Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
184.174.150.82
In Reply to: RE: Quad ESL-63 owners: Please read and consider! posted by banpuku on April 04, 2015 at 07:41:38
Pat,
I am certainly interested in your base idea, although I suspect the cost would be eye-blinking.
Glad to know Kent's board made an improvement.
It is my understanding that the frames of the ESL 63s are extremely delicate. While a new base that incorporates a stub to be attached to the frame sounds like an improvement, I am not sure it would solve all the frame movement issues.
It seems to me that a stand that holds /braces the full frame, all the way up each side, would be better.
As to the plastic base, are you sure metal would be an improvement from a vibration damping standpoint?
My experiments with idler drive turntables and with Magneplanars, re-framing them in solid wood, indicates that wood is the material of choice for vibration control.
Also, removing and replacing the plastic base would not be an easy job.
My woodworker buddy and I are designing a pair of stands that would incorporate lifting the base off the floor and bracing the panels (a la Mye-stands.
Not trying to bad-mouth your idea at all, it sounds very interesting, although cost and the complicated r/r of the base electronics package sounds daunting to me.
Hope you will keep us abreast of your quest.
Louis
Follow Ups:
Hi Louis,
Good feedback. I too wonder about whether or not a metal base would be the best way to go. I have made my own turntable (which is wonderful sounding, if I don't say so myself) which has a permali plinth. Permali is similar to Panzerholtz material. The Permali would definitly be better than aluminum, but would likely be cost prohibitive. A sheet of permali is $1800 and a pair of Quad 63 bases would easily consume a full sheet.
I was thinking of Aluminum just from an ease of manufacturing and cost perspective. If there are other materials to be considered, I am all ears. Maple for example. The issue with all woods is that fastening the frames to the wood might be less sturdy than metal.
Regarding the the frames, I have already come up with a design for the vertical frame members to be replaced. The stock vertical frame members are thin aluminum. We could certainly use wood or metal to fashion the new members which would be much heavier, sturdier and fasten to the base nicely. I would like to pursue a replacement of the vertical frame members if others would do so as well.
My hope is to get 2+ other people interested in the idea so I can get a quotation from the machinists. The typical economies of scale start at 5 and 10 pieces of the same part. So, if we got you, me and another person, we would have 6 bases to quote which would bring down cost materially. The machinist would take our 3D CAD model and load it into the CAM system to create a CNC program to mill these out easily on a 5 axis machine.
I hope others will express their interest in pursuing this. It could be quite beneficial. Keep the ideas coming. I am all ears.
I am pretty sure stiffening the frames is something to pursue, and even if the actual stators are mounted with a strip of absorbent material between the stator and the frame, it would seem anything that adds mass and is able to absorb vibration would have a positive effect.
Kent's idea about Mye-stands is certainly true, but the Mye-stands don't do anything about raising the panel off the floor.
I suppose one could buy a pair of Mye-stands, then build a base that would provide the correct lift...in my case 14 inches to get the center of the panel at ear height.
Or one could build a Mye-stand knock off out of wood and include the base in the construct.
What the Mye-stand does is, effectively, stiffen the frame and not allow it to twist. This could be replicated out of solid wood, which would also provide a sink for vibration.
Kent...correct me if I am wrong.
All this is something I have been thinking about a good bit lately, hope we will all benefit.
Louis
The Mye Stand will add mass in addition to increasing frame rigidity, stop flexing, etc.
I have had the chance to listen to the ESL-63 type speaker in solid metal frames, i.e. 2805, etc. and wood frames. I much prefer metal.
Thanks, Kent It does make sense that adding mass and connecting everything together solidly would make a difference.
Do you think the difference between wood and metal stands was related to the construction of the wood stands or does wood tend to soften things?
I can hear a very definite difference between a cartridge in a wood body and the same cartridge in a metal body. Very different.
Since I prefer the metal body for cartridges maybe metal stands are the way to go for me.
Note to self: Start saving for Mye stands, ask Grant about longer feet to raise the speaker.
I can make them any height you need. Aesthetics; overcoming the 14" space visually is the biggest hurdle. Shipping; another small concern.
A bit of design time and I can work this all out.
I have yet to get the speakers more than 4 inches off the floor. Do you feel that getting the center of the panel at ear height is beneficial? If so, what does it change sonically? I might consider trying.
Kent explains this better than I do, but essentially, the sound of the 63 begins in the middle of the speaker, moving out from the center. It is not how far off the floor that changes the sound, but how much closer to ear level.
As the speakers move up off the floor, the sound becomes, not better, but different.
As the height of the speaker approaches ear level, the sound becomes more neutral, and to me, with better definition and openness in the upper midrange and top.
I have a particular situation in that my chair is on a platform raised about five inches off the floor, so I have to account for that five inches when I think about stands.
You can raise your 63s with pretty much anything to get a taste of the difference...concrete blocks.
Some folks like them on the floor, some folks like them up...it is all about what blows your skirt up.
I like, in my room with my system, the speakers up towards ear level.
But six inch blocks would be fine for testing. In fact, the other pair of 63s I had lived for quite some time on concrete blocks, but blocks don't have a decorator aesthetic that goes over well with some folks.
Although you can paint them black. :)
That is a good description. The speakers are not necessarily better off the floor just different. Some will like it this way some will not.
Raising them off the floor does increase the size of the sonic picture, cleans things up a bit. There is a slight leaning out of the sound. Nothing major but it is noticeable.
I use them both ways on the floor and on stands. I could live with them either way.
Easy enough to try them off the floor. Some boxes, a chair, just get them up in the air and give it a listen. If one likes the results then get some stands.
I think this is another reason why the re-do of the base has appeal. It will allow the user to have threaded holes to accommodate heavy rods (say 1/2"- 24) with brass cones on the end. The user can adjust the cones up or down.
FWIW...The Cable Company does sell a Sound Anchor stand for the 63. The stand has both height and tilt adjustment.
Shipping to the wilds of Tennessee is about $160. These things are not particularly attractive, but are probably pretty effective, although I do not believe the 63 is rigid mounted to the stand, although I may be wrong about that.
FWIW
Hi banpuku.
Did you ever get around to making up new bases for your ESL63's?
What mods did you have any success with?
Thanks in an advance for a reply.
Regards, Tony.
All the things with regards to the outer frame and base instability of a 63 have been addressed with the 2805 and 2812.
By the way, in the both of those designs the inner stat panels are decoupled from the outer frame in the exact same way as the 63s.
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: