From: znpt01@trc.amoco.com (Norman P. Tracy)
Subject: Re: Planars and stuff...
Originator: znpt01@gpss43
Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:21:15 GMT


In article <1grcu8INN203@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, rkarlqu@scd.hp.com (Richard Karlquist) writes:
> Mike Sikorsky (sikorsky@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> : 
> : that I should go for a design that almost does this.  Well knowing the 'lack'
> : of low bass from planars, I readily accept that the rest of the audio
> : spectrum that they do reproduce readily can outperform even the most costly
> : box designs.  Why, then, would/should I pay countless dollars just to
> : reproduce a range of music (15-45 Hz) that is generally absent from most
> : recordings?
> 
> I am a big fan of planar speakers, but I disagree with your premise.  Most
> planar speakers do not have a small signal bandwidth down to 45 Hz. and
> none have a full power bandwidth down to that frequency.  
  ----- !!!!!!!!!!
Never say never (or none).  Try the bigger Maggies, Martin Logan's or Acoustats.
And one of the most valid critisms of the bigger Apogees is too much bottom
octive bass.  For the best of both worlds try the Carver's, line source
magnetic planar from 400 Hz on up and 3 or 4 ea. 12 inch bi-polar woofers
per channel to move some serious air in the bass regions.

> The cutoff is more
> like 200 Hz.  Also, their bass response is highly dependent on the room 
> acoustics (much more so that cone speakers) because the diaphragm is loaded
> acoustically whereas a cone is loaded mechanically by cone mass and the 
> enclosure.  Also, many planar speakers cannot reproduce really high SPL's
> even at 1 kHz.
> 
> I knew a guy with two pairs of KLH-9's driven by four 300 watt amplifiers 
> installed in a custom built audio room.  He had enough power to arc over
> the speakers.  They sounded great (but not loud).  However, the 
> average 3-way 12-inch cone.........

I hope everybody out there in rec.audio land knows Rick is using a 1960's 
design to make his point here.  Like the original Quad the KLH-9 is a
classic mid-range tranducer but hardly representive of 1990's materials
technology.  When I was using Acoustat IIs with 400+ watts per side it could
get plenty loud ("Is that my ears distorting or the system?") with nary an
arc in sight.
> 
> --
>        -------------------------------------------------
>        |  Rick Karlquist                               |
>        |  email:  rkarlqu@scd.hp.com                   |
>        |  landline:  (408)-553-2194                    |
>        |  radio:  N6RK                                 |
>        ------------------------------------------------

I guess I should confess to being on both sides of this issue.  I've gone
from the Acoustats (details-R-us) to B&W802II (bass into the 20's, dynamic,
image better than most plainers, & almost as clean) and now Stax ESL-81F (WOW
what a mid-range & imaging).  So make up your mind or you'll end up like me
lugging B&Ws and Staxs back and forth in the listening room to fit the music
and your mood.  Yes I am a lost cause, its called 'audionurvoso' and there is
no cure.  Treatment is expensive too.

Norman Tracy
znpt01@trc.amoco.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio