Electrostatic speakers?

[thewas]

Edison used the very same demonstration as have many others.

Is It Live or Is It Edison? | Now See Hear!

Today’s entry is a guest post by Jan McKee, Reference Librarian, Recorded Sound Research Center. I have always wondered about the Edison tone tests. Is it really possible that an audience could not tell the difference between an Edison Diamond Disc being played on a phonograph and the live...

blogs.loc.gov

Keith

Sean Olive had written also an article about such.

Why Live-versus-Recorded Listening Tests Don't Work

Figure 1: Singer Frieda Hempel conducting a Tone Test at Edison Studios, NYC in 1918. Note that many of the listeners' ears are covered by t...

seanolive.blogspot.com

 

[dlaloum]

Kostas Metaxas used to be associated with a Melbourne Mandolin orchestra in the 1980's, and he provided electrostatic speakers to support the orchestra's concerts .... It worked very well indeed!

 

[RetroStereo]

The first pair of electrostatic speakers I ever heard were the Dayton Wright XG-8 model. However, except for noting that they were the origin of my love affair with electrostatics, I didn't write much about them.

A major problem with electrostatics is that they arc at high volume, limiting their dynamic range. The distance between the stators limits diaphragm excursion. Mike Wright solved this problem in a way I've never seen any other manufacturer try to replicate: He placed the stators and the panel diaphragm inside what was essentially a large, sonically transparent balloon filled with sulphur hexafluoride gas (electrically inert). This allowed him both tremendous bass and volume from his panels. The problem was that they ate power amps alive.

The night I heard them, I think they were being driven by a pair of Phase Linear 700 amps in mono mode and Mike's comment was that they really needed double that. Regardless, they sounded good to me.

I don't really care about their beaming or dispersion problems. Considering how good they can sound, go ahead and put my head in the vice. And when paired with a cone woofer crossed over at a low enough frequency, the disparity in sound reproduction methods seems to be mostly mitigated.

I have never heard a box or horn speaker that could beat them (unless maybe you're trying to reproduce Iron Maiden on a football field). Of course, that's just me and my taste in sound reproduction.

I'll be 75 next month. Just had a knee replaced last week. The second is scheduled for October. Had my hearing tested back in February. While I can't hear dog whistles any more (thank god), my audiologist said I still have 97% of the hearing expected in a 30 year-old. They'll have to pry my electrostatics out of my cold dead hands.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Had my hearing tested back in February. While I can't hear dog whistles any more (thank god), my audiologist said I still have 97% of the hearing expected in a 30 year-old.

Just curious. What does 97% mean in terms of frequency response and/or sensitivity?

 

[RetroStereo]

Just curious. What does 97% mean in terms of frequency response and/or sensitivity?

Highest frequencies are beginning to go. I stopped hearing lower-pitched dog whistles in my mid-twenties. They were actually painful when I was a child. I wore earplugs. Wish my knees & eyes were as good as my ears. <sigh>

 

[Bjorn]

Funny story. It's interesting that this type of illusion isn't achieved with today's high spinorama speakers, whether it's a wide directivity front firing speaker or a cardioide speaker.

Larger planar/ribbon drivers and horn loaded compression drivers are the only speakers I've heard that can do it. But a fullrange electrostatic is also too limited in dynamic range for broader music material.
Interestingly, both of these speaker design have a narrow dispersion and avoiding early reflections far more compared to other designs.

 

[RetroStereo]

... But a fullrange electrostatic is also too limited in dynamic range for broader music material.

The Dayton Wright XG-8 could reach 115db SPL. The gap between the stators and the diaphragm was 0.25 inches -- so the diaphragm had almost half an inch in which to move without touching. And the S6Fl gas surpressed arcing.

A practical speaker? Probably not. Especially considering its amplifier power consumption. Two Phase Linear 700 power amps not enough?

There are a lot of esoteric speakers on the market whose practicality is highly questionable. Yet, people buy them.

The later & more powerful XG-10 was supposed to be even louder (& more power hungry). I never heard the newer models.

I don't think high SPL is necessarily a limit with electrostats, but it is probably both an engineering and power-handling challenge.

 

[Bjorn]

The Dayton Wright XG-8 could reach 115db SPL. The gap between the stators and the diaphragm was 0.25 inches -- so the diaphragm had almost half an inch in which to move without touching. And the S6Fl gas surpressed arcing.

A practical speaker? Probably not. Especially considering its amplifier power consumption. Two Phase Linear 700 power amps not enough?

There are a lot of esoteric speakers on the market whose practicality is highly questionable. Yet, people buy them.

The later & more powerful XG-10 was supposed to be even louder (& more power hungry). I never heard the newer models.

I don't think high SPL is necessarily a limit with electrostats, but it is probably both an engineering and power-handling challenge.

Sounds good, but also depends on what frequencies the 115 dB level implied to and with what distortion.

 

[dlaloum]

The Dayton Wright XG-8 could reach 115db SPL. The gap between the stators and the diaphragm was 0.25 inches -- so the diaphragm had almost half an inch in which to move without touching. And the S6Fl gas surpressed arcing.

A practical speaker? Probably not. Especially considering its amplifier power consumption. Two Phase Linear 700 power amps not enough?

There are a lot of esoteric speakers on the market whose practicality is highly questionable. Yet, people buy them.

The later & more powerful XG-10 was supposed to be even louder (& more power hungry). I never heard the newer models.

I don't think high SPL is necessarily a limit with electrostats, but it is probably both an engineering and power-handling challenge.

The SPL's and diaphragm movement limitations are primarily related to the bass frequencies...

Progress in room integration DSP, means that it is now far easier to combine subwoofers with the ESL panels.

For years I found the Martin Logan ESL's unsatisfying due to a subjective disconnect between the sound of the ESL mids/highs and the integrated woofer bass -they just didn't sound right (the exception was the full range CLS...)

But I don't believe this to be an issue any more in most cases - with tools like Dirac, we can combine subs and panels to get something that can provide substantially higher SPL's than a pure panel, while keeping the midrange and high frequency benefits of the ESL.

Having said that - WAF variables led to the exit of my ESL's and the arrival of my somewhat more conservative... and much much less obtrusive Gallo Nucleus Reference 3.2 speakers....

So I cannot speak to that sub integration from personal experience doing so with ESL's only from the perspective of having done so with a somewhat left field "dynamic" speaker, and extrapolating from that experience to my previous 20 years with ESL's.

 

[misterdog]

^ Exactly the same as my findings.

I have Quad 989's in custom steel frames which are as solid as concrete, raised off the floor so the centre ring is at ear height.
2x 12" open baffle subs, independently powered from a MiniDSP plate amp, from which I can adjust crossover and other parameters from the laptop at my listening position.
Also a couple of Heil air motion supertweeters to fill in the drop off over 17KHz

The Quad's are fed full range from Topping DAC/preamp and B200 monoblock amplifiers.

You mentioned WAF - maybe that is why I am single?

 

[dlaloum]

^ Exactly the same as my findings.

I have Quad 989's in custom steel frames which are as solid as concrete, raised off the floor so the centre ring is at ear height.
2x 12" open baffle subs, independently powered from a MiniDSP plate amp, from which I can adjust crossover and other parameters from the laptop at my listening position.
Also a couple of Heil air motion supertweeters to fill in the drop off over 17KHz

The Quad's are fed full range from Topping DAC/preamp and B200 monoblock amplifiers.

You mentioned WAF - maybe that is why I am single?

Yes the visual dominance of a pair of 989's at the front and a pair of 63's at the rear was less than ideal.... household harmony was enhanced by moving to far less obtrusive speakers....

 

[MattHooper]

Yes the visual dominance of a pair of 989's at the front and a pair of 63's at the rear was less than ideal.... household harmony was enhanced by moving to far less obtrusive speakers....

Indeed.

I had this set up for a while in the 90s, in our living room. Quad 63s sitting on top of the dipole gradient subwoofers. This isn’t my pair, but it’s the same thing I had:

Needless to say the 2001 black monolith effect was not entirely welcome in the living room (even though that living room had become my defacto listening room).
I did kind of like at first the broad wide dark expanse of the quads - they were easily imagined as big windows in which I was peering into a recording space. But even I grew somewhat tired of how they dominated an roomand moved onto more conventional box speakers.

And the other hand, my memory is that those still produced some of the more amazing listening experiences I’ve had

 

[ubiq]

The infamous WAF. Well, these panels have a high one, at least in my home

Sub and all devices, out of sight, behind my back...

Cheers

 

[MattHooper]

The infamous WAF. Well, these panels have a high one, at least in my home

View attachment 527320

Sub and all devices, out of sight, behind my back...

Cheers

Yeah, that certainly works!!