside the enclosure.

A dipole is not the only way to avoid this, very broad baffles plus huge midwoofers with stiff diaphragm and huge enclosure volume would do the same to avoid the subjective impression of ´boxiness´ and overshoot of lower midrange, as would cardioids, huge linesources, chunky fullrange horns or alike. So Dr. Toole is right in terms of calling the planar foil and free-air dipole arrangement as the only possible measure to avoid this, ´fantasy´.

The phenomenon itself is actually no fantasy. Dipoles tend to have higher directivity in the lower midrange compared to closed-box midrange designs, and avoid both dominant reflections in the room in these bands and long-decaying resonances within the enclosure.

Have taken part in a blind listening comparison taking place in an anechoic room comparing identical, with equalized on-axis FR, midrange drivers in a closed-box design vs. cardioid (which has similar properties as a dipole for this matter). The interesting thing is you can clearly distinguish the difference even if audibility of directivity is completely suppressed by the anechoic room.

 

[Newman]

As an owner of dynamic and esl speakers(not ML) if they were testing a single speaker it’s easy to know why they didn’t like listening to one ESL speaker. There is one single small sweet spot with ESL’s in stereo and no sweet spot in mono.

Well they weren't. And for our next excuse, let's try Arindal:

If controlled polling on subjective sound quality preference is itself caught in a circle, that is to be expected. If I understood Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive correctly, they were mainly testing speakers in an optimized room under monaural conditions with either dry recordings without meaningful reverb pattern, or recordings not mastered for mono setups, to put it mildly, declaring to the world that mono is the way to go because it is easier to identify minor tonal shifts (which is absolutely correct but the opposite of speaker´s sound quality evaluation).

If you develop an algorithm to predict subjective preference ratings based on wrong assumptions how a meaningful listening test for reproduction properties like imaging actually works, it is to be expected that you find your own model confirmed over and over again. Circle of confusion is it called.

Maybe we can leave this whole Harman method aside, as seemingly the company itself decided some 15 (?) years ago that it does not bring any positive results for high end speaker development, so first repurposed Dr. Olive´s institution and finally discontinued it.

What a load of nonsense, almost every sentence. If you are just making stuff up on the run, it's not working.

If I am not mistaken, the testing institution did not dohigh end speakers tests anymore in the times ML´s were really becoming listenable. So ´in the case of Martin Logan´ means nothing newer than a chunky 1999 model which surely has its flaws?

Nice excuse but not original. And what about the Quads. When did they "become okay"?

...The phenomenon [absence of boxiness] itself is actually no fantasy. Dipoles tend to have higher directivity in the lower midrange compared to closed-box midrange designs, and avoid both dominant reflections in the room in these bands and long-decaying resonances within the enclosure.

You see, this is post-rationalisation. Just because you can think of a reason, doesn't mean it's the reason. First you have to control for more dominant reasons, or they will be the real reason that owners claim it is no fantasy, and that reason is the fact that they are doing sighted listening and they can see (or know) one speaker has a box and the other doesn't.

...when ESLs participate in properly controlled listening tests, they don't do well. When told this, ESL owners/defenders start cranking up another list of excuses aimed at discrediting the tests. Which is the typical action of fans of any product when told it doesn't do well in real tests.

See what I mean?

 

[MattHooper]

I have organized controlled listening tests involving some stats (no current models in the last 10 years which I found to be improving), and cannot confirm this.

I’m not weighing in on the technical arguments, but you may have noticed that, in his zeal to pour cold water on sighted listening and the experience of audiophiles, Newman can be prone to overstating the case.

To wit:

When people listen to loudspeakers in the audiophile manner, sighted and uncontrolled, their sound quality impressions are dominated by non-sonic factors.

You keep making that unequivocal claim. But you might want to dial that back to “ in sighted conditions sound quality impressions CAN be dominated by non-sonic factors.”

(Which is a good enough justification to employ blind testing if you want to be more confident about your conclusions).

Because otherwise what you’ve implied is the knee-jerk viewpoint (that often shows up around here) that absent blind test methods one can simply assume sighted listening impressions of loudspeakers are dominated by non sonic factors - that the sighted perception is by default inaccurate.

And this is very problematic for reason I’ve been pointing out for quite a while now.

For one thing it does not seem justified even on the speaker blind testing results that have often been presented here from Toole/Olive et al.

It’s certainly true in the data that you can see some big swings in preferences between sighted and blind listening for certain loudspeakers. And those extreme examples are usually seized upon to say “ look how inaccurate sighted listening is!”

And yet in the results, you see other loudspeakers in which there have been fairly small changes in the scores sighted versus blinded - their high score remains fairly consistent across a range of listeners.

This seems to suggest that while sighted listening has liabilities that you would want to control for if you’re looking for scientific level confidence, it is not wholly inaccurate in the way your repeated claim about sighted listening suggests. (Which is why Toole himself has mentioned IIRC that sighted listening isn’t useless - it’s just going to be on the whole less accurate than blind listening).

But let’s take your claim seriously for a moment:

When people listen to loudspeakers in the audiophile manner, sighted and uncontrolled, their sound quality impressions are dominated by non-sonic factors.

This would argue against the audiophile making speaker purchases based on measurements, and instead for the audiophile to purchase speakers based on sighted/informal impressions. Because after all, it’s the non-sonic factors which will dominate their sound quality impressions. So the only way you can evaluate your sonic impressions of a loudspeaker is through the informal sighted listening - the scenario in which you will actually be using the speakers.
You can’t rely on blind testing because it’s just not realistic and applicable to real world use - it leaves out all the factors that actually “dominate” our sonic impressions.

If the above is not true, if that logic does not follow from your claim, then you’d need to explain why.

(and this is something you have yet to be able to explain, which is why I suggest you become more careful with the way you phrase your claims).

 

[Jazzman53]

I'm a bit taken aback by how polarizing the subject of electrostatic speakers has become.

For fifty years I've designed and built my own speakers, beginning with conventional 3-way designs using passive crossovers, and since 2008, bi-amp'd hybrid ESLs with digtial crossovers.

In hindsight; my conventional designs were mostly disappointing but some sounded pretty good, especially the line source towers. I have great respect for anyone who can blend multiple drivers seamlessly, using passive crossovers. I never quite got there.

My first ESLs sounded really good for about 20 seconds until the corona burned through the weak spots in my stators' insulation-- it was ozone city with sparks flying and amps going to protection mode. ESLs are indeed trapping a lightning storm.

Despite my early failures, I found ESL midrange so addicting that it kept me coming back with more refined designs. I've focused on hybrid designs because the transformers are cheaper and I don't want barn-door-size panels.

It's as big a mistake to categorize all ESLs as being the same as it would be to categorize all conventional speakers as being the same. For example; a symmetrically segmented flat-panel ESL has a very different dispersion pattern and response profile compared to a typical flat or curved ESL, and few if any reviewers have ever heard or tested one.

Almost no one believes me when I say this but it's true: It's much easier to build a world-class ESL than a world-class conventional speaker. I don't mean it's less work (it isn't) but that a pleasing result is more certain because you start with less baggage.

Even a poorly built ESL will have wonderful clarity if the transformer has good bandwidth and the diaphragm isn't so loose that it's slapping the stators. The challenges are achieving good efficiency, reliability, and a seamless blending of the woofer and panel.

Most commercial ESLs are now fairly reliable but very few put out clean bass with authority and also blend it seamlessly with the panel. It took me 15 years to get there, and I'm finally content.

I'm not here disparaging conventional speakers or even those who disparage ESLs. In fact; there are many high-end EM speakers that I would be proud to own if I could afford them (high-end commercial ESLs are likewise unaffordable). Having said that, I make no apologies for championing ESLs.

 

[Gwreck]

Well they weren't. And for our next excuse, let's try Arindal:

What a load of nonsense, almost every sentence. If you are just making stuff up on the run, it's not working.


Nice excuse but not original. And what about the Quads. When did they become okay?


You see, this is post-rationalisation. Just because you can think of a reason, doesn't mean it's the reason. First you have to control for more dominant reasons, or they will be the real reason that owners claim it is no fantasy, and that reason is the fact that they are doing sighted listening and they can see (or know) one speaker has a box and the other doesn't.


See what I mean?

Well they weren't. And for our next excuse, let's try Arindal:

What a load of nonsense, almost every sentence. If you are just making stuff up on the run, it's not working.


Nice excuse but not original. And what about the Quads. When did they become okay?


You see, this is post-rationalisation. Just because you can think of a reason, doesn't mean it's the reason. First you have to control for more dominant reasons, or they will be the real reason that owners claim it is no fantasy, and that reason is the fact that they are doing sighted listening and they can see (or know) one speaker has a box and the other doesn't.


See what I mean?

I’m and not sure why you have such and ascerbic tone to your responses? I have esl speakers that I enjoy and also own multiple fairly high quality dynamic speakers which I also enjoy. It seems as if you are trying to use a specific set of research to discredit various individuals opinions. Apparently, If ones opinion does not match with the results of a certain research study that you have chosen than the Esl enjoyer is obviously clueless and are not able to form valid opinions about their own taste. What you are doing is called the ecological fallacy. I have research I could share that would indicate that in my use case my ESL’s are actually the best choice and I could actually provide you with measurements to bolster my claim. But i suspect you would find something to quote to discredit me.

 

[Keith_W]

In my understanding it is a combination of overshoot indirect sound level in the room for frequency bands below the baffle step when a box speaker tends towards omnidirectional behavior, leading to the impression of muddled lower mids, plus general resonance effects of closed-box or vented designs forming a resonator with a certain quality factor with the help of the air inside the enclosure.

A dipole is not the only way to avoid this, very broad baffles plus huge midwoofers with stiff diaphragm and huge enclosure volume would do the same to avoid the subjective impression of ´boxiness´ and overshoot of lower midrange, as would cardioids, huge linesources, chunky fullrange horns or alike. So Dr. Toole is right in terms of calling the planar foil and free-air dipole arrangement as the only possible measure to avoid this, ´fantasy´.

The phenomenon itself is actually no fantasy. Dipoles tend to have higher directivity in the lower midrange compared to closed-box midrange designs, and avoid both dominant reflections in the room in these bands and long-decaying resonances within the enclosure.

Have taken part in a blind listening comparison taking place in an anechoic room comparing identical, with equalized on-axis FR, midrange drivers in a closed-box design vs. cardioid (which has similar properties as a dipole for this matter). The interesting thing is you can clearly distinguish the difference even if audibility of directivity is completely suppressed by the anechoic room.

Thank you for your response. What you said reminded me of what Linkwitz said about monopole speakers, which seems similar to what you said. He said this in his website:

"The typical box speaker, whether vented, band-passed or closed, is omni-directional at low frequencies and becomes increasingly forward-directional towards higher frequencies. Even when flat on-axis, the total acoustic power radiated into the room drops typically 10 dB (10x) or more between low and high frequencies. The uneven power response and the associated strong excitation of low frequency room modes contributes to the familiar (and often desired :-( ) generic box loudspeaker sound. This cannot be the avenue to sound reproduction that is true to the original.

The directional response of the ideal dipole is obtained with open baffle speakers at low frequencies. Note, that to obtain the same on-axis sound pressure level as from a monopole, a dipole needs to radiate only 1/3rd of the monopole's power into the room. This means 4.8 dB less contribution of the room's acoustic signature to the perceived sound. It might also mean 4.8 dB less sound for your neighbor, or that much more sound to you. Despite this advantage dipole speakers are often not acceptable, because they tend to be constructed as physically large panels that interfere with room aesthetics, and they seem to suffer from insufficient bass output, critical room placement and a narrow "sweet spot"."

As you point out, dipoles do have higher directivity lower in the frequency response, although this behaviour can be mimicked by a box speaker with very wide baffles (as you also mentioned). I had forgotten that Linkwitz says that the uneven power response is what creates the "boxy" sound.

Linkwitz's entire article is worth reading, I only quoted a brief section to support your point.

 

[Newman]

I’m and not sure why you have such and ascerbic tone to your responses?

Why are you not sure? I have made it perfectly clear, link.

I have esl speakers that I enjoy and also own multiple fairly high quality dynamic speakers which I also enjoy. It seems as if you are trying to use a specific set of research to discredit various individuals opinions.

If you are saying that I seem to be using valid evidence to discredit invalid evidence, then that's great, yes?

Apparently, If ones opinion does not match with the results of a certain research study that you have chosen than the Esl enjoyer is obviously clueless and are not able to form valid opinions about their own taste.

Not at all. My issue is whether the 'opinions' you refer to have decent evidentiary quality. Sighted listening reports most emphatically and demonstrably, dare I say provably, lack that quality. Compared to such reports/opinions, any valid research by a decent researcher completely outweighs it if it contradicts the opinions. When the researcher is from the absolute top shelf, as is the case here, then the relative weighting between the research and the owner/fan opinions should be 100:0.

If you want to increase the weighting of the owner/fan opinions, then fight the valid research with even better research that comes to different conclusions and actually supports the owner/fan opinions, ie match the evidentiary quality. Show us that evidence. But if all I see is you white-anting the valid research eg by belittling it as 'a certain research study', then I will start to doubt that your have much in the way of high quality evidence to back up your claims/opinions.

What you are doing is called the ecological fallacy.

No, the fallacies are all coming from the keyboards of the ESL fans and owners. As I have made perfectly clear, link.

I have research I could share that would indicate that in my use case my ESL’s are actually the best choice and I could actually provide you with measurements to bolster my claim.

Share away.

But i suspect you would find something to quote to discredit me.

What if I do? If your claims are discredited by legitimate audio science investigations, that is called a discredited claim. Would you not want to know such? Do you not want to advance your knowledge? If not, why are you here? Is it because you found an ESL discussion thread on the internet and came here to bathe in the warm glow of sighted listening reports and post-rationalisations, like Jazzman does all over the internet, and now he is here too?

In my mind, ASR has a point of difference to all those other forums: it presses such claims to the forge of rational investigation. If new lessons (for some) come out of such scrutiny, that should be welcomed. So I subject the claims to rational scrutiny, and they don't survive it very well, so I get applauded, right? No, as it turns out, I don't get applauded: that's not how human attachment works. The scrutiny is resented. I get questioned personally. I get called a bad actor. I'm 'spoiling the party', right?

I see it exactly the opposite way around: it's the people coming onto ASR, the audio rational investigation website, and pooping all over the ASR purpose with irrational sighted listening reports and irrational post-rationalisations of sighted listening impressions, 'group hugs' about not-great products, and fighting tooth and nail to discredit legitimate science that doesn't smile on their personal favourite products, ... it's those people who are spoiling the party: the ASR party. They make this forum look like a battle ground between irrationality and rationality, between illusory impressions and real experimental outcomes. Personally, I don't like that behaviour.

cheers

 

[RexrothPigeon]

It's as big a mistake to categorize all ESLs as being the same as it would be to categorize all conventional speakers as being the same.

It's hard not to when we are expected to take seriously claims like "ESLs' performance can't be measured like other speakers and they have some specific positive qualities that are not measurable" (paraphrasing many in this long, long thread).

 

[MattHooper]

I agree claims that seem contrary to The Science ought to be scrutinized. And it’s always good to remember that careful studies sometimes overturn long held intuitions. But we also have to be ready to scrutinize any person’s inferences from the studies as well.

You were doing pretty well until this:

I see it exactly the opposite way around: it's the people coming onto ASR, the audio rational investigation website, and pooping all over the ASR purpose with irrational sighted listening reports and irrational post-rationalisations of sighted listening impressions, 'group hugs' about not-great products, and fighting tooth and nail to discredit legitimate science that doesn't smile on their personal favourite products, ... it's those people who are spoiling the party: the ASR party. They make this forum look like a battle ground between irrationality and rationality, between illusory impressions and real experimental outcomes. Personally, I don't like that behaviour.

Which is just about undoubtedly, from previous experience, incorporating strawmen.

Even in this thread, I don’t remember seeing many “ irrational” sighted listening reports.
You may challenge the inferences, but that doesn’t equate to them being “ irrational.”
Again, this seems to be more overstating one’s case.

 

[Newman]

I'm a bit taken aback by how polarizing the subject of electrostatic speakers has become.

You mean when baseless claims/myths get challenged with valid data, and the claimants don't like it, you think that's 'polarizing'?

For fifty years I've designed and built my own speakers, beginning with conventional 3-way designs using passive crossovers, and since 2008, bi-amp'd hybrid ESLs with digtial crossovers.

In hindsight; my conventional designs were mostly disappointing but some sounded pretty good, especially the line source towers. I have great respect for anyone who can blend multiple drivers seamlessly, using passive crossovers. I never quite got there.

Try digital XO. Game changer.

My first ESLs sounded really good for about 20 seconds until the corona burned through the weak spots in my stators' insulation-- it was ozone city with sparks flying and amps going to protection mode. ESLs are indeed trapping a lightning storm.

I remember an anecdote from Naim staff about how they were developing their own large ESL with high voltages, and suddenly during an audition a huge spark ran across the carpet from one speaker to the other. The staff members looked at each other, and abandoned the project there and then.

Potential newbie DIY ESL builders to note.

Despite my early failures, I found ESL midrange so addicting that it kept me coming back with more refined designs. I've focused on hybrid designs because the transformers are cheaper and I don't want barn-door-size panels.

It's as big a mistake to categorize all ESLs as being the same as it would be to categorize all conventional speakers as being the same. For example; a symmetrically segmented flat-panel ESL has a very different dispersion pattern and response profile compared to a typical flat or curved ESL, and few if any reviewers have ever heard or tested one.

Almost no one believes me when I say this but it's true: It's much easier to build a world-class ESL than a world-class conventional speaker. I don't mean it's less work (it isn't) but that a pleasing result is more certain because you start with less baggage.

Today it's the opposite. With digital XO and quality drivers and measurement software easily used at home, the conventional speaker builder has the easy job.

Even a poorly built ESL will have wonderful clarity if the transformer has good bandwidth and the diaphragm isn't so loose that it's slapping the stators.

Oh my goodness this is such a myth. See my quote from Toole at the top of this page: even commercial panel speakers are rife with audible problems. The poorly built ESL that you mention above will absolutely have these problems.

I'll suggest that your opinions on this matter are classic examples of DIY Syndrome where the builder hears great things from his own builds. And garners praise for it from fellow audiophiles who praise it in front of the proud builder then go behind his back to share what they really think. Just look at diyaudio.com threads where this behaviour is rife.

The challenges are achieving good efficiency, reliability, and a seamless blending of the woofer and panel.

Most commercial ESLs are now fairly reliable but very few put out clean bass with authority and also blend it seamlessly with the panel. It took me 15 years to get there, and I'm finally content.

I'm not here disparaging conventional speakers or even those who disparage ESLs. In fact; there are many high-end EM speakers that I would be proud to own if I could afford them (high-end commercial ESLs are likewise unaffordable). Having said that, I make no apologies for championing ESLs.

The whole of your post is a great example of myth-building. And like you, I make no apologies for critiquing the blatantly biased claims of people like yourself running all over the internet finding ESL threads and 'championing' them. If you did it with solid evidence, I would be your greatest fan. But not the way you are doing it, that's just misinformation. Here's a thought: persuade Amir to test one of your personal build speakers. He might be disinterested because of its unavailability or size. But then we'll get some real evidence.

cheers

 

[Gwreck]

Why are you not sure? I have made it perfectly clear, link.


If you are saying that I seem to be using valid evidence to discredit invalid evidence, then that's great, yes?


Not at all. My issue is whether the 'opinions' you refer to have decent evidentiary quality. Sighted listening reports most emphatically and demonstrably, dare I say provably, lack that quality. Compared to such reports/opinions, any valid research by a decent researcher completely outweighs it if it contradicts the opinions. When the researcher is from the absolute top shelf, as is the case here, then the relative weighting between the research and the owner/fan opinions should be 100:0.

If you want to increase the weighting of the owner/fan opinions, then fight the valid research with even better research that comes to different conclusions and actually supports the owner/fan opinions, ie match the evidentiary quality. Show us that evidence. But if all I see is you white-anting the valid research eg by belittling it as 'a certain research study', then I will start to doubt that your have much in the way of high quality evidence to back up your claims/opinions.


No, the fallacies are all coming from the keyboards of the ESL fans and owners. As I have made perfectly clear, link.


Share away.


What if I do? If your claims are discredited by legitimate audio science investigations, that is called a discredited claim. Would you not want to know such? Do you not want to advance your knowledge? If not, why are you here? Is it because you found an ESL discussion thread on the internet and came here to bathe in the warm glow of sighted listening reports and post-rationalisations, like Jazzman does all over the internet, and now he is here too?

In my mind, ASR has a point of difference to all those other forums: it presses such claims to the forge of rational investigation. If new lessons (for some) come out of such scrutiny, that should be welcomed. So I subject the claims to rational scrutiny, and they don't survive it very well, so I get applauded, right? No, as it turns out, I don't get applauded: that's not how human attachment works. The scrutiny is resented. I get questioned personally. I get called a bad actor. I'm 'spoiling the party', right?

I see it exactly the opposite way around: it's the people coming onto ASR, the audio rational investigation website, and pooping all over the ASR purpose with irrational sighted listening reports and irrational post-rationalisations of sighted listening impressions, 'group hugs' about not-great products, and fighting tooth and nail to discredit legitimate science that doesn't smile on their personal favourite products, ... it's those people who are spoiling the party: the ASR party. They make this forum look like a battle ground between irrationality and rationality, between illusory impressions and real experimental outcomes. Personally, I don't like that behaviour.

cheers

Well I’m am very glad to have been schooled but such and knowledgeable person such as yourself.

Why are you not sure? I have made it perfectly clear, link.


If you are saying that I seem to be using valid evidence to discredit invalid evidence, then that's great, yes?


Not at all. My issue is whether the 'opinions' you refer to have decent evidentiary quality. Sighted listening reports most emphatically and demonstrably, dare I say provably, lack that quality. Compared to such reports/opinions, any valid research by a decent researcher completely outweighs it if it contradicts the opinions. When the researcher is from the absolute top shelf, as is the case here, then the relative weighting between the research and the owner/fan opinions should be 100:0.

If you want to increase the weighting of the owner/fan opinions, then fight the valid research with even better research that comes to different conclusions and actually supports the owner/fan opinions, ie match the evidentiary quality. Show us that evidence. But if all I see is you white-anting the valid research eg by belittling it as 'a certain research study', then I will start to doubt that your have much in the way of high quality evidence to back up your claims/opinions.


No, the fallacies are all coming from the keyboards of the ESL fans and owners. As I have made perfectly clear, link.


Share away.


What if I do? If your claims are discredited by legitimate audio science investigations, that is called a discredited claim. Would you not want to know such? Do you not want to advance your knowledge? If not, why are you here? Is it because you found an ESL discussion thread on the internet and came here to bathe in the warm glow of sighted listening reports and post-rationalisations, like Jazzman does all over the internet, and now he is here too?

In my mind, ASR has a point of difference to all those other forums: it presses such claims to the forge of rational investigation. If new lessons (for some) come out of such scrutiny, that should be welcomed. So I subject the claims to rational scrutiny, and they don't survive it very well, so I get applauded, right? No, as it turns out, I don't get applauded: that's not how human attachment works. The scrutiny is resented. I get questioned personally. I get called a bad actor. I'm 'spoiling the party', right?

I see it exactly the opposite way around: it's the people coming onto ASR, the audio rational investigation website, and pooping all over the ASR purpose with irrational sighted listening reports and irrational post-rationalisations of sighted listening impressions, 'group hugs' about not-great products, and fighting tooth and nail to discredit legitimate science that doesn't smile on their personal favourite products, ... it's those people who are spoiling the party: the ASR party. They make this forum look like a battle ground between irrationality and rationality, between illusory impressions and real experimental outcomes. Personally, I don't like that behaviour.

cheers

I am certainly glad to have been schooled on my alleged irrationality by such a wise and confident person such as yourself. It’s funny that a person who claims to be as rational as yourself would spend so much time making conclusions about the irrationality of others decisions without ever actually showing any interest into how and why a person made those decisions. You generalize that sighted listening is why some chooses an and esl over another speaker. I chose my ESL speakers for their specific measured characteristics and specifications like one chooses a tool. For the purpose I am using them for I have been very successful. Almost every time I listen to this system a new set of measurements is taken as there may be changes in the environment that alter the sound. If my measurements are not correct I have to make changes and remeasure until they are optimal. To some this seems excessive but I find the results enjoyable if not a bit time consuming.

But you are correct in that I am one of many ill informed self deluded ESL users.

 

[Curvature]

I have organized controlled listening tests involving some stats (no current models in the last 10 years which I found to be improving), and cannot confirm this. Of course there is a pretty vast variation of quality among this speaker category, and obvious limits like dynamic bass capabilities would easily be identified. But if you ask specifically what participants liked in a candidate, almost certainly with an electrostat they would mention transparency, midrange clarity, image stability, non-fatiguing resolution and natural ambience/depth-of-field with acoustic recordings.

We have two examples that confirm the simple physical fact that a large panel will have pronounced resonances.

Measurements for speaker MartinLogan Prodigy

www.spinorama.org

Measurements for speaker MartinLogan Vista

www.spinorama.org

Also, it really depends on what is meant by "controlled" when it comes to listening tests. Anyway, worth reading Toole's work if you haven't yet to compare your tests to the ones he and others have done.

The spatial qualities of panel speakers come from the side cancellations and carefully aiming the back wave to come at the listening position after hitting a few walls. It's a unique combo of direct and reflected sound. It would be nice to see a similar kind of speaker with all of the resonances ameliorated; in a big symmetrical room that would sound good for two-channel. Adding channels takes away from that experience.

 

[Gwreck]

Just a question. Dr Tooles research showed on average people didn’t like the specific ESL speaker that was chosen for listening tests. So these research conclusions lead the certain posters in this forum to make the generalization that all ESL speakers are bad and that all ESL users are deluded by their own biases. Is the opposite true, that dynamic loudspeakers are good and that the users are all rational in their preferences?

 

[Curvature]

Just a question. Dr Tooles research showed on average people didn’t like the specific ESL speaker that was chosen for listening tests. So these research conclusions lead the certain posters in this forum to make the generalization that all ESL speakers are bad and that all ESL users are deluded by their own biases. Is the opposite true, that dynamic loudspeakers are good and that the users are all rational in their preferences?

All the research says is that, on a relative basis, stats are less liked than direct radiators by blinded listeners. It doesn't mean stats are bad.

Stats aren't used in mixing studios and have some disadvantages when it comes to room placement. They also have some glaring technical issues that direct radiators don't have, which back up the mono listening test findings.

If there was a stat that spat constant directivity forwards and backwards with no resonances I think it would get plenty of love.

All I can say is that I wish we had more measurements and more listening tests with smarter controls.

Edit: I would love to see AM and FM distortion measurements of stats. I bet the numbers are super high.

 

[Arindal]

in his zeal to pour cold water on sighted listening and the experience of audiophiles...

Don´t worry, I noticed the smell of dogmatism pretty early on. A reliable first indicator is the presence of distorted friend-or-foe-recognition. I found it amusing to be treated like an owner or deluded defender of electrostats, while I am in fact quite the opposite. Never considered one, clearly recognize their shortcomings and was genuinely surprised to see how well they performed in controlled listening tests despite their obvious disadvantages.

I just don't like dogmatic positions when it comes to speakers, and I think people like stat-lovers who truly enjoy their speakers (hopefully without schooling others or being dogmatic themselves), should not be disparaged based on Beckmesser-esk doctrines like the ones we are witnessing here.

If there was a stat that spat constant directivity forwards and backwards with no resonances I think it would get plenty of love.

From speaker theory point, a segmented stat could potentially achieve what you have pictures. Like the SoundLab models mentioned earlier in this thread. The sheer size of the diaphragm and bending-wave like treble behavior would still pose a problem to localization precision, so even such imaginative perfect stat would not be for me.

It's a unique combo of direct and reflected sound. It would be nice to see a similar kind of speaker with all of the resonances ameliorated;

I recommend to consider manufacturers like Linkwitzlabs, Ecouton or Merowinger. The dipoles they produce sound astonishingly similar to dipole stats when it comes to reverb tonally and midrange clarity. Unfortunately I have never done a direct comparison with conventional electrostats, but I bet that dynamic dipoles with magnetostic tweeters or AMTs could produce an overall sound quality pretty similar to stats, maybe even without their shortcomings.

And what about the Quads. When did they become okay?

I did not write they were okay from every perspective, they do have their limitations. If I am not mistaken, the current generation from technical point was launched with the early 2000´s model 2905.

 

[Curvature]

Linkwitzlabs

https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Linkwitz LXMini DIY/ErinsAudioCorner/index_eac.html Good demonstration of that.