Living with panel/electrostat speakers

As some of you have been following and contributing to the discussion on panel and electrostatic type speakers in the "Good stuff at Heathrow" thread, I thought I'd move the discussion into a seperate thread, as I feel there is probably a bit more mileage to be had on this topic in its own right.

I know there are few members of this forum who have either owned, auditoned or currently live with such speakers who I'd really like to hear more from.

I'd like to guage your feelings and thoughts, especially from those who have had long term exposure to them, and whether the failings to do with ultimate dynamic range and bottom end air shifting some talk about are not as significant compared to the gains over conventional cone based speakers. Indeed for those who have switched from panels back to cones, was the adjustment difficult, or can a cone design replicate the type of coherence and mid range transparency that a typical panel can these days?

 

Henry,

The best thing to do is to listen to a really good pair or two. I still miss my panels on occasion, and it took me a long time to find a cone speaker that offered the panel's midrange speed and decay. IME few can manage this. Your Verities are one, the Merlins another, and surprisingly Robbo's 1SC's. It's only after you have had panels that you notice this IMO.

I actually found the Merlins to offer some gains over the panel. trying to put it into words is awkward. A really good box speaker seems to offer the same as a panel, but in sharper relief, more angular for want of a better word. A panel is less overt in it's presentation, seemingly smoother. I feel it is these qualities that make them exceptional at vocal reproduction and small acoustic pieces. It simply seems that the more graduated presentation is more natural.

Where the Merlin is superior to the panel is in the impact department, particularly in the lower midrange. This has a bearing on driving rythmns for me. Rock music simply has more energy here when using boxes. If that's what you call dynamics, then the boxes have it. I am of course referring to electrostatics here, rather than planar drivers or full range ribbons.

Some day, I may go back to Logans, they do some things wonderfully. I reckon if you hear a pair well setup, you will know in about 5 seconds if they are for you. You will decide to happily put up with any perceived compromises in exchange for the magic elsewhere.

On a practical note, they will never sound loud (even though they bloody well are!), the panels need care and replacing more often than cones, and you need to be aware of contaminants like dust and smoke. Finally, they always say women have a more acute sense of hearing. Well the only times a girlfriend has remarked on how wonderful the music sounded was when the Logans were in use. And it happened on more than one occasion

 

Okay Henry,

Living with ESLs. You've heard enough about the positives (particularly from me!) but I'll just list them briefly again.

1. No crossover distortion
2. No box colouration
3. No driver overhang, breakup or distortion
4. They excite fewer room nodes
5. They use a single driver
6. They can be placed against side walls
7. They are as dynamic at low spls as they are at high spls (great for late night listening)

In summary, what his means is that compared to most box speakers, you will get a full range, phase coherent, lightning fast sound where you are listening to the music and not the box, cone or crossover.

The negatives are;

1. They need to be at least 3ft from the front wall
2. To get the deepest bass, you need large panels which aren't particularly discreet!
3. They won't go as loud in absolute spl as a cone, but by this stage, your hearing will be suffering and the room is so pressure loaded that you'd be better off with the ICE and Max Power brigade.
4. They don't like dust, smoke or humidity
5. They need servicing every 15yrs (but then again, most dynamic speakers deteriorate over time too).
6. The voltages inside can kill (same as with valve amps I guess) and because of their construction, aren't the best choice if young children are in the house.
7. The sweet spot can be narrow

So how will they sound, coming from cones'n'domes?

The first thing that strikes you is the top to bottom coherence of the sound. It's as if the music is cut from the same sonic cloth. The spatial cues are there in abundance to satisfy the round earther in you. You want soundstage depth, width, imagery, sense of venue etc? You got it. You want the speakers to disappear? Even with your eyes open, it's virtually imposible to pinpoint the speakers as the source of the sounds you're hearing. They'll give you all the PRaT and emotive drive you could wish for too, provided your upstream equipment is up to it.

The next thing that you'll notice is that, particularly on acoustic work, instruments sound much more true to life. Whether it's the timbre of strings, the rasp of brass, the attack and decay of percussion. It's all there. And not just with symphonic works. Merlin feels that 'stats don't do dynamics or energy. I disagree in principle but not with his interpretation (which is personal to him, I would add), and here's why.

Much of the drive and energy we associate with dance music and electronica is due to the bass distortions and colourations inherent to the reproduction of the music. Our ears are educated to accepting this distortion as normal. The single greatest shock when listening to 'stats comes when you play a familiar piece of non-acoustic music and the colouration (perceived as energy, I believe) is gone. I noticed this the first time I heard 'West End Girls' on the ESLs. The driving synth line was just that, a driving synth line - but without the attendant smearing which I had been used to. ESL bass, compared to cone bass, sounds subjectively quicker, tighter and lighter. There is no smear, bloat or overhang but I would contend that the presentation is more correct. Some may not find it as pleasurable but then again, we all choose our colourations and euphony. I think that the some people are put off 'stats by this conditioning which takes a while to break (a couple of weeks in my case).

For those who haven't heard ESLs, the closest analogy I can come up with is that they they sound a lot like a good pair of headphones - which is no surprise really since they share a lot of their design attributes with 'phones! So for those of you who wish you could get the headphone sound, but in your room, not on your head, get yerself some ESLs!

reg

<edited to tidy up some typos>

 

That's one thing that lucky begger Henry DOESN'T need to worry about - nice detached house - he makes a great party host too - cool

And none of these are problems either - he's sensible (unlike me) and doesn't smoke - and the room would look ace with big effing nice panels in there

GO on Henry - you know it makes sense...

I still can't believe how much deep controlled bass those bigger (current) Quads had at a hifi show back in 1999 - very very nice sound and seemed to groove well. Mind you, if you get a dem Henry - can I come - love to hear what they make of Dark Soho and Infected Mushroom...

Sorry for the hijack - but would they interfere with TV screens? I guess so? Just wandering as one day I want to get some old Quads and renovate them....

 

'Stats and screens

Dom, there are no magnets in ESLs so they don't interfere with TV screens. In addition, it's usually a bit of a no, no to put a TV between box speakers because of the reflections off the side of the TV. However, ESLs are unaffected by the TV because of their dipole radiation pattern (if you stand next to the edge of an ESL, you won't hear much sound at all - and most of what you do hear will have been reflected from somewhere else in the room). I have 32" panny between my 989s and have had no problem with the sounds or the pictures.

Since you know Henry's domestic arrangements well, it seems like he'd be an ideal candidate for 989s. Only a dem will let him see what I'm on about with the bass colouration issue and I'm sure he'll find the SPLs more than acceptable (The 1812 works fine for me :JPS: )

reg

 

As people may be aware I own ML Aerius i's. I'd love 63's or 989, but just don't have the room.

I've owned and built cone speakers but they just can't do what panel speakers do. Its all to do with the mass of the cones they just can't change dirrection fast enough. Its the articulated lorry against the sports car....they may go just as fast in a straight line but I know which I be in if it came to a bendy mountain road.

I once heard a pair of 63's in a dem the salesman said try this ....and walked up between them and past them. You could actually walk through the image of the orchestra, pasting the various instraments without disrupting them.

I doubt Id ever go back to cone drivers [Yes I know the Aerius i's have cone bass units but that a comprimise I've had to make].

 

OH right - I wandered whether the actual EMI from the electrostatic process would interfere with the scanning deflection coils - but if you've got a Panny between yours, I guess it's cool

Well, Henry's got easily enough space behind the speakers now to know that stats would work fine - I reckon he's got to try the Maggies and the 989's (thanks - forgot the number). I'd love to hear his Orbe through a pair of those...

And his Veritys are no real stodgy slouch in the bass department either - very very good for cone and box speakers.. I guess the light panel and no crossover of panels has to time better than even the best cones though...

I would kill for a cheap pair of Stax stat phones myself...

 

Lots of really interesting points raised guys. Wish I had more time to post, but will just to have to blurt out what I can remember off the top of my head without referencing the relevant posts.

Merlin (or anybody else who knows) - Could explain to me about the differences between dispersion patterns between dyanamic and panel speakers?

Reg - Have you upgraded your amp and frontend(s) since we last touched on the subject, or IIRC are you still running with Cambridge Audio amp? If you can manage the 1812 at reasonable volumes without frying the drivers on the canon shots, then I guess that means they should go loud enough. Would like to hear yours or at least get an idea of the sort of levels you play at.

Zanash - Interesting, I always perceived Logans to demand a lot more space than Quads? Although I guess it's having the relevant amount free space behind with the Quads that's the killer? Whereas the Logans have a larger footprint and are taller and heavier? What compromises would you say the cone bass unit has compared to what you would desire - I take it you'd prefer to go with a big full range panel I guess?

Dom - I'm thinking about organising a couple of dealer dems next month as I have all Fridays off work in November. If you want to tag along you're welcome, but I doubt if any of the dealers will be local. I suspect I'll have to travel up to London.

The Maggies I'm certainly interested in. Although I don't they have a distributor in this country so it'd be a take a chance thing. I'm really tempted to get a pair of MG12's, these are the ones I heard at the show last weekend for a suck it and see exercise next year (would go well in the second system I think - EastEnders through a pair Maggies eh? ). The 16 and 20 look really interesting. I'd probably be prepared to take a gamble with the 16 too, but the 20s if I was greedy and had the dosh I'd go for too as they seem to be the ultimate expression of the planar art.

 

Days off - don't go there - don't think I can blag any right now - skating on thin ice with boss as my temper's at explosion point due to supporting this piece of shit internal phone system database that's absolute cack...

You never know though - much more of this hassle and a few sickies might happen....

 

Hi Henry,

I have had a good listen the the Quad ESL63. The couple who I picked the Finestra pre amp from had a pair. They were using a 20 watts per channel Kelvin Lab class a amp with them.

I agree a lot with the comments from Reg. I like the top to bottom coherence & ease of sound. I found them very engaging to listen to. The vocal were a strong point. I found I could follow & enjoy the music, even with pieces I didn't know. With pop music, I still found them enjoyable.

I was going to try them with some of my amps but the couple had sold them by time of my 2nd visit. (They wanted to hear my Border Patrol amp.) They thought that they took up too much room, plus they had a house full of kids.

I would give them ( or the new Quads) a go if you can fit them in your room.


SCIDB

 

Another sub topic I was going to raise earlier on but forget was that of maintainance and reliability...

As some have already mentioned, dust and humidity can be a problem. In my house that shouldn't be a problem as there are no smokers and I like to keep the place warm and dry in winter with the central heating on whenever I'm around.

15 years for panel replacements, is this a general rule of thumb, or do the different designs vary?

Also from a practical point of view, how many of the well known brands/models need to be plugged into their own mains power supply? ESL's do don't they? Any others? Maggies are totally passive AFAIK, aren't they?


BTW Dom - Out of all the people I know you most certainly have the most holiday entitlement from your work place, hmm, including all privlillage days it amounts to about 34 days doesn't it... before flexi time? I just get a lowly 20 days and that's it, not even flexi time!

 

Thanks for that Dean.

Oh now, ESLs with your Border Patrols, now that would have been a very interesting combination, just going on the fact that a lot of ESL owners seem to partner them with vavles. Would be a very dynamic duo I would have thought. :MILD:

So I take it the ESLs also appealed enough to your DJ persona too?

 

Henry, I'd give a pair of 989's ago However they are powered themselves to engergise the grid
It's not a bad halfway house, and all that openiness you like too, they are quite quick and for me, produce a more dynamic sound than the M/L's, however the Logans, have it in the middle, They arn't as tall/imposing as the logans either, worth a home demo and see how you feel WM

 

Henry,

because panels are dipoles, they radiate in a figure of eight pattern as i am sure you know. This creates a virtual null at the sides, which in turn means they are less affected by the proximity of the sidewall.

They don't couple to the room in the same way as a box speaker, this is mostly a good thing from an imaging point of view. They really do sound like a big pair of headphones

The room generated energy is missing to a certain extent, much like the affect that the TacT has IME.

Logan panels are treated for the affects of humidity, so this is not an issue. The membrane is robust enough to be dusted periodically by using a hoover on the panels Smoke is the only real problem, leaving a deposit on the capton film. So skin up outside please

I do love panels I must admit. They are incomparable in so many ways with conventional speakers. Coherency and scale are sublime, it does help to have a four foot tall line source My only nitpick is that, as I sit here being battered by White Stripes, I know the panels would not like this music. They are awesome on trance and ambient dub though.

Most panel users never go back to listening to boxes, I am an exception here. I have space constraints. If i didn't, i would be seriously investigating 989's and ML Odyssies tomorrow, the Logans on the end of about 300 tube watts per channel:JPS:

 

Henry,

Answering your questions...

Dipole vs monopole (cone in box!). here's an excellent treatise on the subject from S'phile

My system. Still no upgrade unfortunately. So the system is running off a P55 and CD63 SE. The (60wpc) amp starts to clip before the speakers run out of room so I haven't found the limit of the 989s. It sounds like WM has, on his brother's system (I refer you to the system synergy thread). However, he knows your listening habits better than I and seems to think that they'd be worth a try. I don't listen at huge spls but I do like to 'fill the room' with music and usually like to turn the wick up to get an appropriate sense of scale for the music in question. As I mentioned before, I often find myself cranking up the volume as the listening session wears on and my ears become desensitised to the absolute volume levels. The 1812 is a fantastic piece because of the huge dynamic contrasts in it and the 989s handle it with aplomb (oh, and for all you doubting Thomases, reggae on the 989s is pretty sweet too).

Logans. The resident planar expert and dealer on Audioasylum, Duke, has a very good explanation why Logans do it for some and not others. It basically revolves around the problems associated with integrating the dynamic bass driver with the planar section of the speaker. The successful integration of the two is, apparently, highly dependent on the room they are to be used in and the listening position.
Duke's explanation

Maintenance. The 15 yrs is an average for Quads. The older 57s definitely need a service by now. There are plenty of late ESL63s which have a way to go before needing a service and many of the early 80's ones will have been serviced recently. I hope that the introduction of much better components and build quality in the 98* series means that they'll get at least 15, maybe 20 years before needing an overhaul. I don't know about other brands unfortunately, or the different servicing requirements between 'stats, planars and ribbons. I do get the feeling from general reading though, that 'stats tend to be more robust and less tempramental than their planar or ribbon cousins.

Power supply. AFAIK, only electrostats need a power supply to charge the electrodes. Planars and ribbons get the amp to move the panel within a magnetic field (just like cone voice coils). Be aware that Maggies are planars, not electrostats and will therefore not require wall juice, but will make a mess of Eastenders if you put them too close

reg

 

Henry, forgot this

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?spkrplan&1070060459&2&3&4&

Now these are serious

 

Most has been said already in this thread.

I would agree with Merlin that once you have got used to panels, going back to conventional boxes really isn't on. Very, very few can come anywhere close to the transparency and lack of boxy colouration that panels have.

I have ML Prodigies as my main L&R stereo speakers, and they play plenty loud enough for me. In fact they start to sound better and better the louder you play them, but also when you turn the volume right down, the image doesn't collapse. Yes, they need very careful positioning with millimetre-perfect positioning, toe-in and rake. They also need to be quite a long way out from the wall behind them, so space can be a problem. When you get it right the image hangs in space between and behind the speakers like nothing else I have ever heard.

The reason they have an unusually long 'throw' is that, due to the curvilinear panel, they behave more like line sources than point sources. Therefore SPL falls off more or less at 3-4dB for each doubling of the distance compared to the 5-6dB typical of more conventional speakers that behave as point sources.

Yes, the panels wear out over time, but this is a very gradual process. ML stock the replacement panels for years and these are not unreasonable cost-wise to replace whereupon the speaker is back good as new. :MILD:

I got mine at a very reasonable £8750 per pair because ML seriously underpriced them on launch. They are now a cool £12000! :yikes:

 

Quad sensitive bits are sealed in dustcovers, and there are perforated metal covers over the whole lot to keep fingers, claws and pointy bits away from the lethal voltages. There's probably performance to be had from a strip down, but at a significant safety risk.

Quad are supporting the ESL63, they or their German distributor or various third parties are also supporting the ELS57. So everything is available. I've just bought replacement EHT boards for my ESL63s, they are happy to just ship the bits although I'm sure they'd rather do the repairs themselves.

I'm not sure there's a consensus on whether the panels wear out, I suspect it depends on how over-driven they are.

I've never heard MLs but I suspect they suffer from some treble beaming, at least horizontally. It may be worth standing up or slouching during a demo and seeing whether this matters to you. This is also a definite problem with the ELS57 but not really with the ESL63 and derivatives.

If the ESL989 performs as well as it promises then it is a complete bargain. £4000 won't even buy you the Naim two way nowadays.

Paul

 

Errrr. why would you suspect that Paul It's a four foot line source for heaven's sake, with a curved diaphram to give a wider dispertion.

I can state that I used to listen lying on the couch, sitting upright, and standing up. The only beaming I recall was originated from my face.

 

Time for me to put in my 2 cents - I'm back on-line after 2 days of being messed around by BT.

I grew up listening to the ESL 57s and absolutely loved them. The design brief for Seventh Veil was to get an ESL 57 sound with an IMF type bass in a more room-friendly package. I haven't heard the Quads with any modern high end amps though.

My view of the ESL 63s was that they improved on the ESL 57s in some areas but were not as good overall.

Haven't heard Martin Logans and all of the Maggies that I've listened to sounded too 'bloaty'. This may have been due to the valve amps that they were played with.