[Roger A. Modjeski]

I am curious to see what kind of speakers members have in this forum. Feel free to comment in addition to the poll.

Other than a pair of Vandersteen Model 2s  I have been using or making electrostatic speakers since 1976. These include Beveridge, Acoustat, Old and New QUADs, KLH 9s, STAX, Dayton-Wright and many experimental ESLs leading to the Music Reference System which I have spoken of here.

I realize ESLs are not for everyone as we all have things we listen for. Some people think ESLs are not dynamic enough, though, within their SPL range there is no reason for this to be true.

Another complaint, and one I agree with is the poor bass response of panel speakers. This is something that has been poorly handled in the past. All bipolar planar speakers have "false bass" or "one note bass" which is achieved by resonating the diaphragm somewhere between 50-100 Hz. If they didn't purposely resonate the diaphragm there wouldn't be any bass at all due to the back-wave cancellation.

This is why I choose to make a special type of woofer that handles 30-100 Hz in non-traditionally tuned sealed box. I will reveal more about this special woofer when we get to the question on how moving coil speakers work. Then one can better appreciate how mine differs. One hint I can give is that traditional subs work from the crossover point down to the resonant frequency of the woofer in the box which we want to make as low as possible because that defines the low frequency limit. Pushing that lower limit down causes many problems which become apparent when we know the physics of what makes a cone driver have flat response. My woofer works entirely below the box resonance down to a frequency that is determined by another part of the crossover and can be set to any low frequency one wishes.

[BobRex]

I'd like to respond, problem is I have hybrids - (cone bass, planar mids, ribbon highs - aka: VMPS RM30s), and I don't see a category to cover these.

[fredgarvin]

I'd like to respond, problem is I have hybrids - (cone bass, planar mids, ribbon highs - aka: VMPS RM30s), and I don't see a category to cover these.

I checked planar but I have VMPS 626R and would like to have the VMPS RM50.

[Clio09]

I checked off horns although technically they may be a dynamic two-way with a 90 degree wave guide. I would like to really try electrostatic speakers.

[Ralph]

As I have mentioned before, I have the original Martin-Logan Sequels, electrostatic panels mated to cone woofers. After hearing electrostatics, I would never purchase dynamic speakers again. Electrostatics simply have greater transparency and timbral truth than do dynamics.
Ralph

[tubegroove]

I have always owned dynamic speakers, though I have tried hybrids with ES panels for the mids and high and a dynamic woofer for the LF, but found that the ES panel and woofer didn't integrate well in that particular instance - the woofer lagged behind.  Would like to try a two-way with a ribbon tweeter

[Roger A. Modjeski]

I have always owned dynamic speakers, though I have tried hybrids with ES panels for the mids and high and a dynamic woofer for the LF, but found that the ES panel and woofer didn't integrate well in that particular instance - the woofer lagged behind.  Would like to try a two-way with a ribbon tweeter

Yes a traditional woofer does lag behind which is why i looked for another way. When we get done with having our fun on the how a dynamic driver works, I'll tell you how I made one that integrates.

[rbwalt]

ribbon tweeters do integrate with cone drivers very well. they tend to beam.

r.

[S Clark]

Yes a traditional woofer does lag behind which is why i looked for another way. When we get done with having our fun on the how a dynamic driver works, I'll tell you how I made one that integrates.

One solution to keep a traditional woofer from "lagging behind" is to use enough that the Xmax is small- line source.  There may be other problems with a line source design, but speed is not one of them.

[pehare]

about 10 yrs ago I owned a pair of Martin Logan SL-3's electrostats which incorporate a 10" woofer which I really enjoyed but they were somewhat obstrusive physically (living room-wise) & the prime listening sweet spot was rather narrow.  I always drove them with solid state amps Classe CA 200 or a Pass Labs X250 w/tube preamps which was recommended (never tried tube amps w/them).  In time I began to worry about having to replace the diaphrams eventually & I always thought it was an added aggravation to have each of them plugged into an outlet.

If I were to consider a new pair of speakers they'd have to be south of $5K budget-wise for me to consider.   

[*Scotty*]

The speakers I have been listening to for the last 6plus years are a combination of dynamic woofers and mid-ranges with a large planer magnetic tweeter. The crossover is a first order series topology with second order parts values, which in combination with the acoustic roll-off exhibited by the drivers yields 12dB/oct slopes. Not including the parts used in the zobel networks,the three-way crossover is executed using a total of 4 parts,two coils and two caps all in more or less shunt positions. 
 Roger, I was thinking about your comments regarding your unconventionally tuned sealed woofer system and I wondered are you using anything similar to the Watkins Woofer used by Infinity in your sealed woofer design?
Scotty

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Scotty,

Its not the Watkins. I will tell more after we get the how a woofer works question answered. One needs to know how a conventional woofer works first.

[Roger A. Modjeski]

about 10 yrs ago I owned a pair of Martin Logan SL-3's electrostats which incorporate a 10" woofer which I really enjoyed but they were somewhat obstrusive physically (living room-wise) & the prime listening sweet spot was rather narrow.  I always drove them with solid state amps Classe CA 200 or a Pass Labs X250 w/tube preamps which was recommended (never tried tube amps w/them).  In time I began to worry about having to replace the diaphrams eventually & I always thought it was an added aggravation to have each of them plugged into an outlet.

If I were to consider a new pair of speakers they'd have to be south of $5K budget-wise for me to consider.

HI Patrick,

Thanks for the post, hope the RM-10 is working well.

Martin Logan had a bad time with diaphragms I believe because they wanted to make them "see through". That was a bad idea, it cost them a lot, though I think they now have it under control. Here's a sad case where the "look" or a speaker was more important than the longevity.

Other than their full range CLS I do not consider the Martin Logans to be real electrostats. I prefer to call them a cone speaker with an electrostatic tweeter. They continue to brag about raising the crossover point up around 800 HZ last I heard. Well that's certainly up in the mid-range. To make thing worse, the woofer is down at the floor. One can never create a realistic image with mid-range instruments and vocals coming off the floor.

From Martin Logans own website the explain how they spend some $100,000 to make a chamber to sputter metal on Mylar to a thinness that was virtually transparent. The point of a coating on the diaphragm is to get the charge out there and have it stay in one place.  To do that metal has to be so thin that it easily disappears over time. Traditionally carbon is used as it is resistive, you can put enough on there to really stay, but you can't see through it.

I did a little reading at the ML website, it's just as slick as the speakers and just as wrong. They write that electrical recordings were available in 1921, (1925 is the correct date, though it was kept secret till 1926 so as not to hurt the sales of acoustical recordings). They say Rice and Kellogg worked for Bell Labs when in fact they worked for General Electric and they had a 200 watt! amplifier where the amplifier was actually one watt, quite a lot for that day. They think the first ESL was developed in the 1920 when in fact an ESL speaker/microphone combination was developed for the telephone in the late 1800's.

http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-loudspeaker-history.php

On the subject of diaphragms, I am using 1/2 mill Mylar (the real stuff from DuPont), which has an over 35 year history of reliability. I have never seen a Mylar diaphragm split or fail in a constant charge speaker. I offer Acoustat as the prime example. I am told that they built over 100,000 transducers with Mylar and an opaque, non metal coating. I have a dozen Acoustat panels in my attic that have been subject to 20 years of daily swings from 120 to 30 degrees. They are all fine, I was just playing with them the other day as I am working on a 5,000 volt direct-drive amp for several Acoustat owners who have approached me to do so.

What was the problem with having them plugged in? It's just 2 watts.

[*Scotty*]

It seems like the obvious metal to use would be gold from a non-corrosion standpoint. Imagine the ad copy for a gold loudspeaker. WooHoo!
Scotty

[jimdgoulding]

For my size room and if I were in the market, I'd be lookin at PMC Fact 8's or Devore Gibbons Nines tho I'm hard pressed to be rid of my active Meridians.  I think my money and system would be better served upgrading my front end.

[OzarkTom]

Again, I would like ESL's with DD tube amps. Some of the crossover-less loudspeakers are starting to sound fairly close.

[timind]

Simple two-way dynamic speakers seem to be my preference. I have tried Maggies, Martin Logans and Eminent Technology LFT-VIIIs. None of those were to my liking.
Currently listening to a pair of Snell J-7 monitors and enjoying them mucho.

[OzarkTom]

Simple two-way dynamic speakers seem to be my preference. I have tried Maggies, Martin Logans and Eminent Technology LFT-VIIIs. None of those were to my liking.
Currently listening to a pair of Snell J-7 monitors and enjoying them mucho.

The new Gallo Classico II's looks mighty unteresting. It is a small(13x7x9) 2-way with no crossovers and Gallo's CDT tweeter. Price is $1295 a pair and seems to have a new technology for the bass. Called Blast, it gets very low in the bass for the size. It is to be releaced this month, hopefully.

[TONEPUB]

HI Patrick,

Thanks for the post, hope the RM-10 is working well.

Martin Logan had a bad time with diaphragms I believe because they wanted to make them "see through". That was a bad idea, it cost them a lot, though I think they now have it under control. Here's a sad case where the "look" or a speaker was more important than the longevity.

Other than their full range CLS I do not consider the Martin Logans to be real electrostats. I prefer to call them a cone speaker with an electrostatic tweeter. They continue to brag about raising the crossover point up around 800 HZ last I heard. Well that's certainly up in the mid-range. To make thing worse, the woofer is down at the floor. One can never create a realistic image with mid-range instruments and vocals coming off the floor.

From Martin Logans own website the explain how they spend some $100,000 to make a chamber to sputter metal on Mylar to a thinness that was virtually transparent. The point of a coating on the diaphragm is to get the charge out there and have it stay in one place.  To do that metal has to be so thin that it easily disappears over time. Traditionally carbon is used as it is resistive, you can put enough on there to really stay, but you can't see through it.

I did a little reading at the ML website, it's just as slick as the speakers and just as wrong. They write that electrical recordings were available in 1921, (1925 is the correct date, though it was kept secret till 1926 so as not to hurt the sales of acoustical recordings). They say Rice and Kellogg worked for Bell Labs when in fact they worked for General Electric and they had a 200 watt! amplifier where the amplifier was actually one watt, quite a lot for that day. They think the first ESL was developed in the 1920 when in fact an ESL speaker/microphone combination was developed for the telephone in the late 1800's.

http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-loudspeaker-history.php

On the subject of diaphragms, I am using 1/2 mill Mylar (the real stuff from DuPont), which has an over 35 year history of reliability. I have never seen a Mylar diaphragm split or fail in a constant charge speaker. I offer Acoustat as the prime example. I am told that they built over 100,000 transducers with Mylar and an opaque, non metal coating. I have a dozen Acoustat panels in my attic that have been subject to 20 years of daily swings from 120 to 30 degrees. They are all fine, I was just playing with them the other day as I am working on a 5,000 volt direct-drive amp for several Acoustat owners who have approached me to do so.

What was the problem with having them plugged in? It's just 2 watts.

Your a bit off on your crossover points... Summit X crosses over at 270hz and the rest at 330.  Don't know of many tweeters that go down to 300hz.

... this should be a multiple choice poll.  Some of us have more than one set of speakers...

[Bmotorcycle2003]

I have Acoustat I, II's, 3's and 4's each does something the other does not.  I use a RM 200 to drive them all with good success.  I attend the CES every year and I come home thinking (every year) I want to get a solid state amp, but when I turn on my system I end up keeping the RM 200.  No it doesn't have the dynamics but it is so much more musical and easy to listen to for hours on end, I know because my tube bill every year tells me so.  I would at some time like to buy a pair of sound labs but than I think I will have to change amps.....................Bob