3 ms·
Electrostatic speakers seem like a great idea. Just like condenser microphones can give better recordings (although it matters less with microphones as the diap
by dan-robertson 8y ago
Electrostatic speakers seem like a great idea. Just like condenser microphones can give better recordings (although it matters less with microphones as the diaphragm is smaller).
Unfortunately they can be sensitive to the environment (pressure, humidity etc), and require moving parts close together with a large difference in potential between them, leading to a risk of short-circuiting, sparking, or catching fire, and requiring much more technical expertise for maintenance.
Nevertheless they are reasonably commonly used for headphones in studios (where there is mains power which is necessary). I think electrostatic loudspeakers (requiring much more power than headphones) are very uncommon in homes (although I suppose loudspeakers in general aren’t super common). Quad still make electrostatic speakers as do other companies.
I wonder if this sort of speaker is used much in more commercial settings
- jeroen 8y agoNot to mention the size. The main reason I don’t have them anymore is their width, which can make them hard to place in a house.
- analog31 8y agoI googled for the response curve, and it's pretty impressive. As I understand things, during the 50s, amplifier power was at a premium. 25 Watts was a lot! So it made sense to design highly efficient speakers, hence the large radiating area of the Quad. Today, amplifier power is dirt cheap and tiny, so you can throw a lot of power into a less efficient speaker, and still get decent sound plus possibly better off-axis response in a multi-way system. This gives the advantage to cone speakers.