beanbag
Well-known member
The listening reviews generally confirm this, but is there a technical reason why this is so? There are plenty of nearly-point-source satellite/sub systems that sound very good too.
A bigger panel/driver works less to get the same output as a smaller panel/driver.
Does your question include a bigger but older panel (say a model that came out over 12 years ago) sounding better to something current and smaller?
The size of the panel affects the projected sound field. Look at this way - part of the reason we prefer ESL is from the way bigger element creates uniform sound field.
Also panel size affect the usable frequency range making it possible to lower high pass frequency down from midrange to less critical point where negative crossover effects are less apparent.
The listening reviews generally confirm this, but is there a technical reason why this is so?
There are plenty of nearly-point-source satellite/sub systems that sound very good too.
Both the Summit X and the Electromotion ESL have the same sensitivity.
The minimum frequency a panel can go to is approximately related to its width, or width plus stuff sticking out the side to block dipole cancellation. In that case, I don't know why ML still uses tall skinny panels in their Theos and Vista models, which have a 4xx Hz crossover, which is marginally better than the 500Hz crossover in their "entry level" Electromotion ESL.
Both the Summit X and the Electromotion ESL have the same sensitivity.
I think you all are wasting your time responding to the OP.
This thread was started by an individual who has previously stated that it's a waste of time (by his own admission) for serious / one on one listening.
To quote. "Been there, done that. I have better things to do".
GG
There are plenty of nearly-point-source satellite/sub systems that sound very good too.
WHY is a bigger panel better?
Enter your email address to join: