Jump to content

The BIGGEST Change in Electrostat Speakers in years...


Recommended Posts



I heard them at Newport and spoke at length to the designer--Interesting speaker--have to admit the sound was OK but not spectacular as one was led to believe.

 

Whilst they do fill the room adequately -they haven't surpassed the Soundlabs for visceral punch.plus the $50KUSRRP could be a factor against similar Units in that field.

 

I admire the dexterity and application to surmount a "beaming" problem sometimes evident in ESLs

 

But not sorry not on my shopping list

 

Yes Rob --audition though by all means

 

Willco

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Notwithstanding the coolosity of the omni-directional ESL head section on that speaker, I would have grave concerns about its small size and radiating surface area.

All electrostatics generally get better as they get bigger if your room can take it, as intimated by Willco a la Soundlab.

Edited by Steve M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of 360 dgeree ESL design has been done before in order to "fix" the beaming effect of ESL's, as mentioned.

 

Theoretically it can be expected to be good at putting out a medciocre sound to all parts of the room. Just the thing for a multimillionaire impressing his clients at a cocktail party.  Exactly the sound an audiophile would deride. 

 

The beaming effect of panels is one of great strengths of ESL's for an audiophile who isnt interested in cocktail bling or GTG's. Interestingy the beaming effect increases as the panels get wider.  No doubt this a factor that makes Bryan"s Acoustat design so highly regarded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I heard them at Newport and spoke at length to the designer--Interesting speaker--have to admit the sound was OK but not spectacular as one was led to believe.

 

Whilst they do fill the room adequately -they haven't surpassed the Soundlabs for visceral punch.plus the $50KUSRRP could be a factor against similar Units in that field.

 

I admire the dexterity and application to surmount a "beaming" problem sometimes evident in ESLs

 

But not sorry not on my shopping list

 

Yes Rob --audition though by all means

 

Willco

 

Thanks for the "heads up" Wilco & I am sure Steve M is correct too...I think the black ones look great...pity the sound does not replicate the looks...Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beaming effect of panels is one of great strengths of ESL's

 

Yikes.    I could not agree less.

 

Not radiating sound with an 'even' spectral balance in all directions is the biggest (by FAR) problem with loudspeakers (not only ESLs).

 

 

It is the single most fundamental measure of speakers performance.  I cannot fathom how it could be considered a "strength"....  or even a problem which can be safely ignored unless you listen in a very large room   (ie. free field = no reflections)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer

Yikes.    I could not agree less.

 

Not radiating sound with an 'even' spectral balance in all directions is the biggest (by FAR) problem with loudspeakers (not only ESLs).

 

 

It is the single most fundamental measure of speakers performance.  I cannot fathom how it could be considered a "strength"....  or even a problem which can be safely ignored unless you listen in a very large room   (ie. free field = no reflections)

 

 

Roger Sanders reckons

 

"Beaming" is not a fault.  It is a huge advantage.  It is the only way to achieve truly high performance in a loudspeaker."

 

more here:

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/147-dispersion-white-paper

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Otherwise if you go for a 3x1 wide array for a tight one man sweet spot

 

 

The problem with this is that you narrow dispersion only at higher frequencies.... and consequently maintaining an even direct to reflected balance over the whole spectrum becomes impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Sanders reckons

 

"Beaming" is not a fault.  It is a huge advantage.  It is the only way to achieve truly high performance in a loudspeaker."

 

more here:

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/147-dispersion-white-paper

 

He does make ESLs, gotta defend their poor off axis response somehow. Why not turn it into a marketing positive by claiming it's how all speakers, sorry all speakers that achieve truly high performance should behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot understand what makes people think that omni radiation is desirable for audio, in rooms. It's a flawed premise. Okay, I can understand it, because it seems logical -- but actually is wrong.

 

OTOH I'm not going to go with the idea that an increasingly beamy, wide dipole panel is wunderbar, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer

He does make ESLs, gotta defend their poor off axis response somehow. Why not turn it into a marketing positive by claiming it's how all speakers, sorry all speakers that achieve truly high performance should behave.

 

Fair point, but bear in mind that he spend quite some time building curved 'stats (indeed he invented them). So he does have a tiny bit of experience in the field of on and off-axis response

 

And speaking from personal experience, I could not agree less with Dave's assertion that beaming "is the biggest (by FAR) problem with loudspeakers"

Edited by Sir Sanders Zingmore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Sanders reckons

 

"Beaming" is not a fault.  It is a huge advantage.  It is the only way to achieve truly high performance in a loudspeaker."

 

more here:

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/147-dispersion-white-paper

 

 

"I eventually came to understand that there are three serious problems caused by wide-dispersion in speakers."

 

 

Yes.  I agree very much.   Even more so than Sanders ?!

 

FWIW, I agree Sanders is on the right track  (wide is bad) ... but that a panel is not the ideal solution.

 

  • A panel speaker transitions from narrow to wide dispersion though the critical frequency range
  • A change in directivity with frequency is even more important than if it was "wide" or "narrow" to begin with

 

The real reason for wide speakers.... is that it is a simple way to ensure that the speaker does not drastically change it's "beaming" with frequency  (it radiates equally everywhere) ... the ultimate iteration in this concept is the omni in the OP.

 

However...  we may have a terminology problem.   When I say beaming, I think of a transition (it's a doing word) from wide to narrow dispersion.... and a change in dispersion is a big problem, as it means a change in the direct to reflected balance of sound.

 

 

Otherwise.  Making a speaker which doesn't change dispersion with frequency is very difficult.

 

This is the reason why panel speakers are described as having a particularly different treble sound.    It isn't anything to do with low distortion  (in a harmonic distortion sense).

 

 

 

So, what I am saying is that the only thing more important than a narrow dispersion .... is not changing dispersion with frequency.   Unfortunately a 'panel' speaker, cannot avoid it (due to it's shape).

 

Examples of some dipoles which avoid this are the latest works from Linkwitz and Kekovsky     (they alter their shape to be small relative to wavelength)

 

 

 

 Finally, the question arises, "Why doesn't the reflected sound from the dipole beams mess up the phase just like in a wide dispersion speaker?"  The answer is that the reflections from a dipole radiator are only one rather than thousands. 

 
Although I agree not to attempt to absorb the rear wave  (as it is required to achieve an appropriate direct / reflected balance) .... I've lost his logic here.
 
The rear wave from a dipole reflects no differently than the front.   The assumption of a boundary directly behind the speaker, only makes it worse  (rear wave will always be reflected from one or more surfaces).
 
 
 
Hopefully I'm not too far off-topic.    Any excuse for a rant    ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Nada and Zingy are on the money here, the beaming effect of flat electrostatics and other planars is definitely a positive, but only in the hot seat. Not good if you stand up or listen from elsewhere in the room, but in the hot seat it is a very focussed and pin-point listening experience. The reason for this is that the sound from the stat comes direct to your ears without interacting with the room so much. There is some interaction from the rearward dipole reflection, but this is mainly counteracted by the sound coming out of the front of the speaker. All stats (and point source drivers) will give a stronger central image lock than just about any conventional speaker, because of this beaming effect.

Edited by Steve M
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking from personal experience, I could not agree less with Dave's assertion that beaming "is the biggest (by FAR) problem with loudspeakers"

 

It isn't my assertion.   I am parroting the common consensus of the experts in the field.

 

 

If you examine a speaker from directly in front .... you get a response (hopefully a nice one) .... when you move 20 degrees away from straight on.... you have different response.   There are peaks and dips which do not match the direct sound.    The way in which this sound differs from the direct sound is particularly audible.

 

The problem with reflections isn't that they exist.... it is that they differ (often drastically) from the direct sound in spectral balance.

 

 

This is the problem we are trying to avoid  (the abrupt change)

 

This is an attempt  (but the transition is a problem)

 

This is the goal   (ignoring what requirements our room itself has for a constant direct/reflect balance)   EDIT:  Thanks @@gainphile   <waves>

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All stats (and point source drivers) will give a stronger central image lock than just about any conventional speaker, because of this beaming effect.

 

Perhaps I was misunderstood.

 

I am (very much) in agreement that a more constant directivity improves imaging.      EDIT:   Well, again I'm just parroting what the boffins say   (I just tested their wisdom and found they are correct)

 

 

The point is:

 

(Typical) panel speakers cannot achieve the ultimate in constant directivity, because they are too wide (dispersion) at LF and arguably too narrow at HF.     They change dispersion with frequency   (to me that is the definition of "beaming" ... and this isn't' considered a positive attribute)

 

A change in the directivity with frequency sounds unnatural

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer

Perhaps I was misunderstood.

 

I am (very much) in agreement that a more constant directivity improves imaging.      EDIT:   Well, again I'm just parroting what the boffins say   (I just tested their wisdom and found they are correct)

 

 

The point is:

 

(Typical) panel speakers cannot achieve the ultimate in constant directivity, because they are too wide (dispersion) at LF and arguably too narrow at HF.     They change dispersion with frequency   (to me that is the definition of "beaming" ... and this isn't' considered a positive attribute)

 

A change in the directivity with frequency sounds unnatural

 

 

But if you are in the "sweet spot" why do you care if the directivity changes outside the sweet spot

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top