What is your opinion regarding electrostatics?

I think that E-stat's and horns have a LOT more in common than most people would imagine. They both have specific characteristics though and some of this is where they differ. Getting them to work properly together would be one heckuva good trick.

E-stat's are typically noted for their very fast rise and fall times, i.e. their "crispness" with a lack of ringing or overhang. At the same time, horns are also noted for being very dynamic, which is also somewhat a measure of speed (velocity). Both are limited in bandwidth, one due to lack of excursion capabilities ( e-stat's) whereas the other is due to lack of size (horn). One can get around this somewhat by using a very large array of e-stat's to move a lot of air or using a very large horn that can go lower. Both are inconvenient and eat up a lot of real estate, to say the least.

Obviously, reasonable quality horns are decidedly more efficient than ANY electrostat. Even though the Innersound Eros are now rated at 96 db's, which is EXTREMELY efficient for an e-stat, they will run into compression when played VERY loudly. On the other hand, "weak" horns are at least 96 - 98 db's with more common designs coming in closer to 102 - 104 db's. Some can even generate well in excess of 110 db's @ 1 watt / 1 meter. The reasons why horns are used in sound reinforcement becomes quite evident once you see figures like that. They simply generate more sound with a wider dispersion pattern, greater "throw" and do it using WAY, WAY less power.

Given the differences in efficiency and maximum "clean" volume level, e-stat's and planar's have typically been favorites for people that listen to "quiet music" such as vocal work, choirs, chamber music, light classical, mellow jazz, etc... One can understand this selection given their ability to seperate voices & instrumentation so well, along with adding a sense of "air" and spaciousness that few other designs offer. On the other hand, horns typically find themselves placed where volume and dynamics are more of a concern. Rock music, big band, etc... type of music that is typically more uptempo and "louder" seem to work well with horns. This is not to say that one type of speaker can't play the other types of music well, it's just that it may not be quite as well suited overall.

Another major difference between the two is in radiation pattern. E-stat's radiate both front and back while horns throw in one direction. This makes for VERY different room placement requirements if looking for optimum performance. Whereas e-stat's will have MAJOR problems with room cancellation and reinforcement from reflections, horns / direct radiators are not nearly as severely affected. Obviously, the room is being "loaded" by both types of speakers, it's just that one "pushes" the air in on direction whereas the e-stat (and planars) push in both directions evenly. The problem results because the back wave is out of phase ( the signal does not arrive at the same time ) with the front wave. There is NOTHING that can be done to correct this and keep sound coming out of both sides of the panel. As such, proper placement becomes VERY critical with e-stat's and planars. While we are simply trying to minimize the effect of the rear wave colliding with the front wave, various room configurations can make reflections and placement quite unpredictable in all but the best situations. As such, one should do a LOT of research before buying any type of "exotic" speaker as they just might not be suitable for your room or listening tastes.

Of the two, i find horns to be more versatile due to their efficiency, dynamics and less finichy placement. I am of course talking about GOOD horns and NOT the stuff typically found in most audio shops or mass merchandise sellers. I would venture to say that the majority of bias against horns ( they sound "bright, glaring, harsh, ring, hurt my ears", etc... ) is due to poor overall design. While some of this can be "lulled away" by using "soft sounding" components (ala tubes), the proper way to do things would be to use the correct flare rates for the horn body itself, pay attention to the materials used for the horn body, make sure that the horn is well damped and securely mounted, etc... as MOST of the annoying attributes of "horn sound" ARE coming from the body of the horn / horn throat. Taking some "generic" horns and simply mass loading / damping their bodies will demonstrate EXACTLY what i'm talking about.

So that one doesn't think that i'm "biased" against e-stat's and love horns, let me give you some background. I have one system with horns and am working on another with e-stat's (VERY slowly). I think that they both have their place IF properly designed and constructed. Once you hear a good version of both types, you won't hold a bias towards either. Sean
>

Thanks for the kind words folks. While i do appreciate the "roses" ( i'm much more of a gin & tonic or beer man though ), i'm learning just as much from you and your posts. As such, PLEASE continue to share your thoughts and experiences. I would HATE to think that my rambling has made someone feel that it was "unnecessary" for them to contribute to a thread. You just don't know how much that "little" comment that you didn't make might've helped someone else out, so PLEASE don't hesitate.

As to Duke's question about "full range Horn's", i don't know of any others besides the various Klipsch models. These should be considered a "starting point" at best with LOTS of room to move in terms of EASY improvements though. If i ever get my act together ( yeah, right...), i have another set of La Scala's to rebuild. I'll probably do these from the ground up, as they are REALLY beat. This would present me with the perfect platform to try out a lot of my newer "horn based" ideas.

As to Duke's comments about planars and conventional drivers loading bass into a room, my experience is that Planars have only ONE advantage. That advantage can only be used under VERY specific conditions. Otherwise, i find that their dispersion characteristics to be tougher to work with, typically resulting in blurred imaging and OVERTLY lean characteristics when things are less than optimum. These are MY thoughts and opinions though, so that means they are worth LESS than $0.02 : )

I think that we will all agree that LOW freq's are the most problematic area in the audible frequency range to properly reproduce in a reasonable sized room. The fact that LOW frequencies are omnidirectional doesn't help any either. This means that ALL speakers, regardless of their radiation pattern at higher freq's, face an equally tough task in this area. If anything, the fact that many planar speakers don't have a LOT of output below 100 Hz may help them out a bit in this respect.

The ONE way to overcome the "room loading" problem with a planar is to place it EXACTLY at the mid-point of the room. So long as the room is evenly "clustered" with furnishings, etc... the wavelengths and pressure to each side of the panel remain identical. The result is "even loading" with equal reflections. This minimizes the standing waves in the room and will result in the most natural bass response that those speakers are capable of in that room. This does NOT necessarily mean that you will like what you hear though.

While this approach MIGHT work with conventional dynamic woofers running back to back in a push-pull configuration (one wired in phase, the other out of phase), I have never tried it. I would ASSUME that the results would be similar to that of the planar while still retaining the characteristics of the dynamic driver. Whether this is good or bad would depend on your point of view.

If someone has an opposing ( or confirming ) point of view, PLEASE share it with us ( me in particular ). I'd love to compare notes and experiences and hopefully learn something along the way. Sean
>

Thanks for jumping in there Frank. You made the same point that i would about large panel's having "reasonable" (albeit very good quality in terms of being quick and tight) bass but nothing in the same league as an array of large dynamic pistons that are well tuned.

It takes both surface area and displacement to move a lot of air. Panels simply lack the excursion capabilities to do this unless you have a LOT of them. Having said that, i've never heard ANY panel type speaker ( planar, ribbon, e-stat, etc...) that could give you chest compression let alone sound clean attempting to do so.

As to the comments about low frequencies NOT being omni in some designs, that goes against all of my audio education. This is NOT to say that you are wrong ,it is impossible or that i know everything. I am surely just as "pea brained" as anybody else ( and maybe even moreso ) on a more than a few subjects. I'll have to do some digging and see what i can come up with using various resources.

While i will look into the examples that Duke was so kind enough to present, i dislike having to rely on someone trying to push their own product as the sole source of info on the subject. I hope that you can understand where i'm coming from on that one Duke. If anyone can come up with some "unbiased" sources of info, PLEASE post them so that we can all learn from them.

As to what the advantage of dipolar bass response was, i was trying to make clear that a standard "front loaded box" will ALWAYS have to deal with unequal pressure in the room. The dipole, when situated near mid room, will have relatively equal loading and pressure drops both fore and aft. In effect, this cancels a LOT of the loading effect of the room and can offer truly outstanding "clean" and "linear" bass reproduction. Kind of like having even weight on both sides of a well balanced "teeter-totter" (sp ???). Everything remains balanced so long as there is no outside interference. Sean
>

Please remember one thing guys ( and "gurls" ): I am basing my statements on personal experience and what i've been able to learn from other "reliable sources" over the years. As such, i have no first hand dealings with any of the Sound Labs or others mentioned here that supposedly go quite low with solid output. I have heard "big" Maggies on more than a few occasions and i would say that they are a 50 Hz speaker at reasonable listening levels.

Part of the problem with panel's is that bass extension is compromised as the volume is increased. Trying to achieve both ( once again ) requires excursion and surface area.

I think that this is one of the very reasons that MANY people shy away from panels or are normally considered for "low to medium" volume installations. Their lack of sustained SPL capability and bottom octave performance become quite obvious after just a bit of listening. While it is possible to achieve those goals with the better designs ( according to what you folks are saying ), it obviously costs quite a bit more than what many folks feel comfortable paying.

Don't get me wrong as i DO like panels. Like i said earlier, my "big" system will consist of stat's on top ( and maybe mids too ) when i finally get it done.

In response to Detlof, you're just a "one of a kind". Believe me, i mean that in the most sincere and fun way. How many other people do you know that would go to the lengths that you have in terms of being in "planar & plasma heaven" ??? Definetly an "audio nut" and maybe even just a "nut" : ) I would REALLY like to hear and see "Frankenstein".

As to Duke's comments, i don't think that you have ANYTHING to worry about in terms of being a "product pusher" or a "name dropper". You've always made your situation VERY clear while offering a solid take on the situation and doing it in nothing less than gentlemanly fashion. If you don't know Albert, you two should hook up and "tip a few". Birds of a feather : )

My comments about finding "unbiased" sources of info were not aimed at you or any specific manufacturers, i simply meant what i said in general terms.

Like Tubegroover said, this thread has been both enlightening AND great fun. Let's try and make 'em all like that : ) Sean
>

Sorry i left you hanging on some questions / statements folks. As to why i'm opting for e-stat's for the tweeters, let's just say i ran across a great deal on a good quantity of small electrostatic tweeter panels made by RTR. While i think that they will work well enough, i can always throw something in their place if need be. I have always wanted to "play around with" some plasma tweeters though and have a very good source for some Ionovac's that are still sealed in their original boxes.

As to mid's and upper bass, i will probably use some large e-stat panels. Possibly something equivalent or similar to stacked Quads. I'm working on that situation now.

I have NO idea what i'm going to do for subs at this point in time. One thing is for sure though, they will be sealed or transmission lines and make use of multiple drivers.

I recently stumbled across ( quite literally ) some very unique RTR subs that were supposedly quite fast and musical in their day, but they are in need of MAJOR work.

I've got the amps that i intend to use along with the preamp and electronic crossover. I'll be tri-amping with mono-blocks, so it should be pretty interesting when all is said and done. Regardless of what i use for speakers or raw drivers, i will have enough power on hand to drive whatever i want. I am a BIG fan of "horsepower" so long as it is "clean". I just have to work on all of the rest of the details now and find some place to put it when it's all done : ) Sean
>