Why so expensive to overcome limitations of Electrostats? Why so few speakers beat ol' Quad 57?

caesar · Mar 28, 2018

Gentlemen,
Let's discuss the limitations of electrostats. Some of the limitations are "plastic" coloration, lack of midrange dynamics, etc.

And audiophile luxury pricing aside, why does it get so expensive to get the transparency of a Quad 57 in a box speaker?

Al M. · Mar 28, 2018

Fortunately you opened a new thread, so I can address this more appropriately here, instead of hijacking Peter's system thread.

***

You said about people who thought that electrostatic speakers could be very dynamic (micro- and macro-) after hearing Ack's system:

caesar said:
Sounds like many people in this thread have closed their mind to this due to passions, so they will remain experientially impoverished.

Classic psychological case of projecting your own failures upon others.

But if one were to get the Q3 into Ack's system with the same spectral amps, it will be very apparent.

Arm-chair arguing. Who has heard Ack's system, you or me? I did, so I am the only one who knows what he is talking about. You are just full of yourself.

andromedaaudio · Mar 28, 2018

If your listening consists of relaxed not to loud listening to vocals / jazz , then I agree why bother spending more

Empirical Audio · Mar 28, 2018

My experience has been that Electrostatics deliver detail and imaging in spades, but they cannot reproduce the impact/slam of dynamic drivers or well-designed ribbons, like these:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=151272.0

The deficiency in most ribbons IME is the crossover, so maybe this could also improve some Electrostatics dynamic response. The difference is that the movement of the driver in an Electrostatic is very small, but distributed over a large area. In theory, this could deliver slam, but I'm not sure it could be well-controlled like the other drivers. In terms of slam ratings, I believe this is the order based on the physics:

Horns
Dynamic drivers
Ribbons
Electrostatics

If you don't like listening to loud dynamic music, Electrostatics may be the most accurate with the best imaging.

Steve N,
Empirical Audio

Al M. · Mar 28, 2018

Empirical Audio said:
My experience has been that Electrostatics deliver detail and imaging in spades, but they cannot reproduce the impact/slam of dynamic drivers or well-designed ribbons, like these:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=151272.0

The deficiency in most ribbons IME is the crossover, so maybe this could also improve some Electrostatics dynamic response. The difference is that the movement of the driver in an Electrostatic is very small, but distributed over a large area. In theory, this could deliver slam, but I'm not sure it could be well-controlled like the other drivers. In terms of slam ratings, I believe this is the order based on the physics:

Horns
Dynamic drivers
Ribbons
Electrostatics

If you don't like listening to loud dynamic music, Electrostatics may be the most accurate with the best imaging.

Steve N,
Empirical Audio

Sure, but these ribbons also have a bass box, just like Ack's Martin Logan modified speakers. I thought the question was specifically about midrange dynamics.

ack · Mar 28, 2018

Al M. said:
Sure, but these ribbons also have a bass box, just like Ack's Martin Logan modified speakers. I thought the question was specifically about midrange dynamics.

More importantly, people should focus on dynamic HEADROOM, not how loud they can play. Myles Davis' trumpet was mentioned elsewhere, as one of those instruments that stats can't do well (I think that was the insinuation, at least). I would invite folks over to take a listen. In fact, winds is THE one thing that sounds so dynamic in the midrange in my system, with all the requisite headroom.

Empirical Audio · Mar 28, 2018

ack said:
More importantly, people should focus on dynamic HEADROOM, not how loud they can play. Myles Davis' trumpet was mentioned elsewhere, as one of those instruments that stats can't do well (I think that was the insinuation, at least). I would invite folks over to take a listen. In fact, winds is THE one thing that sounds so dynamic in the midrange in my system, with all the requisite headroom.

The first blat in Kind of Blue track 6 is almost ear-piercing on most speakers. So you are saying you get that?

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

ack · Mar 28, 2018

Empirical Audio said:
The first blat in Kind of Blue track 6 is almost ear-piercing on most speakers. So you are saying you get that?

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

It depends on the pressing, cartridge, phono et al, but yes. The loudest trumpets are either on For Duke - really ear piercing - and Armstrong + Ellington's Black and Tan Fantasy. More than that, there is real body and presence. The loudest transient is actually with Mahler's 6th hammer strikes, on an HDCD Keith Johnson recording that marty posted here years ago - total jump factor. The electrostatic driver is not the problem, the amps that need to drive 1ohm loads or less is.

MtnHam · Mar 28, 2018

caesar said:
Gentlemen,
Let's discuss the limitations of electrostats. Some of the limitations are "plastic" coloration, lack of midrange dynamics, etc.

And audiophile luxury pricing aside, why does it get so expensive to get the transparency of a Quad 57 in a box speaker?

There are electrostatic speakers that go far beyond Quads and deliver everything mentioned as lacking with the exception of extreme bass slam. Sound Lab Electrostatic speakers deliver in spades and are a bargain too. Unfortunately, the company does no advertising, almost no marketing, attends very few shows, and has an extremely small dealer network. They are never found in B&M stores, and thus are almost unknown among all but the few very knowledgeable audiophiles. Those who have experienced them usually are believers, but are held back by their size. The new smaller sized Majestic 545PX has a MSRP of $13,436; the top of the line Ultimate 745PX is $45,250. IMHO, this makes them extremely inexpensive and a true bargain compared to the $50-250K (and more) traditional box speakers.

They can play extremely loud (110dB+) and also deliver full bodied accurate sound at very low levels. Mid range dynamics are excellent. Because they are capable of energizing all the air in a room, there is no fall-off in tonality across the spectrum when listening off axis. Imaging is still the best in the 'sweet seat', but you can sit well off to the side and still feel the palpable presence of individual instruments. For the lover of Classical, Opera, Jazz, Folk, and even C&W (I'm a Willie fan) they are a delight. I attend live performances in SF of the 1st 3 genres regularly, and actually often prefer to enjoy them at home. If R&R is your passion and you need extreme bass slam, you could add a subwoofer. Nonetheless, they are full range (24hz-ultrasonics) from one driver, and thus have total coherence. The new "Bass-Boost" technology has added greatly (6dB) to the lower end.

I have the older U-1PX panels at my country home, and soon will have the new Majestic 545PX's available for audition in San Francisco. If any WB member would like to come hear them, you would be quite welcome. Send me a PM.

microstrip · Mar 28, 2018

MtnHam said:
There are electrostatic speakers that go far beyond Quads and deliver everything mentioned as lacking with the exception of extreme bass slam. Sound Lab Electrostatic speakers deliver in spades and are a bargain too. Unfortunately, the company does no advertising, almost no marketing, attends very few shows, and has an extremely small dealer network. They are never found in B&M stores, and thus are almost unknown among all but the few very knowledgeable audiophiles. Those who have experienced them usually are believers, but are held back by their size. The new smaller sized Majestic 545PX has a MSRP of $13,436; the top of the line Ultimate 745PX is $45,250. IMHO, this makes them extremely inexpensive and a true bargain compared to the $50-250K (and more) traditional box speakers.

They can play extremely loud (110dB+) and also deliver full bodied accurate sound at very low levels. Mid range dynamics are excellent. Because they are capable of energizing all the air in a room, there is no fall-off in tonality across the spectrum when listening off axis. Imaging is still the best in the 'sweet seat', but you can sit well off to the side and still feel the palpable presence of individual instruments. For the lover of Classical, Opera, Jazz, Folk, and even C&W (I'm a Willie fan) they are a delight. I attend live performances in SF of the 1st 3 genres regularly, and actually often prefer to enjoy them at home. If R&R is your passion and you need extreme bass slam, you could add a subwoofer. Nonetheless, they are full range (24hz-ultrasonics) from one driver, and thus have total coherence. The new "Bass-Boost" technology has added greatly (6dB) to the lower end.

I have the older U-1PX panels at my country home, and soon will have the new Majestic 545PX's available for audition in San Francisco. If any WB member would like to come hear them, you would be quite welcome. Send me a PM.

About ten years ago I partnered the SoundLab A1PX with a Krell KPs25SC + FPB750 MCX. Playing drums loud was perhaps risky, but it was a real experience - usually you feel the bass in your stomach with speakers such as the Krell LAT1000, but with the Soundlab's you would instinctively close your eyes, fearing that the drum would hit your face!

Surely they would not be able to play as loud as top very large dynamic speakers, but it was loud enough to be unsupportable to most people after a few minutes. BTW, in very long rooms large models are able to play as low as 20 Hz, although they can suffer from bass cancellation due to reflection in the front wall. IMHO it is impossible to theorize about modern SoundLabs - you have to listen to them with several amplifiers and systems to know what they are able to do. BTW, Dagogo recently published a review of the new SoundLab U4-iA https://www.dagogo.com/sound-lab-ultimate-u-4ia-electrostatic-speaker-review/

ack · Mar 28, 2018

microstrip said:
Surely they would not be able to play as loud as top very large dynamic speakers, but it was loud enough to be unsupportable to most people after a few minutes.

I get the same effect when playing the big o-Daiko drum by Kodo on Sheffield CD; it reaches a point where I literally want to get out of the room - get that big thing out of here...

We are accustomed to a number of misconceptions in this hobby, and I don't think it's ever going to change. However, I will go ahead and mention them again:

1) That electrostatics can't do dynamics: I say no and have proven so (and thankfully I am not the only one); I say they are just not driven properly, and they are an exceptionally tough load to deal with

2) That MC cartridges need "loading": at least on this one, we have a number of dedicated threads with all the data and testimony showing what's really going on and why. More than that, we now have numerous phono stages that deal with the _real_ issues properly

3) That SRA/VTA adjustments affect tonal balance: SRA/VTA affects nothing more than intermodulation distortion, and there are test records and tracks to show that; but the sheer fact that people raise and lower the arms to "fix" SRA ends up inevitably affecting VTF, which in turn is the one primarily affecting the tonal balance and the character of the sound, from soft to aggressive, depending on the suspension; not to mention that SRA/VTA adjustments will throw alignment and azimuth off as well. I was reviewing some old threads on audiogon a while ago about my A90, and it was fascinating to read that the same people would track the same cartridge with completely different VTFs in different systems - anywhere from 1.6g to 2.2x grams, if I remember correctly, and claim to have found the optimal settings for each of those systems... however, to me, all I see is that they were using VTF as a means to compensate for system deficiencies elsewhere, and I have to assume that intermodulation distortion would have been all over the place in those systems, based on my own experiences with this cartridge... just fascinating what we sometimes write on the internet.

PeterA · Mar 28, 2018

ack said:
3) That SRA/VTA adjustments affect tonal balance: SRA/VTA affects nothing more than intermodulation distortion, and there are test records and tracks to show that; but the sheer fact that people raise and lower the arms to "fix" SRA ends up inevitably affecting VTF, which in turn is the one primarily affecting the tonal balance and the character of the sound, from soft to aggressive, depending on the suspension; not to mention that SRA/VTA adjustments will throw alignment and azimuth off as well. I was reviewing some old threads on audiogon a while ago about my A90, and it was fascinating to read that the same people would track the same cartridge with completely different VTFs in different systems - anywhere from 1.6g to 2.2x grams, if I remember correctly, and claim to have found the optimal settings for each of those systems... however, to me, all I see is that they were using VTF as a means to compensate for system deficiencies elsewhere, and I have to assume that intermodulation distortion would have been all over the place in those systems, based on my own experiences with this cartridge... just fascinating what we sometimes write on the internet.

Were the test records which show intermodulation distortion cut with the same angle as each of the LPs in one's collection? Are the test records the same thickness as each LP in one's collection? If not, then VTF will be different which might affect tonal balance.

When arm height is adjusted to correspond to different record thicknesses, VTF does not change, because SRA/VTA does not change. It is precisely when one does not change the arm height for different thickness LPs, that SRA/VTA does change which in turn effects VTF. I happen to adjust VTA for what sounds best to me for each LP, not to match specific record thicknesses per se, because, matching the original cutting head angle is really what reduces intermodulation distortion. I understand if others don't want to go to the trouble, even if they understand and hear for themselves that it is audible.

This is really a topic for a thread about analog set up.

Folsom · Mar 28, 2018

caesar said:
Gentlemen,
Let's discuss the limitations of electrostats. Some of the limitations are "plastic" coloration, lack of midrange dynamics, etc.

And audiophile luxury pricing aside, why does it get so expensive to get the transparency of a Quad 57 in a box speaker?

You should spend some time on diyaudio.com . You ask A LOT of questions that some simple education ought to enlighten you to the answers.

A big reason, to your question, would be inductance.

DaveyF · Mar 29, 2018

One of the questions that may be better discussed would be why do panel speakers in general sound so different to box type speakers?...I think we can all agree that they do.
Tonight, I was listening to a sax at about a fifteen foot distance....so much punch and power...more than any speaker I have ever heard; when I originally walked into the venue, I immediately knew it was ‘live’...no ifs ands or buts. Which speaker type does the ‘illusion’ better...panel or box? I know which camp I am in.

PeterA · Mar 29, 2018

DaveyF said:
One of the questions that may be better discussed would be why do panel speakers in general sound so different to box type speakers?...I think we can all agree that they do.
Tonight, I was listening to a sax at about a fifteen foot distance....so much punch and power...more than any speaker I have ever heard; when I originally walked into the venue, I immediately knew it was ‘live’...no ifs ands or buts. Which speaker type does the ‘illusion’ better...panel or box? I know which camp I am in.

That is the question I would ask. However, for others getting the 'illusion' may not be the goal. Hearing what is on the recording may be the goal, or finding the mix of components that are the most 'pleasing'. I'm with you, Davey, because we seem to share the same goal so we ask the same question. I guess the key for personal satisfaction is asking the right question and then finding the answer to that question.

ack · Mar 29, 2018

PeterA said:
Were the test records which show intermodulation distortion cut with the same angle as each of the LPs in one's collection? Are the test records the same thickness as each LP in one's collection? If not, then VTF will be different which might affect tonal balance.

Nonsensical questions. You use the test records to train your ear to IMD, so that you can then adjust your own records. So frustrating to deal with you sometimes, reminds me of the Isodamp discussions

Al M. · Mar 29, 2018

ack said:
Nonsensical questions. You use the test records to train your ear to IMD, so that you can then adjust your own records. So frustrating to deal with you sometimes, reminds me of the Isodamp discussions

So frustrating to deal with you sometimes, Ack. Peter is absolutely right on this issue and you are dead wrong.

The VTF hardly changes during the VTA adjustment (Peter measured this), and that adjustment for each record clearly yields great benefits.

You just look for a pseudo-technical excuse not to make that adjustment yourself for maximum resolution. You always talk about maximum resolution, but you are constantly willing to leave resolution on the table? That doesn't make sense.

Yes, getting the best out of vinyl can be a pain. Deal with it. (I don't have to since I don't have a turntable.)

DaveyF · Mar 29, 2018

PeterA said:
That is the question I would ask. However, for others getting the 'illusion' may not be the goal. Hearing what is on the recording may be the goal, or finding the mix of components that are the most 'pleasing'. I'm with you, Davey, because we seem to share the same goal so we ask the same question. I guess the key for personal satisfaction is asking the right question and then finding the answer to that question.

Exactly. However, I think all of the contributor's to this forum have the same goal. That goal is to try and reproduce the sound of music as close as to what they hear live, in their own rooms. A lofty goal, but one that seems to have a slightly different satisfaction level to each and every member here. I am 100% certain that the sax I was listening to last night would be recognized as the 'real' thing by all contributors to this forum...and for that matter to all people. The interesting thing, that I am beginning to realize, is that not all of us are as 'tuned in' to the sound of the what the 'real' sounds like as others....in the same exactitude. Nothing wrong with that, just an observation.

bonzo75 · Mar 29, 2018

DaveyF said:
Exactly. However, I think all of the contributor's to this forum have the same goal. That goal is to try and reproduce the sound of music as close as to what they hear live, in their own rooms. A lofty goal, but one that seems to have a slightly different satisfaction level to each and every member here. I am 100% certain that the sax I was listening to last night would be recognized as the 'real' thing by all contributors to this forum...and for that matter to all people. The interesting thing, that I am beginning to realize, is that not all of us are as 'tuned in' to the sound of the what the 'real' sounds like as others....in the same exactitude. Nothing wrong with that, just an observation.

Actually, I would differ...many can recognize the sound, but can't accept they have gone completely down the wrong path in choosing gear. I think this is not such a golden ears thing...people recognize the right sounds, they are just too blind (or is it deaf) to accepting that they went wrong in choosing the right path to recreate that sound. Also, people end up with their gear for a variety of non sonic reasons, which have nothing to do with what they would choose were they given a fresh start and a lot of resources to compare gear

Al M. · Mar 29, 2018

bonzo75 said:
Actually, I would differ...many can recognize the sound, but can't accept they have gone completely down the wrong path in choosing gear. I think this is not such a golden ears thing...people recognize the right sounds, they are just too blind (or is it deaf) to accepting that they went wrong in choosing the right path to recreate that sound.

An all too human phenomenon. Reminds me of partisan blindness in politics, often affecting even very intelligent people.

Why so expensive to overcome limitations of Electrostats? Why so few speakers beat ol' Quad 57?

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Industry Expert

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Industry Expert

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Similar threads