Mind Stretchers
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:41:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
Now, if you meant "electrodynamic" vs "electrostatic", then we
can discuss that, but, again, using Magnaplanars as an example of
electrodynamic speakers is a very poor choice for the basis of
such a comparison.
I don';t want to talk about Magneplanars, it was an aside. I was trying to
demonstarte with an analogy that while electrostatic speakers are push-pull,
their magnetic counterpart (dipole and a large driven Mylar membrane) is not.
That's it. My entire usage of the magneplaner. Nothing else is either implied
or inferred.
Sorry, but your very words speak something entirely differently.
This is your entire post that I responded to, unedited:
"I Like Wilson Speakers. Have since I heard my first
Watt/Puppy setup. I like M-L electrostatics because
they can throw a wide, stable sound stage and can
give pin-point image specificity when fed a good REAL
stereo recording. But mostly I like them because of
their low distortion. M-L Electrostatics are push-pull
and cone speakers are single-ended. That means that
harmonic distortion in cone speakers will be much harder
to control than it is in electrostatics. Not saying the
Wilson's product are high in THD, but they are higher
than with my M-Ls and I can hear that."
YOU stated (not I), that "cone speakers are single-ended."
That's an EXACT quote of yours. That is the point I was
objecting to on technical grounds as myth.
YOU responded with:
"I disagree. Electrostatics have the diaphragm driven
from both the front and the rear using opposite phased
signals. I.E, the backplane pushes on the diaphragm
(repels it) while the front plane attracts it, and
vice versa. This makes the movement of the diaphragm
more linear. In Magnaplaners (which are magnetic
"analogies" of electrostatics) the magnets are
generally on one side of the diaphragm, and one side
only (there have been exceptions - the tweeter panel
in the Tympani IIIC's for instance, which had magnets
on both the front and rear of the diaphragms)
Then YOU made the leap from talking about "cone speakers"
in your first post as I quoted above to "Magnaplaners" in the
more recent post.
Your first post on this particular topic tried to contrast
electrostatics to cone speakers. Your subsequent reply on
the same subthread introduced Magnaplaners.
Which is it, Mr. Empire? Cone speakers or Magnaplaners?
You claim "nothing else is inferred or implied. That's true,
YOU explicitly compared eletrostatics to cone speaker: your
words. YOU then introduced Magnaplaners: your words.
WHich is it?
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
|