Quad ESL owners question

most "box" speakers sound "boxy", whereas panel speakers do not have box calibrations.

I agree in the sense that a great panel is wonderfully devoid of coloration in the midrange.

However, MrTennis how would you describe the sound of kick drum and toms?

To me they naturally sound "boxy"....

All I am saying is there is "bad boxy" sound from cabinet waffle and "good boxy" sound from instrument resonance...

I liked the big Quads but went with
OHMs for almost 1/3 the cost. No regrets.

having studied percussion instruments in my teen years and became a member of my high school band, i actually played bass drums and also, occasionally snare drums.

there is nothing boxy about a snare drum, bass drum or tom tom, there is a particular timbre of each of the aforementioned instruments, but in either case it does not remind me of the vabinet of a loud speaker.

anyway, if a wood cabinet resonates at a a specified frequency or depending upon the design, resonates at more than one frequency, the timbre of certain instruments may be affected.

i am interested in natural timbre. that is the reason i prefer panel speakers.

Hi Isanchez, my post, "Yes, electrostats (or any dipole for that matter?) are bad bad bad bad bad for any other type of music particualy rock, progressive, symphonic, punk, be bop jazz, straight ahead jazz, electronic, dance, orchestral etc, well you get the idea. I am not even sure why they make these things. Thankfully I like Ann Murry, Carpenters, and churches without organs music."

Was in response to Shadornes assertion that electrostatics are, "the acoustic ambience of a panel that radiates forwards and backwards (nice for chamber, church or low level classical music)-"

I usually disagree with every one, so this was my attempt at conformity. You really should ask Shadorne about this.

My response was a bit tongue in cheek response to Shadornes remark, and I am sure he understood it. It really is difficult to make a sweeping statement like he did, for any technology.

As to my experience with electrostats as you can see by my username Acoustat6, guess what I listen to?

I started my audio life with the usual suspects in the 70s, box speakers and in 1984 I purchase my first pair of Acoustat 3s. I then a couple of years later found a used pair of the Acoustat 6 which I continue to listen to, till this day. I have also owned a pair of Super Quads with the bank of RTR electrostatic tweeters and KEF woofers. I have also owned Magnepans. And I have heard many of the usual suspects in boxes, horns and single drivers etc..

Personally I liked many of them and appreciate many of each technologies attributes. I am sure I could have gone in any direction. But i bought the big Acoustats and have stuck with them for better and worse. It is a mrriage as I have owned the sixes for over 25 years. So yes I do indeed like electrostatics. Hence my reply to Shadornes remark.

I also like dipoles. My DIY subwoofer system consists of 32 eight inch Eminence drivers in sealed enclosures. There are eight forward and eight rear facing drivers per side in a stereo pair. It is a linesource configuration. They use a pair of stereo amps. Each woofer tower has its own amp with the "left" channel driving the front bank and the "right" channel driving the rear bank.

You may view them here, http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/10047418LsbjGLlsDK?start=0

Bob

Bob,

Your system is totally awesome. However, I'd say that the shear size of your speakers is indicative of what I was alluding to when I generalized that good panels have great ambience, midrange second to none but are less well suited to higher SPL's. Perhaps that is partly why the bigger panels (Apogees, Sound Labs, Acoustats etc.) are BIG.