|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.52.21.194
Why are dynamic speakers the norm vis a vis planar and electrostatic speakers (and any other varients)? I once owned the Martin Logan Aeriusi and while I deemed it an excellent speaker, the only way I can describe it is that it was "different", a "wall of sound" kind of thing, rather than "pinpoint" imaging". Please excuse the Stereophilic terminology.
Follow Ups:
llanger-
you are on target. I feel the same way each time I listen to these speakers.
It is challenging to describe the sound. While I would never buy any 'stat' at one time, I did like the Apogee Slant 6/8.
Conventional speakers are easier to use and are probably superior in performance per dollar. Other types of speakers have their strengths but usually have stronger weaknesses than dynamics. It's kind of like the piston engine in cars, a crazy design with pistons and valves going up and down and then converting to rotary energy, that should be gone by now but overall, probably due to long refinement still the best compromise for our cars.
...every type of speaker has strengths and weaknesses in their basic design. When you add crossovers, they become even more complex, less coherent and can be difficult to drive.
Electrostats have detail (and full range ones have coherence). Adding a different type of bass driver can cause discontinuity.
Planar magnetics can sound very realistic in their attack and decay, especially through the midbass.
Both of these types are dipole radiators and need a larger room.
Horns sound very dynamic, but can have directional issues.
Dynamic drivers can have a lot of the strengths of all of these and if designed properly, they will have fewer trade-offs for the money.
Hence they are the most common and popular in all sizes.
Why are dynamic speakers the norm vis a vis planar and electrostatic speakers (and any other varients)?
Practicality for the average listener. Dipolar stats needs lots of open space around them and require amps that can handle reactive loads.
Having said that, I use them in two systems. And I really like the way line sources don't vary output level as much as you move away from them. Like I experience with live, unamplified music.
I agree. Practicality is the main reason dynamic speakers dominate. As you point out, stats, generally speaking, take more room around them to sound their best, and in order to make them play loudly they have to be physically much larger than a comparable dynamic system. The good news is that unlike the prototype electrostat built by what would become Bell Labs, electrostat diaphragm material is no longer made of pig intestine covered in gold-leaf.
Frame of mind or listening criteria can have a lot to do with what sounds most "dynamic" or "lifelike" to me at any given moment. So, it is conceivable that a pair of speakers that sound good one day won't sound as good as a different pair does on another day.
How about drugs? Any strange effects on your ear\brain processor from those?
Yes! But, it can vary.
Edits: 09/23/14
I had a miserable time a number of years ago with a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.5s, or .6 I forget, leading me to borrow the following words: "never again!".
Just curious- what was it about the Magneplanars that made it a miserable time for you?
Bought them used. One panel had to be rebuilt by a dealer 150 miles from where I lived. The ribbon tweeters Magnepan no longer shipped outside the US. I rebuilt two with the kit and thought my work lousy until I paid good money to the local dealer to rebuild one and it looked about as bad as my own work.
I swore that all my speakers would be dynamic ones built by companies that stood behind their products like Thiel had stood behind the 3.5s I had for many years.
More power to those who enjoy Maggies, but count this old guy out.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: