Electrostat transparency from conventional speaker

Squirrel,

Yeah I agree the Electrostats are deficient to the Dynamics except the transparency part, you can see right through most electrostats...not to be confused with magneplanars. :)

CDwallace

Only reason people tolerate electrostatic speakers today is because they are dipoles, thus they are a functional 4 channel systems or primitive surround sound system (2 direct ch., 2 delay ch. (see audioK's post) Fact is without Quad's and Magneplanars, most panel type speakers aren't that good for the $$$'s charged. As a once proud Martin Logan (QuestZ, CLSz) owner I can only shake my head at what is available now for the $$$.

My solution to hard to position (Magneplanar), fragile (Apogee), over-priced (ML, Sound Lab) temperamental (Quad)electrostats was surround sound. I have the big dipole soundstage, endless detail (due to the three channel array) and full range sound (sub) without compromise. And a wonderful engaging warm sound to the music that is easy on the ears from a fatigue standpoint. Its proven that the addition of rear channels engages (ie emotional impact) the listener to a much higher degree than any other device will that doesn't amount to a gross quality difference in playback performance.

Yes, better than two channel!! hard to imagine but its true. My solution was born of frustration 12 years ago and I have never looked back to dipoles. I like having control of the delay so my Viola's don't grow to 6' tall :). A luxury of modern technology i've grown very accustomed too.

PS: the solution is not universal so don't think some primitive Proceed processor is going to do the job! Like any problem it helps to have the right tools to fix it and there is a right way and wrong way to do surround. Don't stray from the textbook.

You might want to consider Spicas. My local dealer said that the Angeluses came closer to the sound of Quads (which he also sold) than any other dynamic speaker. Of course, this was many years ago, and the state fo the art has certainly progressed.

hales, dunlavy, duntech, allison, older AR are five examples, but certainly not the only ones. these brands and others sought a flat response from top to bottom. no exageration of the frequency range and since they are not ported, the roll off in the lowest frequencies is quite gradual. they are generally not as fussy about room placement too. transparency, flat response, tonal accuracy, and if the recording has it....real weight and dynamics...the spica 50 and the chapman t7 are two others. it is more popular, even at the highest end of audio to woo the listener with a combination of detail and staging. this makes for a great demo, but also makes for an unsatisfying pair of loudspeakers when you get beyond audiophile recordings.

The Chapman T-7's are uncanny, out Quading a Quad, if you can find a pair.

>Only reason people tolerate electrostatic speakers today is because they are dipoles, thus they are a functional 4 channel systems or primitive surround sound system (2 direct ch., 2 delay ch. (see audioK's post)

The physics do not agree with common sense. Although direct radiating speakers only have drivers on their front-side, sound waves in half the musical spectrum are large compared to domestically acceptable speakers so there is substantial off-axis radiation, even behind the speakers. Within the human vocal range, a mezzo produces foot-long waves at 1000 Hz and a barritone hits eleven feet at 100Hz.

The same wrap-arround occurs with the front and rear waves of dipoles. Since they are 180 degrees out of phase, they cancel when they wrap arround and meet. Dipole off-axis response is reduced by 20 log cosine alpha dB compared to the direct resonse. This means -3dB @ 45 degrees, -6dB @ 60 degrees, -12dB @ 75 degrees, etc. There is substantially less (1/3, -4.5dB) total power radiated for a given on-axis SPL compared to the ideal monopole which a conventional speaker approximates with decreasing frequency.

So dipoles generate less ambiance than conventional speakers and their reflections in the typical listening room are less deletrious. In my 13x19x8' room with the listener 11' off the front wall and speakers 4' off the front wall 8' apart measured from the tweeter dome apexes toed in to face the listeners, dipoles generate first reflections -6.5dB below the direct sound 4ms behind it off the ceiling and -11.2dB below 3.5ms behind off the side walls. In the range where the direct radiator doesn't have rear-ward output, the dipoles have a second reflection at -6.8dB below and 9ms behind. This is definately preferable to the direct radiators first reflections at only -3.5dB/4ms and -3dB/3.5ms.

The way to achieve electrostatic transparency with a dynamic driver is to skip the box. Dynamic dipole midrange like that found on the Linkwitz Orions is more similar than different to the planar speakers, although the sweet spot is much wider and placement less finicky.