Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:25:41 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ): AE on the other hand uses ML panels. While these can sound very good, and certainly have a much wider listening angle than my Sophias, they don't sound as realistic to me. AE feels the opposite way I'm sure, quite possibly for opposite reasons. 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. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
Audio Empire wrote:
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. This is myth for several reasons. First, the something is "push-pull" does NOT mean it is inherently lower in dostortion than something that is single-ended. What it means is that something that is push pull will have, if there are non linearities in the driving force, symmetrical non-linearities which are odd-order, as opposed non-symmetrical non-linearities which even-order. Secondly, a properly design electrocstatic speaker will have very low displacement-dependent drive force non-linearities only for VERY small excursions. Thirdly, all this "push-pull" and "symmetrical" and "linearity" makes several assumptions which simply do not hold in practice: that the mechanical compliance vs displacement is constant, that the diaphragm moves as a single unit over its entire surface. In electrostatics, none of these assumptions are even remotely met under any operating conditions. Fourthly, your assertion that "come speaker are single ended" is simply not true: it is certainly possible and many examples exist where both the excursion-dependent drive force and mechanical ciompliance for cone speakers is no less linear than for an electrostatic producing the same SPL at the same frequency, and that the non-linarieies are symmetrical about the rest position. Fifthly, any issues regarding non-linearities in compliance are only of relevance below the fundamental mechanical resonance, where the diaphragm is stiffness-controlled. Above resonance, they are mass controlled, and suspension non-linearities are largely irrelevant. If one wants to argue the superiority of electrostatics over cone speakers, there's plenty of ammunition in the fact that most good electrostatics have no enclosure and thus do not suffer from enclosure problems. On the other hand, those wishing to argue the opposite will find fertile ground in the fact that electrostatuics have no enclosure, and this suffer from all the problems of not having an enclosure. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:35:45 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 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. This is myth for several reasons. 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), and distortion is generally higher than with electrostatics. Also, since the speaker's efficiency falls off as the diaphragm moves away from the magnets, Maggies are subject to dynamic range limitations. While this might all be a secondary, or even a tertiary effect, it nonetheless can be heard. The cleanest, most distortion-free speakers I've ever heard were a pair of Martin Logan CLXs driven by a pair of Krell solid state monoblocks. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:56:00 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On May 28, 7:34am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:25:41 -0700, KH wrote (in article ): AE on the other hand uses ML panels. While these can sound very good, and certainly have a much wider listening angle than my Sophias, they don't sound as realistic to me. AE feels the opposite way I'm sure, quite possibly for opposite reasons. 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. Well that is an interesting assertion and probably worthy of a new thread. When it comes to phsyical movement I see no "single ended" quality of a cone speaker. Could you elaborate on what you mean? ScottW I misspoke and wasn't thinking too clearly when I said that. Cone speakers are more influenced by the fact that they are apex driven than any other non-linearity, while electrostatics, if properly designed, are driven over their whole surface (although they too have the highest drive at the diaphragm's center, because that is the part of the diaphragm that moves the most). Also, the high-voltage DC charge will tend to migrate to the center of the diaphragm if the manufacture doesn't design them to avoid this phenomenon. Cone speakers can sound marvelous, and I admire many of them. I just like what electrostatics do in the mids and highs. After all, Below about 400 Hz, most M-Ls are cone speakers too. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:35:45 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 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. This is myth for several reasons. I disagree. You do so at great risk to your credibility. 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. I believe this was covered well by the post you are responding to. You are ignoring the following: "First, the something is "push-pull" does NOT mean it is inherently lower in distortion than something that is single-ended. What it means is that something that is push pull will have, if there are non linearities in the driving force, symmetrical non-linearities which are odd-order, as opposed non-symmetrical non-linearities which even-order." This is a topic that in the day was well-covered by any good 2nd year EE course. 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), and distortion is generally higher than with electrostatics. Also, since the speaker's efficiency falls off as the diaphragm moves away from the magnets, Maggies are subject to dynamic range limitations. In fact Magnaplanar dynamic range is typically limited by the current-carrying capacity of the conductors on the diaphragm. IOW if you want to listen loud, you either fry the fuses or what they are there to protect. I would be interested in a comparison of the cost required to achieve low distortion peak SPLs of 120 dB over the entire audio band for magnetic planar, ribbon, electrostatic planar, waveguide/compression horn, and direct radiators. While this might all be a secondary, or even a tertiary effect, it nonetheless can be heard. Hmm, odd order distortion or even order distortion? Which will I prefer? For the record, my preference is neither! The cleanest, most distortion-free speakers I've ever heard were a pair of Martin Logan CLXs driven by a pair of Krell solid state monoblocks. I seriously doubt that, as you have probably heard traditional designed speakers with lower nonlinear and linear distortion. A recent somewhat publicized blind preference test involving ca. $4,000 ML systems put them last out of 4 alternatives. Once the various technologies for building speaker drivers of a kind is reasonably well perfected, what remains is the cost, the dynamic range, and the control over on and off axis frequency response. That is what we hear, not the technology that pressurizes the air. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:35:45 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 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. This is myth for several reasons. 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), and distortion is generally higher than with electrostatics. You said "cone speaker." How are Mangaplanars "cone speakers?" The vast, vast majority of "cone speakers" I am aware of are not designed and constructued the way Magnaplanars are. How does trotting out an extraordinary exception support the general case you made, to wit: "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." That Magnaplanars may or may not have mote or less distortion than any other type of speaker is clearly not your assertion, nor is something I'm at all interested in either defending or refuting. You made a generalized assertioon about "cone speakers" which, assert, still stands as a myth, and is not correct on a technical basis. Now, if you want to talk about Magnaplanars, consider advancing that as the subject of the discussion, but they are not "cone speakers", not in the least. And, most assuredly, various implementations of them have some significant technical issues, but "single ended" is merely one of them and arguably not the dominant one by any means. 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. Looking at the more general case of electrodunamic "cone speakers," to use your terminology, there is nopthing intrinsic in their design which makes them "single ended," so, I would assert, any further arguments based on their "single-endedness" is irrelevant. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Mind Stretchers
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:41:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:35:45 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 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. This is myth for several reasons. 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), and distortion is generally higher than with electrostatics. You said "cone speaker." How are Mangaplanars "cone speakers?" Who said they were? I said that they were a magnetic analogy to an electrostatic. The vast, vast majority of "cone speakers" I am aware of are not designed and constructued the way Magnaplanars are. How does trotting out an extraordinary exception support the general case you made, to wit: "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." That Magnaplanars may or may not have mote or less distortion than any other type of speaker is clearly not your assertion, nor is something I'm at all interested in either defending or refuting. You made a generalized assertioon about "cone speakers" which, assert, still stands as a myth, and is not correct on a technical basis. Now, if you want to talk about Magnaplanars, consider advancing that as the subject of the discussion, but they are not "cone speakers", not in the least. And, most assuredly, various implementations of them have some significant technical issues, but "single ended" is merely one of them and arguably not the dominant one by any means. 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. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | +--------------------------------+ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mind Stretchers | High End Audio | |||
It came up, on a mind not clear ... | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Does Palin have a mind of her own? | Audio Opinions | |||
One of the way how to relax your mind... | Pro Audio | |||
Mixing With Your Mind... | Pro Audio |