Electrostatic speakers?

[misterdog]

Stats aren't used in mixing studios

The Quad ESL-63 electrostatic loudspeaker was indeed used in recording studios, including those of Philips and the BBC, for monitoring and critical listening. The "Pro" version was specifically designed with reinforced structures and features like handles for easier studio handling and Neutrik connectors.

 

[Curvature]

@misterdog Is that AI output?

Are you familiar with the pro side? "Aren't used" isn't a blanket statement. You can find every kind of speaker in one studio or another. Stats, horns and other exotica are fairly rare compared to direct radiators.

I think Bob Katz had them at one point.

 

[Davey]

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

Those are not dipoles though.
But, the LL ones that are, don't sound "astonishingly similar to dipole stats," in my opinion.

 

[Curvature]

Those are not dipoles though.
But, the LL ones that are, don't sound "astonishingly similar to dipole stats," in my opinion.

The LXMinis are above 2kHz: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/...er/eac/SPL Horizontal Contour Normalized.html

Either way, similar enough.

 

[Davey]

The LXMinis are above 2kHz: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Linkwitz LXMini DIY/ErinsAudioCorner/eac/SPL Horizontal Contour Normalized.html

Either way, similar enough.

No, not really. It's much closer to an omni than a dipole.
And certainly nowhere near an electrostatic in either radiation characteristics or sound character.
I have a good bit of experience with the Linkwitz speakers.

 

[Gwreck]

No, not really. It's much closer to an omni than a dipole.
And certainly nowhere near an electrostatic in either radiation characteristics or sound character.
I have a good bit of experience with the Linkwitz speakers.

This is the sanders model 11 directivity plot for an ESL comparison.

Sanders Sound Systems Model 11

3d3a.princeton.edu

 

[Curvature]

This is the sanders model 11 directivity plot for an ESL comparison.

Sanders Sound Systems Model 11

3d3a.princeton.edu

@pierre's rendering of the data: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Sanders Sound Systems Model 11/Princeton/index_princeton-factory.html

Not... great.

 

[misterdog]

@misterdog Is that AI output?

The speaker's structural rigidity was increased for the launch of the ESL-63 USA Monitor in 1988. This evolved from a special "pro" version used by Philips' European recording division for location recording.

Quad ESL-989 electrostatic loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com

The speaker's structural rigidity was increased for the launch of the ESL-63 USA Monitor in 1988. This evolved from a special "pro" version used by Philips' European recording division for location recording. Quad replaced the '63's aluminum frame with steel, and put handles on the sides and...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Curvature]

No, not really. It's much closer to an omni than a dipole.
And certainly nowhere near an electrostatic in either radiation characteristics or sound character.
I have a good bit of experience with the Linkwitz speakers.

Looks pretty dipoleish to me: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/...rinsAudioCorner/eac/SPL Horizontal Radar.html

 

[Curvature]

The speaker's structural rigidity was increased for the launch of the ESL-63 USA Monitor in 1988. This evolved from a special "pro" version used by Philips' European recording division for location recording.

Quad ESL-989 electrostatic loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com

The speaker's structural rigidity was increased for the launch of the ESL-63 USA Monitor in 1988. This evolved from a special "pro" version used by Philips' European recording division for location recording. Quad replaced the '63's aluminum frame with steel, and put handles on the sides and...

www.stereophile.com

Nice use of Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-989-electrostatic-loudspeaker-measurements Another demonstration of stat resonances.

 

[Gwreck]

@pierre's rendering of the data: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Sanders Sound Systems Model 11/Princeton/index_princeton-factory.html

Not... great.

If one wants a very narrow directivity speaker it’s likely the best.

 

[Davey]

Looks pretty dipoleish to me: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Linkwitz LXMini DIY/ErinsAudioCorner/eac/SPL Horizontal Radar.html

You must have a pirate patch over your left eye.
One need only look at a photograph of the LXmini speaker to identify it as an omni speaker for the low/mid ranges.

This is a boring back/forth and the topic of this thread is electrostatic speakers.
I'll leave you to it.

 

[Arindal]

Good demonstration of that.

As mentioned, this is neither a broadband dipole (I was mentioning lower midrange directivity as a key point which this does not have) nor a commercially available product by Linkwitzlabs, the company, but a DIY study of the late Siegfried Linkwitz which he eventually decided to fundamentally revise. It surely needed significant improvement, and I intentionally have not mentioned fullrange drivers as examples.

@Davey I agree that the Linkwitz 521 I was referring to, are not as similar with dipole stats in terms of imaging, direvtivirty, bass and treble. I was mentioning them because the midrange directivity and resulting transparency is similar in my understanding.

Another demonstration of stat resonances.

