The Hub: Acoustat X: 'stats with tubes!


While some companies ease their way into the public eye, others leap out with a big, bold statement product. Think of the Wilson WAMM, the Avantgarde Trio. In their less extroverted way, the Acoustat X (seen here) was no less audacious. The level of technological density rivals a late-model S-class Benz, only less prone to failure.

Last time out, I mentioned a visit to Frank Van Alstine's basement showroom, 'way back in 1978. Along with the Connoisseur turntable directly connected to earth ("earth", as in DIRT: the 'table was on a column Frank had constructed, anchored right through the floor to the cold, cold Minnesota soil), there were Acoustat Xs. I think Frank had tweaked the amps, just as he had tweaked everything else. I don't recall any details other than Frank's comment, "they (the Acoustats) make everything else sound like they're broken."

And so they did. Even at that point in my young life I was no stranger to 'stats, having heard QUADs, KLH 9s, the boxy, almost-forgotten Koss, hybrids from Infinity, ESS, JansZen and RTR, and an oldie which resembles our subject, even in name: the Acoustech X. As the audio village is a very small one indeed, it's not surprising how much inbreeding there was in that group: the KLH 9, Acoustech X and the Koss Model One were the work of Arthur Janszen, and the RTR elements were a descendant of the Janszen add-ons. More detailed history of the ESL can be read here, courtesy of MartinLogan.

But I digress, as always. Those Acoustats in Frank's basement were punchier and less-fragile-sounding than any of those other 'stats I'd heard. Their drive and dynamism were reminiscent of big Altecs or JBLs, with greater resolution and less coloration. How'd they DO that?

Electrostatic speakers are by nature high-impedance devices. There are basically two ways to drive them: either have a step-down transformer so that conventional amplifiers can drive them (assuming said amps can handle a capacitive load of widely-varying impedance), or directly-drive the elements with a high-voltage amp. QUADs, KLH 9s, the Koss, and most modern electrostats follow the former path, while both the Acoustech and the Acoustat followed the latter (as did Harold Beveridge's speakers, with amps designed by Roger Modjeski).

Jim Strickland, President of Acoustat, worked for "Jeep" Harned, the founder of MCI, the well-known producer of recording and mixing consoles and pro tape transports. Strickland handled the design of the tape-tension and logic systems, developed the first autolocator system for pro consoles, and wrote a few papers on tape-transport issues, which were published by the AES. Strickland and Harned developed an electrostatic speaker (named after Harned), which was reviewed in the Summer, 1966, Stereophile. Oddly, the speaker was a two-way which included a built-in amp for the treble panels, but had a matching transformer for the bass, so separate amps had to be used.

The Harned electrostat foreshadowed the ski-slope design of the Acoustat X, but the X refined the earlier design and improved it in every parameter. In the Stereophile review of the Harned, JGH had noted a phasey, unreal quality to the sound, and a rolled-off high end. Neither criticism was ever made of the Acoustat X.

Strickland brought elements of his tape-handling experience to the X, and subsequent Acoustats: the diaphragm was formed of a special Mylar utilized by Ampex in the production of recording tape, and the method used for applying conductive graphite was derived from methods of oxide-application. Each electrostatic-element panel was constructed of a plastic grid (which looked suspiciously like the diffuser element of a commercial fluorescent light fixture), rather than the perforated metal commonly used; this, coupled with a glued-wire element, produced a panel claimed to be indestructible. You can see the production process at this link.

The X used three full-range panels arrayed in an arc to minimize the beaming characteristic of most 'stats. The panels were driven by a hybrid solid-state/tube amps, designated "Servo-Charge", and if the 300 or 400 volts commonly found in tube amps makes you nervous, you probably don't want to hear about the 5000 volts found in sections of the X's amps.

A few minutes spent Googling the X (sounds like a SoCal NoWave band from 1987, no?) will show that a cottage industry has been built around maintaining, restoring and tweaking them. You can find ex-Acoustat guys who can do pretty much whatever you want with Acoustat Xs; the panels do indeed tend to be indestructible, but the amps will probably require maintenance, as any 30-year-old amp probably will. Ironically, later transformer-coupled models of Acoustats can be fried: not the panels, but the transformers!

Acoustat went on to build a wide range of 'stats, and some excellent and innovative amps. As most know, the company was bought by Hafler, and merged into the Hafler/Rockford-Fosgate family. In the US the brand disappeared in the early '90's, and was moved to Italy. More recently the brand reappeared in China, complete with vintage logo, and still appears to build electrostatic speakers. We may not have seen the end of this brand yet.
audiogon_bill
Nice thread.... But not my experience.

I owned the first and probably last new pair of Acoustats in Alaska when they first came out. Shimiks Audio in Ancorage was a great place for audiophiles to meet and listen to the current crop of Hi End. We considered the X to be somewhat of a love/hate speaker. The main issue was the listening window. They were just fine if you had a head the size of a grapefruit and duck taped yourself into position. Nirvana was reached. I bought them for a song, took them home and ripped the cabinets off of them and screwed a set of nicely finished handrails on each side of each speaker. Problem cured, to a point. They still had some nagging high freq. problems that made me let them go bye-bye. It was back to the LS3/5a again for a while... Can't remember what came next. One thing that I am sure of, the X isn't worthy of all the hype and placating that I have been reading. The cheap cabinet was the the real Achilles Heel. Rip it off and throw it away and the speaker wasn't too bad... Leave it on and all you have is "half" a Stat. IMHO no other speaker has been more deserving of a hammer and some home brew mods.
Everyone has speaker preferences,that's why so many are for sale.Nobody buys a speaker they hate.
They buy it, live with it long enough to either appreciate it's strengths and ignore the weaknesses or move on to the next speaker and start the love/hate relationship all over again.

Understandable, I and my friend have gone thru 40 years and hundreds of speakers,mostly cones for my friend, mostly stats for me.

Neither of us has found the perfect speaker in either a stat or a cone.

But for me I would rather live with all the good things that the X does,which for me ,far exceede any of it's weaknesses, which in the old days was mostly the fault of poor quality of the gear driving it.We have advanced a lot.

Every improvement that I've made in front end electronics,either vinyl or digital is very easy to hear.The X is very resolving,not a euphonic smeared rendition of how someone wants their music to sound.The X tells it like it is.Most stats do, that's why I like them.
But I did have to sweat the details that a lot of audiophile/music lovers fail to think are worth the effort, to get them to this state of sound.

Dedicated lines,20 amps to each speaker direct from the panel,upgraded HiFI supreme fuses,upgraded top of the heap IEC, plugs and RCA's from Furutech and some mods to old cheap original Acoustat parts have transformed this speaker.

It is no where close to what they would have sounded back in the day they were made, and especially with most of the gear that people put in front of them back in the mid 70's.

I have compared my sound to a couple of systems that just the pre amp alone,costs more than the sum of all my components, and that pre isn't the most expensive piece of that system.

Yet, the way the Acoustats mesh with their own power amps, and no crossover(which is a big plus) and the large open window(yes there is an ideal sweet spot, but I do most of my listening in it)energizes the whole room with music.
I had the LS3/5A back in the day, they cost me $400.00 new,and we used to compare them to the X's back in the day.
For a fifth of the price they were a very nice speaker back then.

Now used Rogers sell for $2000.00 and upwards, plus you need to spend money for a good power amp, and speaker wires.So the tables have turned.

Even if both share a similar sound, you now have to spend more money to better the sound of an Acoustst X in top shape.

Personally, I like the style of the X but I did beef up the cabinet's walls and made them more inert and weighed them down.

I get sound out and beyond the sides of those walls, if it's on the recording,so I don't think I'm suffering much by using the old/modded enclosure.

And as I said, my speakers are for personal(me) listening, so that sweet spot is just for me.

If I have to I can share the sweet spot on occassion, and yes,off to either side of the sweet spot it is less of an experience, but if you increase the distance by moving the sofa back a few feet, it also widens the sweet spot for a couple more listeners,but still in the centre is the best seat in the house.

I had the 3 panel non X models back in the mid 80's and used the Premier series from Conrad Johnson to drive them.
The sound was decent, but not as coherent as with the captive servo amps.Again, the non powered panels were the same, but they were highly coloured by the transformer interface, amp and speaker wire of the day.

My friend still listens happily to this day to his AcoustatX speakers(modded and with an AtmaSphere MP3 tube pre/phono(his X amps have XLR connectors but aren't really balanced)that he bought new in 1976.
He paid around $1500.00 for them, about what I paid for my Acoustats used a couple of years ago.I did invest in some new upgraded parts, but I'm happy I did.
Compared to how much old Rogers 5A have appreciated,used working X's are now the bargain.

As stated I would have to spend at least 5 to 6 grand to get a nice pair of Ls3/5A with a nice tube amp and speaker wires, so I think I am ahead of the game.

If I would have followed my friend's advice back in 86, and bought a pair of used X's then, I would be way ahead of the game.

I wouldn't have gone round the merry go round of one love/hate releationship after the other.
I still have mine. I did have some updates like the fuses were replaced with magnetic hydraulic circuit breakers and the sleep circuit was replaced switches. Oh and I added tube risers as the pc board was showing signs of heat and replaced the rca inputs with nice new ones!

Still enjoying them in 2021!

JD
I had a pair of Acoustat IIIs, then sold them and bought a pair of Acoustat IVs. Great sounding speakers. I was driving them with an ARC Classic 60, which was nowhere near the power required by the Acoustats.

One night, a friend brought over two of Van Alstine’s most powerful solid-state amps, along with a Van Alstine bridging device. We must have had 800-1000 wpc going through those speakers. I had a big listening room at the time ... and I have to say, those Acostats played BIG !!! They filled up the entire room. It was like having a giant pair of electrostatic headphones on. That was one of the most fun listening sessions I’ve ever had in the hobby. I’d love to have those speakers back. But the ones I have now move a lot more air, have better bass and better highs. The midrange is about on par.

It just occurred to me ... I wonder what the Acoustats would sound like with the house and system all tricked out with the PPT products?? Awesome, I bet.
Frank
I have Acoustat Spectra 33's and when in use, I use VTL 450MKII tube amps to power them. I purchased them new in 1988.  My daily use speakers are B&W 801S3.