Open baffle speaker design

[Cosmik]

Not have a ton of time and phase distortion.

Neither do the DSP'ed box speakers. And the box speakers maintain reasonably sensible time and phase response as you move around them - so the room's reverberation is as though stimulated by something much closer to the ideal speaker. It all 'adds up'.

From the review you linked, where do you get very quiet?

I even posted a direct quote in my comment...
From the same source:

They do not play particularly loud. This can be a disadvantage not only with rock music, but also with large-scale orchestral works—Mahler becomes moderated, Bruckner bridled.

Not a great feature for the music lover who likes realistic volume levels.

And yes, I have listened to them many times - and never been as stunned as I am by DSP'ed box speakers.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Neither do the DSP'ed box speakers. And the box speakers maintain reasonably sensible time and phase response as you move around them - so the room's reverberation is as though stimulated by something much closer to the ideal speaker. It all 'adds up'.

I even posted a direct quote in my comment...
From the same source:

Not a great feature for the music lover who likes realistic volume levels.

And yes, I have listened to them many times - and never been as stunned as I am by DSP'ed box speakers.

Ok, cool.

 

[Cosmik]

Ok, cool.

Now you make me feel guilty for being too unrelenting

 

[Sal1950]

Quads are very special speakers, yes,

Yep,
Won't play loud, let alone very loud
No Bass
Love to light up the panels with spectacular light shows as the self-destruct.
No Thanks

 

[Burning Sounds]

Everyone says it is important that a box speaker should have uniform dispersion at all frequencies because it is important that the reverberant sound is derived from the same sound character as the direct.

But for some reason they are happy for 'out-of-the-box' speakers to have the weirdest reverberant characteristics you can imagine in frequency, phase, timing - including the inverted waveform reflecting off the front wall.

With all such speakers, the listener can hear the nausea-inducing weirdness especially when they move their head or shift position. They are a triumph of wishful thinking and hardware fetishism over the simple, straightforward, basic requirements for a true loudspeaker (that are not necessarily fully achievable, but are a giant step closer if you use a box).

Oh dear, we've been here before @Cosmik - you obviously have a pet hate for dipoles. For someone who I have a lot of respect for, you seem to lose all logic and scientific reasoning when it comes to discussing dipoles. By all means put forward some science to illustrate this "nausea-inducing wierdness." A properly designed dipole can produce a very convincing auditory illusion.

And as far as I'm concerned there is no-one better at designing a dipole than Siegfried Linkwitz. Linkwitz LX521s have a very wide sweetspot - no head clamped in a vice like some of the big panel dipoles and when you move to the side the image does not shift and collapse into the nearest speaker like most box speakers I have heard (except Kii3s and Dutch & Dutch 8Cs). Get up and walk towards the speakers and the music becomes all the more enveloping.

 

[Cosmik]

Oh dear, we've been here before @Cosmik - you obviously have a pet hate for dipoles. For someone who I have a lot of respect for, you seem to lose all logic and scientific reasoning when it comes to discussing dipoles. By all means put forward some science to illustrate this "nausea-inducing wierdness." A properly designed dipole can produce a very convincing auditory illusion.

And as far as I'm concerned there is no-one better at designing a dipole than Siegfried Linkwitz. Linkwitz LX521s have a very wide sweetspot - no head clamped in a vice like some of the big panel dipoles and when you move to the side the image does not shift and collapse into the nearest speaker like most box speakers I have heard (except Kii3s and Dutch & Dutch 8Cs). Get up and walk towards the speakers and the music becomes all the more enveloping.

But if the loudspeaker had never been invented and you were given the task of designing it, would you stipulate: "For every impulse emitted from the front of the transducer, an equal and opposite impulse shall be radiated from the rear". If so, why?

It seems clear to me that people are starting from the position of dipoles already existing and trying to justify their characteristics on the grounds of 'spaciousness' or 'reduced room activation at the sides' or whatever. But there was never any scientific rationale for those characteristics - they are just the by-products of 'lazy' construction .

 

[Burning Sounds]

I've listened to a couple of Open Baffle loudspeakers, not seen any measurements, but then they don't measure like conventional forward-firing loudspeakers, so possibly no point.

Here you go Serge - plenty more on the site, too.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Loudspeaker-Room/tests&measurements.htm

Here's a distortion measurement from my LX521s. I think I have posted FR and step response somewhere on the site also. I'll try and find them

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...sion-thread.2615/page-6#lg=post-76334&slide=1

They require vast amounts of EQ and consequently amplifier power and consequently driver power handling and excursion capability.

This is not really valid anymore IMO. DSP, inexpensive high quality Class D amps, a bass driver such as the SEAS unit in the LX521 with 28mm of linear travel (56 mm max) that doesn't cost the earth can make for a relatively inexpensive build - and you don't have to be a skilled carpenter to build a perfectly sealed box, either.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Love to light up the panels with spectacular light shows as the self-destruct.
No Thanks

Please, that is ridiculous, does not happen!

 

[Cosmik]

Please, that is ridiculous, does not happen!

There are anecdotes that it does...
Even if not in normal operation, it will happen after a build-up of dust.

