Electrostatic speakers?

[Justdafactsmaam]

Is this the 'data' to which you refer ?

No

From the link you posted - https://janszenaudio.com/

I see no measured data on that site at all, merely marketing bullshit.

Justdafactsmaam said:
Do you have any data? This is supposed to be a science based audio forum.

You couldn’t find this?

Specs -- Valentina A8

Frequency response, on axis, ±3 dB 30 Hz - 20 kHz in medium to large rooms 20 Hz - 20 kHz in small rooms Maximum continuous SPL from pair at sweet spot 112 dB in small room at 8’ distance [2.5m] 108 dB in medium to large room at 13' [4m] Peak transient SPL at least 6 dB higher Dispersion...

janszenaudio.com

Now please feel free to mull it over and tell us how you reconcile that data with your assertion that “It's marketing hype trying to sell the magic of panels in a small form factor to the 'audiophile' market” with the data you can find at the website.

 

[misterdog]

The "bickering" you mention is pretty much one-sided. @Justdafactsmaam has not accused anyone of bullshit, nor of being a shill, has not tried putting words into anyone's mouth, has not indulged in zingers and personal attacks, and has not repeatedly played the "prove it to me" card in response to an expressed opinion.

Neither has he presented any science based fact for the speakers he claims 'might work'.

Merely linking to a website with no measured facts.

Whilst constantly claiming that this is an objective based forum and that only the facts count.

 

[Duke]

You couldn’t find this?

Specs -- Valentina A8

Frequency response, on axis, ±3 dB 30 Hz - 20 kHz in medium to large rooms 20 Hz - 20 kHz in small rooms Maximum continuous SPL from pair at sweet spot 112 dB in small room at 8’ distance [2.5m] 108 dB in medium to large room at 13' [4m] Peak transient SPL at least 6 dB higher Dispersion...

janszenaudio.com

Now please feel free to mull it over and tell us how you reconcile that data with your assertion that “It's marketing hype trying to sell the magic of panels in a small form factor to the 'audiophile' market” with the data you can find at the website.

Here's some more from the site that you linked to, showing the effects of the tilt-back angle on the in-room measured response:

Back-tilt for the Valentina

The purpose of the Valentina's back-tilt is to present the sound from all drivers in phase, that is, time-aligned, as nearly as possible. This not only provides the best image focus, but is also responsible for presenting the image well above the tops of the speakers. The back-tilt is adjustable...

janszenaudio.com

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Justdafactsmaam said: the BACCH filter, which purifies the audio playback from crosstalk,

You will be advocating 'special' mains power leads and loudspeaker cable lifter's next.

If you are putting BACCH crosstalk cancelation DSP in the same category as cable lifters there really is no point in conversing with you any further.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

So I've lost track of the disagreement here. I don't think you guys are doing anyone any favors. What data on what thing is being asked for and to support or deny what premise? Clean things up and a resolution is possible which is much preferable to bickering back and forth.

It’s a good question. I have asked for data that support two different assertions regarding electrostatic loudspeakers.

1. Mr. Dog asserted “It's marketing hype trying to sell the magic of panels in a small form factor to the 'audiophile' market”

2.Neuman asserted ES panels are “unsuited to mounting in a box.”

I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to inquire about the existence of any objective data in support of these assertions.

So far, despite numerous responses from both forum members no such data has been presented by either in support of the original assertions.

 

[NTK]

the BACCH filter, which purifies the audio playback from crosstalk,

You will be advocating 'special' mains power leads and loudspeaker cable lifter's next.

Justdafactsmaam said:
Do you have any data? This is supposed to be a science based audio forum.

Choueiri himself said that BACCH was not designed to work with common pop recordings (source).

 

[Blumlein 88]

What company doesn't use marketing hype? I would categorize early M-L hybrids as trying to sell the magic of ESLs while ruining it with a woofer ( a badly integrated woofer). Yet it isn't the worst speaker made and you can listen to music on them. I would also consider ESL panels not best used in a sealed chamber, but obviously it can be done. It has been done.

The measurements of the Janszen by Stereophile, and to some extent those provided by the maker are data. They don't have to be anechoic or Klippel data to be data and to be useful. Seems this has become a kerfuffle about nearly nothing.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Choueiri himself said that BACCH was not designed to work with common pop recordings (source).
View attachment 366191

View attachment 366192

This is what he says about it

“Of course in the case of music not recorded in a real acoustic place (which is the case of most non-classical/non-jazz music) the ILD or ITD cues are artificial and are due to level and/or time-based panning done by the mixing engineer. This only means that the 3D image is artificial in the first place but it still contains ILD and ITD cues and one should still expect the BACCH filter, which purifies the audio playback from crosstalk, to project/extrude the image (albeit artificially) in 3D space (as to opposed to leave it spatially confined, also artificially, between the two speakers).

The claim that playback of most regular stereo recordings is compatible with, and is greatly enhanced by, BACCH 3D Sound was verified independently by well-known audio critics who listened extensively to various regular stereo recordings though the BACCH filter”

I will add that my personal experience matches that of the reviewers. IME virtually every multitrack studio recording is greatly enhanced by the wider, deeper, taller sound stage and the significantly greater sense of image proximity and recording venue acoustics with the BACCH cross talk cancelation DSP

Not so much with cable lifters. ;- )

 

[NTK]

This is what he says about it

“Of course in the case of music not recorded in a real acoustic place (which is the case of most non-classical/non-jazz music) the ILD or ITD cues are artificial and are due to level and/or time-based panning done by the mixing engineer. This only means that the 3D image is artificial in the first place but it still contains ILD and ITD cues and one should still expect the BACCH filter, which purifies the audio playback from crosstalk, to project/extrude the image (albeit artificially) in 3D space (as to opposed to leave it spatially confined, also artificially, between the two speakers).

The claim that playback of most regular stereo recordings is compatible with, and is greatly enhanced by, BACCH 3D Sound was verified independently by well-known audio critics who listened extensively to various regular stereo recordings though the BACCH filter”

I will add that my personal experience matches that of the reviewers. IME virtually every multitrack studio recording is greatly enhanced by the wider, deeper, taller sound stage and the significantly greater sense of image proximity and recording venue acoustics with the BACCH cross talk cancelation DSP

Not so much with cable lifters. ;- )

Which means embellishment.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Which means embellishment.

No. There is no objective reference. The BACCH doesn’t add anything. It removes the added spatial cues from the crosstalk that is NOT present on the recording.

If someone doesn’t like it that’s fine. But it is not an embellishment.

And I say this as someone who likes the “embellishments” of tubes and vinyl.

 

[Axo1989]

It's not about the Quads, it's about the test. Toole didn't publish that graph to tell us something about the Quads: he published it to tell us something about the limitations of stereo as a loudspeaker preference rating test.

Yes and no. Toole's book presents that graph (as the fourth of six figures republished from his 1985 study) under the subheading "7.4.2 The Effect of Loudspeaker Directivity" (per the book's third edition) as data from controlled (aka blind) listening tests for the three subject loudspeakers in mono vs stereo. We generally accept it supports the view that listening to individual loudspeakers in mono is usefully diagnostic. The corollary that stereo listening has less efficacy from a diagnostic perspective doesn't lead to the conclusion that stereo isn't recommended for listening to music, of course.

We can also conclude that strong preference for listening to the more directional Quads in stereo (vs one of the same speakers mono) tells us that deviations from ideal that listeners observed in mono listening have limited audible consequences in the more realistic stereo listening scenario. In other words, like inaudible improvements in THD+N for electronics, they don't always matter much.

But I don't think we get a complete picture when we only look at the mean results. The larger point of Toole presenting that material was to discuss effects of directivity. Toole re-iterated (responding to your post a few years back) that reactions to tonality and spatial qualities were sufficiently entangled to require more specific tests to tell us more about reproduction of spatial characteristics. Discussing the graph I presented upthread here, he also emphasised (in his book) that characteristics of the recordings used (including recording techniques) were significant. He offered explanation for the Quad's low mean preference for the pop material used, but didn't have an expansion for the Rega's low mean preference for the jazz material.

 

[Axo1989]

I agree that most ESLs have a distance from the wall they like. Most seem to be around 5 to 6 feet. And I wonder about the backwave. If listened in mono pointed straight ahead, the backwall reflection will be quite different vs normal stereo use where the backwave is likely at an angle plus near a side wall and will reflect differently into the room.

Toole does present diagrammatic info on the setup used for the 1985 three-speaker comparison that included the ESL-63 (detail from figure 7.11 in his book, third edition):

It looks like we have toe-in and some distance to the front wall. I'd say not necessarily optimised for the ESL vs the box speakers, but not egregiously bad positioning. What do you think?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Toole does present diagrammatic info on the setup used for the 1985 three-speaker comparison that included the ESL-63 (detail from figure 7.11 in his book, third edition):

View attachment 366243

It looks like we have toe-in and some distance to the front wall. I'd say not fully optimised for the ESL vs the box speakers, but not egregiously bad positioning. What do you think?

I would agree not a terrible place for Quads. I have the 1st edition, and don't recall that diagram, but maybe I just haven't looked recently enough. I would say the presence of the box speakers behind it given that it radiates as a dipole isn't the best.

 

[Axo1989]

I would agree not a terrible place for Quads. I have the 1st edition, and don't recall that diagram, but maybe I just haven't looked recently enough. I would say the presence of the box speakers behind it given that it radiates as a dipole isn't the best.

It's interesting, my listening room is the same length, and a little wider. Longitudinal room modes at 25 Hz and 50 Hz (roughly) certainly influence the lowest octaves (ignoring the usual complexities in the 70-250 Hz range from multiple modes). I'm familiar with positioning my full-range boxes, currently quite close to the front wall but at some stage I'll try them much further in (the other side of the SBIR conundrum, so 1.5 metres at least). I have to attenuate the 50 Hz modal boost for a somewhat central listening position. Dipole electrostats would be affected differently of course, but I'd also try a wider range of longitudinal positioning. Spatial characteristics are higher FR also of course, which is more complex.

Incidentally I had original Quads (aka ESL-57) for a short time (in a uni student share house, not a good idea) but not in this room and I didn't really have a clue how to set them up back then. But I do wish I'd kept them.

 

[Newman]

Which means embellishment.

Correct.

No.

Yes

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Correct.
Yes

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Embellishment

noun
a decorative detail or feature added to something to make it more attractive.
"architectural embellishments"

Removing crosstalk does not meet the definition of embellishment since it is removing an artifact not present on the recording.

OTOH using early side wall reflections as per Dr. Toole absolutely IS an embellishment since it is NOT present on the recording.

Not to mention the resulting change in frequency response from the listener position being an additional embellishment.

We can play these childish passive aggressive word games all day. But it is childish. If you like crosstalk then enjoy it. If you like the small increase in the sense of spaciousness from side wall reflections enjoy that too.

But the rationalizations are ridiculous and self contradictory.

 

[Newman]

Neuman (sic) asserted ES panels are “unsuited to mounting in a box.”

I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to inquire about the existence of any objective data in support of these assertions.

I fully answered by providing a link to an objective fact. Facts don’t need data. Hypotheses need data.

So far,…no such data has been presented…

My answer was full and sufficient. If you want more ‘data’ on pressure source devices, then that’s something for you to do some research on.

Your response that implied you want data instead of facts, I took to be an indicator that you are more interested in pointscoring than in learning. Your post immediately above this one confirms that I am right. I don’t play that game.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I fully answered by providing a link to an objective fact. Facts don’t need data. Hypotheses need data.

Wrong you provided a link to you repeating the same assertion. Classic logical fallacy. Begging the question

My answer was full and sufficient. If you want more ‘data’ on pressure source devices, then that’s something for you to do some research on.

Your answer was you just repeating your assertion. Far from sufficient

And really kind of sad. Sad that you would disparage a product with zero support.

Sad that would go unchallenged on this forum.

 

[Newman]

I have led the horse to water. What you did next is noted.

Sad that someone with your username would be unable to recognise a fact when presented.

Sad, but not unexpected. When someone is all-too-willing to assert as fact that Toole did the research he did because he was motivated to sell Harman loudspeakers, then we know we are dealing with someone who sees facts as optional.

 

[Duke]

...electrostatics are pressure source devices, so will not act well when backfilled with acoustic resistance material.

I have been hoping you would explain the first part of this statement ("electrostats are pressure source devices"), as well as why the second part ("so will not act well when backfilled with acoustic resistance material") follows from the first.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; I'm trying to understand your position.