Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Electrostat Speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Electrostat Speakers

post #1 of 107
Thread Starter 

Hi there!

 

http://www.audiostatic.com/index.html

 

Whats the deal with the above speakers? Good? bad? I don't really know much about the electro stat stuff, just heard a bit that its very very good.. basically looking for some educated thoughts !

 

post #2 of 107

Haven't heard them myself but my dealer likes them (he doesn't sell them but he's mentioned them a few times). 

 

If you want to look at Electrostats take a look at Quads, too.

post #3 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post

If you want to look at Electrostats take a look at Quads, too.

 

And Martin Logans as well.

post #4 of 107

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sridhar3 View Post

 

And Martin Logans as well.

 

If I ever get around to changing my speakers, a pair of Marin Logan hybrids are at the top of my list.

post #5 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

If I ever get around to changing my speakers, a pair of Marin Logan hybrids are at the top of my list.

 

Same here.  Someday, when I have the money and the room for them.

post #6 of 107

IMO, unless you go for the top of the line ML, Quads sound better.  

 

I very much prefer full range electrostatic speakers to hybrids.

 

Wachara C.

post #7 of 107

Agreed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinsettawong View Post

IMO, unless you go for the top of the line ML, Quads sound better.  

 

I very much prefer full range electrostatic speakers to hybrids.

 

Wachara C.

 

 

 

post #8 of 107

Yup, stay away from the ML's.  They are pretty much the joke of the electrostatic world

post #9 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

They are pretty much the joke of the electrostatic world

 

Why?

post #10 of 107

I'm probably about to procure some Quads!  Will post if/when it happens (wife didn't like the idea of Maggie 20's, but I think after that shock proposal, anything else looks small and acceptable cool.gif)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sridhar3 View Post

 

Why?

 

because they're all marketing fluff, and now design speakers for looks rather than sound.  besides the noted disjointedness between the panel and the woofer, they also don't even bother designing the woofer section properly, instead making liberal use of DSP in order to allow for smaller and smaller boxes.

post #11 of 107

God I want some Quads...and 20s for that matter. :D

post #12 of 107

Which Quads Doug?  You have good taste wink_face.gif

post #13 of 107

2805s, if all goes to plan

post #14 of 107

ML's are relatively bad as has been noted. Newer Quads aren't as good as the 57's or 63's. Listen to a pair if you're curious why. Quad 57's are really outstanding but not for everyone (meatheads may not approve). 63's are good and some prefer them though they lack a bit of the dimensionality and richness of the 57's. They play louder and are more extended. They also implement the most advanced/coolest crossover ever devised. Not as listenable in my opinion. There are potentially better/different electrostatics besides the Quads (Apogees [less detailed, more extended], Staxs [more detailed, zero bass, perhaps the hardest speaker to drive ever], Soundlabs [great but maybe a little incoherent, out does the quad in certain aspects], a few other notable ones I'm forgetting, and then there's the KLH 9's, the Sony SS-R10 and the Beveridge Model 1 and 2). I too scoff at hybrid designs like Acoustats (and ML's) for reasons noted above. If wanting to go that route, a transmission line sub would be the best bet (or massive woofers eg. HQD).

 

The only (somewhat attainable) speakers I'm really into are Quads, Staxs and ERAudio/diy electrostats. Some don't like the sound of electrostats as they don't play loud. The next closest thing in the detail dept are horn speakers (coaxials being the best though expensive to produce) which achieve some of the detail of electrostats and can play louder (the loudest of any variety of speaker). They also throw a better more coherent soundstage and have a larger sweet spot. The only ones that are remotely comparable to electostats however are either massive to achieve high sensitivity (custom made/old western electric horns for instance) or very expensive due to difficult, toxic, scarcity of resources costs needed to produce beryllium diaphragms. They're not as refined as great ES speakers though. Unity horns, Gedlee designs, and other diyish innovations are of interest though at the end of the day the drivers used simply aren't physically capable of the level of detail that an electrostatic driver is capable of reproducing.

 

Regarding the bass issue with electrostats, the distance of the stator gap (as well as the diaphragm thickness and the conductivity of the coating material and quality of crossover if present and so on), determines how detailed/how loud (without noticeable distortion) the diaphragm can operate. Martin Logan designs for instance, tend to implement a larger stator gap to achieve greater dynamic performance (thus in theory appealing to a larger consumer body) yet this comes at the cost of detail. A couple new designs use a staggered system where the bass transducers feature a larger gap and the mid/treble transducer feature smaller gaps. This enables more dynamic and extended bass performance (and better than that achieved by any traditional driver). 

 

 

 

 


Edited by milezone - 4/19/12 at 11:59pm
post #15 of 107

I found the 988/989s to suffer a bit sonically, but I prefer the 2805/2905s sound to the 63s.  To each his own, I suppose :D 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Electrostat Speakers