Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mind Stretchers Gary Eickmeier High End Audio 26 July 25th 12 12:10 PM
It came up, on a mind not clear ... Watt? Me worry? Vacuum Tubes 3 December 21st 09 01:41 PM
Does Palin have a mind of her own? Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Audio Opinions 0 September 10th 08 08:33 AM
One of the way how to relax your mind... faiz Pro Audio 0 September 4th 08 02:42 PM
Mixing With Your Mind... Scott Smith Pro Audio 7 September 13th 06 06:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"