Best new loudspeaker

yes i will assert that any electrostatic, within its frequency response bandwidth, will create the sound of an instrument, in a manner more realistic than any cone design.

we both realize that such an assertion requires evidence.
as i have stated in the past, an experiment would be needed to compare a live performance to a recording feeding a pair of speakers, or one could use a microphone feed without making a recording.

since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements.

such a test is not definitive, because it is possible that two listeners may differ in the outcome of such a comparison. do you have any ideas ?

if a spekaer reveals both musical and non musical information in a manner whcih is not realistic, then it is too revealing.

(sic)

Seems what you are describing here is something other than 'too revealing'; if it were me, I might describe that as a coloration.

It seems that there is a concession here that you have made in that you acknowledge that there is no best- only best for you. Yet in the post where you responded to me above, you said:

but does establish performance in that regard.

So I have a question. **IF** we establish performance 'in that regard' are you saying that that established performance is then a known entity that can be used as a yard stick? If yes, then can a series of 'established performance' qualities then add up to something?

Finally, why would you buy a Martin-Logan sound un-heard when you know that your CJ won't be able to drive it?? That would mean that you would be on the hunt for an amplifier (probably transistor, as ML is traditionally a very difficult load for all tube amps). Pardon my saying so, but it seems out of character for you. Am I missing something or did you not know about that quality of ML speakers?

yes i will assert that any electrostatic, WITHIN ITS FREQUENCY RESPONSE BANDWIDTH, will create the sound of an instrument, in a manner more realistic than any cone design.

(in the above quote the capitals were added for emphasis)

Hang on ....you are now adding a huge caveat to your previous categorical statement that almost any electrostat/ribbon/planel speaker will sound better timbrally than any of 1000 audiophile quality cone based speaker designs.

I don't think that any test would prove anything except you prefer by far the sound field from a large transducer surface over "point source" designs. To me this is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt....they inevitably sound different and excite the reverberant field in a fundamentally different way.

since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements. such a test is not definitive, because it is possible that two listeners may differ in the outcome of such a comparison. do you have any ideas ?

By calling your own arguments "probabilistic" and by adding a big caveat, you are actually undermining your own previously categorical position....but I don't really care about that....you are welcome to worship electrostats/panels/ribbons and I wish you well in this area and many years of listening pleasure, I don't doubt they sound much better to your ears/preferences and it would be ridiculous for me to insist you are wrong to like what you like.

I am simply trying to get you to recognize that the major difference between ALL cones and ALL Electrostats/ribbons/panels is the different sound field they create and the different room reverberant field that they excite; therefore what you are describing as "less inaccurate timbre" from any of your prefered designs is incorrect. To me there are good bad and terrible timbre speakers in all of these camps and a particularly lousy electrostat will certainly not sound "less timbrally inaccurate" then some of the best cone speakers (even though the sound field and reverberant field is bound to be different).

IMHO, if we wanted to explore the most accurate timbre then the discussion would inevitably involve headphones rather than speakers => this allows you to get rid of the effect of the room and work with very light weight transducers working in an extremely linear operating range that far exceeds what can be done with any speaker today. Unfortunately this means the sound appears to be in between one's ears and is therefore very far from a realistic presentation even if it can be the most accurate.

gentlemen:

let me try to clarify my positions.

there is no best anything. there is no best for me, either.

there is perception and preference. i make no assertion about quality or relative difference, except to say that i perceive the sound of an instrument when listening to it on a recording played through certain panel speakers as coming closer to the real thing. such an assertion does not imply that such panel speakers are better than cone designed speakers. it is important not to interpret my statements. just take them literally. as far as amplifiers and martin logan speakers it is presumptuous for you to say i can not adequately drive the martin logan speaker with a tube amp.
if i remember the laws of physics, if a speaker is rated say, 86 db, 1 watt, 1 meter, i should be able to drive it listening at a sound pressure of 80 db with a modestly powered tube amp provided my room is not to large and provided the amp can deal with a 2 ohm load at frequencies exceeding 10khz. i would not want to drive a martin logan with a ss amp or class d amp. i am confident that i can survive at lower listening levels with a 50 watt tube amp.

i have used a 4 watt tube amp on my 1.6s as well as a 30 watt amp, achieving spl of 85 db with the latter.

there are no standards and no criteria. a performance is at a point in time. there is no yardstick.

one listens and hears at a point in time, based upon a bunch of variables. i will not generalize , but rather report factually, my experiences. nothing less, nothing more. do not take them out of context. any criteria are personal and not universal.

it seems intuitive that drivers composed of different materials will sound different, e.g., silk vs titanium dome tweeters. i find it hard to believe that dispersion is the only variable accounting for differences in a speaker composed of cones as compared to a another speaker which has none of them. can you suggest a way of demonstrating this ? obviously when listening to two types of speakers there are at least two variables, namely, dispersion and drivers materials. there are others as well. for you to focus on one of them without adquate proof is entirely hypothetical.

i find it hard to believe that dispersion is the only variable accounting for differences in a speaker composed of cones as compared to a another speaker which has none of them. can you suggest a way of demonstrating this ?

It may be hard to believe but in the grand scheme of things when comparing 1000's of cones to all the panel/electrostats/ribbons out there then the radiation pattern is really what sticks out like a "sore thumb" as the one big difference overall.

Sure there are other differences and surely different transducer materials will make different spesakers sound different...but we are talking 1000's of speakers - so in general it is the raditaion pattern that is what remains markedly different.

I expect that Mirage or other omnidirectional or dipole speakers might be closest to the panel sound...although a large surface causes beaming in the forward direction (something cone speaker manufaturers try to avoid by using multiple sized cones for each frequency band) so perhaps horns (which can have a controlled directional sound) might be closer.

Perhaps Duke can suggest a speaker that you should try that will be closer to what you hear from panels - not that you may like it more ...but just to demonstrate that cones can be made to sound much more like large surface panels if configured in a certain way...