Yes, flexible large planar diaphragms with very little to no suspension and weak motor control per diaphragm area are always prone to resonances and that can lead to all sorts of funny graphs. They are surely not for people hunting straight lines in graphs.

What we have to keep in mind is these resonances are in most cases spanning over broad frequency bands, largely consisting of out-of-phase partial resonances similar to a bending wave transducer, and they usually don't have a tendency to accumulate long decay and ringing time in a narrow band due to a certain degree of inner damping. They cannot be compared with typical resonances in diaphragms with a resonating mass.

So while I found evidence that such resonances are audible, and are one reason why I personally shy away from planar stats, they seem to in most cases rather produce a diffuse soundfield similar to an NXT panel, which results in decreased localization precision, reduced proximity, ´softened´ impulse dynamic and a more diffuse, ´silky´ transparency similar to an NXT, and to a much lesser degree in tonal issues or the typical fierce narrow-banded resonance issues. This came to me as a surprise as well when I let participants in controlled tests compare stats to conventional speakers.

To be clear hear, I am not downplaying the technical shortcomings of planar stats nor saying that measurements have no impact (rather the opposite), but I am giving my interpretation why they lead to a different outcome than completely different types of resonances.

Please note this all is not applicable to planar foil transducers with a suspension grid or segmented foils such as some modern MLs or SoundLab.

 

[Fidji]

Bit of real life measurements - wonder how this fits "spinorama predictions" - indeed, this is fter painstakingly positioning the speakers as recommended by manufacturer. I think it is not much worse than some of 2 way speakers with ASR approval seal. +-2dB from 30 to 10kHz. 60Hz crossover to multisub setup.
Latest Masterpiece Series solved known issue of missing midbass with dipole bass - woofer front and rear.

My in room measurements are pretty consistent with John Atkinson - https://www.stereophile.com/content...-renaissance-esl-15a-loudspeaker-measurements

Dreadful spinorma, very good real in-room performance. They really SOUND good. Uncolored midrange, crystal clear, non-fatiguing treble, full range bass. Exceptional ability to sort good recordigns from poor ones, without making poor ones unlistenable.

In room L-R - I think not bad for assymetrical room. Or why it makes sense to collaborate with studied acousticians, that know how to do a room treatment properly. Gives super precise imaging and soundstage, combined with nice envolepment - especially as front and rear wall re treated with cylindrical diffusion.

Group Delay - thanks to closed cosntruction , real in- room response.

Distortion

Are they perfect? Nope. They are super demanding in terms of placement, sweet spot is not the biggest and they are taxing on amplifier. The requir lot of space around them to shine [panels are 1.5m from front wall].

BTW - when I was auditioning speakers for my future HT project [I want to split 2CH and MCH rooms in my new house, have 150sqm barn to work with] - I was talking to JBL guys and had demo - and need to say I was less than impressed by their speakers - is like speakers had sinusitis - very "vulgar" sound, couple of my test tracks [Bach B Moll, Stravinsky, Saint Saens] - felt completely apart, more of a shout-fest. Guess Fast Car sounds OK on them and spinorama is for sure excellent.
[for thoe interested - I will be going with full Purifi custom made speakers, infinity baffle setup adn DOuble Bass Array] For 2Ch - Either Neoliths from ML or if the offer will still be valid - I will go with Magico M6 second hand. Other candidates would be TAD's]

EDIT: as visible in my signature - my other pair of speakers are Neumanns KH310, had full HT built around Neumanns [kh420/310 bed, 120 tops], owned Genelecs [and sold them as I like Neumanns better]. I do like Perlistens, KEF never sounded right to me - even Blades, someting was missing to connect emotionally.

 

[misterdog]

Nice use of Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

You're welcome.

 

[Newman]

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

Sarcasm noted. Above, below, and practically on every line.

I am certainly glad to have been schooled on my alleged irrationality by such a wise and confident person such as yourself.

I am talking generally about human perception mechanisms that are universal and from which I am not in any way exempt. Try not to take it so personally when I write about general realities.

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.

I am no more rational than you. This is not about me putting myself on a pedestal: to think so is to misunderstand.

You generalize that sighted listening is why some chooses an and esl over another speaker.

Like you say, 'some'. You want to debate that?

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.

I have already endorsed your approach in my post #1024 written to you. You have picked one playback technology and you are following the recommendations for that technology. Applauded.

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.

Also applauded.

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

Look, you are getting my tone all mixed up. It is general practice among audiophiles to use a gear auditioning method that is guaranteed to be dominated by the sighted listening effect. When I point out that ESL users are generally making their assessments of sound quality with the general practice method, I am not in any way saying something specific only to them: I am just saying that they are doing it. It needs to be said because it needs to be said whenever people are reporting attributes as if they are in the sound waves when using this method, when it is proven to be dominated by non-sonic factors. I don't care if it is ESL, Genelec, DACs, cables,.... it needs to be said if they are making this error in attribution.

cheers

 

[MarkS]

It is general practice among audiophiles to use a gear auditioning method that is guaranteed to be dominated by the sighted listening effect.

As usual, you vastly overstate the actual results of the Toole-Olive listening tests. Here is a key figure from Toole's book (p.385, 2008 edition):

As can be plainly seen, the results of blind vs sighted listening are very similar in terms of relative ranking, with only the ranking of the "small sub/sat system" changing significantly (from a tie with "US competitor" when heard blind to not as good when heard sighted, but both ranked below the two European speakers when heard both blind and sighted).

So: while the data shows that there is a visual bias effect (that varies with both the situation and the person), your claim that it "dominates" judgment of the actual sound is not supported by data.

 

[Gwreck]

As usual, you vastly overstate the actual results of the Toole-Olive listening tests. Here is a key figure from Toole's book (p.385, 2008 edition):

View attachment 465273

As can be plainly seen, the results of blind vs sighted listening are very similar in terms of relative ranking, with only the ranking of the "small sub/sat system" changing significantly (from a tie with "US competitor" when heard blind to not as good when heard sighted, but both ranked below the two European speakers when heard both blind and sighted).

So: the data shows that there is a visual bias effect (that varies with both the situation and the person), but your claim that it "dominates" judgment of the actual sound is not supported by data.

Is the difference even statistically significant? The way the graph is shown makes the difference to seem more significant. I can imagine that since ESL’s sound so different than dynamic driver speakers that it would almost have to be one that would rate differently than the other for bad or good.

 

[MattHooper]

As usual, you vastly overstate the actual results of the Toole-Olive listening tests. Here is a key figure from Toole's book (p.385, 2008 edition):

View attachment 465273

As can be plainly seen, the results of blind vs sighted listening are very similar in terms of relative ranking, with only the ranking of the "small sub/sat system" changing significantly (from a tie with "US competitor" when heard blind to not as good when heard sighted, but both ranked below the two European speakers when heard both blind and sighted).

So: the data shows that there is a visual bias effect (that varies with both the situation and the person), but your claim that it "dominates" judgment of the actual sound is not supported by data.

Yup.

I’ve been pointing this out for years, but certain folks can’t help themselves. The very claim eats its own tail.

Some think that “referencing the science” automatically puts a stamp of truth on their posts, while not being sensitive to any bias they are bringing to interpreting or framing the data. (or even the arguments they are making from certain authorities).

There’s just so much that Newman’s claim would have to be squared with or explain which is often avoided. I brought up numerous times, if sighted bias is
“ guaranteed” to overwhelm actual perception of the character of the speaker, how is it that for instance Erin (of Erin’s audio corner), using sighted, informal listening, routinely identifies sonic characteristics of loudspeakers that are supported in the measurements? I’ve had a certain level of similar experience. I’ve pointed to numerous subjective reviews, for instance some of Kal Rubinson’s reviews, where his listening impressions were consonant with how the speaker measures.

As I keep saying there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with advocating blind testing as the gold standard you’d want to use to ensure more reliable conclusions.

The problem is when people get a little drunk with the power of thinking they can dismiss any and all sighted reports as “ just your imagination until you can prove otherwise.” Then it starts to take on the whiff of dogmatism, and starts to look like handwaving when they have to explain anything inconvenient for their claim.

 

[Gwreck]

Yup. I’ve been pointing this out for years, but certain folks can’t help themselves. The very claim eats its own tail.

Some think that “referencing the science” automatically puts a stamp of truth on their posts, while not being sensitive to any bias they are bringing to interpreting or framing the data. (or even the arguments they are making from certain authorities).

There’s just so much that Newman’s claim would have to be squared with or explain which is often avoided. I brought up numerous times, if sighted bias is
“ guaranteed” to overwhelm actual perception of the character of the speaker, how is it that for instance Erin (of Erin’s audio corner), using sighted, informal listening, routinely identifies sonic characteristics of loudspeakers that are supported in the measurements? I’ve had a certain level of similar experience. I’ve pointed to numerous subjective reviews, for instance some of Kal Rubinson’s reviews, where his listening impressions were consonant with how the speaker measures.

As I keep saying there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with advocating blind testing as the gold standard you’d want to use to ensure more reliable conclusions.

The problem is when people get a little drunk with the power of thinking they can always dismiss any and all sighted reports as “ just your imagination until you can prove otherwise.” Then it starts to take on the whiff of dogmatism, and starts to look like handwaving when they have to explain anything inconvenient for their claim.

People are lousy at detecting small differences in speakers so using blind listening as the gold standard is silly. There are much more effect consistent ways to measure differences in loudspeakers or other electronics. Blind listening is likely to be helpful to figure out what level of difference is detectable by humans.