[turkey]

Open Baffle / Dipole
Bass Reflex
Acoustic suspension
Electrostatic

Take your pick

I haven't found ESLs to be terribly realistic.

As for the 3 enclosure types you list, there are many other factors to consider as well when asking this question. There are well-designed vented cabinets used properly, and there are ones that are neither. Ditto for sealed and OB ones.

If you really want realistic speakers, look into what people like Geddes, Toole, Linkwitz, and Olive have been doing. The speakers I have heard that they have designed or influenced are better than the rest.

[Guy 13]

I haven't found ESLs to be terribly realistic.

As for the 3 enclosure types you list, there are many other factors to consider as well when asking this question. There are well-designed vented cabinets used properly, and there are ones that are neither. Ditto for sealed and OB ones.

If you really want realistic speakers, look into what people like Geddes, Toole, Linkwitz, and Olive have been doing. The speakers I have heard that they have designed or influenced are better than the rest.

Hi.
Except for Linkwitz, I could not find any information on the web for the other listed names. Can you give us more info ?
Guy 13.

[jtwrace]

Hi.
Except for Linkwitz, I could not find any information on the web for the other listed names. Can you give us more info ?
Guy 13.

http://www.gedlee.com/

[bpape]

I haven't found ESLs to be terribly realistic.

As for the 3 enclosure types you list, there are many other factors to consider as well when asking this question. There are well-designed vented cabinets used properly, and there are ones that are neither. Ditto for sealed and OB ones.

If you really want realistic speakers, look into what people like Geddes, Toole, Linkwitz, and Olive have been doing. The speakers I have heard that they have designed or influenced are better than the rest.

Ever heard a big, full range ESL (not a hybrid with a woofer?)  They can be quite stunning in speed, transparency, imaging, and tonal expression.  They can also have excellent bass extension and definition.

Bryan

[TomS]

Ever heard a big, full range ESL (not a hybrid with a woofer?)  They can be quite stunning in speed, transparency, imaging, and tonal expression.  They can also have excellent bass extension and definition.

Bryan

Yes, the big Sound Labs come to mind for sure, based on my experiences with the Ray Kimber Pass Labs setups at RMAFs

[turkey]

Hi.
Except for Linkwitz, I could not find any information on the web for the other listed names. Can you give us more info ?
Guy 13.

Sean Olive and Floyd Toole.

You can start with:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Pages/WhitePapers.aspx?CategoryID=White%20papers

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285858873&sr=1-1

Someone already posted the GedLee website.

[jtwrace]

Someone already posted the GedLee website.

 

[turkey]

Ever heard a big, full range ESL (not a hybrid with a woofer?)  They can be quite stunning in speed, transparency, imaging, and tonal expression.  They can also have excellent bass extension and definition.

Yes, I've heard several of them. I didn't find that they did that well on any of the things you mention, although they did have rather unique imaging. (But that was not a good thing.)

I think the ESLs I have liked the most are the original Quad, a pair of stacked KLH 9s, and a pair of large Final Sound ESLs. None of them sounded that realistic, but they were pleasing nevertheless. I wouldn't want to own them, but it was nice to spend some time with them.

[Hebrew Hammer]

To me and the reason why there is a 1000 flavors of loudspeakers is that there isn't the definitive end all be all period.. And the people that market that way are foolish..

Granted, right is right... and wrong is wrong.. but what strikes and emotional chord with me, may not with you etc...

Also, the room plays a major factor.. no you can't take any speaker and make it work optimally in any situation.. Then there is equipment used etc..

steps off soapbox 

[turkey]

To me and the reason why there is a 1000 flavors of loudspeakers is that there isn't the definitive end all be all period.. And the people that market that way are foolish..

Granted, right is right... and wrong is wrong.. but what strikes and emotional chord with me, may not with you etc...

So you're saying loudspeakers sort of fall into a figure 8 or the symbol for infinity pattern? There are two lobes. One contains the designs that are wrong and the other the ones that are right. Within the one that is right there is no one best answer.

I'd say it's more like a truncated pyramid. The stuff at the base is wrong and there's a lot of it. As we get to better speakers there are fewer and fewer.

There's no peak or point (yet) because we haven't reached perfection. However, there are a limited number of designs at the top, and they definitely share some characteristics.

[jtwrace]

So you're saying loudspeakers sort of fall into a figure 8 or the symbol for infinity pattern? There are two lobes. One contains the designs that are wrong and the other the ones that are right. Within the one that is right there is no one best answer.

I'd say it's more like a truncated pyramid. The stuff at the base is wrong and there's a lot of it. As we get to better speakers there are fewer and fewer.

There's no peak or point (yet) because we haven't reached perfection. However, there are a limited number of designs at the top, and they definitely share some characteristics.

...then we have the human ear which is not being perfected.  We hear what we think we hear and that's it.  We have science to backup what we think we hear but there is still no way to improve ones ear.  If only...

[Hebrew Hammer]

So you're saying loudspeakers sort of fall into a figure 8 or the symbol for infinity pattern? There are two lobes. One contains the designs that are wrong and the other the ones that are right. Within the one that is right there is no one best answer.

I'd say it's more like a truncated pyramid. The stuff at the base is wrong and there's a lot of it. As we get to better speakers there are fewer and fewer.

There's no peak or point (yet) because we haven't reached perfection. However, there are a limited number of designs at the top, and they definitely share some characteristics.

I agree with you personally, but not globally if that makes since..

You can can group all the best designs into the worlds best rig and find that not every body will like the same thing.. and what's even more shocking is that you'll have people who don't like any of them.. that's the emotional/human connection that always throws a wrench in the cog 

[turkey]

...then we have the human ear which is not being perfected.  We hear what we think we hear and that's it.  We have science to backup what we think we hear but there is still no way to improve ones ear.  If only...

We don't actually need to perfect the human ear. We just accept it as it is, since it has the same limitations whether listening to live or recorded music, or a knock on the door, etc.

I don't think that "we hear what we think we hear" is quite correct.

Our ears can hear more than we can consciously perceive. We may need training to interpret some things or to concentrate on some things to the exclusion of others.

The job of a stereo system is to reproduce the acoustic field of the original performance as well as possible, and then the ear/brain system is free to do its thing and interpret, isolate, enjoy, etc.

[jtwrace]

We don't actually need to perfect the human ear. We just accept it as it is, since it has the same limitations whether listening to live or recorded music, or a knock on the door, etc.

I don't think that "we hear what we think we hear" is quite correct.

Our ears can hear more than we can consciously perceive. We may need training to interpret some things or to concentrate on some things to the exclusion of others.

The job of a stereo system is to reproduce the acoustic field of the original performance as well as possible, and then the ear/brain system is free to do its thing and interpret, isolate, enjoy, etc.

OK.  BUT your ear is not consistent, or at least how you hear.

[turkey]

You can can group all the best designs into the worlds best rig and find that not every body will like the same thing.. and what's even more shocking is that you'll have people who don't like any of them.. that's the emotional/human connection that always throws a wrench in the cog

The research I've seen shows that, when you remove the non-audio cues, people do tend to prefer the same speakers. Thus my truncated pyramid shape.

There's some room for different approaches at the top (where the pyramid is truncated), but there is only a limited range that comes close to being correct.

[turkey]

OK.  BUT your ear is not consistent, or at least how you hear.

It's consistent enough. I can easily recognize my wife's voice, or a knock on the door, or a middle-C, etc. I can tell when a sound source is on my left or moving from left to right.

[bpape]

Sure.  I can recognize a knock on the door on an MP3, a casette, a CD, a DVD, or the real thing.  I can recognize it for what it is, but that doesn't mean that they all sound the same.  Heck, every door sounds different! 

There is still the matter of preference.  There are people who, even after the non-audio cues are removed, will prefer an up front sounding system with tons of sloppy bass over an accurate system.  There are others who will give up tonal integrity for imaging, and the reverse.  Swap dynamics for extension.  Midrange bloom and air over frequency extremes.   Etc.

It's more a matter of what's important to each individual person when defining reality.  Everyone's reality is different.

Bryan

[jtwrace]

Sure.  I can recognize a knock on the door on an MP3, a casette, a CD, a DVD, or the real thing.  I can recognize it for what it is, but that doesn't mean that they all sound the same.  Heck, every door sounds different! 

There is still the matter of preference.  There are people who, even after the non-audio cues are removed, will prefer an up front sounding system with tons of sloppy bass over an accurate system.  There are others who will give up tonal integrity for imaging, and the reverse.  Swap dynamics for extension.  Midrange bloom and air over frequency extremes.   Etc.

It's more a matter of what's important to each individual person when defining reality.  Everyone's reality is different.

Bryan

As always, well said!

[cujobob]

To me and the reason why there is a 1000 flavors of loudspeakers is that there isn't the definitive end all be all period.. And the people that market that way are foolish..

Granted, right is right... and wrong is wrong.. but what strikes and emotional chord with me, may not with you etc...

Also, the room plays a major factor.. no you can't take any speaker and make it work optimally in any situation.. Then there is equipment used etc..

steps off soapbox 

I wouldn't say flavors...good speaker designs have specific reasons for being good.  Most focus on the speaker-room interraction and there are differing beliefs on how this is best accomplished, plus, there are different sized rooms in every home.  Using the best quality drivers is simply a function of cost and not design.  There are different 'flavors' of sorts with inexpensive speaker designs and that often is related to the specific components used, poor design work, or simply bad quality.  If there were actual design objectives and not mostly... 'me-too' designs...the audio world would advance a lot faster.

[cujobob]

I agree with you personally, but not globally if that makes since..

You can can group all the best designs into the worlds best rig and find that not every body will like the same thing.. and what's even more shocking is that you'll have people who don't like any of them.. that's the emotional/human connection that always throws a wrench in the cog

Not necessarily emotional/human connection, but there are simply tradeoffs in any design.  For example, Earl Geddes' uses a large waveguide to obtain controlled directivity, but the waveguide generates HOMs which are audible.  The benefit outweighs the drawback for most people, but some will surely find it an issue.  You find the tradeoffs you can live with, at this point in time...hopefully, with research, the drawbacks to each design can be lessened and we'll be buying speakers solely based on appearance as they will all sound amazing.