tube amps and electrostatics

Theory helps one to play the game well, but ya still gotta play it.

Autoformers in finished boxes showed as costing over a grand. A barebones version would be less i suppose. Es speakers can be pricey, so its all relative i suppose.

Ive heard quad esl of cj tube amp. Very nice match!

I have never heard quad esls have a dynamic low end like is possible with good full range dynamic speakers. I always figured that to be their inherent achilles heel, as is the case with planars generally. Have not compared with a good beefy SS amp though. I would expect some difference there I suppose, the question would be how much and what happens to all the rest.

I have heard some very good results with bass dynamics using es headphones, like Stax, so I have to think such things on a larger speaker scale are possible, at least in some rooms with some amps.

I tend to like tube amplification best though I would say with my Stax electret (not es) phones, FWIW. Of course, those use the custom Stax transformer box to help get things right.

Maybe there is a similar transformer device possible for use with large es speakers to help address the electrical issues?

Did not realize es speakers had those electronic properties. Sounds like you almost need some kind of extended bi or multi-amping to really get best results, more so than with most any other kind of speaker perhaps? OR maybe a Stax-like transformer box designed to solvethe problem, if such a thing exists?

I read the key to driving ES speakers effectively is high voltage. That is an attribute of Class D Icepower amps I believe.

Has anyone tried a high voltage Class D amp with ES speakers? I'm thinking it might be a good match.

I think Al got it right again, as usual. :-)

Anyone ever heard a decent Icepower amp running newer Quad ESLs? That's something I would like to hear.

When I was auditioning for new speakers a few years back, the Quad ESL demo I got at a local dealer hit the bullseye for the sound I wanted, running of CJ amp gear, save for the punch in the bass not being up to snuff with the best I had heard. I tend to think as that as always the main problem with Quad ESLs at least from what I have read and heard with most any amp out there. The rest is more shades of grey amp to amp.

Increased emphasis for a SS amp versus tube in general sounds right to me. The FR with the SS may well be flatter as well, if not perfectly flat.

HEy but then there there is the old nasty odd order harmonics that muck with our ears due to NF issue with the SS amp for sure.

There may be no single right answer, at least on paper. Only our flawed ears know what they hear for sure always.

GEorge,

I think you are right about that in general, from what I have read.

Still, not all Class D amps are created equal. I think I have read of some cases where they have worked well with very low impedances in some cases. It would be a concern, but you never know for sure till one tries. I'm wondering if anyone has?

I'll stand on my position that technical specs never tell the
whole story, and any given reasonable combo of gear, even with
electrostats, can win on any given day. Too many other
factors come into play. no substitute for listening and
hearing. Tube sound lovers will probably still like the tube
amp sound for the usual reasons and vice versa. Neither will
likely hold all the cards always. Like usual. Good sound is
shades of grey usually, not black and white.

" The argument that there is too much variability in the sound of live to establish a benchmark is nonsense; there is much more that is consistent than there is that is different. "

Agree with Frogman on this. All live music has certain things in common. Patterns emerge and can be recognized with experience.

Also with the commonly accepted mindset that documented or measured technical specs and parameters are insufficient to tell the whole story regarding how well overall any playback system delivers the illusion of being real to individuals.

Its the twilight zone of home audio, that which cannot be explained fully based on scientifically established or otherwise known facts, that helps keep things interesting in that one never knows exactly what one will encounter until one encounters it. And each case will be just enough different most likely to still matter.

Just remember that the twilight zone is a prime feeding ground for charlatans and other purveyors of (intentional) disinformation as well. None of those in this discussion though, I would say. Misinformation (unintentional) is more prevalent as well.

"ARC Ref 150 has muscle power and a large reserve power supply, plus my speakers are reasonably sensitive (92 db)"

That's a pretty solid combo on paper that should be capable of delivering the goods with the right tweaks.

No system is inherently good. Its what you do with it (the "smart" tweaks) that matter.

Autoformers cost more than many speakers themselves. That's a factor to consider in the equation that can't be ignored.

"And although I can't formulate a meaningful technical explanation, and I suspect that a good explanation would be a complex one involving a multitude of factors, my perception over the years has been that there is a tendency for those qualities to often be compromised in systems that are designed and assembled in a manner that results in flat frequency response being a leading priority. "

I'll offer up this wonderful resource again here to help with that.

Audio Chart

Factor in the ear sensitivity curves to help account for why flat may be technically correct but not sound best.

As the ear sensitivity chart at the link I referenced above shows, human hearing is far from flat over the 20-20kz frequency range normally associated with human hearing.

That means nothing that truly measures as flat will ever be heard as being flat. Far from it, in fact.

So technically flat or superior does NOT necessarily mean better sound that we hear as a result of being flat at the source.

So you can hear things that are flat as something otherwise or you might hear something that is not flat as being flat, or any shade of grey in between.

Fun stuff! I guess the wide range of things that might end up sounding good depending mostly on personal preference is what keeps Walmart from taking over the high end audio business.

I think I will go out on a limb and argue that the desirability of flat response at the source is a function of the variability of the music listened to. If its flat at the source, then a random sample that represents all music possible will overall sound better as a whole. If its not flat, results will be more biased towards certain types or patterns of music.

That's consistent with how I understand things and what I actually observe in practice in that I listen to and enjoy all kinds of music equally, though I know I could tweak things to sound better with certain kinds only if I wanted to.

I do that to some extent by running multiple systems in multiple rooms, each of which sound different, but my main (my reference) system in my main room is the one that I strive to perfect technically in the interest of best sound overall.

Sounds like one could create a technical reference quality system using the right tube amp with a particular set of ES speakers, but perhaps it will be more of a challenge to achieve reference quality in practice, as opposed to merely sounding really good.

The ear sensitivity chart shows why what measures as flat
response is not heard as flat response normally, It
illustrates why what measures as flat frequency response
may be perceived as bright.

A lot of mass produced SS gear feature things like filters,
loudness controls, and other tonal adjustments that don't
really work that well as a means of addressing this. Tube
amps in some cases may be better suited by their nature to
help compensate for how our ears hear.

Atmasphere always talks about how most amps do not address
how our ears actually work, which is a valid point. He
tends to focus on brightness from odd order harmonics due to
NF in particular, but I guess I'm suggesting there is more
to it perhaps than just that.

Es speakers are special and worth any special effort needed. Plus you have some good sidekicks here that can help to get them singing.

Wouldnt two ohm or less impedance at high frequency be much easier for a ss amp in particular to deal with than if it were low? Way less power needed for high frequencybthan low. Or is it more complicated than that?

Over sweet treble and midrange bloom..... Sounds enticing!

This thread has rekindled my interest in es speakers.

"They were a reference standard for me as I heard them in every area except microdynamics. "

Whoops, mean't to say macrodynamics there actually. Sorry. ES speakers I have heard tend to have microdynamics in spades.

I am over 50, and I know my ears like most older ears do not even hear much above 12khz or so like they used to when I was a young audio "stud".

So getting flat response that works becomes a lot easier with age. Roll off of highs with ES speakers may in fact be a non-issue for most of us old audio farts. WHose to say a lot of younger ears that listen to the same are sensitive enough for it to matter either.

"The requirement of the speaker is such that almost any amplifier driving it will have to have a fair amount of feedback to do so. This will cause the amp to be un-naturally bright. IMO this makes the speaker a poor choice as you will not be able to find an amplifier that will actually cause the combination to sound like real music."

B&Ws like those often tend to sound bright to me as well, but not always.

I'd compare those to my OHM Walsh speakers, which has impedance drop just below 3 ohm in teh mid bass region based on measures I have seen, but seldom ever sound naturally bright. There a single Walsh style driver does most of teh work up to 7khz or so. There is no driver efficiency mismatch issues to deal with in teh case of the OHM CLS driver. I suspect that might be part of the reason.

MY Bel Canto Class D amps use feedback as well. Brightness and/or fatigue is a non -issue.

I auditioned modern Quad ESLs prior to trying the OHMs. They were a reference standard for me as I heard them in every area except microdynamics. The OHM sound resembles that ES sound with the right amp + the macrodynamics one associated with a traditional dynamic driver.