Subs for electrostatics

[Florian]

If I was only into chamber music and other lighter types of music the Model 2's would be more than sufficient. I just need some "kick butt" bass in regular doses.

I hear you ;-) Not all panels can do great low bass, to be honest there are only a handfull. My friends Acoustat 1+1's are dynamically very limited and a sub would not be a bad thing. But we are purists, and we can hear the subs sticking out so its a no no :-) But then again its none of my beer anyways and my sub 20Hz panel bass is Okidokey by me ;-)

[JoeE SP9]

Alright, Florian and E-Stat I hope you realize what you've done. I am at this moment trying to do two things. Find a buyer for my Model 2 SW's and find a good pair of 2+2's. My real problem is what do to with the two folded tube transmission line subs I just built. They are 66" tall and 24" in diameter. Their look is rather agricultural so they would never be seen in Architectural Digest. Oh well, they really didn't cost that much. Only the woofers are costly. Concrete construction formers are not that expensive. I guess I'll hold on to them until I find out what kind of bass response I get with the 2+2's. My previous experience with the Model 3's leads me to believe that I should get bass response that is flat to around 25Hz. I consider that to be sufficient.

[E-Stat]

The reason I ask is that I'm finally getting around to repairing my old Magnepan III's, and I was toying with the idea of using them as "bass re-enforcement" panels.

I remember hearing T-IIIs back in '75 or so. Very impressive. Naturally, I would be biased (pun intended) to hear U-1s with matching UB-1s.

Lot's o' Sound Labs

Click photo link.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

The reason I ask is that I'm finally getting around to repairing my old Magnepan III's, and I was toying with the idea of using them as "bass re-enforcement" panels.

I have always loved the tympani series. I once got a chance to hear a set with all of the panels including the bass panels. Bass to die for!

[jtgofish]

The reason I ask is that I'm finally getting around to repairing my old Magnepan III's, and I was toying with the idea of using them as "bass re-enforcement" panels.

I was hoping to get some discussion started on what sort of drivers work best with electroststics.This has not really happened.I suspect that the typical sub drivers which feature 10 or 12 inch cones and long excursion heavy rubber surrounds are not right.The RCF uses a very stiff suspension with small excursion and cloth surrounds which makes for a much faster and detailed sound.Although this also means less low bass,this is compensated for by the larger cone area .
I think it is a topic wothy of further exploration.

JT

[Geoffcin]

I was hoping to get some discussion started on what sort of drivers work best with electroststics.This has not really happened.I suspect that the typical sub drivers which feature 10 or 12 inch cones and long excursion heavy rubber surrounds are not right.The RCF uses a very stiff suspension with small excursion and cloth surrounds which makes for a much faster and detailed sound.Although this also means less low bass,this is compensated for by the larger cone area .
I think it is a topic wothy of further exploration.

JT

With a larger sub, you have a lower max-x for the same volume. This translates into a faster responce time. Paradoxically larger is faster in this case. Also with a servo controlled sub you have vanishingly low distortion. The newer servo subs are even better at this than mine, with lighter accelerometers and higher sampling rates. Paradigm also makes a high quality servo sub. I think either of these would be a great match for an electrostatic for the person who wants bass re-enforcement.

[armyscout42]

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIMENTATION IS WHAT I SEE AS THE PROBLEM OF THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY CANNOT USE SUBWOOFERS WITH ELECTROSTATS OR PLANARS. That is utterly nonsense. BOOMY they say? Well conventional dynamic loudspeakers are often boomy if you have improper equalization and room acoustics etc.

I suggest if you encounter boominess with an electrostat/subwoofer combo is to invest on some dakiom feedback stabilizers which will help clean up your system into a tighter and cleaner bass along with highs, mids etc.
You can also add on some wonderful dj, commercial and professional soundprocessors used for various applications including subs that most audio enthusiasts and even audiophiles do not seem to know...
go to www.123dj.com or dakmart for example and get yourself some aphex 204 aurel exciter w/big bottom, or peavey kosmos (hollywood studios use them for THX), BBE sonic maximizer with subharmonic controls such as 362sw.....

I highly recommend any of these, since I own them all! I am a sound processor/loudspeaker junkie and veteran....TWEAKING is my FORTE! 27yrs in the audio world... I will never go without TWEAKS, EVER regarding audio!

[squeegy200]

I currently have the maganplanar SMGs which are ideal for my small listening space.

In my attempts to integrate a subwoofer with the planars, I've found that subwoofer placement in the listening space is most critical. I don't know if there is any theory to substantiate my findings, but I found that the subwoofer cannot be placed anywhere near the planars at the front of the listening space. The presence of the primary sound energy from the front and its 180 counterpart from the rear of the panel will conflict with the sound energy from subwoofer resulting in muddy bass or offsetting cancellation. (It makes me curious to experiment with some of the dipole Subwoofer designs I've found in many discussions-but that is another topic)

But I found my most successful attempt at integrating a subwoofer has been placement behind my listening position at very low volume levels. It does not seem to collide with any of the cancellation nodes and I cannot perceive any out of phase sound pressure from my listening position. With the volume low, it still fills the lower reaches where my SMGs are weak but I do not perceive its presence nearby. It sounds as if all of the sound energy is eminating from the magnaplanar panels up front.

I don't understand it but if anyone can explain it, I would appreciate the education. It does seem to work.

[E-Stat]

(It makes me curious to experiment with some of the dipole Subwoofer designs I've found in many discussions-but that is another topic)

I think you and I are on the same page. It's not about boominess or anything that a black box can correct. I was never happy attempting to blend a pair of direct radiator subs with my last pair of bipolar electrostats. A concert drum never sounded "right".

I moved them to the HT system where they work well with a pair of Polk monitors. If I win the lottery, however, I'll buy a pair of Sound Labs UB-1 subs to match my speakers.



rw

[squeegy200]

....If I win the lottery, however, I'll buy a pair of Sound Labs UB-1 subs to match my speakers. ....

rw

Holy Cow! Those look awesome!

[bubslewis]

I currently have the maganplanar SMGs which are ideal for my small listening space.

In my attempts to integrate a subwoofer with the planars, I've found that subwoofer placement in the listening space is most critical. I don't know if there is any theory to substantiate my findings, but I found that the subwoofer cannot be placed anywhere near the planars at the front of the listening space. The presence of the primary sound energy from the front and its 180 counterpart from the rear of the panel will conflict with the sound energy from subwoofer resulting in muddy bass or offsetting cancellation. (It makes me curious to experiment with some of the dipole Subwoofer designs I've found in many discussions-but that is another topic)

But I found my most successful attempt at integrating a subwoofer has been placement behind my listening position at very low volume levels. It does not seem to collide with any of the cancellation nodes and I cannot perceive any out of phase sound pressure from my listening position. With the volume low, it still fills the lower reaches where my SMGs are weak but I do not perceive its presence nearby. It sounds as if all of the sound energy is eminating from the magnaplanar panels up front.

I don't understand it but if anyone can explain it, I would appreciate the education. It does seem to work.

Interesting. I just purchased a pair of Magnepan 1.6's. Will not receive them for a week or so. I auditioned them without a sub and the bass output seemed sufficient (I like balanced bass but am definitely not a bass freak).

I currently have a modest 100 watt subwoofer. I'm not sure if I'll need it with the 1.6's, but I'm certainly going to test it out when the maggies get here. Is there an ideal position that a subwoofer should be placed in? It sounds like there are sub positions that should definitely NOT be used when teamed up with magnaplanars.

I'll certainly see how things sound by putting the sub behind the listening area or out beyond the side surrounds.

tx,
Bill

[JoeE SP9]

The problem with subwoofers and planar speaker does not have anything to do with boomy response. The different radiation patterns create a very slight discontinuity where the sound is crossed over to the subwoofer(s). You will only be able to hear this if you listen to some panels with a very good low and and the same panels augmented with a subwoofer. There is not a difference in the quantity of bass or the extension. There is a difference in the integration of the bass. With the sub(s) the bass does not seem to come from the same place. Without the sub(s) there is a seamless coherency that no other speakers seem to have.
If there is a boomy sound from a panel sub combination it is almost always caused by either too high a crossover frequency, too high a level on the sub(s) or both.