Unreliability plagued many of the early models, arcing of the diaphragms giving a wonderful blue glow in the dark but giving the owner a sinking feeling—an expensive repair was in the offing.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-63-loudspeaker-larry-greenhill

Electrostatics are unreliable. True for some others, but not ours. There are quite a few weaknesses in other designs that lead to reliability issues after a few years:

1. Inadequate protection against the formation of unintended high voltage pathways. This can lead to clicking, popping, hissing, or squeaking sounds. Soot and dust from the air can collect due to the constant presence of static electricity. Our design prevents dust collection as much as possible, and prevents whatever debris is inevitably attracted from coming into contact with any of the high voltage parts.
2. Inadequate or nonexistent protection against arcing. When the stator electrodes are not insulated, or are insufficiently insulated, sparks can jump through the membrane that vibrates to make the sound, eventually causing it to tear and stop working. Our electrodes can withstand extreme voltages without allowing a spark. The stator wires will glow blue and make tons of ozone, but arcing will not occur, even when amplifiers that are much more powerful than recommended are used.

http://david-janszen.squarespace.com/blog/electrostatic-speaker-myths2015321

 

[Burning Sounds]

But if the loudspeaker had never been invented and you were given the task of designing it, would you stipulate: "For every impulse emitted from the front of the transducer, an equal and opposite impulse shall be radiated from the rear". If so, why?

It seems clear to me that people are starting from the position of dipoles already existing and trying to justify their characteristics on the grounds of 'spaciousness' or 'reduced room activation at the sides' or whatever. But there was never any scientific rationale for those characteristics - they are just the by-products of 'lazy' construction .

I'm not an acoustic engineer, so I have no idea where I would start. But it seems that a fair number of the earliest loudspeakers were dipoles including cinema speakers back in the 20s, so it seems that some engineers did start there.

It's certainly not about lazy construction - the upper baffle on a LX521 is not a simple shape, but with CNC it can be constructed very accurately at a reasonable price - it's about trying to deal with that backwave inside the box - set it free, man.

And just to be clear I'm not defending all dipoles here as I'm sure you wouldn't defend just any old sealed box speaker. There's done right and there's done wrong. IMO SL really took the dipole to another level with the LX521. It's far superior to my Maggies, and to any Quads I have heard.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

There are anecdotes that it does...
Even if not in normal operation, it will happen after a build-up of dust.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-63-loudspeaker-larry-greenhill


http://david-janszen.squarespace.com/blog/electrostatic-speaker-myths2015321

Yes, you can find anything on the internet. And anything can happen. Be careful, even people can spontaneously combust.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5855700/10-cases-of-spontaneous-human-combustion

 

[DonH56]

ESLs have improved over time...

• Damping the back wave solves a lot of the impulse response and comb-filter issues (for any dipole, ESL, planer-dynamic, ribbon). Janszen did that by design IIRC.
• I think most all (don't know them "all) modern ESLs insulate the wires in the panels to prevent, or at least greatly suppress, arcing from dust and humidity (a bane of many early ESLs). Conventional drivers have failure modes, too.
• A big part of the issue with Quads is that their protection circuit essentially shorted the amplifier's output. Many amps did not care for that.

I've always liked big planer dipoles but have conventional speakers now and am OK with them. As for dipoles, some love them, some hate them, like many things does not seem to be a lot of middle ground. Debating conventional vs. dipoles, meh, might as well start another religious war about this Schitt.

 

[SIY]

What do they do that a modern DSP-ed box speaker can't do?

The '63s I've heard give an image and soundstage that is different than what I get from forward-firing box speakers. If that's not your preference, fine. For me, that presentation gets more of my "live music" synapses firing. The '57s do have more volume limitations, but have a "rightness" to my ears on vocals and acoustic strings. I have not heard anything quite like this from DSPed box speakers. Again, none of this is "real," it's all illusion-creation, so we really are down to preference rather than objectivity- speakers and rooms are NOT the same thing as amps and DACs. When we compress a complex 3-D soundfield into two 1-D datastreams, then plop two transducers into a different space, the data loss is profound, and we can only deal with hedonics, not simply measurables.

Disclaimer: I do not have the capability to run DBTs on speakers, so I'm presenting this as uncontrolled subjective opinion. There's no doubt some hedonic research on this that perhaps others are aware of.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, you can find anything on the internet. And anything can happen. Be careful, even people can spontaneously combust.

What's the matter with your head, did your mother drop you on it?
Panel arching on early ESL's isn't anyone's fantasy, it's a known fact that has already been documented here in just a few minutes.
I personally owned a pair of speakers with Janszen tweeters and watched one of them sizzle to death around 1976.
If your going to run your mouth make sure you do it about something you have knowledge in. Otherwise you only end up making yourself appear the fool.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

What's the matter with your head, did your mother drop you on it?
Panel arching on early ESL's isn't anyone's fantasy, it's a known fact that has already been documented here in just a few minutes.
I personally owned a pair of speakers with Janszen tweeters and watched one of them sizzle to death around 1976.
If your going to run your mouth make sure you do it about something you have knowledge in. Otherwise you only end up making yourself appear the fool.

LOL try taking your advice.

1976 was a bad year tweeters. There were a total 15,745 tweeter deaths that year,up from 12,397 the year prior.

 

[Sal1950]

Disclaimer: I do not have the capability to run DBTs on speakers, so I'm presenting this as uncontrolled subjective opinion. There's no doubt some hedonic research on this that perhaps others are aware of.

No need to DBT speakers, every one of them has their own personal tone controls built in and your preference is as good as anyone else
Personally I prefer a excellent set of horns.

 

[Sal1950]

1976 was a bad year tweeters. There were a total 15,745 tweeter deaths that year,up from 12,397 the year prior.

Once again you appear the fool, have fun little boy.

 

[Thomas savage]

Keep it civil guys..

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Once again you appear the fool, have fun little boy.

Sorry, I forgot Cate O'leary's tweeter in 1871.
Sprinkler systems should be mandatory with electrostatic speakers.

Peace be with you.

 

[Purité Audio]

Stacked with subs and rear wall heavily damped was the best iteration I have heard, I am sure in the 1950’s they were really something exceptional.
Keith