Electrostatic speakers?

[Arindal]

Cutting off everything below and above that is still high fidelity and will sound great?

Who was speaking about cutting off? Was the comment not rather calling for focussing relevant properties of sound quality in frequency bands for which our ears are overly sensitive?

Related to constant directivity and subjective transparency, I wholeheartedly agree that midrange (and lower treble up to 8K) is of critical importance. That is where many planar ESL deliver and a surprising number of multi-way dynamic speakers do not.

 

[DrTom]

Is there a reason in 2026 to buy an electostatic speaker? What is it?

I got my lovely ESL57s for £68, that was enough of a reason for me!

 

[mrehorst]

If midrange typically spans from approximately 250 Hz to 4 kHz, is that really 99% of music? Cutting off everything below and above that is still high fidelity and will sound great? Asking for a victim of innumeracy.

"midrange" is more of a marketing word than a technical one as there is no specific definition of "midrange". It's generally regarded as the range of human voices, but a LOT of instruments operate in that range, too.
Quad ESL-63s will go down to around 80 Hz and up to about 15 kHz with reasonably flat in-room response. Most electrostatics, except the narrower ones, will do about the same.

As for difficulty in placement... it depends on the room, as it does with any speaker. The main difficulty is the size- they tend to optically dominate a small room. Since they are usually rather directive, at least at higher frequencies, you can easily control where the direct signal and reflections will go.

There are a lot of people who claim that you can't properly integrate a conventional bass driver in a box with ESLs. Based on my own experience, this is nonsense. My ESL-63s with a single SVS 3000 Micro sub sound fantastic, and you'd never know the lowest octave or two wasn't coming from the Quads.

 

[NTK]

Dr Toole has said it multiple times. Bass quality accounts for about 30% of the overall sound quality. So "midrange", which by definition shouldn't include bass, can't be 99%, nor 90%, nor even 80%. But of course he could be wrong

A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

To understand how the double-blind ratings were affected by the reflexes in Harman's listening room, the size of the room and the characteristics of the walls, floor and ceiling are important variables. In the listening position, which were the dominant reflexes? How were they attenuated and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Mort]

Dr Toole has said it multiple times. Bass quality accounts for about 30% of the overall sound quality. So "midrange", which by definition shouldn't include bass, can't be 99%, nor 90%, nor even 80%. But of course he could be wrong

What's the other 70%? I never understood that.

 

[NTK]

What's the other 70%? I never understood that.

Don't know for sure. May be it has something to do with this.

 

[HalSF]

Who was speaking about cutting off? Was the comment not rather calling for focussing relevant properties of sound quality in frequency bands for which our ears are overly sensitive?

Related to constant directivity and subjective transparency, I wholeheartedly agree that midrange (and lower treble up to 8K) is of critical importance. That is where many planar ESL deliver and a surprising number of multi-way dynamic speakers do not.

This reply seems somewhat uncharitable in helping to answer a question from a self-confessed math dope. I was asking for some assistance in understanding the claim that 99% of music is midrange sound, which I found startling and potentially an oversimplifying exaggeration based on my extremely limited knowledge.

 

[mrehorst]

This reply seems somewhat uncharitable in helping to answer a question from a self-confessed math dope. I was asking for some assistance in understanding the claim that 99% of music is midrange sound, which I found startling and potentially an oversimplifying exaggeration based on my extremely limited knowledge.

Yes, I oversimplified.

 

[mrehorst]

Don't know for sure. May be it has something to do with this.
View attachment 518899

Just looking at what I see on that page, it looks like an assessment of user preferences based on in-room performance of speakers, not an assessment of the content of the musical signal- i.e. people like to hear bass.

 

[HalSF]

Yes, I oversimplified.

Is there an accurate non-oversimplified way to express what you were trying to say?

 

[Gwreck]

Also ESLs can get you a clean impulse response in acoustically messy rooms.

 

[misterdog]

Human hearing evolved to hear predators and to understand speech at reasonable volume.
Hence midrange.
Unless bats become predators, (Covid exempted).

Bass generates power which causes excitement and cause to tick boxes of Dr Toole and the like, though most are transfixed by a sublime midrange. Even huguely distorted bass, I used to go to Jamaican Dub nights where the glass would rattle, it was all very moving, though it could have been helped by the cigarette smoke.

All my opinion of course apart from the first paragraph.

Don't forget the lack of crossover distortion providing a smooth transition between low-mid-high frequencies, whether the extremes are cut or not.
Anyone thinking ESL's lack 'dynamics' has not heard them presented properly.

I'm currently running my fully tricked Quad 989's (size of a door) from Topping B100 amps (size of a paperback book) set at zero gain.
Around 40W of absolute near zero distortion.
With 2x 12" Class D powered subs for that Dub experience.

 

[misterdog]

Also ESLs can get you a clean impulse response in acoustically messy rooms.

So apart from all the benefits, why would anyone wish to buy them.

Because once you lived with them properly set up you can't live without them, it took me 10 years to set mine up properly though. Considerably less time than it took Peter Walker to design them..

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Because once you lived with them properly set up you can't live without them

So you are saying that every person ever who tried electro-static speakers and moved on to other kinds of speakers did so for one (or more) of three reasons?

1. they didn't set them up properly (which may take up to 10 years)
2. their rooms weren't big enough
3. they had partners who didn't approve of their looks

 

[mrehorst]

So you are saying that every person ever who tried electro-static speakers and moved on to other kinds of speakers did so for one (or more) of three reasons?

1. they didn't set them up properly (which may take up to 10 years)
2. their rooms weren't big enough
3. they had partners who didn't approve of their looks

Why does anyone change anything about their stereo system?
How many people marry and spend the rest of their lives with their first girlfriend?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Why does anyone change anything about their stereo system?
How many people marry and spend the rest of their lives with their first girlfriend?

I don't know and there's no reason I should since I haven't made any claims about those probabilities. I just asked what I thought is a simple question about something you posted here, didn't expect to be answered in riddles.

 

[mhardy6647]

Bias.

Well played.
Electrostatics require bias. Quite a bit of it (high voltage).

 

[mhardy6647]

So apart from all the benefits, why would anyone wish to buy them.

This sentence has me rolling on the floor!

... although as a person who uses single-ended amplification via venerable* direct-heated (filament-type) power triode vacuum tubes, I guess I should acknowledge that some us seemingly choose to buy things due to all of their liabilities.



so, yeah, I guess I'm always a little suspicious of folks who buy things because of their benefits, too!

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am also quite pro-ESL, although the only pair here are quite vintage Quad ESL-57.
_________________
* or, as some might say, obsolete.

 

[mrehorst]

I don't know and there's no reason I should since I haven't made any claims about those probabilities. I just asked what I thought is a simple question about something you posted here, didn't expect to be answered in riddles.

Oh FFS, the answer is "no".
There may be reasons beyond the three you listed to replace electrostatic speakers with other types of speakers.
Would you like me to imagine and list a few of them for you?

1) They're too big
2) They're too small
3) The color doesn't match the carpet
4) They're too thin
5) They too heavy
6) They aren't heavy enough
7) They won't play the cannons in the 1812 Overture realistically
8) They won't play the 32' organ pipe's note sufficiently loud
9) The owner wants to try something else
10) The dog peed on them and now they don't work
11) The cat scratched up the cloth and now they look bad
12) The owner keeps tripping on the power cord
13) The owner wants more bass and doesn't want to add a subwoofer

Shall I continue?

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh FFS, the answer is "no".
There may be reasons beyond the three you listed to replace electrostatic speakers with other types of speakers.
Would you like me to imagine and list a few of them for you?

1) They're too big
2) They're too small
3) The color doesn't match the carpet
4) They're too thin
5) They too heavy
6) They aren't heavy enough
7) They won't play the cannons in the 1812 Overture realistically
8) They won't play the 32' organ pipe's note sufficiently loud
9) The owner wants to try something else
10) The dog peed on them and now they don't work
11) The cat scratched up the cloth and now they look bad
12) The owner keeps tripping on the power cord
13) The owner wants more bass and doesn't want to add a subwoofer

Shall I continue?

Gotta be something about messing up somebody's chakras, too, doesn't there?