Innersound Speakers

Clearly, I have my version of what happened, and you have yours, "trelja, you are partially correct and partially incorrect about the facts of the situation."

"within 30 seconds i heard cymbal, kick drum , acoustic bass and electric guitar. i heard the difference between cone and panel. it doesn't take long. my mode of audition in general, even in my own system is short listening of familiar music."

As stated above, my recollection is that it was 1 second, not 30, which I laid out in my feelings regarding your prejudice.

"i am looking for a speaker now. what reason would i have to come into a room, if i assumed i would hear a difference, before i actually heard it ? i wouldn't have listened if i already decided that hybrids were of no interest to me."

Again, prejudice. I believe your goal was not to listen to the product Roger believes in, but to have someone who has demonstrated the mastery of electrostatic loudspeaker buildingsince the 1960s make you something you feel is better than what he builds - see my comments on teaching the teacher.

"trelja, would you be willing to make a wager, if i were blindfolded, to test my hearing, if you believe i didn't detect the difference between cone and panel ?"

See my comments on whether or not you are able to hear the difference. But, to answer your question more directly, even if I felt you could not, my first rule in life is that when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

"i then discussed with him my interest in a full range electrostatic speaker and specified that i don't listen loud, no more than 85 db and wanted to achieve bass reponse extending to the about 35 khz. he replied that he would have to double the width of the panel, double the height and include a dsp. we discussed the affect of including the dsp in the signal path upon the performance of the speaker and i expressed my concern that it would add distortion and he asserted that i wouldn't hear the dsp even though it was in the signal path. i was not convinced, nor did i want to take a chance for $10,000 to have him build it, without obviously listening to it."

As I have tried to say, the man gave you what he felt is an accurate assessment of the situation in terms of how to give you what you are asking of him - in the most professional and generous manner, I may add. And, again, via you not accepting that, you feel you feel you know more than he does.

You are also incorrect in that is NOT what happened next, as you left out what ensued previous to that which was what I described in my recount of Roger asking you about what your three requirements were. You continue to leave it out, as you need to include how much power you will provide via your amplification. I go back to your inability to answer his question.

As for you not wanting to take a chance for $10K, would you expect someone to go against everything they believe in to produce a one off component for someone who walks into your room and flat out tells you that your life work is invalid in their estimation, that they know how to do what you do better than you even if they have never done it before, and they can have you build a product for them that surpasses what you have spent 40 years working towards even if you disagree with it without having them pay for your efforts? Considering that he sells the loudspeakers that he puts his own name on for $13K, I'd say he offered you the most generous terms imaginable. You expect not to have to compensate him should you somehow decide that what you designed didn't end up as superior as you figured it would be?

"the panel on the innnersound speaker is fine. i enjoy listening to it. i would like to hear a full range version of it without having to pay for it in advance."

It sounds like you should get to work on building yourself a pair.

he trelja:

you are entitled to your opinion as to what occurred during my visit to the st tropez to listen to roger sanders latest creation.

we have disagreements as to what happened. however i question some of your hypotheses.

you have no evidence of any prejudice. i did not go into the room expecting someone to suggest the feasibility of building another speaker to satisfy my objectives. you have no way of knowing what is going on in my mind. however, in fairness to you, you said "believe". i strongly disagree with your beliefs. however, you are entitled to them.

by the way, why have you chosen to act as roger sander's defender/lawyer ? i'm sure he is speaking for himself.

my not accepting his proposal has nothing to do with knowledge--his or mine. i never claimed to have any knowledge. i just objected to paying for a speaker in the amount of $10,000, without auditioning it first.
by the way, i don't recall being asked about the amplifier i would be using to power a speaker. i would have provided that information. i own several tube amps. i aam aware of the capabilities of each. why would i refuse to answer such a quuestion ? it makes no sense?

either he did not answer the question, which is likely , or i answered it and you did not hear the answer.

i did not invalidate roger's creation. i said i can hear two drivers, cone and panel. i did not indicate any expertise at speaker building. you have misrepresented what i said and did not say.

i would not expect someone to build a speaker without paying for it, which is why i declined his proposal, because it wasn't a production speaker which i could audition prior to purchase.

the fact that i expressed a preference for a full range electrostatic speaker did not automatically imply that he he had to offer to build one. our conversation could have focused on his hybrid speaker. i did not ask him to build a speaker.

you also left out our brief discussion of the quad 57s.

by the way, it sounds like you are not convinced that i did not hear the difference between panel and cone. your allusions to dogs and fleas does not negate what i heard.

finally, martin logan will be producing a full range electrostatic speaker, then clx, later this year, and i am considering stacked quads unlimited quad 57s.

Since I made an on-topic comment, here is an off-topic comment.

In response to one very minor issue above, the dsp, it seems that graphic equalizers are coming back. The way to do it, however, is not necessarily associated with the speaker, but in your DAC. There are people who are really into that aspect that could explain more, but basically there is a new device, a sort of digital preamp/dac/digital graphic equilizer. These are very sophisticated and come with usb to your computer and you use your computer to equalize it and there are 200+ pg instruction manuals as to how to measure and adjust it for just your room. Apparently, if you get one of these and pay a lot lot of money for it, the eq doesn't hurt the sound.

Not my piece of cake, I've got a tube pre that I love, but in these increasingly digital days, I can see it as a valid path to good sound quality.

Note that a Von Schweikert dealer I spoke to in regard to room adjustments (the larger VSs can be adjusted for the room) actually said he preferred people not be able to do that. He said he spends hours and hours setting them up properly, and then a year later goes back and invariably they are worse. If not the purchasers, often their kids, get in there and muck with all the settings and in both cases don't know what they are doing. Anyway, just an idea that if we buy speakers for the 'average' home then overall better sound might be had than people mucking around changing everything. Just an idea - as for me - I love mucking with things!

Going back to the original question, I came darn close to getting some Isis mkIII speakers. I auditioned them for several hours, and decided that off axis they did not loose that sense of live music being played in a realistic manner (which is the main thing?), but they did loose a lot of high treble. And of course imaging, but that is exactly the same with all speakers. The treble loss as you move away was more than with other speakers. In their sweet spot, as others have said, they are as good as speakers get as far as I've heard.

Mrtennis, your points are becoming less and less relevant. It seems instead of simply seeing a situation for what it truly is, and learning something from that experience, you soldier on, perhaps believing through the music of chance, you will come across as more insightful than you have previously.

Over the brief time I have known Roger Sanders, he has proven to me incredible knowledge, real world ability, and the highest degree of character.

Roger does not engage in these forums. However, you do. And, you have incessantly used this website to disparage his loudspeakers many, many times since CES2008. I believe his position is worth defending against that, and I will do so.

Your position, which you have laid out here time and again is that a single electrostatic panel is a superior loudspeaker than the one he produces. You ARE invalidating his creation, which is a direct reflection of his life's work. By refusing to accept the positions of someone with the resume he posssesses, and offering up counterarguments you defend so strongly in feeling your way is clearly the better one, your statement, "i never claimed to have any knowledge." puts you in an untenable position.

"you also left out our brief discussion of the quad 57s."

Again, if you go back to my initial post, which I keep pointing back towards, I made the statement that other things were discussed, but I didn't want to make an already too long thread even longer. I had made my point.

Is there really a need to recite chapter and verse of the entire surreal encounter? I believe it would have benefitted everyone had Arnie filmed Roger a second time for play on Audiogon, this one being your visit to his room.

Nevertheless, I can surely recount your Quad ESL57, a speaker which I hold in high regard. You quoted the modifier's claims of what they were capable of, and Roger's exact response was, "I'll simply answer you this way, he's lying to you." I'm not sure what that lends to your position, other than perhaps trying to call my memory into question. In a logical sense, it again displays the technical and real world knowledge Roger possesses when it comes to the field of electrostatic loudspeakers.

"finally, martin logan will be producing a full range electrostatic speaker, then clx, later this year, and i am considering stacked quads unlimited quad 57s."

Once again, I return to my first post. There is no perfect loudspeaker. Roger has designed his speakers in the way he feels will present the best sound possible, ready and willing to discuss the weakpoints of his own design with anyone who cares to listen to him. He is also more than capable of talking about the weakpoints of the products you mentioned (or any loudspeaker for that matter), and why he has chosen a different path. I hope you do not believe these other designs will not be without flaws. At the end of the day, the question which every audiophile faces when it comes to loudspeakers is whether or not they can live with the flaws the product they are interested in possesses.

One thing I neglected to discuss previously, DSP. A bit of looking into the Fletcher-Munson curve in the light of what your requirments are will save you a lot of disappointment and wrong decisions down the road.