What is your opinion regarding electrostatics?

If you have your heart set on E-stats then buy Martin Logan Asecnts. I have had Aerius i, SL3 and the ascents and the ascents are by far the most dynamic thing martin logan has ever put out. ( in that size) I just sold my Asents because I one day s I was listening I decided there was something about e-stats I didnt like. So I put them on the net and bought a pair of B&W N803 and now Iam very happy. They are much more dynamic and tonal accurate. They arent as large sounding as the ascents where but they are great. Also the Ascents had awesome mids not that the 803s dont but the panel really invites you in. So in saying that I would tell you dont buy unless you listen on your equipment. For a box speaker the b&ws are really open and airy. Give a listen and youll see

If you think altec horn is colored, may be you haven't hear a pair of good one yet. Be openminded. Different types of speakers have their share of strength and weakness. The best way to choose your speaker type is to match it with your own music taste. Failing to get the first step right, nothing else matter.

Hello Herve, The truth of the matter is, once you live with a good Electrostatic or Planer, the midrange of conventional drivers may be hard to return to. Certainly ESL dynamics are constricted, as well as the bottom octaves lacking in weight and slam (but not on String Bass). All of this fades into inconsequence when voices and the majority of middle frequencies are reproduced thru these panels.
This has been the case as far back as the KLH-9 days as well as through Quad, Stax, Beverage, Sound Labs, Acoustat and Magneplaner to name the ones I am familiar with.
Amazingly, there are many audiophiles that do not like the sound produced by panel type speakers and opt for B&W type of conventional monitors. While these will satisfy the other needs (SPL, slam etc) they still do not approach the panel level of "you are there".
Ribbon drivers, while even faster than ESLs fail to retain the "Warmth" level present in the human voice. You get all this fabulous clarity, speed and air, yet you can never get all the metallic sound out to get you to REAL.
As a furthur thought to Sean's excellent post above, I find the backwave (doublet) dipole to be the ESL/Planer's greatest Strength, and a huge contributor to the live sound illusion. (Maybe Amar was right about that after all!!)
There is a group of Audiophiles that I respect who regard the Western Electric (Altec) 755A driver the equal of a ESL midrange. I know that enough good ears have reported on the sound of these historic drivers to warrent possible truth to the statement...........Frank

Sean, what an incredible post! You did a superb job of laying out the merits of horns and 'stats without becoming "partisan".

I'd like to suggest that the dipole radiation pattern of a full range electrostat is actually an asset rather than a limitation. The only significant placement issue is getting them far enough out from the wall behind them, and five to seven feet is usually adequate. You might want to treat the first reflection points with a bit of absorption or diffusion, then fine tune the toe-in angle, and you're pretty well done.

A good full-range dipole has three significant advantages over a direct radiator loudspeaker:

1. The bass is significantly less colored by the room.
2. The direct and reverberant fields are more alike.
3. The sound field more closely approximates a live event.

A dipole does not excite room modes more than a monopole speaker - in fact, it excites them far less. This is because a dipole's figure-8 radiation pattern puts 5 dB less bass out into the reverberant field than a monopole's spherical radiation pattern. True a dipole will excite the room's front-to-back standing wave modes (and so will a horn), but it will put much less energy into the side-to-side and vertical standing wave modes than a direct radiator does. The result is much better pitch definition, because the room isn't contributing nearly as much overhang to blur the decay of the bass notes.

Because a well designed dipole (such as the Maggie 3.6, 20.1, and full range Sound Labs) maintains pretty much the same radiation pattern all the way up and down the frequency range, the reverberant field will have the same tonal balance as the direct sound. This is conducive to natural timbre and to long-term listening enjoyment, because the brain expects the reverberant field to sound like the direct sound with the room superimposed on top. A direct radiator almost never gets this right because its radiation pattern changes drastically as we go up and down the frequency range. Therefore, its reverberant field cannot possibly have the same tonal balance as its on-axis sound. The result is listening fatigue over time. You can listen to a good dipole literally all day long and never get tired of it (the freedom from boxy colorations probably helps here as well).

A dipole that approximates a line source sets up a very different kind of sound field than a horn or direct radiator can (with the exception of line source direct radiators, like the Pipe Dreams - which have problems of their own). You see, sound pressure falls off with the square of distance from a point source, but linearly with distance from a line source. Okay, once again, in English: As you move farther back from a tall dipole speaker, the volume falls off much more slowly than when you move back from a horn or direct radiator speaker. The result is a vastly different "feel" than what you get from a conventional speaker. This uniform sound field feels more like a live performance, because as you listen to a live performance from forty feet away, the sound field is very uniform in volume and tonal balance.

Alas, Sean, I don't know as much about horns as you do about 'stats, so I cannot give the comparison as even-handed a treatment as you did. I certainly agree that horns do macrodynamics better, are easier to place, and are much easier to drive. So far I have yet to hear a high end hybrid horn system where the direct radiator woofer matched the clarity of the horn. But, in all fairness, I have yet to hear a high end hybrid electrostat where the direct radiator woofer matched the clarity of the panels. Just as the ultimate in electrostats is the full range panel, I would imagine that the ultimate would be a full range horn system. Besides the K-horn, does anybody make one?

Thanks for the kind words folks. While i do appreciate the "roses" ( i'm much more of a gin & tonic or beer man though ), i'm learning just as much from you and your posts. As such, PLEASE continue to share your thoughts and experiences. I would HATE to think that my rambling has made someone feel that it was "unnecessary" for them to contribute to a thread. You just don't know how much that "little" comment that you didn't make might've helped someone else out, so PLEASE don't hesitate.

As to Duke's question about "full range Horn's", i don't know of any others besides the various Klipsch models. These should be considered a "starting point" at best with LOTS of room to move in terms of EASY improvements though. If i ever get my act together ( yeah, right...), i have another set of La Scala's to rebuild. I'll probably do these from the ground up, as they are REALLY beat. This would present me with the perfect platform to try out a lot of my newer "horn based" ideas.

As to Duke's comments about planars and conventional drivers loading bass into a room, my experience is that Planars have only ONE advantage. That advantage can only be used under VERY specific conditions. Otherwise, i find that their dispersion characteristics to be tougher to work with, typically resulting in blurred imaging and OVERTLY lean characteristics when things are less than optimum. These are MY thoughts and opinions though, so that means they are worth LESS than $0.02 : )

I think that we will all agree that LOW freq's are the most problematic area in the audible frequency range to properly reproduce in a reasonable sized room. The fact that LOW frequencies are omnidirectional doesn't help any either. This means that ALL speakers, regardless of their radiation pattern at higher freq's, face an equally tough task in this area. If anything, the fact that many planar speakers don't have a LOT of output below 100 Hz may help them out a bit in this respect.

The ONE way to overcome the "room loading" problem with a planar is to place it EXACTLY at the mid-point of the room. So long as the room is evenly "clustered" with furnishings, etc... the wavelengths and pressure to each side of the panel remain identical. The result is "even loading" with equal reflections. This minimizes the standing waves in the room and will result in the most natural bass response that those speakers are capable of in that room. This does NOT necessarily mean that you will like what you hear though.

While this approach MIGHT work with conventional dynamic woofers running back to back in a push-pull configuration (one wired in phase, the other out of phase), I have never tried it. I would ASSUME that the results would be similar to that of the planar while still retaining the characteristics of the dynamic driver. Whether this is good or bad would depend on your point of view.

If someone has an opposing ( or confirming ) point of view, PLEASE share it with us ( me in particular ). I'd love to compare notes and experiences and hopefully learn something along the way. Sean
>