Electrostatic speakers?

[milezone]

...I think the higher slew rate is what gives an ESL its characteristic spooky-real sound.

This makes sense to me and is similar to the logical assumption that a low mass conventional driver will yield better detail. Do you have any waterfall plots for the electrostatic section of your speakers? I would be curious to see how they compare with a driver such as this one:

https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/yamaha-ja6681b-compression-driver.

 

[MaxBuck]

I've listened to many, many electrostatic speakers in my day. From Quads to high end Martin Logans. Never heard a single one whose sound reproduction was, to my ears, remotely "natural." And I would say the same thing about Magnepans and Magneplanars.

I understand this is entirely subjective and would expect no mercy from Village citizens.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've listened to many, many electrostatic speakers in my day. From Quads to high end Martin Logans. Never heard a single one whose sound reproduction was, to my ears, remotely "natural." And I would say the same thing about Magnepans and Magneplanars.

I understand this is entirely subjective and would expect no mercy from Village citizens.

That is because your mind was infiltrated with dreaded cone and dome boxes at an early age. Your ears have been filtering as needed almost your entire life for those cone and dome boxes. So now, remove the multi-driver in a resonating box and it sounds "unnatural" because your in-built filters are coloring your perception, and you don't even know it. Others hear the sound and have the aural equivalent experience of having taken the red pill.

 

[Newman]

An ESL diaphragm isn't lighter than air of course but it's significantly lighter than the mass of air it's coupled to and moves

Let’s test this claim.

Stator gap 0.063 in = 1.6 mm

Density of air = 1.22 kg/m3

mass of 3.5µm Mylar = 5 g/m2

Maximum mass of air being moved (1.6 mm of diaphragm movement at the point of arcing) = 1.22x1000x0.0016 = 2 g/m2

At typical diaphragm movements, eg 1/10th of the full gap for much of the time, the air being moved is 0.2 g/m2, which is 1/25th of the mass of the diaphragm.

Your claim doesn’t hold up. In fact, the ESL diaphragm is significantly heavier than the mass of air it's coupled to and moves. I hope you didn‘t get it from Sanders.

the ultra-low mass/inertia diaphragm is so effectively dampened by the [much greater] air mass it's coupled to, that it simply doesn't ring. I've discussed this at length with Roger Sanders

I don‘t know if they ring or not, but the explanation is not right.

cheers

 

[Newman]

do you mean 20Hz? The sanders panels cross over to the subs well above this.

My anecdotal experience: A couple of times I have accidentally sent full volume full range (ie bypassed the crossover) to my sanders panels. We are talking 500w sanders amps here.
The fuse blew on the amps before I could hit mute. The panels were absolutely fine.

Oh if they are not full range stats, then it’s a different conversation.

Even then, I would like to see a statement regarding maximum SPL output at the lowest frequency it is delivering, before they reach excursion or other limits.

As for longevity, that is also a different conversation. Protection can be built in electrically with limiters of various sorts, or mechanically with coatings on the panels. Easy to make them bomb proof. Not so easy to get the output.

cheers

 

[Newman]

That is because your mind was infiltrated with dreaded cone and dome boxes at an early age. Your ears have been filtering as needed almost your entire life for those cone and dome boxes. So now, remove the multi-driver in a resonating box and it sounds "unnatural" because your in-built filters are coloring your perception, and you don't even no it. Others hear the sound and have the aural equivalent experience of having taken the red pill.

Very funny!

 

[milezone]

Oh if they are not full range stats, then it’s a different conversation.

Even then, I would like to see a statement regarding maximum SPL output at the lowest frequency it is delivering, before they reach excursion or other limits.

As for longevity, that is also a different conversation. Protection can be built in electrically with limiters of various sorts, or mechanically with coatings on the panels. Easy to make them bomb proof. Not so easy to get the output.

cheers

In a tubes vs transistors white paper on Roger Sanders's website he mentions constant switching on and off of an input signal associated with protection circuitry as a sonic disadvantage. I can't speak to whether this is true or not however it makes sense to me.

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/172-tubes-vs-transistors

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let’s test this claim.

Stator gap 0.063 in = 1.6 mm

Density of air = 1.22 kg/m3

mass of 3.5µm Mylar = 5 g/m2

Maximum mass of air being moved (1.6 mm of diaphragm movement at the point of arcing) = 1.22x1000x0.0016 = 2 g/m2

At typical diaphragm movements, eg 1/10th of the full gap for much of the time, the air being moved is 0.2 g/m2, which is 1/25th of the mass of the diaphragm.

Your claim doesn’t hold up. In fact, the ESL diaphragm is significantly heavier than the mass of air it's coupled to and moves. I hope you didn‘t get it from Sanders.



I don‘t know if they ring or not, but the explanation is not right.

cheers

I've heard such claims for years. Martin Logan claims the same here:
https://www.martinlogan.com/en/electrostatic-esl-theory

It does appear of course not to be true.

 

[Raindog123]

Maximum mass of air being moved (1.6 mm of diaphragm movement at the point of arcing) = 1.22x1000x0.0016 = 2 g/m2

At typical diaphragm movements, eg 1/10th of the full gap for much of the time, the air being moved is 0.2 g/m2, which is 1/25th of the mass of the diaphragm.

[We’ve had this discussion on ASR with another esteemed member not so long ago…] It’s the matter of definition of “movement”: yes, the volume of ‘laterally moved/displaced‘ air you’ve estimated is probably correct. However, being a wave, the acoustic wave [front] propagates farther and father, with the original air displacement - through transformation from its kinetic motion to air-pressure increase… and then back to motion… and so on - causing the wave to propagate, and as a result to bring more and more air molecules to motion.

So, ultimately, the motion of the diaphragm is responsible for bringing to motion (not lateral, but back-and-forth, just like AC current electrons) the entire volume of air as far as the wave-front travels. And the diaphragm provides the energy for all that motion.

 

[Jazzman53]

Let’s test this claim.

Stator gap 0.063 in = 1.6 mm

Density of air = 1.22 kg/m3

mass of 3.5µm Mylar = 5 g/m2

Maximum mass of air being moved (1.6 mm of diaphragm movement at the point of arcing) = 1.22x1000x0.0016 = 2 g/m2

At typical diaphragm movements, eg 1/10th of the full gap for much of the time, the air being moved is 0.2 g/m2, which is 1/25th of the mass of the diaphragm.

Your claim doesn’t hold up. In fact, the ESL diaphragm is significantly heavier than the mass of air it's coupled to and moves. I hope you didn‘t get it from Sanders.



I don‘t know if they ring or not, but the explanation is not right.

cheers

You're making an assumption that only the small volume of air within the diaphragm-to-stator gap is being pushed by the diaphragm. Is the space beyond the gap devoid of air and and incapable of being pressurized? I think not.

The distance from the speaker at which the coupling falls off significantly is certainly debatable but common sense suggests that it's not 1/16", or the speaker would be a damned-poor transducer, and it isn't. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[LTig]

Transient response and slew rate (decay rate) are where lower mass gives an edge, and I think the higher slew rate is what gives an ESL its characteristic spooky-real sound. That is; the ultra-low mass/inertia diaphragm is so effectively dampened by the [much greater] air mass it's coupled to, that it simply doesn't ring.

I'm not so sure about this.
I remember having seen measurements of an electrostatic speaker in @Floyd Toole 's book where the frequency response showed lots of peaks even in the high range. Peaks are resonances so the speaker does ring.

IME I've heard the MLS CLS many years ago and was very impressed by its representation of mids and highs but my ears were used to Maggies (MG 1.6). I own K&H O300D since 2004 and when I listened to the ML ESL 15A at my local dealer I was not impressed - I'd rather keep my K&H. Maybe my hearing loss saves me from lusting for expensive speakers ...

 

[milezone]

I'm not so sure about this.
I remember having seen measurements of an electrostatic speaker in @Floyd Toole 's book where the frequency response showed lots of peaks even in the high range. Peaks are resonances so the speaker does ring.

IME I've heard the MLS CLS and was very impressed by its representation of mids and highs but my ears were used to Maggies (MG 1.6). I own K&H O300D since 2004 and when I listened to the ML ESL 15A at my local dealer I was not impessed - I'd rather keep my K&H. Maybe my hearing loss saves me from lusting for expensive speakers ...

I think the assumption is that an electrostatic dipole achieves greater control of the transducer compared with a magnet based design. The symmetrical/equal nature of a dipole electrostatic panel is where I derive this assumption. I would bet that mylar is capable or 'ringing' like any other material. Presumably the size of and modulus of the diaphragm material determines where resonances occur. I would be interested to see a contemporary coaxial orientation, similar to the Quad 57s -- two bass panels flanking a thinner membrane center mid/high panel, rather than the standard line array implementation, to alleviate this issue if it does exist. And in addition to improve beaming issues, and potentially eliminate the need for a supplementary conventional woofer through the use of different material thicknesses and or materials. A project for the future perhaps.

 

[Newman]

[We’ve had this discussion on ASR with another esteemed member not so long ago…] It’s the matter of definition of “movement”: yes, the volume of ‘laterally moved/displaced‘ air you’ve estimated is probably correct. However, being a wave, the acoustic wave [front] propagates farther and father, with the original air displacement - through transformation from its kinetic motion to air-pressure increase… and then back to motion… and so on - causing the wave to propagate, and as a result to bring more and more air molecules to motion.

So, ultimately, the motion of the diaphragm is responsible for bringing to motion (not lateral, but back-and-forth, just like AC current electrons) the entire volume of air as far as the wave-front travels. And the diaphragm provides the energy for all that motion.

Yes of course, but only the displaced air, as I calculated, can apply back-damping to the panel. Air molecules out in the room, that wiggle as the sound wave passes through them, don’t provide any back-energy to the panel. And even if they did, it would be way too late to provide damping at the time of the initial motion.

cheers

 

[Raindog123]

Yes of course, but only the displaced air, as I calculated, can apply back-damping to the panel. Air molecules out in the room, that wiggle as the sound wave passes through them, don’t provide any back-energy to the panel. And even if they did, it would be way too late to provide damping at the time of the initial motion.

I think we're on the same page... All I wanted to point out is that - as we're talking about frequency response and resonances of a forced oscillator system a speaker is (driven by an oscillating electric or magnetic field) - we need to account for all the countering forces within this system. And yes, one such force is the inertia of the membrane (defined by its mass and the mass of the coupled air). However, in addition to the motion of this diaphragm it is also affected by the force from the [back-]pressure of the displaced air.

And this pressure is an attribute of the sound wave we are creating. The louder the sound - the more power is in it, the higher SPL, the farther it travel - the stronger is that [back-]pressure force on the membrane. (And this is why a speaker would have a different FR in vacuum.)

I still might be wrong, but this is my understanding of the [simplified] speaker dynamics.

 

[Newman]

You're making an assumption that only the small volume of air within the diaphragm-to-stator gap is being pushed by the diaphragm. Is the space beyond the gap devoid of air and and incapable of being pressurized? I think not.

The distance from the speaker at which the coupling falls off significantly is certainly debatable but common sense suggests that it's not 1/16", or the speaker would be a damned-poor transducer, and it isn't. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.

No, I think you need to educate yourself on this point, instead of holding to factual errors. I know you are active on the ESL topic in multiple forums, so you don’t want to repeat something wrong all over the audio internet, I’m sure.

All loudspeaker modelling includes air resistance and inductance against the motion of the diaphragm, and applies a factor of 1 to the volume of air displaced by the motion of the diaphragm. Not more than 1, which you are saying.

The only situations where a factor of more than 1 can be used, are the compression chamber in front of a compression driver’s diaphragm, and, to a very small degree, very large subwoofers in small (domestic) rooms that are very tightly sealed (which is almost never the case in practice).

The situation of an ESL panel in an open room, radiating into open air, with an acoustic short circuit to the back of the panel, doesn’t even come close to justifying anything other than a factor of 1.

If you made the stators almost solid, with tiny escape holes for the sound, then you might be creating a compression chamber, but that has other issues not the least being it’s not what the Mylar diaphragm would want to see. Plus your wire stators don’t even come close to that condition.

cheers

 

[gnarly]

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.



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.

Thank you milezone, for sharing your similar experiences. Cheers to being "stat" heads forever

Can you tell me a little more about the Bluehorns? My understanding is that they have some of the flattest, lowest frequency phase response, than virtually anything out there... ... ........ well, maybe other than the upcoming Hyperion as per preliminary specs......

 

[Wes]

Let's try a revamped question:

Does an ES speaker permit quicker acceleration of an entire wavefront than a cone driver?

I have to say there is something that seems subjectively different about them, and the term "fast" does come to mind.

I also note that these types of questions are in the realm of attribution science.

 

[milezone]

Thank you milezone, for sharing your similar experiences. Cheers to being "stat" heads forever

Can you tell me a little more about the Bluehorns? My understanding is that they have some of the flattest, lowest frequency phase response, than virtually anything out there... ... ........ well, maybe other than the upcoming Hyperion as per preliminary specs......

I visited the factory to hear a pair of Amie monitors which I was considering purchasing at the time. The room they and the Blue Horns were in was treated extensively and thus utterly reflection free -- like an anechoic chamber and likely mimicking a recording studio at Skywalker sound and the likes. Furthermore it was about double the length that it actually appeared with a screen facade built to look like a wall behind the listener in the interest of capturing and eliminating reflections.

I was unimpressed by the Amies as they sounded diminutive at the midfield listening distance. I think they were trying to mimic the horn loading characteristics of a large cinema speaker at a small scale for production purposes. The takeaway in this instance was that a wave guide or no horn loaded monitor is a better option for near field studio monitoring. I ended up with a pair of Genelec Ones.

The Blue Horns were outstanding and I believe that is true, they were designed to be the flattest and most phase accurate monitors ever made and nothing leads me to assume otherwise based on my listening experience. They were in an LCR configuration with a supplementary 18" inch woofers at 15ish feet I would guess. I asked about the Blue Horns compared with the previous top of the line X10s and the engineer whom I was with described the X10s as something to the effect of the most balls to the walls Meyersound has ever produced. I believe the Blue Horns feature a JBL2450H compression driver with a stamped aluminum diaphragm which Meyersound manufactures in house. I'm not certain about the woofer though maybe something proprietary or a Ciare with a proprietary coated cone. They sounded like headphones in terms of directivity and clarity. I think due to the room treatment the sound wasn't as lively as a handful of other listening experiences I've had, though perhaps and most likely the most accurate speakers I've ever heard. The engineer also mentioned something to the effect that an analog signal remains the most robust means of transmitting audio. Presumably this means that DSP was avoided where possible when designing the speaker. I would consider purchasing a pair. The blue (color) horn is not my favorite aesthetic for a home environment though they look badass in a studio. And furthermore I'm a very curious person and have a desire to experiment with different drivers, and also favor the simplicity of a well designed two or three way system driven by adequately powered tube amps. The other consideration at that price point would be a pair of JBL Everest 67000s and perhaps the Hyperions. Highly expensive and highly recommended speakers.

Here's a photo of the room:

 

[sibi1865]

Models of what?

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

Thanks! I did mean speakers, but would also need a measurement mic. I took a look at the ones you recommended and felt myself leaning towards some models in the Neumann range all things considered to suit performance, application, and cost. I also came across Adam Audio that I'll consider. It would be good to listen to these alongside the ESLs at test facilities such as Harman's...

 

[misterdog]

Listen to acoustically played instruments by standing 'next' to them.

Then listen to your favourite loudspeaker replaying the same same recording.

Which sounds better to you, a box full of magnets and crossover or a planar dipole ?

Simple.

End.

Of.

Argument.