|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
|
|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
In Reply to: And worth every bit of what you paid for it. posted by mspc on January 18, 2002 at 16:06:02:
Thank you for the opportunity to explain myself. I never make a claim that I cannot back up, so I happily will. Now if Mart does not strike me down or delete my post, this is not a direct solicitation.
My name is Ben and I am the owner of a company called Electrostatic Doc, I rebuild and upgrade electrostatic speakers for a living. (please visit my web site when I get the time I will get it upgraded but right now I am redesigning it)
The claims that I make are from rebuilding and upgrading ESL speakers. If you wish to send my your snail mail address I would be happy to give you some of the samples."The Acoustat panels have a few problems and most can be remedied. Acoustat uses the thickest, stiffest diaphragm, compared to ANY other ESL I have personally seen."
This is from rebuilding most electrostatic speakers, I fear that you are confusing two things – tension and stiffness. Tension is required by all ESL’s, BUT stiffness is the compliance of the diaphragm, for example the stiffness of the wrapping on a CD case is much greater than that of Saran Wrap, the Saran Wrap is more compliant than the CD case wrapping. The DW speakers have a diaphragm that is just as stiff, but it is thinner.
"The conductive coating on the diaphragm is also very thick.
Again, based upon what information, and compared to what?Well again experience, the only other ESL that even comes close to the thickness of the conductive coating of the Acoustat is the Dayton Wright, BUT, DW was very concerned about this (see there web site and read the history of DW) so they used a silk screen to coat the diaphragms so that it had half the mass. (see my photo for an Acoustat Diaphragm and DW diaphragm). SL, ML, Stax, and many others have a very thin coating on there diaphragm.
The speakers have flat panels inside, this is why the speakers are so beamy, because it has very little dispersion."
Yes, nearly all ES speakers have flat diaphragms, but, the wider the panel the more beamy the speaker becomes, one Acoustat panel like in the 1+1 panels, is not as beamy and the 2+2 or the Monitor 4, etc… The Innersound speaker is not 3 or 4 panels wide, Sound Lab flat diaphragm is around 4 inches wide and the angle is such that the overlapping dispersion of each facet is not too great or too narrow to cause the “picket fence effectâ€
Now if you had stated my beloved Sound Labs you would have been more correct, I do have Quads as well in my HT system.Concept of the Spectra is related to the Quad (but goes for a line source radiator vs. point source)
I did not want to get side tracked into the EXACT differances between the Acoustats and the Quads, if you wish I could come up with many more!! And have a completely differnt descussion about it.
"From what I can gather the direct drive amp filled a need in the late 70’s when there were not that many high powered amps and in order to make drive the speakers proper."
The KLH 9’s were not really given there day, I feel because of this reason, many people gave up on trying to drive them. Why, because there were not as many high powered really good amps, and ESL's did sound better with DD then. Honestly IM(never to be)HO, you can do better in some areas, with some of the amps out now with the interface plates, but do not get me wrong I AM NOT saying that the DD is bad in any way, only different. And as far as I can tell Beveridge guarantees a certain sound, certain imaging, etc… but only if you strictly follow his instructions, they can do this by controlling nearly everything about the speaker from the DD amp to capturing the back wave to placement. So I guess yes, The DD is for the sound. The only comparison that I made was from the standard MK 121 and the Medallion upgrade for them. The biggest difference came from the new transformer.
"The speakers can be upgraded to repair most of the problems, a thinner diaphragm can be installed, a lighter conductive material can be used on the diaphragm, a pure copper charge ring can be installed around the diaphragm, you can break up the diaphragm to eliminate the single large “drum-head†resonance, (make the speaker as close to a Sound Lab as possible)"
Please do not tell me this is pure BS because I do this for $150 per panel, I put in all the upgrades that I have mentioned, I repair/upgrade the existing panel WITHOUT building a new one. I then bolt the speaker back together (not easy thing to do it requires adapted tools and is a slow process to get them inside the half inch holes) this allows a mechanical way to hold the diaphragm as well as enhance the hold of the adhesive. The second thing it does is allow any upgrades/repair that may need to be done in the future. Now if this is pure BS that means there is income that I do not need to report to the IRS :) I will include a statement from you reassuring them that I cannot do this because you said so, therefore they need to ignore those invoices.
"The felt on the back of the speakers is a mixed blessing because the feedback that it provides on the panels the speaker is much more forgiving of the upstream equipment."
I never went into the reason why the felt was there, I only commented on the effects of it after the upgrade. Apparently you wanted me to make my original post even longer! The felt provides a feedback onto the diaphragm, this does smooth out the bass response and yes that is why it is there, to minimize the problem caused by the “drum-head†resonance but, the feedback that the felt loads down the diaphragm, this dampens the speaker not only in the low frequencies, but through the entire frequency, this loading (which comes from the reflected sound back) of the diaphragm allows forgiveness, or a softer sound. Some mistake a clean sound as cold.
"The felt on the back of the speakers is a mixed blessing because the feedback that it provides on the panels the speaker is much more forgiving of the upstream equipment."
I disagree with your response to the statement, the thicker diaphragm has a huge negative effect on the highs, and the lower mass of the diaphragm is much faster than the original diaphragm. You mean to tell me that the mass and compliance of the diaphragm/driver has no effect on the output??? Especially in the highs??
The biggest problem with this speaker is that it does reveal what comes before it and usually, as such, catches the blame for the results. Typical of any high-resolution transducer, blame the messenger.
I never said that it did not. I was only implying that it is much more revealing and accurate with upgraded diaphragms. I also when upgrading a speaker try and keep in mind what makes the speaker sound like it does (or does not, i.e. neutral). And much of the Acoustat sound is from the felt loading down the diaphragm and creating a “softer†sound. A thicker diaphragm is affected somewhat less from the feedback, proof of this is the reason why a dynamic speaker can be put in a box and an ESL cannot handle the reflected sound loading down the diaphragm.
"By keeping the felt the speakers do need better equipment to drive them. But if you have good equipment removing the felt they are more accurate and defined."Again it does, I cannot understand why you do not figure that loading down the diaphragm does not affect more than just the bass frequencies. If it had no affect at any other frequency then why not bolt the speaker driver to the wall like a picture, or put it into a box?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I never make a claim that I cannot backup!!! - BOpenshaw 01/18/0219:44:46 01/18/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
