Electrostatic speakers?

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I'm not sure anything images as holographically as a well set-up pair of Sanders Sound speakers, and I've seen Roger Sanders further reduce their already minimal early reflections by using a diagonal or semi-diagonal setup geometry.

Hi Duke, when you day “diagonal or semi-diagonal”, do you mean where Roger sets his speakers up asymmetrically across the corner of a room (I think he does this in hifi shows)?

Btw, I’m an owner of Sanders panels but I’ve often looked at your speakers online and have always been impressed with your design thinking. Would love to listen one day but there seem to be precious few here in Australia

 

[Duke]

Hi Duke, when you day “diagonal or semi-diagonal”, do you mean where Roger sets his speakers up asymmetrically across the corner of a room (I think he does this in hifi shows)?

Yes.

Btw, I’m an owner of Sanders panels but I’ve often looked at your speakers online and have always been impressed with your design thinking. Would love to listen one day but there seem to be precious few here in Australia

Thank you Sir! I have some home audio speakers with customers in Indonesia but only a few bass guitar cabs in Oz.

 

[antennaguru]

Been there, loved them, got the shirt. I moved on when I realized I was only listening to the kind of music they could play well: small acoustic groups. They probably did that better than most everything else, BUT when it came to larger scale music with large dynamics they ran out of gas and were too highly compressed.

 

[misterdog]

 

[steve f]

Thank you, sir.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hi Duke, when you day “diagonal or semi-diagonal”, do you mean where Roger sets his speakers up asymmetrically across the corner of a room (I think he does this in hifi shows)?

I remember helping one of the members setting up in a hotel room at one old HiFi Wigwam show at Scalford and setting up the speakers diagonally hugely reduced their excitation of room modes and the stereo image was improved.
Not practical for most homes though.

 

[Hayabusa]

I remember helping one of the members setting up in a hotel room at one old HiFi Wigwam show at Scalford and setting up the speakers diagonally hugely reduced their excitation of room modes and the stereo image was improved.
Not practical for most homes though.

Also playing Final Model 15 electrostatics in diagonal mode here. Very happy with the results!

 

[gnarly]

Hi all, just read through this interesting thread. Long time ESL enthusiast here.
Lot's of good posts from lot's of folks. Jazzman, love your work.

Have heard many electrostats and planars over the years, in Atl and NYC showrooms.
Still running the Acoustat's original Model X with the direct drive servo amps in the bedroom, which i continue to enjoy and compare to.
ML CLS sit in the closet. Stax Signature phones...yada yada... was a complete "stat head" for over 25 years.
The Acoustat-X have remaining my favorite ESL overall; they get pretty loud and have good bass for a full-ranger, imo.

But the ole more, more, more ......dynamics and bass urge crept in ......and I bought some big Meyersound speakers about 20 years ago.
Not quite the finesse of the stats, but surprisingly close....with beautiful clarity, dynamics, and ball-busting bass (especially after building 4 Danley-designed Labhorns to go with them !)

I've never looked back to ESLs......
Instead i turned to DIY to see if i could emulate, maybe even exceed the Meyer stuff.
First with a live-sound MTM CD/horn with horn loaded 12"s, then modular array-able trap boxes, coax boxes, floor-to-ceiling and CBT line arrays, and lately a string of synergy builds. Along with a number of sub types.
Going for clarity, dynamics, bass, ....as loud and linear as possible.

All the varied speaker building has given me different views from what i held, on why ESLs sound the way they do.
(I thought it was mostly about low mass...fast...you know, the usual hi-fi jargon BS stuff)

Nowadays I believe the ESL/planar sound is more about that they are the home audio speaker design that most closely behaves like theoretical line-array math describes. Their continuous center-to-center design is the only one i know that can satisfy the line-array (LA) requirements at VHF or often even HF (i include ribbons in this ability).
I think it's why VHF just disappears above the speaker's perpendicular height.
An ESL/ planar's typical height lets in operate like a LA down to some frequency, and the horizontal width is also acting devoid of c2c spacing issues (for full-range, non frequency divided panels)

I now realize how ESLs/planars usually don't have the timing issues, that multi-way conventional speakers do, trying to combine different acoustic centers' depths. Which is an immediate improvement to transients.
And the planar surface kinda acts like a point source, albeit a point on a line (or maybe a cylinder?). Surely there is less lobing issues than tying conventional drivers spread out laterally.

If an ESL operates full range, without xovers, I believe that further aids in its ability to have accurate timbre, as well as aiding transients (within it's freq and SPL capabilities).
Imo, tonality is about linear frequency response (flat, other than preference).
Whereas timbre is about a prerequisite linear frequency response ......and adding flat phase.
Flat phase establishes the correct timing between fundamental and harmonics, giving the correct timbre, i think.
Transients get improved further, because phase is without the rotation of crossovers.

As an aside, I've come to realize/believe, transient response (a fast speaker Lol) is simply a fuction of full-range frequency response, timed correctly (which means as smooth and flat a phase trace as possible).

So there's my 2c on why stats sound great. I have no clue how dipoles fit in to any of this thinking yet....so my big disclaimer

I would sure love to hear a giant outdoor live sound ESL.... !!!

 

[sibi1865]

Hi,

I’ve never had the opportunity to listen to an ESL such as the Sanders mentioned in this thread, or modern passive dynamic designs such as the Revels, never mind blind and randomised testing of any (I just watched Amir’s excellent video on measurements and listening tests). I believe Amir has said somewhere within these forums that there’s been significant advances in speaker technologies in the past 10 years, and scanning threads such as this leaves me wondering what the most important considerations are now. Passive versus active? Do the advancements in dynamic speakers now outweigh any benefits of ESLs? The latest incarnation of the Sanders uses the dbx VENU360, but are there audible differences between its DAC section and the likes of the DACs from Topping and Okto Research? I’m currently thinking of selling my units and replacing them with something like the equipment I’ve mentioned, but do feel somewhat lost! Any thoughts? Not that I would want my head in a vice, but music is a private pleasure for me and I’ve things set up with a prime listening position in mind.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[milezone]

So there's my 2c on why stats sound great. I have no clue how dipoles fit in to any of this thinking yet....so my big disclaimer

I would sure love to hear a giant outdoor live sound ESL.... !!!

I share your experience going from electrostats to high efficiency horns. I too at one point owned a pair of Acoustat X servo tube driven electrostats. (Before) and after upgrading every last component in those amplifiers for stability and simplifying the circuit, those were excellent speakers. Equal in quality though lacking in dynamics comparatively are the original Quad 57s. I am not a bass junkie and don't need that last 10ish hz of bass frequency to satisfy. I find that in most if not all rooms deep bass will create unwanted resonances and can muddy the sound if not implemented properly. For the same reasons I prefer a dipole or open baffle design to most all box speakers. I began experimenting with coaxials and compression drivers -- recently a Beyma 12XA30ND 12" coaxial featuring a compression driver crossed at 1.8khz. The point source nature of this design is preferable to me compared with large panels -- both electrostats and Apogee ribbons. They are more dynamic and composed at high volumes than any electrostatic panel I've heard. Most electrostatics don't play loud and when they do they creek and make odd noises of one variety or another attributed to poor enclosure design. A properly implemented full range electrostat with no crossover is an excellent albeit somewhat strange and limited speaker design. There are versions like the Soundlabs which play loud but don't have the finesses and ultimate resolution of the Quad 57s in my experience.

I suspect though I've never had an opportunity to hear them, that the Sanders Sound Electrostats are the last word in resolution of any speaker available today. I see them as a superior evolution of the Linkwitz LX521 which I have listened to and is an excellent speaker. Both of these speakers are home audio hifi speakers and are not intended to be played at loud volumes. If in a small listening room and not desiring loud volumes either speaker is a great option. These speakers (I suspect the Sanders too) will start to crap out at high volumes. Maybe not to to a terrible degree, however with high efficiency horn designs intended to play loud, there is no degradation in sound quality, or sense of compression and nasaliness that occurs when one plays many hifi home audio speakers at high volume. Good high efficiency driver implementations maintain composure, ultra low distortion, and ultra crystal clear sound presentation even at extreme volumes. No hifi speaker, electrostatic or otherwise, can match this most desireable characteristic to the same degree.

Speaking of Meyer Sound I listened to their Blue Horn at the factory in Berkeley CA and those were very nice. My recent experience with the coaxial Beymas has led me to consider two and three way designs featuring small to medium horns as an alternative to the coaxial implementation. Primarily this is out of curiosity to determine the advantages of using more premium drivers. I have heard horn coloration and I can't stand it and intend to avoid it.

One final point to note is that single ended tube designs further enhance the detailed presentation that is achieved with high efficiency drivers. I realize this forum is obsessed with low distortion specs and tubes are shunned for the most part. Having AB compared a Hypex NC500 with a $200 single ended tube amp from China, the 4w tube amp sounded appreciably better driving the Beymas. I think amplifier and speaker driver technology has diminished in quality in some instances, in the interest of production efficiency across the board. A single ended tube amp which strives for ultra simplicity while maintaining applicably high quality specification where it matters is far more appealing than a highly signal processed class D design in my listening experiences. Furthermore I find overbuilt, high wattage, high heat tube amps excessive and most of the times worse sonically than the most elemental low watt designs. Regardless of wattage many tube amplifiers are not capable of driving electrostatic speakers. Shortcomings aside I'm optimistic and hopeful that electrostatic speaker technology will continue to evolve. As a final note and testament to electrostatic technology, Stax headphones -- a small single ultra low mass full range electrostatic transducer -- regardless of the vintage, are more advanced sonically than any speaker I've owned or heard.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Hi,

I’ve never had the opportunity to listen to an ESL such as the Sanders mentioned in this thread, or modern passive dynamic designs such as the Revels, never mind blind and randomised testing of any (I just watched Amir’s excellent video on measurements and listening tests). I believe Amir has said somewhere within these forums that there’s been significant advances in speaker technologies in the past 10 years, and scanning threads such as this leaves me wondering what the most important considerations are now. Passive versus active? Do the advancements in dynamic speakers now outweigh any benefits of ESLs? The latest incarnation of the Sanders uses the dbx VENU360, but are there audible differences between its DAC section and the likes of the DACs from Topping and Okto Research? I’m currently thinking of selling my units and replacing them with something like the equipment I’ve mentioned, but do feel somewhat lost! Any thoughts? Not that I would want my head in a vice, but music is a private pleasure for me and I’ve things set up with a prime listening position in mind.

Cheers,

Paul

The venu360 that Sanders uses is not performing “traditional” DAC duties. It is used as an active crossover and room correction unit. You still need your traditional dac.

In my setup the chain is:
Digital music >> DAC (RME babyface for me) >> analog signal to preamp >> preamp to Venu360 >> AD conversion in venu360 plus crossover plus room correction >> DA conversion in venu360>> amps

Whilst I’m sure the AD/DA conversion is transparent it does bug me. I wish there was a way for the Venu to take digital in directly and do volume control (I’m considering replacing the Venu with a miniDSP SHD as I think this does what I need).

Regarding “head in a vice”, I’m the only one who sits down to specifically listen to music so there are no issues. Having said that, my setup is in an open plan kitchen/living area. For casual background listening, the sanders panels happen to “beam’ into the kitchen area so the sound is surprisingly good.

 

[LTig]

I believe Amir has said somewhere within these forums that there’s been significant advances in speaker technologies in the past 10 years, and scanning threads such as this leaves me wondering what the most important considerations are now. Passive versus active? Do the advancements in dynamic speakers now outweigh any benefits of ESLs?

I'd say, in this order:

• designs with smooth off axis frequency response (e.g. using waveguides for mid range drivers and tweeters)
• activation (line level crossover and one power amp per driver)
• digital crossovers (although there are excellent speakers with analog crossovers like the Neumann KH310)

Of course using room EQ to fix the strongest peaks, and using subs helps a lot to improve sound quality (SQ) in rooms, but this works independent of speaker technology. Therefore the first step one should do before changing anything is to buy a measurement mic and install REW to find those room problems. Then try to improve SQ by optimal speaker position and fix the remaining problems with an EQ. If this still is not good enough then think about better getting a sub, or better speakers.

 

[sibi1865]

The venu360 that Sanders uses is not performing “traditional” DAC duties. It is used as an active crossover and room correction unit. You still need your traditional dac.

In my setup the chain is:
Digital music >> DAC (RME babyface for me) >> analog signal to preamp >> preamp to Venu360 >> AD conversion in venu360 plus crossover plus room correction >> DA conversion in venu360>> amps

Whilst I’m sure the AD/DA conversion is transparent it does bug me. I wish there was a way for the Venu to take digital in directly and do volume control (I’m considering replacing the Venu with a miniDSP SHD as I think this does what I need).

Regarding “head in a vice”, I’m the only one who sits down to specifically listen to music so there are no issues. Having said that, my setup is in an open plan kitchen/living area. For casual background listening, the sanders panels happen to “beam’ into the kitchen area so the sound is surprisingly good.

Thanks! I'd be interested to know how you get along with the miniDSP if you go down that route.

 

[sibi1865]

I'd say, in this order:

• designs with smooth off axis frequency response (e.g. using waveguides for mid range drivers and tweeters)
• activation (line level crossover and one power amp per driver)
• digital crossovers (although there are excellent speakers with analog crossovers like the Neumann KH310)

Of course using room EQ to fix the strongest peaks, and using subs helps a lot to improve sound quality (SQ) in rooms, but this works independent of speaker technology. Therefore the first step one should do before changing anything is to buy a measurement mic and install REW to find those room problems. Then try to improve SQ by optimal speaker position and fix the remaining problems with an EQ. If this still is not good enough then think about better getting a sub, or better speakers.

Thanks for this! I'll be moving house fairly soon, so will be looking into room acoustics then. Based on what you've said, are there any specific models you'd recommend as a starting point?

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Thanks! I'd be interested to know how you get along with the miniDSP if you go down that route.

I’m not sure if I’ll go down that path yet. Still trying to satisfy myself that the miniDSP can replicate the Sanders crossover. But will certainly update you if I do.
As I said, the reality is that the current set up is almost certainly audibly transparent so I’m not even sure I need to change anything.

 

[LTig]

Thanks for this! I'll be moving house fairly soon, so will be looking into room acoustics then. Based on what you've said, are there any specific models you'd recommend as a starting point?

Models of what?

• Speakers? Neumann, Genelec, JBL (all active).
• Measurement Mics? Umik 1

 

[egellings]

Driving that awful capacitive ESL load is a big problem. Pushing several nanofarads around through a high turns ratio step up transformer is a drag. I can see why an amp would get indigestion real fast on a diet like that. Maybe the way to get a good ESL is to design the speaker with its own amp built in, and the amp would be specifically designed to work with that panel. High current capability would be a main item on the amplifier's to do list.

 

[Jazzman53]

Hi,

I’ve never had the opportunity to listen to an ESL such as the Sanders mentioned in this thread, or modern passive dynamic designs such as the Revels, never mind blind and randomised testing of any (I just watched Amir’s excellent video on measurements and listening tests). I believe Amir has said somewhere within these forums that there’s been significant advances in speaker technologies in the past 10 years, and scanning threads such as this leaves me wondering what the most important considerations are now. Passive versus active? Do the advancements in dynamic speakers now outweigh any benefits of ESLs? The latest incarnation of the Sanders uses the dbx VENU360, but are there audible differences between its DAC section and the likes of the DACs from Topping and Okto Research? I’m currently thinking of selling my units and replacing them with something like the equipment I’ve mentioned, but do feel somewhat lost! Any thoughts? Not that I would want my head in a vice, but music is a private pleasure for me and I’ve things set up with a prime listening position in mind.

Cheers,

Paul

Hi Paul,
I will stipulate that I'm an ESL designer/builder, so it's fair to question my objectivity. That said; I will now share my thoughts on your questions.

Passive versus active? That's an easy one for me (I would never go back to passive). With the woofer coupled directly to the amp, the bass tightens up considerably, the phasing thru a DSP crossover is essentially perfect, efficiency goes way up (power-robbing passive components out of the loop), and the ability to tweak crossover points and slopes in real-time is a game changer.

Do the advancements in conventional speakers now outweigh the benefits of ESLs? I would have to say no, for a couple of reasons. For one; an ESL diaphragm is driven evenly across its entire surface, and no conventional EM driver has the ultra-low moving mass/inertia of an ESL. The diaphragm in my ESL is 3.2 ft2 and weighs 2 grams, which gives faster transient response and damping from the surrounding air mass (i.e... spooky realism).

Secondly; there is no crossover in the ear-sensitive midrange (hybrid ESLs typically use a crossover set below the ear-sensitive midrange).

I use a DBX Venu 360 in my hybrid ESL and it's DAC section sounds superb to me. I must stipulate however that I have not heard the other high-end DACs mentioned, so I really have no basis to compare them.

A Venu 360 is an awesome unit. But for home stereo use, you could get the same performance from a DBX PA2 at half the price. The Venu 360 has additional features you would only need for PA applications. I opted for the Venu 360 because it has a digital input-- which I'm feeding directly from the digital out of my Logitech Transformer (no analog preamp in the loop, and only a single D/A conversion in the signal path).

Regarding directivity (head in a vise). I have experience with highly directional flat panel ESLs and also wide dispersion segmented ESLs. I love the magical imaging at the focal sweet spot of a beaming flat panel ESL However; the head in a vice effect is real and one can tire of it after a while. And a beamy flat panel is really not appropriate for entertaining guests, unless they are sitting in your lap. For this reason; I eventually opted for a wider sweet spot in my newest ESLs which use electrical segmentation to bend the wave front.

BTW; a large unsegmented ESL is essentially a big capacitor and a horrendous load for an amplifier. Whereas; a resistor-segmented ESL of the same size is a much easier load for the amp because it's predominantly resistive (the amp only sees the capacitance of the first two segments-- about a tenth the capacitance of an unsegmented panel).

 

[milezone]

Hi Jazzman53, I've admired seeing your speaker builds over the years and reading your very knowledgeable insights. In the latest iteration, how do your speakers fare playing loud volumes and also handling dynamics? Is there a max spl spec for these speakers? In addition, is there a disadvantage sonically to the segmentation method which you are implementing to increase dispersion?

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I opted for the Venu 360 because it has a digital input-- which I'm feeding directly from the digital out of my Logitech Transformer (no analog preamp in the loop, and only a single D/A conversion in the signal path).

Hi @Jazzman53 , this is interesting. As mentioned, I have an analog preamp in my chain (before my Venu360). In your setup, where do you do volume control ?