Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
32.212.76.154
In Reply to: RE: Not for Me posted by Byrd69 on February 02, 2017 at 19:13:22
I've never seen it as either/or. Both have their charms, and their annoyances. I've always ended up with Maggies because to me, they offer a good compromise between the unsurpassed clarity of electrostatics and the slam of dynamics. But someone who listened only at lower levels (or had room for Sound Labs) might prefer stats, while someone who listens mostly to pop at high levels might go for big dynamics or horns. Since nothing does everything well, it's going to be a question of personal fit.
And of course Maggies are pretty much unbeatable as far as price/performance ratio goes. I'm embarrassed by what I paid for my IVA's. Yeah, sure, the big megabucks Wilsons will raise the roof on your barn, but do they sound real? No comment.
Some of this too depends on configuration. No one makes my ideal stat that I would want, a full length line source with a delay like the ESL-63 for good dispersion. I like point source dipoles but they can't transport you like a line source. So you have all the compromises that Dr. Chaos mentioned -- bybrids or beamy/compromised dispersion or point source. Again, not ruling them out, but I believe that the relatively uniform dispersion of a line source planar adds to its realism. Boxes can't do this, it's physically impossible, and AFAIK only the ESL-63 manages it among stats -- even the big Sound Labs are going to have controlled dispersion further up and dipole dispersion further down, as well as the focusing effect in back (although room treatment can ameliorate this issue).
Follow Ups:
I put a Jadis Defy-7 on my 2+2s. There's plenty of dynamics. The crescendos of classical pieces are great....as is Eat a Peach.
"I can't compete with the dead" (Buck W. 2010)
"$45 gets them out the door tomorrow. $50 gets them out the door yesterday" (Byrd 2016)
I am sure that would sound pretty darn good! I like that Defy-7...nice amp. I used to drive my Acoustat Spectras with medium powered SETs from KR Audio and that was sublime!
Yes, the Acoustats are spec'd at 115 dB SPL, which is pretty good, though as I recall it takes something like 500 watts to get there!
Yeah, Byrd, my Monitor 4's with Mike Savuto's servo rebuilds have tons of slam by themselves. They don't punch you in the chest on bass notes the way big dynamic drivers do, but I'm not so sure that's the way music really sounds anyway. Never once at the symphony did the music punch me in the chest. Anyway, to assume ESL's don't have slam is a mistake.
Drums are dipoles and it may be that the way a dynamic woofer pressurizes the room just isn't realistic. OTOH, there's something to be said for the sheer ability of a large dynamic woofer to play loud. I don't know of any planar that can match it, though the largest can outpunch some smaller dynamics. That said, the Acoustats play louder than most stats and so are a partial exception to the rule (I don't know of any planars that will do the 120 dB+ that's necessary to reproduce the full dynamic range of acoustical music).
I don't know of any planars that will do the 120 dB+ that's necessary to reproduce the full dynamic range of acoustical music.Ray Kimber's array of ten Prostat 922s driven by eight Pass Labs X350 amplifiers might get close with over two hundred square feet of radiating area driven by nearly six kilowatts of power. :)
Edits: 02/07/17
And the strange thing is he only listens to clavichord music. :-)
And needless to say ten Prostats/eight Pass' might be useful if one is using Carnegie Hall as their listening room.
It's a bit big for my listening room, I'll admit. :-)
...since vertical dispersion for the loge is limited by panel height. :)
Maybe musicians should be seated up there rather than gutting the interior of David Geffen Hall, problems solved.
the big Maggies can get deep and loud; all it takes is high current and sustainable power. I had my room rocking over the weekend, window rattlin' and curtain rods a'shakin with the below video.Bi-amping is the way to go; something nice and soft on top along with brute force on the bottom!
I was jamming this over the weekend, lots of bass along with dynamics to boot. Hey it also gives me an opportunity to show off my DIY interconnect skills (Cardas/Belden/Jon Risch design); and yes I know I need shelves ;).
I'm a firm believer the medium to large Maggies can reproduce ANY natural musical instrument with ease; including kettle drums :)
I don't know the name of the song, I borrowed it from a friend and Shazam can't identify it either.
Edits: 02/05/17
That's why I have Tympanis. :-)
The mids on the 20.1 and more so the 20.7 are a limit in that regard since they tear if pushed above 115 db peak, But 115db is good enough at home. I was surprised by the fact that I actually had headroom over that.
Well, I have no way to verify the accuracy of the dB app download on my iPad, but 112 is the loudest I could stand from my Acoustats. BTW, the preamp had gain left to go. How much I don't know, I couldn't stand past that point.
Here are the specs from the Stereophile reviews:
Description: Full-range electrostatic loudspeaker. Frequency response: 28Hz-20kHz 2dB. Nominal impedance: 4 ohms. Power capability: 500W. Maximum output: 115dB at 20' in a 16'x24' room. Minimum power requirement: 50Wpc. AC power consumption: 5W.
So they really should do a bit better than 115 dB at a more realistic listening distance.
My Monitor 4s are driven with OTL direct drive tubed servos. I think those electrical specs you quoted might be for the transformer interfaces?
Edits: 02/05/17
I'm sure they are. Not sure how hard the OTL's can drive them.
I think they are. IIRC someone guesstimated that the servo amp acoustats had 3db more sensitivity but I don;t know that the amp can actually output that much to make use of the driver's greater headroom without the transformer.
Actually the Stax F83's are a line source with some sort of time delay (simpler than the Quad 63), at least I think so. Kentaja may be able to correct me here. I think Roger Modjeski has a pair of ESL's that may be somehow similar. Both his and the Stax's do benefit, in my opinion, from a dynamic subwoofer, if carefully matched. The Stax's are no longer available, and I'm not sure about Roger's speakers at this point.
That's interesting. Did a search for the F83 but couldn't find any technical details.
Here is something I found online from the Audiocircuit:
The Stax ELSF-83-X is an electrostatic speaker. It is part of the Els series. It was manufactured from 1989 to 1989.
Howard Popeck (September 25, 2010): The ELS-F83X was launched in 1989. It was the improved version of the highly respected ELS-F83 and also the double-stacked ELS-F81X.
The double stacked full-range electrostatic drivers of the ELS-F83X provide extended frequency (35 Hz > 25 kHz compared to 40 Hz > 21 kHz for the ELS-F81X) and superior dynamic range as well as improved efficiency (80 dB compared to 76 dB for the ELS-F81X)
Said STAX in 1989: 'In particular, the rich bass reproduction as well as extremely clean high and mid range is of the highest quality an electrostatic could ever attain. The ample height for enhanced line-source reproduction and the signal delay device incorporated results in the superb focus and soundstage reproduction of the ELS-F83X'
Applying similar transformer material and design as used in the STAX's state-of-the-art ELS-8Xand ELS-8XBBplus new protective layers on the electrode, newly designed transformer windings and network circuitry, the ELS-F83X achieved 'enriched life-like bass with clean and beautiful mid and high frequencies'
As in the ELS-F81X the protection circuit used prevented the user's power amplifier from being overloaded at low frequencies.
In common with every other STAX full range electrostatic loudspeakers systems including the ELS-FX81Xthe ELS-8X and the truly awesome ELS-8XBB is magnificent, captivating, wonderful. We've run out of words. They were, and if you can find a working pair today, that good.
To our ears, they were as magical in the mid range as the Quad ELS-57's and although it's heresy to say this, more revealing than the standard (i.e. unmodified) Quad ELS-63s in terms of top-end detail.
Specifications as published by STAX in 1989
Type = Electrostatic full range loudspeaker system
Frequency response = 35Hz to 25kHz (SPL-10db)
Impedance = More than 4 ohms
Efficiency = 80dB (8 ohm equivalent load 1W/Im)
Momentary Max. Input = 180W (8 ohm equivalent load 1W/1m)
Biasing voltage = 4,300V
Dimensions = 480(w) x 1965(h) x 350mm(d)
Weight = 37kg
Thanks, that's very interesting.
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: