Placement of the Quad ESL63
Anonymous
rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
You dont say what music you generally like, Chris, and it may be youre talking about the Maggies rather than Quads. Still, I offer my experience as perhaps of interest.
Even in rooms 24 to 40ft long I use ESL63 from 2-3ft from the back wall, but I like chamber music and voices and of course the properly proportioned Georgian rooms aid the bass. When I have a party, in the longest room I stack them on the middle of the longest walls, with the two speakers in each stack at an angle that puts the centre of the panels about 12in apart and the open edge of the triangle seen from the top right up against the wall. (1) In a 24ft room I stack two one in front of the other, the rear one a foot or two from the wall, the front one about 12in in front and parallel (seen from the side) to the rear one.
There is a way to use ESL63, and possibly other panels though I have not tried it, in quite small rooms. Simply consider them huge earphones. Place them either side of your chair facing your ears and each other through your head and at whatever distance from the walls behind them or from you that you discover is possible and suits your music and the room best. If you sit on an office chair at your computer, you may have to raise or tilt them. I do this often at my desk as I listen to music for 14 hours a day (2) while I work.
HTH.
Andre Jute
(1) I havent looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check his statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
(2) Sympathy for a poor writer who has to work long hours to put a scraping of jam on his bread would be appropriate. Having been employed about what would otherwise be my hobbies for thirty years, and my work being such that I mostly work in my comfortable study or studio, I dont consider workaholicism a disease.
Chris Morriss <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But its not just the price. Its mainly that they are dipole radiators
and need 2 metres space behind them to stop the reflected wave causing a
comb-filter effect at the listening position.
I have pair of Magneplanar MG2.5r speakers. Lovely units, though not as
good as a 989 electrostatic. I cant use these however in my current
house as I simply dont have a room long enough. (Im looking for
another house!)
I wonder how many people who have heard Quads (and other types of
dipole) in a totally inappropriate setting have been put off them.
Dipoles are VERY fussy about positioning.
--
Chris Morriss
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Arpit
proof enough of their ability to produce high volumes if needed. And
wow, you use them for parties? Are they THAT loud? or are these more
civilised parties than im used to? :)
On 31 Dec 2003 22:47:34 -0000, Anonymous
Phil Allison
"Anonymous" <Bigapple...@Optonline.Net>
> (1) I havent looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check his
statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My
memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
** I was going from memory on the 1 metre figure - it may well be only
30cm in fact. Can you suggest a test method to determine the figure with
microphone and say a pulse generator ?
Intuitively, it seems the greater the delay line times the closer the
apparent point source to the plane of the speaker.
........... Phil
George Orwell
rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
Arpit <DONTSPAMM...@dodo.com.au> wrote
>Well andre I think the fact that you use them in rooms so large is
>proof enough of their ability to produce high volumes if needed.
It is a myth that ESL63 wont go loud, spread by people who have never heard them, or have heard a demo in an inadequate room by a salesman or proud owner too worried about his investment really to turn them up. It arises from same idiots who say they have no bass. ESL63 will make your ears bleed if you have the balls.
Peter Walker told me the ESL63 was designed with a room of 3000 cubic feet in mind. In houses newer than mine, thats a pretty big room, say 24 by 14 feet.
Long rooms also aid the bass. Once of the reasons the bass on box speakers sounds so artificial is most peoples small rooms. The bass from boxes is literally forced out against the resistance of the air in the room whereas with a panel the bass is only whatever the room supports. Think of pushing on a piece of string, which bends, or pulling it, when it snaps taut. Boxes push on the string, panels have their bass pulled out by the room. That is one reason, incidentally, why it is so difficult to match panels to boxed woofers, and why the only sub for the ESL63 that really works is the Finnish one which is a essentially a cleverly packaged flat panel dipole. I have long since given up on subs with panels, or indeed with anything else. When I want 16Hz bass, say for playing organ music or just pissing on irritating audiophools, I use an appropriately sized horn.
You want to know how loud an ESL63 is? My son and I were once buggering around measuring an amp with only one channel built, in a room 18 x 12 x 10 ft with the windows open, and some eejit (me) put the plug onto the pins of the ladder attenuator the wrong way round with the amp switched on and the tubes warm and the test CD playing, full blast rather than zero volume. We were both out of that room in a flash and down the stairs, with screams of surprise and rage coming from the kitchen. After some minutes of confusion while the entire family stood outside on the front lawn and the neighbours came to the end of our drive to look in while we shouted incomprehensibly into each others deafened ears, I had the brilliant idea of into the garage to trip the mains switch and cut power to everything including the amp and that goddamn loud ESL63. I put the main fuse in pocket before going upstairs to pull the plug on the amp. . .
>And wow, you use them for parties? Are they THAT loud?
>or are these more civilised parties than im used to? :)
Well, when I was young I had amps that could be bridged for 400W per channel built for me by mates at HP, and I held parties for my 1000 or so closest friends that neighbours half a mile away complained about. But now my friends are people who are accustomed to others shushing when they speak even in a low voice, who have not raised their voices in decades, so there is a rising sibilance of wit as the liquor flows but nothing too raucous. The point about ESL63 is that they can playing say Emma Kirkby singing the songs of Hildegard von Bingen, a disc on which any distortion is instantly audible, as loudly as is required by the party without any distortion. You just keep turning them up. The same applies to intrinsically louder music. When my son was at school and college, we had a few times to ask him to turn down the volume when his friends came and played pop music too loudly on the ESL63 for our comfort in the rest of the house, and once when I was in nostalgic mood playing
real rock and roll at appropriate volumes, the police came to the door on a complaint from some idiot neighbour. I called their boss, the head of the police for the region, also a neighbour, and he said he was sitting in his garden enjoying my Fats Domino and Chuck Berry and Roy Orbison and maybe I should turn it down a bit and he would come over and drink some of my poteen (illegally stilled Irish whisky) and listen some more.
There is something often overlooked about panel speakers and horns. It is that they are actually louder, on a meter, than in perception, because of the absence of distortion. A distorted box at the same SPL sounds much louder than a panel because the box is distorted. (There is a similar argument about panel bass v. box bass but it is too well known to go into now.)
HTH.
Andre Jute
Panels are a matter of culture
On 31 Dec 2003 22:47:34 -0000, Anonymous
<Bigapple...@Optonline.Net> wrote:
>Placement of the Quad ESL63
>rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
>
>You dont say what music you generally like, Chris, and it may be youre talking about the Maggies rather than Quads. Still, I offer my experience as perhaps of interest.
>
>Even in rooms 24 to 40ft long I use ESL63 from 2-3ft from the back wall, but I like chamber music and voices and of course the properly proportioned Georgian rooms aid the bass. When I have a party, in the longest room I stack them on the middle of the longest walls, with the two speakers in each stack at an angle that puts the centre of the panels about 12in apart and the open edge of the triangle seen from the top right up against the wall. (1) In a 24ft room I stack two one in front of the other, the rear one a foot or two from the wall, the front one about 12in in front and parallel (seen from the side) to the rear one.
>
>There is a way to use ESL63, and possibly other panels though I have not tried it, in quite small rooms. Simply consider them huge earphones. Place them either side of your chair facing your ears and each other through your head and at whatever distance from the walls behind them or from you that you discover is possible and suits your music and the room best. If you sit on an office chair at your computer, you may have to raise or tilt them. I do this often at my desk as I listen to music for 14 hours a day (2) while I work.
>HTH.
>
>Andre Jute
>
>(1) I havent looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check his statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
>
Tony Pearce
"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:a578a7f062fcea62...@mixmaster.it...
>When I want 16Hz bass, say for playing organ music or just pissing on
irritating audiophools, I use an appropriately sized horn.
Wow, I'm impressed, a 16 Hz horn! That's as big as my house if it's going to
be anything like flat. I've seen some mammoth underfloor jobs that can't
approach that.
> Well, when I was young I had amps that could be bridged for 400W per
channel built for me by mates at HP
<snip>
You seem to have solved the arcing problems associated with too high voltage
input to the Quads then? Over 100W into normal quads just causes limiting,
coupled with poor sensitivity, does not give such window shattering
performance for anyone else.
TonyP.
Phil Allison
" roverT"
> You seem to have solved the arcing problems associated with too high
voltage
> input to the Quads then?
** ESL63s / 988s /989s do not arc - they have electronic protection
against that.
> Over 100W into normal quads just causes limiting,
** And hearing damage.
> coupled with poor sensitivity,
** So 90 dB SPL from a pair at 1 watt input at a position 2.5 meters away
is "poor" ??
Compared to what?
PA speakers ??
>does not give such window shattering performance for anyone else.
** So your test criteria is the ability to break windows?
We have another knuckle dragging HT freak here.
........ Phil
Tony Pearce
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ff3972f$0$18692$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ** So 90 dB SPL from a pair at 1 watt input at a position 2.5 meters
away
> is "poor" ??
No, quite normal for many "box" speakers. Quad's can't get that at one metre
let alone 2.5!!!!!
TonyP.
Phil Allison
** They can and they do - very easily.
See my other post.
......... Phil
Anonymous
rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
Andre Jute wrote
> (1) I havent looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check his
statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My
memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
And Phil Allison replied:
>> I was going from memory on the 1 metre figure - it may well be only
>>30cm in fact. Can you suggest a test method to determine the figure with
>>microphone and say a pulse generator ?
Speculation, okay? The centerline on which you want to measure is easily determined by visual inspection. Compare the SPL at 30cm and 1m. In theory, if my watch bezel sliderule arithmetic is right, in an anechoic room there should be a difference of 2.25dB. What there would be in a room available to real people is of course a different matter but the difference should at be at least big enough to say yes or no, the one or the other. Whether you can make a finer gradation than that to determine the precise point would depend on the sensitivity of your instrument, the room and your position in it. But the SPL should fall off again from the virtual point source towards the speaker.
More speculation. It seems to me that virtual point source must be the nearest point to the plane of the speaker at which a full spectrum is available.
Presumably you have a better mike than mine. I have a good one I inherited but no skill with, and dont even know where it is packed. For my general purposes it is more important to know the quirks of the mike I use so that constant base comparisons can be made, and I have used the Apple Plaintalk mic forever, simply because it would take phantom power from the Mac and I had an adjustment programme to calibrate it against the known-good mic, and I do everything I can with the computer rather than dedicated tools because I write for less experienced DIYers, not experts and certainly not professionals. But I havent installed it on my new iMac yet, and dont even in fact know if the old Apple Plaintalk mic will fit. But in any event it isnt sensitive enough for this sort of precision work.
>> Intuitively, it seems the greater the delay line times the closer the
>>apparent point source to the plane of the speaker.
>>
>>........... Phil
Would you care to explain your thinking, Phil?
The rest of you guys, who seem to have nothing to do all day long but taunt Phil, cut everyone a break on this and stay out of it. This could be the good stuff that sooner or later those of us who take audio seriously will be glad we learned.
Andre Jute
tghntghn
Phil Allison
> Andre Jute wrote
> > (1) I haven't looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check
his
> statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My
> memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
>
> And Phil Allison replied:
>
> >> I was going from memory on the 1 metre figure - it may well be only
> >>30cm in fact. Can you suggest a test method to determine the figure
with
> >>microphone and say a pulse generator ?
>
> Speculation, okay?
** No - more like imperfect memory !!
The 30cm figure you gave rang a bell soon as I read it.
The centerline on which you want to measure is easily determined by visual
inspection. Compare the SPL at 30cm and 1m. In theory, if my watch bezel
sliderule arithmetic is right, in an anechoic room there should be a
difference of 2.25dB. What there would be in a room available to real people
is of course a different matter but the difference should at be at least big
enough to say yes or no, the one or the other. Whether you can make a finer
gradation than that to determine the precise point would depend on the
sensitivity of your instrument, the room and your position in it. But the
SPL should fall off again from the virtual point source towards the speaker.
** The premise that a "virtual point source" behaves the same as the
*real animal* as regards the inverse square principle makes me a tad uneasy.
(ie slight nausea, indigestion, disturbed sleep patterns et alia, ad
nauseam.... )
IME any large sound source, be it a 12 inch speaker, an array of the same
( ie a quad box) or other "walls of sound" contraptions used by the PA
industry do not obey inverse square in the near field.
So why uniquely must the ESL63 and it's offspring ???????
> More speculation. It seems to me that virtual point source must be the
nearest point to the plane of the speaker at which a full spectrum is
available.
** The "virtual" bit suggests it has no directly detectable reality -
like the virtual image presented by a stereo pair of speakers to a listener.
> Presumably you have a better mike than mine.
** An old but *calibrated* AKG CK2 omni condenser mic plus home brew
phantom powered pre-amp.
I have a good one I inherited but no skill with, and dont even know where it
is packed. For my general purposes it is more important to know the quirks
of the mike I use so that constant base comparisons can be made, and I have
used the Apple Plaintalk mic forever, simply because it would take phantom
power from the Mac and I had an adjustment programme to calibrate it against
the known-good mic, and I do everything I can with the computer rather than
dedicated tools because I write for less experienced DIYers, not experts and
certainly not professionals. But I havent installed it on my new iMac yet,
and dont even in fact know if the old Apple Plaintalk mic will fit. But in
any event it isnt sensitive enough for this sort of precision work.
** My first reaction is to measure time of arrival of a brief pulse to a
mic that is aligned on axis.
The two pulses ( input and mic) to be shown on a dual beam CRO -
why not ??
> >> Intuitively, it seems the greater the delay line times the closer the
> >>apparent point source to the plane of the speaker.
> >>
> >>........... Phil
>
> Would you care to explain your thinking, Phil?
** Weeeellll, if the virtual point source is very far back - the the
time of arrival of a spherical pressure wave would be similar all over the "
target" part of the ESL63.
OTOH if the point was just behind the "target" then there are
significant delays in the distance and hence delay to the nearest and
furtherest rings .
> The rest of you guys, who seem to have nothing to do all day long but
taunt Phil, cut everyone a break on this and stay out of it. This could be
the good stuff that sooner or later those of us who take audio seriously
will be glad we learned.
** Crikey !!!!!
What a pie eyed optimist Andre is !!!!!
........ Phil
Tony Pearce
> > > ** So 90 dB SPL from a pair at 1 watt input at a position 2.5
meters
> > away is "poor" ??
> >
> > No, quite normal for many "box" speakers. Quad's can't get that at one
> metre
> > let alone 2.5!!!!!
> ** They can and they do - very easily.
Yeah only with the right room, and test conditions to suit :-)
Your typical box speaker would do nearly 100dB!
TonyP.
Phil Allison
" roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff3b7a0$0$18692$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > > > ** So 90 dB SPL from a pair at 1 watt input at a position 2.5
> meters
> > > away is "poor" ??
> > >
> > > No, quite normal for many "box" speakers. Quad's can't get that at one
> > metre
> > > let alone 2.5!!!!!
>
> > ** They can and they do - very easily.
>
> Yeah only with the right room,
** LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and test conditions to suit :-)
** LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Your typical box speaker would do nearly 100dB!
** What typical hi-fi box speaker gives 97 dB/watt/metre as is needed for
this to be true.
More lies, lies, lies.........
.......... Phil
Chris Hornbeck
<Bigapple...@Optonline.Net> wrote:
> how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My memory is that is 12 inches.
The ESL63 has no delay to the central segment and simulates a sphere
centered 30cm behind the central segment. So your memory's good.
Perhaps surprisingly, the central disc's diameter is 15cm, which
would be a very large tweeter.
Chris Hornbeck
Phil Allison
"Chris Hornbeck" <
Anonymous
> <> > how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My memory is
that is 12 inches.
>
> The ESL63 has no delay to the central segment and simulates a sphere
> centered 30cm behind the central segment. So your memory's good.
* That extra fact changes everything !!
The way to find the elusive virtual point source is by following the
radiated wavefront and plotting it geometrically !!
Using a sine wave at say 2 kHz one just needs sync the CRO TB to the audio
generator and the test mic position will indicate relative phase. Trace
the arc of same phase - then find the centre.
> Perhaps surprisingly, the central disc's diameter is 15cm, which
> would be a very large tweeter.
** It would indeed if made like a dome radiator - but as part of a
spherical wave generator is just does its little bit in the middle ;-)
......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> ** What typical hi-fi box speaker gives 97 dB/watt/metre as is needed
for
> this to be true.
Most PAIRS of speakers, with room gain, just as in your Quad
conditions!!!!!!!!!!
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff3d1bb$0$18693$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > ** What typical hi-fi box speaker gives 97 dB/watt/metre as is needed
> for> this to be true.
>
> Most PAIRS of speakers,
** No - it has to be as stated above.
ESL63s are speced at 87 dB 1w at 1 m and produces 90 dB SPL from 2 watts
of amp power on common axis with two operating at 2.5 metres in typical
room.
So you need at least 97 dB 1w 1 m speakers to give 100 dB at 2 metres in
room to meet your fucking stupid claim.
.......... Phil
Chris Hornbeck
<phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Perhaps surprisingly, the central disc's diameter is 15cm, which
>> would be a very large tweeter.
>
>
> ** It would indeed if made like a dome radiator - but as part of a
>spherical wave generator is just does its little bit in the middle ;-)
P. J. Baxandall describes this as an artifact of side lobing
in ring radiators compared to pistonic.
Walker himself also comments in JAES vol. 28 no. 11 p. 797.
Chris Hornbeck
Phil Allison
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote in message
news:dvm8vv8ok9033h3au...@4ax.com...
** Can you post the highlights of PWs remarks ??
........ Phil
Tony Pearce
> ** No - it has to be as stated above.
Not at all, YOU quote sensitivity any way you feel like at the time, with
Quad speakers. The only REAL test is to put them all together and measure
SPL. Your back of the postage stamp calculations don't impress me much.
> ESL63s are speced at 87 dB 1w at 1 m and produces 90 dB SPL from 2
watts
> of amp power on common axis with two operating at 2.5 metres in typical
> room.
Wasn't it 84.5 dB a couple of posts ago?
> So you need at least 97 dB 1w 1 m speakers to give 100 dB at 2 metres
in
> room to meet your fucking stupid claim.
Have you measured them both under the same conditions, obviously not. Come
back when you have.
BTW ported speakers with 97 dB/W/M are readily available, horn loaded
speakers are almost always better than that. But the other difference is the
greater power handling as well.
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff3ed59$0$18691$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au..
>
> > ESL63s are speced at 87 dB 1w at 1 m and produces 90 dB SPL from 2
> watts of amp power on common axis with two operating at 2.5 metres in
typical
> > room.
>
> Wasn't it 84.5 dB a couple of posts ago?
** So you have wanked yourself blind already - arsehole.
> > So you need at least 97 dB 1w 1 m speakers to give 100 dB at 2 metres
> in room to meet your fucking stupid claim.
> BTW ported speakers with 97 dB/W/M are readily available,
** Shame that is not relevant to your stupid claim - arsehole.
........... Phil
Tony Pearce
> ** Shame that is not relevant to your stupid claim - arsehole.
Why not, nothing you post has any relevance to anything.
TonyP.
Patrick Turner
> BTW ported speakers with 97 dB/W/M are readily available, horn loaded
> speakers are almost always better than that. But the other difference is the
> greater power handling as well.
>
> TonyP.
With all due respect, ported speakers with 97dB at 1M are somewhat
uncommon.
Where a speaker IS this sensitive, the plus side is that little power is needed,
and a 5 watt triode amp would be plenty.
0.1 watt is all that's needed to make 87 dB at a metre.
Most speakers made now are 88 dB 1W/M, and
hence about 8 watts is needed to make the same sound levels
as the 1 watt plus 97 dB speakers.
So one might use a 50 watt capable amp instead of a 5 watter,
which means a very serious SET, should that be selected to drive
modern insensitive speakers with high headroom.
But many very sensitive cone/dome speakers tend to have an unflat response
due to the lightweight thin cone materials, with all their breakup modes.
Methinks the better power handling is a myth.
The higher quality modern domes and cones tend to have a much flatter response,
even though they need more power, and its been my experience that
the modern low sensitivity speakers are better.
I also find 25 watt class SE amps still provide me with great listening
even with speakers at 88 dB sensitivity, since I'd get 98 dB at 10 watts,
and 101 dB at 20 watts, and 104 dB with both channels at 20 watts,
which is fine for all the folks I know. They are not deaf.
Horn speakers remove any need for high power.
But I have yet to hear acceptable sound from horn speakers.
Most diy efforts I have heard are expensive firewood, fitted with
over priced drivers.
But some folks just love their Lowthers, and I look forward to hearing a pair.
Very few ppl I know like Klipsh.
Good horns should have few bends and no foreshortening of the horn,
so the mouth has to be huge, and this causes divorce,
and prevents marriage, so then if one says OK, then use a ported/closed box
for the bass, it usually has to be a large cone in a large box,
and the wife still leaves on the midnight plane.
Then there is all the BS to be waded through to get a horn to sound half decent
if you are doing DIY, and don't be surprised if the mates escort your wife
away.
Patrick Turner.
Arpit
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> BTW ported speakers with 97 dB/W/M are readily available, horn loaded
>> speakers are almost always better than that. But the other difference is the
>> greater power handling as well.
>>
>> TonyP.
>
>With all due respect, ported speakers with 97dB at 1M are somewhat
>uncommon.
>Where a speaker IS this sensitive, the plus side is that little power is needed,
>
>and a 5 watt triode amp would be plenty.
>0.1 watt is all that's needed to make 87 dB at a metre.
>Most speakers made now are 88 dB 1W/M, and
>hence about 8 watts is needed to make the same sound levels
>as the 1 watt plus 97 dB speakers.
>So one might use a 50 watt capable amp instead of a 5 watter,
>which means a very serious SET, should that be selected to drive
>modern insensitive speakers with high headroom.
>
>But many very sensitive cone/dome speakers tend to have an unflat response
>due to the lightweight thin cone materials, with all their breakup modes.
>Methinks the better power handling is a myth.
I know instrumental speakers have high sensitivity. Ive heard a few,
some aren't too bad. i wouldn't say great though. An older set of
speakers i have uses instrumental drivers for woofers, 12 inch. There
is no deep bass at all, but they are very sensitive. The drivers are
unmatched and old, one uses a cloth surround and dustcap, the other
uses no dustcap ( fallen off) and a foam surround with holes. I have t
say, electric guitar sounds VERY VERY good on them, peraps cause of
similar distortions from the instrumental speakers as i'd hear ina
concert., but not much else.
>
>The higher quality modern domes and cones tend to have a much flatter response,
>even though they need more power, and its been my experience that
>the modern low sensitivity speakers are better.
>I also find 25 watt class SE amps still provide me with great listening
>even with speakers at 88 dB sensitivity, since I'd get 98 dB at 10 watts,
>and 101 dB at 20 watts, and 104 dB with both channels at 20 watts,
>which is fine for all the folks I know. They are not deaf.
>
>Horn speakers remove any need for high power.
>But I have yet to hear acceptable sound from horn speakers.
>Most diy efforts I have heard are expensive firewood, fitted with
>over priced drivers.
>But some folks just love their Lowthers, and I look forward to hearing a pair.
>Very few ppl I know like Klipsh.
>Good horns should have few bends and no foreshortening of the horn,
>so the mouth has to be huge, and this causes divorce,
>and prevents marriage, so then if one says OK, then use a ported/closed box
>for the bass, it usually has to be a large cone in a large box,
>and the wife still leaves on the midnight plane.
>Then there is all the BS to be waded through to get a horn to sound half decent
>if you are doing DIY, and don't be surprised if the mates escort your wife
>away.
>
heh, I must confess to never havijng heard a horn speaker. Well except
for horn tweeters on some cheap sony bookshelf speakers. THey were
very directional, whichh by itself is no bad thing, but it left
everywhere putside the sweet spot devoid of treble. WHen i did go into
the sweet spot, the treble was overbearing and harsh. I suspect this
is more due to a yukky tweeter than horn loading as such.
When I was making my subwoofer, i briefly considered a horn loaded
design. I had drawn up some nice plans of a huge enclosure outside the
room running in with MDF ducting through a window. Naturally since my
room faces the front garden, my mother intervenes, probably a good
thing since my current sub plays down to 20 hz flat, though not at any
great volume without chuffing. transients aren't great either, but I'm
not really sure whether thats cause no fast attack bass notes exist in
the material i own, or cause of the vented design. Wither way, it
looks pretty good and is small :)
PS: fixed your email yet?
>Patrick Turner.
>
>
>
Patrick Turner
Arpit wrote:
Musician's amps are part of the instrument, and concerts
you might go to introduce a lot of distortion which is pleasant,
from the tube amps used.
But your moth eaten old speakers wouldn't be hi-fi items.
They would not accurately reproduce something recorded.
If they add more to your liking to a reorded electric guitar,
then fine for you.
Sounds like there is plenty of opportunity for R&D,
probably when you move to your own house away from your mom,
and can focus more.
>
>
> PS: fixed your email yet?
I know some folks are having trouble emailing me.
But then I get a lot of emails.
Exactly what troubles I am having I am not aware of, and
my ISP will be contacted again today.
He wasn't too helpful yesterday, and I am wondering changing ISP again.
Patrick Turner.
Tony Pearce
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3FF5571E...@turneraudio.com.au...
> With all due respect, ported speakers with 97dB at 1M are somewhat
> uncommon.
I never said they were common, I said they were readily available.
> Where a speaker IS this sensitive, the plus side is that little power is
needed,
Yep.
> But many very sensitive cone/dome speakers tend to have an unflat response
> due to the lightweight thin cone materials, with all their breakup modes.
> Methinks the better power handling is a myth.
Many will handle more power than Quads. But I'm not saying the treble is
better at low SPL's :-)
Compromise is the name of the game in speaker design unfortunately.
> The higher quality modern domes and cones tend to have a much flatter
response,
> even though they need more power, and its been my experience that
> the modern low sensitivity speakers are better.
Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's, 89-92
dB range being common.
> Horn speakers remove any need for high power.
> But I have yet to hear acceptable sound from horn speakers.
Many are more than acceptable in some cases, just as Quads are more than
acceptable for string quartets etc.
> Most diy efforts I have heard are expensive firewood, fitted with
> over priced drivers.
True.
> But some folks just love their Lowthers, and I look forward to hearing a
pair.
You would probably not like them either. But that matters little to those
who do.
> Very few ppl I know like Klipsh.
Not my favouite corner horn either, but far better than the boxes owned by
most people.
> Then there is all the BS to be waded through to get a horn to sound half
decent
> if you are doing DIY, and don't be surprised if the mates escort your wife
> away.
Wouldn't that be a good thing? :-)
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Patrick Turner" <
>
> > With all due respect, ported speakers with 97dB at 1M are somewhat
> > uncommon.
>
> I never said they were common, I said they were readily available.
** A finer "red-herring" I never saw.
> > But many very sensitive cone/dome speakers tend to have an unflat
response
> > due to the lightweight thin cone materials, with all their breakup
modes.
> > Methinks the better power handling is a myth.
>
> Many will handle more power than Quads.
** But who needs 130 dB SPL ????
That sort of SPL is insane in the home.
> Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's,
89-92
> dB range being common.
** Another "red-herring".
> Many are more than acceptable in some cases, just as Quads are more than
> acceptable for string quartets etc.
** String quartets at 110 dB SPL are quite a thrill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Utterly clean too - unlike any distorting, coloured box speaker.
......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> > I never said they were common, I said they were readily available.
> ** A finer "red-herring" I never saw.
Yes we all know the problem you have understanding English.
> > Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's,
> > 89-92 dB range being common.
> ** Another "red-herring".
How so?
> ** String quartets at 110 dB SPL are quite a thrill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think I've ever heard a live one at that level, but why not :-)
> Utterly clean too - unlike any distorting, coloured box speaker.
Quite true, and I have never said Quads, weren't great for string quartets.
Even if you do need to sit very close to get that 110dB max SPL, and of
course only one person can sit in the sweet spot. And they are expensive,
and even a self proclaimed expert can't buy a decent S/H pair. And he now
admits he used a sub woofer for 19 years, despite his claims of Quads
superior bass :-)
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff63dfc$0$18388$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > > I never said they were common, I said they were readily available.
>
> > ** A finer "red-herring" I never saw.
>
> Yes we all know the problem you have understanding English.
** Do you understand the words: "get fucked" ?
> > > Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's,
> > > 89-92 dB range being common.
>
> > ** Another "red-herring".
>
> How so?
** Proves nothing - irrelevant to the issue.
> > ** String quartets at 110 dB SPL are quite a thrill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I don't think I've ever heard a live one at that level, but why not :-)
** As usual he snipped the context so he could post a nonsense reply.
> > Utterly clean too - unlike any distorting, coloured box speaker.
>
> Quite true, and I have never said Quads, weren't great for string
quartets.
** other red herring - achieved by snipping the context and making a
deliberate misinterpretation.
> Even if you do need to sit very close to get that 110dB max SPL,
** Another deliberate lie - 2.5 metres is average listening range.
> course only one person can sit in the sweet spot.
** The stereo "sweet spot" is the same size for any speaker that gives
good imaging.
> And they are expensive, and even a self proclaimed expert can't buy a
decent S/H pair.
** More deliberate lies and red herrings.
And he now admits he used a sub woofer for 19 years,
** I mentioned the fact in June 2002 and numerous times since -
arsehole.
> despite his claims of Quads superior bass :-)
** More lies and red herrings - the 63s are not the same as 57s.
........... Phil
Phil Allison
** Hi Patrick,
I owned and lived with the same pair of ESL 57s for over 20 years,
through many amplification equipment upgrades, room upgrades and the
introduction of CD players. ( I sold them today, weep weep)
Nearly everything you say about them is wrong. No doubt the result of
limited time, poor recordings, poor room and poor amplification.
With 45 watts (8 ohm) of SS power per speaker in an average lounge
the SPL is well over 100 dB at the listening position. This is true for
frequencies between 65 Hz and 20kHz. They excel on all types of programme
unless you need high levels below 60 Hz. For that a sub is needed.
As long as the room is acoustically well damped the sound quality is
very close to that heard with good electrostatic headphones - Stax and the
like. No cone and box speaker made can even get close for clarity at high
volumes. Yes, I said high volumes since the ESLs do not worsen significantly
at higher levels but remain well under 1% THD up the point of
ionisation.
It is important to monitor the SPL as they often do not seem to be
playing loudly, that is until you try to speak over them to a person sitting
next to you and find you can't without shouting. This fact led me to
fitting calibrated peak VUs to my pre-amp, so I would know. It is *that*
hard to tell by ear.
The very large diaphragm area means very low Doppler distortion - all
cone speakers have this one. There is no thermal compression as with any
copper wire voice coil, especially tweeters, and the very simple passive 6
dB per octave 3 way crossover is free of the usual defects in elaborate 3
way systems.
The same ESL 57s were A/B tested against highly reviewed speakers like
the Magnaplaner 3 and Yamaha NS 1000s - all who heard agreed the ESL 57s
beat them, hands down, especially at *high* volume levels.
Objective tests are very revealing too. A sine wave tone burst, of
say 4 cycles, is reproduced exactly at any frequency. (This is with an AKG
omni condenser mic to check)
There is no overhang or delayed resonance from the ESL at all - the
diaphragm is so light ( same weight as a 3mm thick layer of air of the same
size) and heavily damped with no box such an effect is not possible.
THD measured at 1 kHz at 1 metre in front of one ESL 57 at 90 dB
SPL was only 0.12% - third harmonic - probably partly due to the input
tranny.
For the best results an amplifier with low output impedance is
needed - valve amps are not too good for this - since the input impedance
drops from 16 ohms nominal to under 2 ohms at 18 kHz. Any subsonics in the
signal must be removed too since they will stress the amp trying to drive
high currents into the input tranny at LF. With CDs this is not a problem
like it is with vinyl.
The use of low resistance and short speaker cable is recommended
too - I wound up using the much (falsely) maligned Tocord. Tocord can drive
the ESL 57s input load to well beyond 25 kHz, totally flat, at the terminals
even when 10 metres long.
I have heard the ESL 63s at a friend's place with very good
electronics and the sound quality is generally quite similar. I would love
to own a pair.
If you can borrow some 57s or 63s for a few days can I suggest
you give them another try - you may find you like them after all.
Regards, Phil
Fred
"Anonymous" <Bigapple...@Optonline.Net> wrote in message
news:G9A2LDOZ37986.7413657407@anonymous...
> Placement of the Quad ESL63
> rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
ROFLMAO
That's absolute GOLD
If you turn the amp up high enough they produce a nifty little light show.
Phil Allison
"Fred" <noe...@nowhere.com>
> >When I have a party,
>
> ROFLMAO
> That's absolute GOLD
>
** When Fred (a psychotic, tattooed, head banger) has a party - all the
guests have blood running out their ears afterwards.
........ Phil
Fred
"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:a578a7f062fcea62...@mixmaster.it...
> Re: Placement of the Quad ESL63
> rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
>
> Arpit <DONTSPAMM...@dodo.com.au> wrote
> >Well andre I think the fact that you use them in rooms so large is
> >proof enough of their ability to produce high volumes if needed.
>
> It is a myth that ESL63 wont go loud, spread by people who have never
heard them, or have heard a demo in an inadequate room by a salesman or
proud owner too worried about his investment really to turn them up. It
arises from same idiots who say they have no bass. ESL63 will make your ears
bleed if you have the balls.
You must have balls if you have the temerity to post such utter nonsense.
> Peter Walker told me the ESL63 was designed with a room of 3000 cubic feet
in mind. In houses newer than mine, thats a pretty big room, say 24 by 14
feet.
In houses older than yours then, the size is different????????/
> Long rooms also aid the bass. Once of the reasons the bass on box speakers
sounds so artificial is most peoples small rooms. The bass from boxes is
literally forced out against the resistance of the air in the room whereas
with a panel the bass is only whatever the room supports. Think of pushing
on a piece of string, which bends, or pulling it, when it snaps taut. Boxes
push on the string, panels have their bass pulled out by the room. That is
one reason, incidentally, why it is so difficult to match panels to boxed
woofers, and why the only sub for the ESL63 that really works is the Finnish
one which is a essentially a cleverly packaged flat panel dipole. I have
long since given up on subs with panels, or indeed with anything else. When
I want 16Hz bass, say for playing organ music or just pissing on irritating
audiophools, I use an appropriately sized horn.
Please wake up now. You are in fantasyland. A 16Hz horn would be as big as
your house (unless of course your house is older than .........)
> You want to know how loud an ESL63 is? My son and I were once buggering
around measuring an amp with only one channel built, in a room 18 x 12 x 10
ft with the windows open, and some eejit (me) put the plug onto the pins of
the ladder attenuator the wrong way round with the amp switched on and the
tubes warm and the test CD playing, full blast rather than zero volume. We
were both out of that room in a flash and down the stairs, with screams of
surprise and rage coming from the kitchen. After some minutes of confusion
while the entire family stood outside on the front lawn and the neighbours
came to the end of our drive to look in while we shouted incomprehensibly
into each others deafened ears, I had the brilliant idea of into the garage
to trip the mains switch and cut power to everything including the amp and
that goddamn loud ESL63. I put the main fuse in pocket before going upstairs
to pull the plug on the amp. . .
>
The Quads exploded! Don't worry you can buy some real speakers now.
>
> Well, when I was young I had amps that could be bridged for 400W per
channel built for me by mates at HP, and I held parties for my 1000 or so
closest friends that neighbours half a mile away complained about. But now
my friends are people who are accustomed to others shushing when they speak
even in a low voice, who have not raised their voices in decades, so there
is a rising sibilance of wit as the liquor flows but nothing too raucous.
The point about ESL63 is that they can playing say Emma Kirkby singing the
songs of Hildegard von Bingen, a disc on which any distortion is instantly
audible, as loudly as is required by the party without any distortion. You
just keep turning them up. The same applies to intrinsically louder music.
When my son was at school and college, we had a few times to ask him to turn
down the volume when his friends came and played pop music too loudly on the
ESL63 for our comfort in the rest of the house, and once when I was in
nostalgic mood playing
> real rock and roll at appropriate volumes, the police came to the door
on a complaint from some idiot neighbour. I called their boss, the head of
the police for the region, also a neighbour, and he said he was sitting in
his garden enjoying my Fats Domino and Chuck Berry and Roy Orbison and maybe
I should turn it down a bit and he would come over and drink some of my
poteen (illegally stilled Irish whisky) and listen some more.
You're not sitting in some pub pissed as a parrot trying to impress your
mates. This is a NG, so back off on the bullshite.
> There is something often overlooked about panel speakers and horns. It is
that they are actually louder, on a meter, than in perception, because of
the absence of distortion. A distorted box at the same SPL sounds much
louder than a panel because the box is distorted. (There is a similar
argument about panel bass v. box bass but it is too well known to go into
now.)
>
Haven't read so much crap since the last post I read in this NG.
thispeac...@recommended.com
>
>"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
>news:a578a7f062fcea62...@mixmaster.it...
>> Re: Placement of the Quad ESL63
>> rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
>>
>> Arpit <DONTSPAMM...@dodo.com.au> wrote
>> >Well andre I think the fact that you use them in rooms so large is
>> >proof enough of their ability to produce high volumes if needed.
>
>>
>
>Haven't read so much crap since the last post I read in this NG.
LOL next they'll be talk of them powering the M.C.G.
or maybe they'll be discussing the killing power of headphones.
Quads are not very loud
Quads do not have lots of bass.
the person who says otherwise is a confirmed idiot/snake oil merchant.
Phil Allison
<thispeac...@recommended.com>
> Quads are not very loud
** Correction: Quads are not *very* loud.
But they ( ESL63s) can easily produce high enough SPLs for domestic use.
> Quads do not have lots of bass.
** No - they have exactly the right amount.
> the person who says otherwise is a confirmed idiot/snake oil merchant.
** The facts say otherwise and YOU are a confirmed idiot.
....... Phil
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
Fred <noe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote
>> Placement of the Quad ESL63
>> rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
>>When I have a party,
>ROFLMAO
>Thats absolute GOLD
>If you turn the amp up high enough they produce a nifty little light show.
Do you have a comprehension problem? Or are you just poor? Or perhaps ignorant? Or stupid?
I clearly described stacked ESL63. If you want more volume, you just buy more ESL63 and stack them. If you want more bass, you just buy more ESL63 and stack them. You see, it is really very simple if you want quality sound to get it. All it costs is a little, a very little, thought (1), and some money.
It is just as well I didnt describe a Bessel Array of five ESL63 in a row to deliver point-source stereo or the little minds you represent so well would have fulminated into terminal overload.
Andre Jute
PS Ever hear of protection circuits?
(1) A quote from Maynard Keynes, lest some smartarse with dictionary of quotations accuse me of plagiarism.
MY ORIGINAL POST
Placement of the Quad ESL63
rec.audio.tubes,aus.hi-fi
You dont say what music you generally like, Chris, and it may be youre talking about the Maggies rather than Quads. Still, I offer my experience as perhaps of interest.
Even in rooms 24 to 40ft long I use ESL63 from 2-3ft from the back wall, but I like chamber music and voices and of course the properly proportioned Georgian rooms aid the bass. When I have a party, in the longest room I stack them on the middle of the longest walls, with the two speakers in each stack at an angle that puts the centre of the panels about 12in apart and the open edge of the triangle seen from the top right up against the wall. (1) In a 24ft room I stack two one in front of the other, the rear one a foot or two from the wall, the front one about 12in in front and parallel (seen from the side) to the rear one.
There is a way to use ESL63, and possibly other panels though I have not tried it, in quite small rooms. Simply consider them huge earphones. Place them either side of your chair facing your ears and each other through your head and at whatever distance from the walls behind them or from you that you discover is possible and suits your music and the room best. If you sit on an office chair at your computer, you may have to raise or tilt them. I do this often at my desk as I listen to music for 14 hours a day (2) while I work.
HTH.
Andre Jute
(1) I havent looked this up recently, but perhaps Phil wants to check his statement about how far behind an ESL63 the virtual point source is. My memory is that is 12 inches. Maybe Ive been doing it wrong for decades!
(2) Sympathy for a poor writer who has to work long hours to put a scraping of jam on his bread would be appropriate. Having been employed about what would otherwise be my hobbies for thirty years, and my work being such that I mostly work in my comfortable study or studio, I dont consider workaholicism a disease.
Chris Morriss <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But its not just the price. Its mainly that they are dipole radiators
and need 2 metres space behind them to stop the reflected wave causing a
comb-filter effect at the listening position.
I have pair of Magneplanar MG2.5r speakers. Lovely units, though not as
good as a 989 electrostatic. I cant use these however in my current
house as I simply dont have a room long enough. (Im looking for
another house!)
I wonder how many people who have heard Quads (and other types of
dipole) in a totally inappropriate setting have been put off them.
Dipoles are VERY fussy about positioning.
--
Chris Morriss
Tony Pearce
> > Quite true, and I have never said Quads, weren't great for string
> quartets.
> ** other red herring - achieved by snipping the context and making a
> deliberate misinterpretation.
OK, they're *NO* good for string quartets then. Have it your way, since I
couldn't give a rats either way.
> > And they are expensive, and even a self proclaimed expert can't buy a
> decent S/H pair.
> ** More deliberate lies and red herrings.
What happened to you then :-)
> And he now admits he used a sub woofer for 19 years,
> ** I mentioned the fact in June 2002 and numerous times since -
> arsehole.
And still maintains they are ONLY for Home Theatre Knuckle Draggers, like
yourself it seems.
TonyP.
Patrick Turner
Tony Pearce wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3FF5571E...@turneraudio.com.au...
>
> > With all due respect, ported speakers with 97dB at 1M are somewhat
> > uncommon.
>
> I never said they were common, I said they were readily available.
In the shops here, there are none at 97 dB.
But sure, they can be found.....
>
>
> > Where a speaker IS this sensitive, the plus side is that little power is
> needed,
>
> Yep.
>
> > But many very sensitive cone/dome speakers tend to have an unflat response
> > due to the lightweight thin cone materials, with all their breakup modes.
> > Methinks the better power handling is a myth.
>
> Many will handle more power than Quads. But I'm not saying the treble is
> better at low SPL's :-)
> Compromise is the name of the game in speaker design unfortunately.
>
> > The higher quality modern domes and cones tend to have a much flatter
> response,
> > even though they need more power, and its been my experience that
> > the modern low sensitivity speakers are better.
>
> Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's, 89-92
> dB range being common.
Most are 89 dB.
If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
you find 88 dB is about average.
>
>
> > Horn speakers remove any need for high power.
> > But I have yet to hear acceptable sound from horn speakers.
>
> Many are more than acceptable in some cases, just as Quads are more than
> acceptable for string quartets etc.
>
> > Most diy efforts I have heard are expensive firewood, fitted with
> > over priced drivers.
>
> True.
>
> > But some folks just love their Lowthers, and I look forward to hearing a
> pair.
>
> You would probably not like them either. But that matters little to those
> who do.
I expect to be wowed bt Lowthers, they are worshipped
by their admirers, and I refuse to decide until I listen....
>
>
> > Very few ppl I know like Klipsh.
>
> Not my favouite corner horn either, but far better than the boxes owned by
> most people.
>
> > Then there is all the BS to be waded through to get a horn to sound half
> decent
> > if you are doing DIY, and don't be surprised if the mates escort your wife
> > away.
>
> Wouldn't that be a good thing? :-)
Depends what sort of mates you got, and how expensive the wife is to run!
Nicole K and Kylie M have been keen keeping me so busy,
( supervising them mowing the lawns ), etc, etc, that I have no time to
marry.....
And they think horns are permissable in my humble abode anytime....
Patrick Turner.
>
>
> TonyP.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
> Most are 89 dB.
> If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
> you find 88 dB is about average.
** Measured with wide band pink noise at 2.5 metres in a loungeroom -
ESL63s are about 2 dB ***louder*** than such speakers for the same rms input
voltage.
......... Phil
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
You really ought to work for Quad, you'd make a splendid salesman,
if you could only drag yourself away from snarling at everyone like
a demented troglodyte on the news groups.
As I recall, I went on to say later that I was confident about the recording and
amp quality,
and at the demo where I first heard Quad 57, there was a sub woofer.
It seemed to me the Quad ESL had some limitations, in the sense that
they suddenly run out of steam, or headroom, wheras dynamics have a more
compressed overload.
I didn't think Quad speakers were perfect, but I maintained that if I saw a
cheap
pair around in good condition, I'd like to acquire them.
I have no idea if the pair I heard had been re-panelled by a well known Sydney
repairist or not.
I recall you interpreted my cautious optimism as seriously unjustified criticism
of Quad, and the discussion ended up a shirt fight, as usual.
Recently I heard a pair of ESL57 in mint plus 303 amp system, at another
client's
house and I wasn't all that impressed.
But on one memorable day prior to hearing the ESL57,
I did get to hear some Martin Logans which
I did think were quite superlative, powered by some modern SS amp,
not sure what brand.
Quad II were used to drive the ESL57 at the audition years ago,
and their Ro is about 0.5 ohms, low enough,
since Peter Walker did have some idea of what he was doing.
Many other modern tube amps might have Ro = 0.3 ohms,
which should drive the ESL57 very well.
I'd make room here for any decent ESL, and I would like to
compare them to my dynamics.
I reserve my opinion about which is best until I hear
things over a long term for myself.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au
> You really ought to work for Quad, you'd make a splendid salesman,
> if you could only drag yourself away from snarling at everyone like
> a demented troglodyte on the news groups.
** Go to hell - as I know you surely will.
As I recall, I went on to say later that I was confident about the
recording and
> amp quality,
** What amp ? A 15 watt valve one.
> and at the demo where I first heard Quad 57, there was a sub woofer.
** That demo was in a horrible, huge, echo ridden room with massive traffic
noise.
The ASON room in Haberfield.
> It seemed to me the Quad ESL had some limitations, in the sense that
> they suddenly run out of steam, or headroom, wheras dynamics have a more
> compressed overload.
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again.
> I didn't think Quad speakers were perfect,
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again.
>
> Recently I heard a pair of ESL57 in mint plus 303 amp system, at another
> client's house and I wasn't all that impressed.
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again.,
> But on one memorable day prior to hearing the ESL57,
> I did get to hear some Martin Logans which
> I did think were quite superlative, powered by some modern SS amp,
> not sure what brand.
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and agian and again.
> Quad II were used to drive the ESL57 at the audition years ago,
> and their Ro is about 0.5 ohms, low enough,
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again
>
> I'd make room here for any decent ESL, and I would like to
> compare them to my dynamics.
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again.
>
> I reserve my opinion about which is best until I hear
> things over a long term for myself.
** The Turneroid is posting about himself - again and again and again.
The posturing old turd is deaf, dumb, stupid and a pig ignorant arsehole.
The Turneroid admits NOT knowing what stereo is, NEVER sitting in the
middle of a pair of any speakers but wandering around the room like his
haemorrhoids are playing up.
.......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
> > Most are 89 dB.
> > If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
> > you find 88 dB is about average.
Not last time I looked, and don't confuse driver sensitivity with speaker
system sensitivity. There is more than one driver in each box, and *many*
systems these days use more than 1 bass/mid driver. The larger drivers are
usually more sensitive to start with, as are *many* tweeters.
> ** Measured with wide band pink noise at 2.5 metres in a loungeroom -
> ESL63s are about 2 dB ***louder*** than such speakers for the same rms
input
> voltage.
So you keep telling us Phil, but you've never actually done a comparison,
only a dodgy calculation. The *very* common two bass driver, 4 ohm ported
speaker boxes will easily beat the ESL's at the same input voltage, in the
same room, with the same measurement distance, and all other test conditions
the SAME.
If you look very hard I am sure you can come up with a speaker box system
that has lower sensitivity and power handling, but who cares?
TonyP.
Patrick Turner
Tony Pearce wrote:
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff66f9a$0$18752$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
>
> > > Most are 89 dB.
> > > If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
> > > you find 88 dB is about average.
>
> Not last time I looked, and don't confuse driver sensitivity with speaker
> system sensitivity. There is more than one driver in each box, and *many*
> systems these days use more than 1 bass/mid driver. The larger drivers are
> usually more sensitive to start with, as are *many* tweeters.
Many of the above brands in the WES catalog are as sensistive as I claim.
Using multiple drivers don't increase the sensitivity much.
And the aluminium coned Seas 210 mm bass driver I have used, which are
remarkably
flat, and easy to use, is only 87.5 dB/w/m.
I have a pair of 1975 Electrovoice 12" bass drivers with huge magnets in 90 Kg x
130 Lt
boxes, and they have slightly higher SPL /w,
and are to me subjectively better than the Seas.
I am thinking of building an auto transformer to
power the midrange boxes I have from a low impedance drive,
to make the impedance seen by the amp higher, and allow the
Seas bass levels to be higher relative to the midrange, without losses
in resistors in series with mids and tweeters.
This would make the 1.5 dB improvement that
might be necesary, and multiple tranny taps will allow
personalisation of the response. To me a tranny
would be better than Lpads, since low Ro can be maintained, and
power isn't wasted in series R, and the impedance better suits tube amps.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff66f9a$0$18752$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
>
> > > Most are 89 dB.
> > > If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
> > > you find 88 dB is about average.
> > ** Measured with wide band pink noise at 2.5 metres in a loungeroom -
> > ESL63s are about 2 dB ***louder*** than such speakers for the same rms
> input> voltage.
>
> So you keep telling us Phil, but you've never actually done a comparison,
** More stupid lies from the window dresser.
> only a dodgy calculation.
** WRONG.
The *very* common two bass driver, 4 ohm ported
> speaker boxes will easily beat the ESL's at the same input voltage, in the
> same room, with the same measurement distance, and all other test
conditions
> the SAME.
** More red herrings - the comparison above was with a box system with
88 dB/w/m sensitivity.
A box speaker needs to have 90 dB/w/m to match a ESL 63s SPL at 2.5
metres.
The window dresser is out of his head - ESL63s have average
sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker.
.......... Phil
Scott Gardner
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Tony Pearce wrote:
>
>> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:3ff66f9a$0$18752$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
>>
>> > > Most are 89 dB.
>> > > If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
>> > > you find 88 dB is about average.
>>
>> Not last time I looked, and don't confuse driver sensitivity with speaker
>> system sensitivity. There is more than one driver in each box, and *many*
>> systems these days use more than 1 bass/mid driver. The larger drivers are
>> usually more sensitive to start with, as are *many* tweeters.
>
>Many of the above brands in the WES catalog are as sensistive as I claim.
>Using multiple drivers don't increase the sensitivity much.
>Patrick Turner.
Phil brings up an interesting point. Is the term "sensitivity" meant
to be used solely for raw drivers, or is the same term applicable to
speaker/enclosure combos as well? In car audio enclosures, I've found
that most subwoofers have sensitivities less than 90 dB/Wm, but adding
a second sub is good for +3db, without adding any additional power.
Also, a well-designed ported enclosure can easily add another +6db on
top of that, compared to a sealed box. Once the enclosure is actually
in the car, cabin gain can be as high as +12 dB at certain
frequencies. Is the use of the term "sensitivity" correct in all
three cases (raw driver, driver(s) in enclosure, driver(s) and
enclosure in vehicle)?
Scott Gardner
Phil Allison
"Scott Gardner" <gardn...@cox.net
> Phil brings up an interesting point.
** It was not my point.
> Is the term "sensitivity" meant to be used solely for raw drivers, or is
the same term applicable to
> speaker/enclosure combos as well?
** In all cases mentioned systems were being compared and wide band pink
noise was the test signal - so raw drivers are out of the story.
......... Phil
thispeac...@recommended.com
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ( Posted on aus.hi-fi to Patrick Turner - 19 May 2002 )
>>
>> ** Hi Patrick,
>> With 45 watts (8 ohm) of SS power per speaker in an average lounge
>> the SPL is well over 100 dB at the listening position. This is true for
>> frequencies between 65 Hz and 20kHz. They excel on all types of programme
>> unless you need high levels below 60 Hz. For that a sub is needed.
>>
and how much shit has Phil spread when anyone suggested they lacked
bass and needed a subwoofer?
>> For the best results an amplifier with low output impedance is
>> needed - valve amps are not too good for this - since the input impedance
>> drops from 16 ohms nominal to under 2 ohms at 18 kHz. Any subsonics in the
>> signal must be removed too since they will stress the amp trying to drive
>> high currents into the input tranny at LF. With CDs this is not a problem
>> like it is with vinyl.
and when people obseved stress in the speakers when driven with
lots of low frequencies (nice bug zappers) what nice words did Phil
use?
and he probably wonders why about 10 people in aus.audiovisual have
stated how much they hate him for his bad manners.
amazing how nicely he wrote in may 2002 when compared with the scummy
posts he started shortly thereafter.
Still I guess most wolves come in sheeps clothing.
Phil Allison
<thispeac...@recommended.com>
> >
> >Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >> With 45 watts (8 ohm) of SS power per speaker in an average
lounge
> >> the SPL is well over 100 dB at the listening position. This is true for
> >> frequencies between 65 Hz and 20kHz. They excel on all types of
programme
> >> unless you need high levels below 60 Hz. For that a sub is needed.
> >>
>
> and how much shit has Phil spread when anyone suggested they lacked
> bass and needed a subwoofer?
** You stinking liar - I have posed that advice dozens of times in
relation to ESL 57s.
> >> For the best results an amplifier with low output impedance is
> >> needed - valve amps are not too good for this - since the input
impedance
> >> drops from 16 ohms nominal to under 2 ohms at 18 kHz. Any subsonics in
the
> >> signal must be removed too since they will stress the amp trying to
drive
> >> high currents into the input tranny at LF. With CDs this is not a
problem
> >> like it is with vinyl.
>
> and when people observed stress in the speakers when driven with
> lots of low frequencies
** Sub sonics are not the same as low frequencies - fuckhead.
Vinyl is not CD either.
> amazing how nicely he wrote in may 2002 when compared with the scummy
> posts he started shortly thereafter.
** That was prior to several insane cunts like you starting abuse and
threat campaigns to prevent the truth being posted here.
............ Phil
Patrick Turner
Scott Gardner wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:28:47 +1100, Patrick Turner
> <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tony Pearce wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3ff66f9a$0$18752$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
> >>
> >> > > Most are 89 dB.
> >> > > If you browse the Seas, Peerless, Audax, Scanspeak range of drivers,
> >> > > you find 88 dB is about average.
> >>
> >> Not last time I looked, and don't confuse driver sensitivity with speaker
> >> system sensitivity. There is more than one driver in each box, and *many*
> >> systems these days use more than 1 bass/mid driver. The larger drivers are
> >> usually more sensitive to start with, as are *many* tweeters.
> >
> >Many of the above brands in the WES catalog are as sensistive as I claim.
> >Using multiple drivers don't increase the sensitivity much.
>
> >Patrick Turner.
>
> Phil brings up an interesting point. Is the term "sensitivity" meant
> to be used solely for raw drivers, or is the same term applicable to
> speaker/enclosure combos as well?
One has to go to the manufacturers data, and find the test method.
Most drivers are tested on some sort of baffle, at one frequency,
on axis, etc.
> In car audio enclosures, I've found
> that most subwoofers have sensitivities less than 90 dB/Wm, but adding
> a second sub is good for +3db, without adding any additional power.
I am no expert on car audio.
>
> Also, a well-designed ported enclosure can easily add another +6db on
> top of that, compared to a sealed box. Once the enclosure is actually
> in the car, cabin gain can be as high as +12 dB at certain
> frequencies. Is the use of the term "sensitivity" correct in all
> three cases (raw driver, driver(s) in enclosure, driver(s) and
> enclosure in vehicle)?
>
> Scott Gardner
The thread hasn't been about car systems, but about domestic hi-fi speakers
usd an average loungeroom.
The sensitivity won't increase in the midband of the driver, say 500 Hz for a
bass woofer,
just because you add a port.
The sensitivity is usually measured in the mid band where the speaker
is mainly resistive in its impedance, and where there is one watt,
when there will be 2.83v applied for an 8 ohm speaker.
But at bass resonant peaks, the impedance may be 40 ohms,
but the speaker is still measured with 2.83v, although
the power is a lot lower. The efficiency is higher at resonant peaks.
So basically speakers are measured with a constant voltage
using that voltage which makes 1 watt in the mid band.
Very few woofers measure flat between 30 Hz and 1 kHz.
rooms have various bass resonances, nulling some frequencies,
and peaking at others, depending on the speaker location and seating position,
and its a PITA to get a flat bass response in a given room.
Older folks don't like too much bass, young folks like heaps of it.
Patrick Turner.
Arpit
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software
(Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:
in...@turneraudio.com.au
all relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts:
it appears that the DNS operator for this domain has installed an
invalid MX record with an IP address instead of a domain name on the
right hand side
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers.
------
>Patrick Turner.
Tony Pearce
> > So you keep telling us Phil, but you've never actually done a
comparison,
> > speaker boxes will easily beat the ESL's at the same input voltage, in
the
> > same room, with the same measurement distance, and all other test
> conditions
> > the SAME.
> ** More red herrings - the comparison above was with a box system
with
> 88 dB/w/m sensitivity.
No comparison has been done.
> A box speaker needs to have 90 dB/w/m to match a ESL 63s SPL at 2.5
> metres.
According to your dodgy calculations. Your ESL63's were *well* below average
though, weren't they Phil :-)
> ESL63s have average sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker.
Not according to any test I have seen.
The Aust Hi Fi test of the Quad 988's says they are well below average.
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
>
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > ESL63s have average sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker.
>
> Not according to any test I have seen.
> The Aust Hi Fi test of the Quad 988's says they are well below average.
** That review ( August 2002) is wrong.
Quad give the figure as 86dB 1w/ /1m with pink noise in free air - go
see the web site.
The non faulty ESL 63 I had here met this figure with an extra 1dB when
tested in a room.
Prove that figure wrong or shut the fuck up - arsehole.
............ Phil
Laurie Dare
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:33:18 +1100, Patrick Turner
> <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>> ( Posted on aus.hi-fi to Patrick Turner - 19 May 2002 )
>>>
>>> ** Hi Patrick,
>
>>> With 45 watts (8 ohm) of SS power per speaker in an average
>>> lounge
>>> the SPL is well over 100 dB at the listening position. This is true for
>>> frequencies between 65 Hz and 20kHz. They excel on all types of
>>> programme unless you need high levels below 60 Hz. For that a sub is
>>> needed.
>>>
>
> and how much shit has Phil spread when anyone suggested they lacked
> bass and needed a subwoofer?
>
>
>>> For the best results an amplifier with low output impedance is
>>> needed - valve amps are not too good for this - since the input
>>> impedance
>>> drops from 16 ohms nominal to under 2 ohms at 18 kHz. Any subsonics in
>>> the signal must be removed too since they will stress the amp trying to
>>> drive
>>> high currents into the input tranny at LF. With CDs this is not a
>>> problem like it is with vinyl.
> and when people observed stress in the speakers when driven with
> lots of low frequencies (nice bug zappers) what nice words did Phil
> use?
> and he probably wonders why about 10 people in aus.audiovisual have
> stated how much they hate him for his bad manners.
> amazing how nicely he wrote in may 2002 when compared with the scummy
> posts he started shortly thereafter.
> Still I guess most wolves come in sheeps clothing.
All it took for PA to revert to the use of vulgar language & filthy
suggestions was an argument (with me) as to whether or not WD40 was good
for use in electronics, which, because it contains solvents that can
dissolve circuit boards & components, it isn't.
I was advised not to use it by the course instructor when I did my AOCP, and
subsequently by a number of techs & hams with umpteen years experience of
home brewing. There are more suitable products on the market without the
solvents which are much better, especially now that SMC's are the norm.
I won't see PA's half witted reply (thank goodness) but can guess at the
sort of abuse this post will generate.
ruff
P.S. Even the manufacturers don't recommend it for electronic use.
Tony Pearce
> ** That review ( August 2002) is wrong.
Maybe, but I think I'll take their measurements over your imagination.
> Quad give the figure as 86dB 1w/ /1m with pink noise in free air -
go
> see the web site.
Which is less than the average for ported box speakers despite your hand
waving.
> Prove that figure wrong.
I don't need to, it proves my point, not yours.
TonyP.
thispeac...@recommended.com
<led...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>All it took for PA to revert to the use of vulgar language & filthy
>suggestions was an argument (with me) as to whether or not WD40 was good
>for use in electronics, which, because it contains solvents that can
>dissolve circuit boards & components, it isn't.
>I was advised not to use it by the course instructor when I did my AOCP, and
>subsequently by a number of techs & hams with umpteen years experience of
>home brewing. There are more suitable products on the market without the
>solvents which are much better, especially now that SMC's are the norm.
>I won't see PA's half witted reply (thank goodness) but can guess at the
>sort of abuse this post will generate.
>
>ruff
>P.S. Even the manufacturers don't recommend it for electronic use.
Ahhh now it's all coming back to me.
If a person can have a manic breakdown over a can of WD40 he's
probably not mentally fit for human contact.
well anyway from what I can see of other peoples posts and reposts
from others of old Phil's stuff on bass speakers and quads, I think he
is not just batting below zero, he's batted himself into a hole....a
big black hole...
glad I killfiled him.
Phil Allison
"Laurie Dare" <led...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ff7893d$0$18746
>
> All it took for PA to revert to the use of vulgar language & filthy
> suggestions was an argument (with me) as to whether or not WD40 was good
> for use in electronics, which, because it contains solvents that can
> dissolve circuit boards & components, it isn't.
** Not that stupid one again !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know you are dealing with a real fuckwit when he cannot learn
anything.
> I was advised not to use it by the course instructor when I did my AOCP,
and
> subsequently by a number of techs & hams with umpteen years experience of
> home brewing.
** The opinions of anonymous fools are not worth a pinch of dog shit.
>There are more suitable products on the market without the
> solvents which are much better,
** Yawn ....
especially now that SMC's are the norm.
** Who needs to lubricate a SMC ???????????????
> I won't see PA's half witted reply (thank goodness) but can guess at the
> sort of abuse this post will generate.
** Prize fuckwittery like Laurie's should never go un- recognised.
> ruff
> P.S. Even the manufacturers don't recommend it for electronic use.
** Nor do I.
No benefit to be had from use on transistors, ICs, resistors, capacitors,
or valves at all.
But fine for electro mechanical items like switches, connectors and
control pots.
.......... Phil
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff7813d$0$18690$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > ** That review ( August 2002) is wrong.
>
> Maybe, but I think I'll take their measurements over your imagination.
>
> > Quad give the figure as 86dB 1w/ /1m with pink noise in free
ir -
> go
> > see the web site.
>
> Which is less than the average for ported box speakers despite your hand
> waving.
** The turd moves the goalposts once again.
And offers no figures at all.
>
> > Prove that figure wrong.
>
> I don't need to, it proves my point, not yours.
** No - it slams your claim that ESL988s are well below average for
hi-fi speakers.
It backs up all the figures I posted exaclty.
........... Phil
Phil Allison
<thispeac...@recommended.com>
...
> well anyway from what I can see of other peoples posts and reposts
> from others of old Phil's
** More stinking lies.
I reposted one old post of mine - to prove a point.
No-one else has done any such thing - you arsehole.
.......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> > Which is less than the average for ported box speakers despite your hand
> > waving.
> ** The turd moves the goalposts once again.
ME? How amusing :-)
***You're*** the one who has posted umpteen different figures for the
Quad's. Of course you change the number of speakers, voltage/wattage,
distance, room gain and anything else you can think of, with every post!
> And offers no figures at all.
I quoted 89-92dB/W/M as being average for ported box speakers. Well above
the Quads 86dB you quoted, despite some tests showing even lower figures.
You can disagree as much as you like, but it's a simple matter for anyone to
compare for themselves. Given the price of Quad ESL 63 or 988's, who really
cares? Not even you owns a pair, oops sorry, you did for a day :-)
TonyP.
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff795e7$0$18749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > Which is less than the average for ported box speakers despite your
hand
> > > waving.
>
> > ** The turd moves the goalposts once again.
>
> ME? How amusing :-)
> ***You're*** the one who has posted umpteen different figures for the
> Quad's. Of course you change the number of speakers, voltage/wattage,
> distance, room gain and anything else you can think of, with every post!
** All the figures were fully explained, correct and needed to show what
the available SPL in a room really is.
Shame if they went over you pointed little head.
>> And offers no figures at all.
>
> I quoted 89-92dB/W/M as being average for ported box speakers.
** What designs have those figures ? no 4 ohm HT abortions please.
If you exclude those fit only for HT use then 88 dB/w/m is more the
average.
If you include only speakers with comparable quality to the ESL63 then
go even lower.
> Well above the Quads 86dB you quoted, despite some tests showing even
lower figures.
** 3 dB is barely noticeable - you are so full of shit.
> You can disagree as much as you like, but it's a simple matter for anyone
to
> compare for themselves.
** Simple if you own a decent SPL meter and have a pink noise test CD.
Treacherous if you use subjective methods.
A transistor radio with 200mW sounds LOUD at full volume.
> Given the price of Quad ESL 63 or 988's, who really cares?
** You made to issue of this - since you HATE anything Quad with an
insane passion.
......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> ** All the figures were fully explained, correct and needed to show what
> the available SPL in a room really is.
Not, you confused them all when comparing with boxes.
> > I quoted 89-92dB/W/M as being average for ported box speakers.
> ** What designs have those figures ? no 4 ohm HT abortions please.
What part of average didn't you understand?
> If you exclude those fit only for HT use then 88 dB/w/m is more the
> average.
Total bullshit, that's a lot closer to the Minimum than average.
> If you include only speakers with comparable quality to the ESL63
then
> go even lower.
Since you don't admit there *ARE* any comparable speakers to the Quad's,
that would be total bullshit too! :-)
> ** 3 dB is barely noticeable - you are so full of shit.
Sorry, I forgot that you think a 10dB drop is FLAT!
> > You can disagree as much as you like, but it's a simple matter for
anyone
> > to compare for themselves.
> ** Simple if you own a decent SPL meter and have a pink noise test CD.
Yep, let me know when you've done it!
> A transistor radio with 200mW sounds LOUD at full volume.
Only because of the distortion. Is that why you think Quad's go loud?
A decent Hi-Fi at the exact same SPL does not sound loud.
> ** You made to issue of this - since you HATE anything Quad with an
> insane passion.
Not me, I said they were *great* for string quartets, but you said I was
wrong!
You're the one who is a totally rabid Quad apologist, unable to recognise
their limitations, as well as their good points.
TonyP.
Phil Allison
>
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff7a8b8$0$18385$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > ** All the figures were fully explained, correct and needed to show
what
> > the available SPL in a room really is.
>
> Not, you confused them all when comparing with boxes.
** Any confusion was in your head - fuckwit.
>
> > If you exclude those fit only for HT use then 88 dB/w/m is more
the
> > average.
>
> Total bullshit, that's a lot closer to the Minimum than average.
** Prove it - include all the famous hi-fi speakers in your list.
> > If you include only speakers with comparable quality to the ESL63
> then go even lower.
>
> Since you don't admit there *ARE* any comparable speakers to the Quad's,
> that would be total bullshit too! :-)
** I like the Yamaha NS1000s - they sound very like ESLs.
> > > You can disagree as much as you like, but it's a simple matter for
> anyone to compare for themselves.
>
> > ** Simple if you own a decent SPL meter and have a pink noise test
CD.
>
> Yep, let me know when you've done it!
** I have - when the ESL63s were here and with my JV20s.
The Vifas give the same SPL at 2.5 metres - but never the same sound
quality.
> > A transistor radio with 200mW sounds LOUD at full volume.
>
> Only because of the distortion. Is that why you think Quad's go loud?
** How stupid. What an utter arse you are.
Quad ESLs will go to quite high SPLs - but will sound "loud".
> > ** You made to issue of this - since you HATE anything Quad with an
> > insane passion.
>
> Not me, I said they were *great* for string quartets, but you said I was
> wrong!
** More stinking lies. You said they were ONLY good for quartets.
> You're the one who is a totally rabid Quad apologist, unable to recognise
> their limitations, as well as their good points.
** You are a liar - that is simple fact.
You are also a libelling turd - of me, of Quad of anything you do not
happen to like.
You are also a bullshit artist with zero technical knowledge of anything.
You are also a gutless turd since you hide every single thing about
yourself while publicly abusing someone who has the honesty to hide nothing.
You are a worst piece of sub human shit I have ever come across,
anywhere.
........... Phil
Tony Pearce
> > Total bullshit, that's a lot closer to the Minimum than average.
>
> ** Prove it - include all the famous hi-fi speakers in your list.
Sure, where's your list?
> > Since you don't admit there *ARE* any comparable speakers to the Quad's,
> > that would be total bullshit too! :-)
> ** I like the Yamaha NS1000s - they sound very like ESLs.
Yes they are innefficient and bass shy too. :-) :-)
> ** I have - when the ESL63s were here and with my JV20s.
Hardly average. Such small speakers are usually less efficient than large
systems the size of a Quad speaker. Why not compare apples with apples?
Won't support your argument?
> The Vifas give the same SPL at 2.5 metres - but never the same
sound
> quality.
Well at about 1/30th the price or less, what do you expect? But even they
were as efficient then.
> ** How stupid.
You sure are Phil! 200 mW into a 3 inch speaker gives how much SPL exactly?
> ** More stinking lies. You said they were ONLY good for quartets.
Please post where I said that. You do make a habit of misquoting don't you
Phil! Do you really think it advances your credibility, or just the lack of
it. I did say they were no good for organ music a while ago, something you
refuted, but found no one else in agreement with you. Most owners have the
sense to use a sub woofer for such material, even you it seems. Maybe you
had more sense 19 years ago. Can't have been less anyway.
TonyP.
thispeac...@recommended.com
<To...@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3ff7b31a$0$18386$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> ** I like the Yamaha NS1000s - they sound very like ESLs.
wow....either he's deaf as a post or his hifi is really shitty.
oh well what the heck I killfiled him anyway.
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff7b31a$0$18386$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > Total bullshit, that's a lot closer to the Minimum than average.
> >
> > ** Prove it - include all the famous hi-fi speakers in your list.
>
> Sure, where's your list?
** No facts again - all lies.
> > > Since you don't admit there *ARE* any comparable speakers to the
Quad's,
> > > that would be total bullshit too! :-)
>
> > ** I like the Yamaha NS1000s - they sound very like ESLs.
>
> Yes they are innefficient and bass shy too. :-) :-)
** Prove it - arsehole.
> > ** I have - when the ESL63s were here and with my JV20s.
>
> Hardly average.
** Fucking SNIPPER !!!!!!!!!!!
That was not the context !!!!!!
>
> > The Vifas give the same SPL at 2.5 metres - but never the same
> sound quality.
>
> Well at about 1/30th the price or less, what do you expect? But even they
> were as efficient then.
** They have a nominal rating of 89 dBw/w/m - proving the point at
issue - which you snipped oout as usual.
Now go eat dog shit - arsehole.
> > ** More stinking lies. You said they were ONLY good for quartets.
>
> Please post where I said that.
" Actually most modern speakers are higher sensitivity than Quad ESL's,
89-92
dB range being common. ...... just as Quads are more than
acceptable for string quartets etc. "
>You do make a habit of misquoting don't you Phil!
** You have ** maliciously** misquoted me 50 times this week - so go get
fucked.
> Do you really think it advances your credibility,
** You claims of being misquoted are entirely fake - like everything about
you.
All you ever do is snip out the context and post smartarse remarks - the
actions of a first class cunt.
You are also a libelling turd - of me, of Quad of anything you do not
happen to like.
You are also a bullshit artist with zero technical knowledge of anything.
You are also a gutless turd since you hide every single thing about
yourself while publicly abusing someone who has the honesty to hide nothing.
You are a worst piece of sub human shit I have ever come across,
anywhere.
........... Phil
............ Phil
Phil Allison
<thispeac...@recommended.com>
>
> wow....either he's deaf as a post or his hifi is really shitty.
** Go eat shit - you anonymous pig.
............ Phil
Tony Pearce
> > Sure, where's your list?
> ** No facts again - all lies.
Your list is all lies?
> > Well at about 1/30th the price or less, what do you expect? But even
they
> > were as efficient then.
> ** They have a nominal rating of 89 dBw/w/m - proving the point at
> issue - which you snipped oout as usual.
So even though they are much smaller and MUCH cheaper, they are still More
efficient than Quad ESL's, proving *MY* point.
> > > ** More stinking lies. You said they were ONLY good for quartets.
> > Please post where I said that.
> dB range being common. ...... just as Quads are more than
> acceptable for string quartets etc. "
I don't see the word "ONLY", but I do see "etc.", proving once more **YOU**
are the stinking liar.
> ** You claims of being misquoted are entirely fake - like everything
about
> you.
3 provable times in one week, which I have done.
> All you ever do is snip out the context and post smartarse remarks -
the
> actions of a first class cunt.
Yes you do and are!
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
** A pair of Quad ESL63s produce the same SPLs at 2.5 metres as
conventional speakers do with a 89dB /w/m sensitivity. This makes them
average sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker - contrary to the wrong assertion
of "roverT".
"roverT" is a incoherent and autistic fuckwit.
QED.
.......... Phil
Tony Pearce
> ** A pair of Quad ESL63s produce the same SPLs at 2.5 metres as
> conventional speakers do with a 89dB /w/m sensitivity. This makes them
> average sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker - contrary to the wrong assertion
> of "roverT".
Still using the proof by constant assertion method Phil. As long as you
think so, nobody else cares.
TonyP.
Phil Allison
"roverT"
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff96503$0$18749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > ** A pair of Quad ESL63s produce the same SPLs at 2.5 metres as
> > conventional speakers do with a 89dB /w/m sensitivity. This makes them
> > average sensitivity for a hi-fi speaker - contrary to the wrong
assertion
> > of "roverT".
>
> Still using the proof by constant assertion method Phil.
** The relevant sensitivity data is published.
I have described how I did my test so anyone can repeat them.
There are no unsupported assertions.
The assertion that "roverT" is autistic fuckwit is supported by every
word he has ever said.
............. Phil