Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
173.247.0.211
In Reply to: RE: Can you damage a quad esl panel in transport? posted by kentaja on September 21, 2014 at 06:02:57
Happy to take your word for it.
All I can say is that the frames of the US Monitors I have are an order of magnitude stiffer, tighter whatever than the frames of the early 63's I used to have.
The side panels on my US Monitors are thicker and heavier than the 63's I had.
Even with the screens removed, the US Monitors I have are more resistant to "twisting" than the 63's I had.
It could be the early 63's I had had been loosened up, or an overall change was made on both the 63 and the US Monitor.
BTW, I have read and been told there are no differences in the two before.
I can only go by what I have had, and have, and there are differences.
The US Monitors I have are appreciably heavier than I remember the 63's being, although I am willing to admit that may be a function of age-induced weakness on my part.
Follow Ups:
Every piece of the frame assembly is identical between the two speakers including the extruded side frame pieces.
The Monitor screen is heavier versus the earlier speakers. The bottom plate on the plinth for later Monitor speakers is also heavier. Perhaps another 2-3 pounds of total weight gain between the screens and bottom plate.
The frames can loosen up over time.
So...this "Quad themselves addressed the issue with the introduction of the ESL-63 USA Monitor, which featured a more substantial frame."
and this..."It was modelled on the more rugged "professional" model that had been created for the recording division of Philips that possessed metal grilles and a steel frame (instead of aluminium)."
and this..."The US Monitor appeared to have more upper midrange and less bass than my old ESL-63s. This may represent some lack of rigidity in the older Quads that adds an added "whumph" in the midbass area, a byproduct of the less rigid speaker frame's vibration."
Are all wrong. I guess I stand corrected.
The facts of the matter are the frame assembly has been the same since serial number 000001 to 360000. Same aluminum side extrusions, same top/bottom plastic injection molded pieces, same aluminum vertical struts, same screws. The ONLY difference over the years has been the safety screens.
The improved safety screen was introduced with the Pro version of the speakers since this market needed a more robust speaker. The first generation screens could easily be kicked in or popped out with rough handling that we typically find in pro audio situations. Quad decided to make all the speaker this way. This improved screen when installed into the existing frame did result in a frame assembly that was a bit stiffer, a little more heavy and more acoustically open.
Reviewers write what they are told. None of them have ever actually taken the speakers apart to determine the validity or extend of the information they have been provided. Marketing departments come up with all kinds of copy in an attempt to sell product. They get real creative with copy when they have basically the same product to sell every year.
Believe who you wish frankly I could not care less.
As an owner and user of a pair of 988's basically, the same as the 63 US version, and as a structural engineer I can attest to the following:
I have dismantled the speakers and they are not as fragile as deemed in the previous posts. The steel grille really helps with the torsional rigidity of the assembly, plus the interior aluminum subframing which holds the panels is kind of decoupled from the exterior structure. Also the panels are sandwiched together by many bolts and clips. So, in my opinion it is unlikely that moving the speakers in "'normal" ways would be the reason for the panel breakups. I have transported the speakers in several occasions without any problems, also move them all the time to interchange them with my other speakers. I do realize that the design implementation to this date is outdated and does not represent state of the art design and fabrication methods, though they could be more reliable. It is my undertanding that the latest incarnations of these speakers are basically the same, having the same panel design and construction without taking advantage of new manufacturing techniques.
When the glue starts to fail on the panels with old ESL-63 a simply car ride across town can easily pop the panels loose. I have seen this type of thing happen hundreds of time. Typically I get a call from someone that has just bought an old pair that is claimed by the seller to be working. But when the speakers arrive they are not working. They naturally think they have been taken by the seller. The worst one I have seen the poor guy actually went to the sellers home, confirmed the speakers worked and after he drove them home they no longer worked.
Unfortunately with the new production speakers the glue can become an issue in just a couple years versus decades with the ESL-63. I am constantly reglueing 2805/2905 and every 98 series speaker in the field is suspect at this point.
Forgot to say. These speakers had probably been stored in a hot and humid place for a long time before shipping....
I remain a bit concerned by the claim that electrostats can be damaged by sending a signal
to them when they are not plugged in. It's not so hard for that to happen, a cleaning person or family member will sometimes unplug speakers and forget to plug them back in. When "played" that way, typically there is zero (or almost zero) output. Does it really do any damage?
Running signal to the speaker without it turned on does not hurt anything. I have done it thousands of times with any number of stats. As long as the user realizes that they are not turned on and does not continue to turn up the volume to the point that it destroys the speaker then everything will be fine. That is the problem not that signal is running through the speaker and it is not plugged in.
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: