Innersound Speakers

Clearly, I have my version of what happened, and you have yours, "trelja, you are partially correct and partially incorrect about the facts of the situation."

"within 30 seconds i heard cymbal, kick drum , acoustic bass and electric guitar. i heard the difference between cone and panel. it doesn't take long. my mode of audition in general, even in my own system is short listening of familiar music."

As stated above, my recollection is that it was 1 second, not 30, which I laid out in my feelings regarding your prejudice.

"i am looking for a speaker now. what reason would i have to come into a room, if i assumed i would hear a difference, before i actually heard it ? i wouldn't have listened if i already decided that hybrids were of no interest to me."

Again, prejudice. I believe your goal was not to listen to the product Roger believes in, but to have someone who has demonstrated the mastery of electrostatic loudspeaker buildingsince the 1960s make you something you feel is better than what he builds - see my comments on teaching the teacher.

"trelja, would you be willing to make a wager, if i were blindfolded, to test my hearing, if you believe i didn't detect the difference between cone and panel ?"

See my comments on whether or not you are able to hear the difference. But, to answer your question more directly, even if I felt you could not, my first rule in life is that when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

"i then discussed with him my interest in a full range electrostatic speaker and specified that i don't listen loud, no more than 85 db and wanted to achieve bass reponse extending to the about 35 khz. he replied that he would have to double the width of the panel, double the height and include a dsp. we discussed the affect of including the dsp in the signal path upon the performance of the speaker and i expressed my concern that it would add distortion and he asserted that i wouldn't hear the dsp even though it was in the signal path. i was not convinced, nor did i want to take a chance for $10,000 to have him build it, without obviously listening to it."

As I have tried to say, the man gave you what he felt is an accurate assessment of the situation in terms of how to give you what you are asking of him - in the most professional and generous manner, I may add. And, again, via you not accepting that, you feel you feel you know more than he does.

You are also incorrect in that is NOT what happened next, as you left out what ensued previous to that which was what I described in my recount of Roger asking you about what your three requirements were. You continue to leave it out, as you need to include how much power you will provide via your amplification. I go back to your inability to answer his question.

As for you not wanting to take a chance for $10K, would you expect someone to go against everything they believe in to produce a one off component for someone who walks into your room and flat out tells you that your life work is invalid in their estimation, that they know how to do what you do better than you even if they have never done it before, and they can have you build a product for them that surpasses what you have spent 40 years working towards even if you disagree with it without having them pay for your efforts? Considering that he sells the loudspeakers that he puts his own name on for $13K, I'd say he offered you the most generous terms imaginable. You expect not to have to compensate him should you somehow decide that what you designed didn't end up as superior as you figured it would be?

"the panel on the innnersound speaker is fine. i enjoy listening to it. i would like to hear a full range version of it without having to pay for it in advance."

It sounds like you should get to work on building yourself a pair.

Mrtennis, your points are becoming less and less relevant. It seems instead of simply seeing a situation for what it truly is, and learning something from that experience, you soldier on, perhaps believing through the music of chance, you will come across as more insightful than you have previously.

Over the brief time I have known Roger Sanders, he has proven to me incredible knowledge, real world ability, and the highest degree of character.

Roger does not engage in these forums. However, you do. And, you have incessantly used this website to disparage his loudspeakers many, many times since CES2008. I believe his position is worth defending against that, and I will do so.

Your position, which you have laid out here time and again is that a single electrostatic panel is a superior loudspeaker than the one he produces. You ARE invalidating his creation, which is a direct reflection of his life's work. By refusing to accept the positions of someone with the resume he posssesses, and offering up counterarguments you defend so strongly in feeling your way is clearly the better one, your statement, "i never claimed to have any knowledge." puts you in an untenable position.

"you also left out our brief discussion of the quad 57s."

Again, if you go back to my initial post, which I keep pointing back towards, I made the statement that other things were discussed, but I didn't want to make an already too long thread even longer. I had made my point.

Is there really a need to recite chapter and verse of the entire surreal encounter? I believe it would have benefitted everyone had Arnie filmed Roger a second time for play on Audiogon, this one being your visit to his room.

Nevertheless, I can surely recount your Quad ESL57, a speaker which I hold in high regard. You quoted the modifier's claims of what they were capable of, and Roger's exact response was, "I'll simply answer you this way, he's lying to you." I'm not sure what that lends to your position, other than perhaps trying to call my memory into question. In a logical sense, it again displays the technical and real world knowledge Roger possesses when it comes to the field of electrostatic loudspeakers.

"finally, martin logan will be producing a full range electrostatic speaker, then clx, later this year, and i am considering stacked quads unlimited quad 57s."

Once again, I return to my first post. There is no perfect loudspeaker. Roger has designed his speakers in the way he feels will present the best sound possible, ready and willing to discuss the weakpoints of his own design with anyone who cares to listen to him. He is also more than capable of talking about the weakpoints of the products you mentioned (or any loudspeaker for that matter), and why he has chosen a different path. I hope you do not believe these other designs will not be without flaws. At the end of the day, the question which every audiophile faces when it comes to loudspeakers is whether or not they can live with the flaws the product they are interested in possesses.

One thing I neglected to discuss previously, DSP. A bit of looking into the Fletcher-Munson curve in the light of what your requirments are will save you a lot of disappointment and wrong decisions down the road.

Like anything else, one must pick their poison. Decreased off axis performance is one that Roger Sanders freely admits to. He consciously makes this design tradeoff. Every loudspeaker, or audio component, is a series of compromises, and every cognizant (as opposed to someone who does not understand what they are doing) audio designer makes the decisions he makes in the interest of producing the best product he possibly can. Roger is a refreshingly honest in his ability to provide a world of background on the topic, then cogently lay out why every decision he made along the way was done the way it was done.

I will take issue with Mrtennis' assertion above. Again, I would like to say that I was in the room during his audition of the loudspeaker at CES2008, and my own take on the situation is quite different than that which he lays forth...

My biggest problems with what Mrtennis puts forth are that he entered into the audition already convinced of what the loudspeakers did and did not do. My statement is based on what I felt was his jumping up in protest in literally less than one second into the playing of the music to complain about the poor integration of cone and electrostatic drivers he expressed in his post above. Prejudice in life results in the one who holds it being harmed in that they are unable to experience a situation for what it is. The Chinese proverb of emptying one's cup so they can taste the tea seems most apropos.

Instead of sitting back, and giving the speakers and the man the courtesy of a true audition, he then entered into a philosophical discussion with Roger, taking the tact of trying to teach the teacher, which, in my opinion, is always the very height of arrogance, combined with ignorance.

Once Roger then accepted Mrtennis' position as being what he honestly felt (which every person is entitled to - whether or not you agree with their opinion or how they arrived at it - hey, if he hears poor integration, OK), Mrtennis then began asking questions of whether this, that, and the other thing were feasible, possible, or practical.

The hypocrisy alone of this turn of events should not be lost on us, as one would not think that a rational person can go from having all the answers and being completely and totally unaccepting of the views their counterpart holds one minute, and then asking that same person along the lines of someone having no real confidence if certain things that the person clearly disagrees with can be accomplished the next. This is where the "ignorance" factor in the equation I just laid out shows itself.

To his credit as being a true professional, Roger engaged Mrtennis in this discussion, answering the questions in terms of both the objective as well as the tangible. As I laid out above, Roger understands this craft from A to Z, and that everything is a question of tradeoffs. So, in order to provide an answer to the yes/no question of can you build me a loudspeaker, he needed to ask Mrtennis to provide him with the parameters/requirements of that end product - in this case, a purely electrostatic loudspeaker.

For example, tell me how loud you want to listen and the lower limit frequency that you require. Based on that, I can tell you how much power you will need. Or, tell me how loud you listen and how much power you have, and I will tell you how low the speaker will go. In other words, provide me A and B in terms of the two things that you cannot give up, and I will give you my assurance of what C will be, all based on the laws of physics - at which point, you make a yes/no decision of me building it for you.

Mrtennis more or less refused to answer the question ala being utterly unable to provide Roger with two parameters that were most important to him, in that he was unwilling to accept any compromise of the third. He hopes for all three things to be achievable at the same time. We all know that one cannot have everything in this equation. Otherwise, how many of us would be basking in the glory our loudspeakers producing 20 Hz tones at our normal (for me, 90 - 95 dB) listening levels, driven by 2 wpc 45 SET amplification?

A few other wrinkles and tangents were a part of the discussion, but I feel I've painted enough of the picture already, and don't have to describe them here so as not to make what is already too long a post even longer.

Roger's judgement call is putting forth this design - it uses a 10 cone driver in a true TL bass alignment, driven by a 600 wpc solid state amplifier that he provides with the package - you drive the electrostatic panel above 360 Hz with the amplifier of your choosing. The one true statement that can be made is that Roger has done his best to produce the best loudspeaker he feels he can produce. If he felt he could improve upon it within the tools and technology without driving the cost beyond all sense, I can assure you, it would have already been done. Whether or not it is the right speaker for you is the question.

Personally, I feel that the speakers that Roger has put forth are one of the finest products available on the market, sonically. Do I hear poor driver integration in this product? Honestly, I do not. Am I sensitive to it in other products, and feel it is a topic worthy of discussion? Definitely. Is Mrtennis entitled to his opinion that he hears it in this product? Absolutely. Are these loudspeakers perfect? No, of course not. No loudspeaker is or probably ever will be.

Of course, there are two sides to every story. I wanted to lend my own perspective to in the interest of adding balance to folks who may read about the driver integration here enough times that it becomes accepted as truth, as opposed to an opinion. I have no financial stake or otherwise in Roger's business or relationships, but I will say that I hold him in the highest regard as a person and loudspeaker designer/builder, and what I am proud to say - a friend. Take whatever grain of salt in my commentary you wish based on all of that.