Quad ESLs - 57 or 63?
John Smith
trying to decide what I want. The more I read the more I understand (I
think) but also the more confused I get.
I would appreciate some info from those who own or have long term knowledge
of these speakers.
I'm planning to use a pair of Quad IIs as the main amp (I do also have a
Quad 33/303 setup but for now I want to use the Quad IIs).
My main listening room is about 14x17 feet. Without re-arranging the room
(and probably moving the fireplace and/or the patio doors) the speakers will
have to fit near the back wall facing the patio doors. Problem: the door
into the room is at that end and so the speakers will need to be within 2
(maybe 3) feet of that back wall or I will have to climb over one to get
into the room..
Which ESLs would be best in this situation? One american review by someone
who really seemed to know his audio from his elbow (and his Claude Debussy
from his Miles Davis) says the ESL57s are happier nearer the back wall than
the ESL63s BUT another review by someone else who also seems to be very
knowledgeable says EXACTLY the opposite.
Advice please before I go completely mad and buy a pair of each.
Thanks,
John Smith.
tony sayer
<J.W.T...@ukc.ac.uk> writes
By a pair of each?, good idea!, then you can try both of them. I'd go
for the 63's However the only thing I'd question is the ability of the
303 or the 2's to drive them. You IMHO really need something a bit more
meaty to drive them. I've got an Audiolab 8000 power amp driving mine
and their fine with that. I reckon that the 57's have a lower output and
have a distinctive sweet spot for listening, but their mid range is very
good indeed.
You could perhaps make up some absorber frames filled with rockwool and
covered with fabric in order to minimise reflections from the rear of
the 63's as in fact they do radiate equally well to the rear, so your
point is a valid one.
I really reckon the only way to see you happy on this is to try both if
possible but having used the 57's and 63's I'd opt for the latter these
days.
However whichever you go for make sure they are performing to spec.
ESL's do suffer from leaking panels and are a bit like having a
substation in your living room especially when the weather is a tad
humid, so make sure they don't crack or hiss when in use and ask to see
any service history they have. QUAD service do still look after these
and I have had mine seen to there a few times over some 20 years or so
and have had new "stockings" and wood work etc, as well as a panel or
two, but they still are by far and away the most accurate neutral
speakers on the planet, so wise choice and enjoy the music which is
*exactly* what I do with mine:))..
--
Tony Sayer
TT
"John Smith" <J.W.T...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d0srb8$rup$3...@oheron.kent.ac.uk...
> I'm thinking of buying some Quad ESLs
First suggestion is go and take a good stiff belt of your favourite "poison"
and have a nice long lay down until the urge passes :-)
and I've been reading a lot on the net
> trying to decide what I want. The more I read the more I understand (I
> think) but also the more confused I get.
Now I went through all this a short while ago and actually got as far as
demoing some prospective buys. Your experience to date is not unlike mine.
There are some Quad fanatics in this world that will berate you into
believing these things are the definitive bench mark of speaker design.
Maybe, maybe not, as it comes down to personal preference and the type of
music you listen to. Example - one friend of mine (who actually had 3 sets
of ESL57s in various states of disrepair and only one set working) said to
me Quote: "I am only buying and listening to female vocals now." Somewhat
restrictive I think but then I noticed a trend with others as well so this
was not in isolation. Undeterred I still ventured on. After all these are
"The World's best speaker - right?" Yeah for female vocals with no bass and
limited SPL levels and *IF* you do try and "Arc them up" (now I know where
this term comes from) the panels arc out and "Hey Presto" more repair bills.
>
> I would appreciate some info from those who own or have long term
knowledge
> of these speakers.
>
First I will put my flame suit on (slip) IMHO these speakers are currently
more suited to the more technically adept out there that love tinkering with
gear and know how to repair these things. Apparently the answer is to stack
them (so twice the expense) and have dedicated rooms to put them in with
music that suits. I have read where they are used in HT rooms but being a
confirmed sceptic "I would like to see that." My main worry with these is
the maintainance side and I look as these more like a vintage car that needs
that "special care". Being in the UK you will have a lot more opportunity
finding repaireres and parts so that will make it easier.
>
> Advice please before I go completely mad and buy a pair of each.
>
I don't think you were looking for what I just said but I thought you would
like to hear my experience. I would still consider having some just so I
could tinker and use them for those special occaisions where they can sound
rather good but for everday use - *No Way*.
> Thanks,
>
> John Smith.
>
BTW In all my research into these no one *seems* interested in the new Quad
988s (which are essentially a Quad 63) and they never come up in
conversation.
Now a plug for a local bloke http://www.eraudio.com.au/ I ended up talking
to this guy at his workshop and very nearly bought a set. At the price I
thought I couldn't go wrong. That was until I put on some Pink Floyd/Dire
Straights and told him they were just like Quads with no bass and he then
told me his speakers were not for me. Since then I have demoed (at home)
Martin Logan hybrids as well - still not impressed :-( BTW you will need
to see this part of his site as well
http://www.eraudio.com.au/Kits/kits.html
So my final conclusion is "ESL technology is not for me at this stage" but
they do have nice mids and silky highs. I ended up buying full range floor
standing cone speakers. Now if we could just get a nice ribbon tweeter
................ ;-)
This is a long way to get to what I really want to say to you. Are you
really, really sure you want some antiquated Quad speakers with their quirks
and fragile disposition? Did I mention they don't like dust or high
humidity either ;-)
BTW there will be many die hard Quad owners who will now refute all of this.
I am just relaying *my* experience and thoughts.
Regards TT (flame suit still on)
Phil Allison
"John Smith"
>
> I would appreciate some info from those who own or have long term
> knowledge
> of these speakers.
** I owned a pair of ESL57s for 26 years - do I qualify ?
> I'm planning to use a pair of Quad IIs as the main amp (I do also have a
> Quad 33/303 setup but for now I want to use the Quad IIs).
** ESL57s are likely to be much cheaper than 63s - plus they handle less
power.
Be a more logical combination to use 57s with Quad II amps.
> My main listening room is about 14x17 feet.
** That is a good size - but I do hope the floor is fully carpeted and
the room has lots of soft furniture, book shelves and heavy curtains to
deaden room reverberation.
> Without re-arranging the room
> (and probably moving the fireplace and/or the patio doors) the speakers
> will
> have to fit near the back wall facing the patio doors. Problem: the door
> into the room is at that end and so the speakers will need to be within 2
> (maybe 3) feet of that back wall or I will have to climb over one to get
> into the room..
** ESL57s need to be mounted up on something sturdy - the three
supplied legs are a joke. I used two small tables about 15 inches high (the
sort with four, square section, steel legs) and bolted each '57 to one with
right angle brackets. A bit of packing allowed the speakers to be pointed
right at ear level when seated in the ideal listening position. The
speakers sound much better this way and are far less likely to topple over
( four legs good - three legs baaaaad ).
If you added small furniture castor wheels to such a support then moving
the 57s out of the way when not in use would be very easy. Remember - the
ideal listening distance is 7 to 10 feet, regardless of the back wall
proximity issue.
IME, keep the rear and side walls well away - by 6 feet if possible for
best results.
............ Phil
Eiron
> "The World's best speaker - right?" Yeah for female vocals with no bass and
> limited SPL levels and *IF* you do try and "Arc them up" (now I know where
> this term comes from) the panels arc out and "Hey Presto" more repair bills.
It's quite easy to prevent an ESL57 arcing these days.
Just use an amp rated at less than 75w into 8ohms,
or play a test CD with a 0dB signal on it and measure the
output voltage. Don't turn it up past 24v.
As for the bass - it's not like a typical boombox. It doesn't
play its own drone to accompany the melody but it is accurate
and surprisingly good. A subwoofer is always an option if you want more.
I don't think I've ever needed to give mine more than 10v, though I
wouldn't use them for a party.
--
Eiron.
tony sayer
writes
Yes theres Bass, and Bass, and accurate low frequency reproduction;)....
--
Tony Sayer
Phil Allison
"Eiron"
> TT wrote:
>
>> "The World's best speaker - right?" Yeah for female vocals with no bass
>> and
>> limited SPL levels and *IF* you do try and "Arc them up" (now I know
>> where
>> this term comes from) the panels arc out and "Hey Presto" more repair
>> bills.
>
>
> It's quite easy to prevent an ESL57 arcing these days.
> Just use an amp rated at less than 75w into 8ohms,
** A SS amp rated at 45 watts at 8 ohms is the safe limit - ie like the
303.
There is no such problem at all with the ESL 63 as it is electronically
protected.
> or play a test CD with a 0dB signal on it and measure the
> output voltage. Don't turn it up past 24v.
** Very bad advice - volume pots are not peak voltage limiters.
.............. Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > It's quite easy to prevent an ESL57 arcing these days.
> > Just use an amp rated at less than 75w into 8ohms,
> ** A SS amp rated at 45 watts at 8 ohms is the safe limit - ie like
> the 303.
The 303, however, had active both current and voltage limiting built into
the power supply.
I've read that decent conventional amps should be more like 25-30 watts
max.
--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Phil Allison
"Dave Plowman (News)"
Phil Allison
>>
>> > It's quite easy to prevent an ESL57 arcing these days.
>> > Just use an amp rated at less than 75w into 8ohms,
>
>
>> ** A SS amp rated at 45 watts at 8 ohms is the safe limit - ie like
>> the 303.
>
>
> The 303, however, had active both current and voltage limiting built into
> the power supply.
** The 303's PSU was voltage regulated - a common practice in 1968. The
supply rail was set at + 67 volts - there was no current limiting in the
PSU. So the maximum unloaded swing possible was about +/- 33 volts.
A 45 watt @ 8 ohms amplifier is rated to swing +/- 27 volts into that
oad - with an unregulated PSU that might typically increase to +/- 35
volts unloaded.
The highest impedance an ESL 57 reaches is 30 ohms at 100 Hz.
So 40 to 45 watts rated amp at 8 ohms is likely to be quite safe.
BTW:
I ran my ESL 57s with an 85 watt @ 8 ohms amp for 20 years and never arced
them.
.......... Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> I never cease to be amazed at how many commercial speaker designers have
> a set of Quad 57 behind the curtain as their own aspirational reference.
Absolutely. If you're doing the live male voice versus the same via a
speaker from behind an acoustically transparent curtain, no MC speaker
I've ever heard will come close to the original ESL for this.
--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *
Stewart Pinkerton
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <93f8a817e9e4ef19...@dizum.com>,
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>> I never cease to be amazed at how many commercial speaker designers have
>> a set of Quad 57 behind the curtain as their own aspirational reference.
>
>Absolutely. If you're doing the live male voice versus the same via a
>speaker from behind an acoustically transparent curtain, no MC speaker
>I've ever heard will come close to the original ESL for this.
Actually, this is rubbish. Just take the grilles off '63s, and they
are superior in every way to the '57. As is the off-the-shelf 989.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Patrick Turner
John Smith wrote:
The Quad II won't drive the '63 very well.
That's what a couple of my customers say.
Most ppl with '63 say they are better than '57.
The '57 you might buy could be different ages, bought singly
at first, and thus have aged differently, and since this model
of Quad speaker could be up to 48 years old, they could be at the end of their
service life,
and will need a major and costly re-furbish.
In Oz, John Hall of Melbourne charges about aud $1,000+ for
re-panneling a single '57.
I would be hesitabt to ever buy a pair, unless they were aud $200.
'63 are more likely to be in good original condition, and to have been purchased
as a pair,
and if I ever see a pair for aud $1,000, I might be tempted to buy them.
They were about aud $5,000 in 1982, new, or about equivalent
to aud $25,000 now.
It all makes me want to aquire an ESL kit, since I have some natural ability
to make things.
Patrick Turner.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Smith.
Jim Lesurf
> Example - one friend of mine (who actually had 3 sets of ESL57s in
> various states of disrepair and only one set working) said to me Quote:
> "I am only buying and listening to female vocals now." Somewhat
> restrictive I think but then I noticed a trend with others as well so
> this was not in isolation. Undeterred I still ventured on. After all
> these are "The World's best speaker - right?"
Em, probably "meaningless" I'd say. :-) I like the 57's and 63's a great
deal, However I don't think it means anything to describe any real speakers
as the "world's best" with no qualifications at all. Speakers are designed
for specific applications. Hence speakers that might be the "best" for one
person may not be for someone else.
> Yeah for female vocals with no bass and limited SPL levels and *IF* you
> do try and "Arc them up" (now I know where this term comes from) the
> panels arc out and "Hey Presto" more repair bills.
But if the 57's are in decent condition then a 303 or II won't drive them
with voltages that should do any damage. This was how/why PJW designed the
57's and the 303/II's to work together. He ensured current and voltage
limiting and band roll-off in the amp that should ensure they are quite
'safe' with 57's.
Should not be a consideration with 63's as they can take more than 57's,
and have their own protection systems.
> >
> First I will put my flame suit on (slip) IMHO these speakers are
> currently more suited to the more technically adept out there that love
> tinkering with gear and know how to repair these things.
Yet PJW designed them for people who simply love music. And as pointed out
above if they are in decent condition and used with the amps he intended,
there should be no 'technical' problems. The limitations are essentially in
peak levels and low bass, so this is matter of if the results suit the
user.
> Apparently the answer is to stack them (so twice the expense) and have
> dedicated rooms to put them in with music that suits.
That may depend what the 'question' was... :-)
I suspect that many people used them for years without stacking, and I
suspect that some people still do.
> >
> BTW In all my research into these no one *seems* interested in the new
> Quad 988s (which are essentially a Quad 63) and they never come up in
> conversation.
Not sure who you asked. :-) I have a pair of 988's as well as a pair of
63's, and I like both models. If you check back on uk.rec.audio you may
find they *have* appeared in conversations here in the past...
[snip]
> So my final conclusion is "ESL technology is not for me at this stage"
> but they do have nice mids and silky highs. I ended up buying full
> range floor standing cone speakers. Now if we could just get a nice
> ribbon tweeter ................ ;-)
Well, with the 988's I ended up buying a sub to go with them. But I remain
quite happy with the 63's without that.
> This is a long way to get to what I really want to say to you. Are you
> really, really sure you want some antiquated Quad speakers with their
> quirks and fragile disposition? Did I mention they don't like dust or
> high humidity either ;-)
Funnily enough, I've not encountered such problems in 30-odd years of using
57's, 63's, and 988's... :-) As indicated earlier, all depends on the
user requirements, though.
> BTW there will be many die hard Quad owners who will now refute all of
> this. I am just relaying *my* experience and thoughts.
Just relaying *mine*... :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
<to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> By a pair of each?, good idea!, then you can try both of them. I'd go
> for the 63's However the only thing I'd question is the ability of the
> 303 or the 2's to drive them.
I can't recall the relative efficiencies, but I would that thought that a
303 or II would drive 63's at least as well as 57's. If anything the 63's
are an easier load. You might not be able to produce the peak levels some
other amp can produce with the 63's, but then you probably could not get
that from the 57's either. :-)
Jim Lesurf
> My main listening room is about 14x17 feet. Without re-arranging the
> room (and probably moving the fireplace and/or the patio doors) the
> speakers will have to fit near the back wall facing the patio doors.
> Problem: the door into the room is at that end and so the speakers will
> need to be within 2 (maybe 3) feet of that back wall or I will have to
> climb over one to get into the room..
If at all possible have the speakers further into the room. :-) I also
have a door in the 'hi fi room' in the corner behind one speaker. I just
have the speaker well into the room.
> Which ESLs would be best in this situation?
The problem is that it will depend on your taste and the specific details
of the room acoustics, etc, etc. FWIW I preferred the 63's to the 57's, and
I now also like the 988's. All used in quite small rooms.
The condition of second-hand speakers will also be important. Particularly
for 57's which will be older, and had no protection circuitry, so may well
have been misused.
If you avoid early issues, the 63 is also a much easier load for the amp
than the 57.
> One american review by
> someone who really seemed to know his audio from his elbow (and his
> Claude Debussy from his Miles Davis) says the ESL57s are happier nearer
> the back wall than the ESL63s BUT another review by someone else who
> also seems to be very knowledgeable says EXACTLY the opposite.
I'd say that both of them really need to be at least 3ft from the wall
behind, and preferrably more.
> Advice please before I go completely mad and buy a pair of each.
My vote would be for 63's. But your taste/circumstances may not be the same
as mine.
Eiron
> ** A SS amp rated at 45 watts at 8 ohms is the safe limit - ie like the
> 303.
The manual says 33v peak, which is 68 watts into 8 ohms, so if you have
an unregulated PSU, 45 watts is about right.
>>or play a test CD with a 0dB signal on it and measure the
>>output voltage. Don't turn it up past 24v.
> ** Very bad advice - volume pots are not peak voltage limiters.
Unless you use tone controls, the advice stands.
Digital sources go so loud and no more, unlike cartridges which can
produce quite a lot of volts on a scratched record.
It all depends on whether there are teenagers in the house.
--
Eiron.
tony sayer
>work and a bit of lateral thinking based on it. I often use my stats like big
>earphones. Put the speakers either side of your chair, about three feet from
>your ears. That suits me well across a similar breadth of room to yours; across
>the length (of a rather longer room than yours) it doesn't work so well unless
>you move the speakers to halfway between ear and wall or even nearer the wall.
>There is definitely an optimum distance from the back wall in any room,
>depending
>on the room, but theory will do you no good:
>arrange empirically to suit your
>own ears.
Course you might have to trade the SWMBO in for a more sympathetic one
but if the ends warrant the means etc;))......
--
Tony Sayer
Phil Allison
"Eiron"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ** A SS amp rated at 45 watts at 8 ohms is the safe limit - ie like
>> the 303.
>
> The manual says 33v peak, which is 68 watts into 8 ohms, so if you have
> an unregulated PSU, 45 watts is about right.
** The 303 is rated at 45 watts @ 8 ohms and HAS a regulated PSU - a very
rare thing with modern amps.
Your earlier:
" It's quite easy to prevent an ESL57 arcing these days. Just use an amp
rated at less than 75w into 8ohms, "
was not good advice.
>>>or play a test CD with a 0dB signal on it and measure the
>>>output voltage. Don't turn it up past 24v.
>
>> ** Very bad advice - volume pots are not peak voltage limiters.
>
> Unless you use tone controls, the advice stands.
** It does not stand up to rational thinking, unfortunately.
> Digital sources go so loud and no more,
** So one can "calibrate" the CD or DVD input as you say - but that it is
far from a foolproof solution. Unless the amp's output stage is incapable
of exceeding the safe peak voltage then sooner or later it will do so. This
may be due to some minor accident with the interconnects, another item being
powered up or down producing a loud crack or thump, the introduction of a
new item into the system or a fault developing in the amp that creates loud
noises. It only takes one overvoltage event to do the trick.
Have you have not learnt that Murphy's Law is not to be trifled with ??
> unlike cartridges which can
> produce quite a lot of volts on a scratched record.
** A phono system is guaranteed to produce very large transients from time
to time. In combination with an oversized amp it is an accident just
waiting to happen to the poor ESL57s
> It all depends on whether there are teenagers in the house.
** It depends on a lot more factors than just that one.
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
> "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> Nomen Nescio :
>>>
>>> I never cease to be amazed at how many commercial speaker designers have
>>> a set of Quad 57 behind the curtain as their own aspirational reference.
>>
>>Absolutely. If you're doing the live male voice versus the same via a
>>speaker from behind an acoustically transparent curtain, no MC speaker
>>I've ever heard will come close to the original ESL for this.
>
> Actually, this is rubbish. Just take the grilles off '63s, and they
> are superior in every way to the '57. As is the off-the-shelf 989.
>
** Dave clearly specified " no MC speaker" - you posturing ass.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - Autistic thinking.
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner"
>
> The Quad II won't drive the '63 very well.
> That's what a couple of my customers say.
>
** Puke ...
> Most ppl with '63 say they are better than '57.
** Bloody unlikely of them to say they are worse.
> The '57 you might buy could be different ages, bought singly
> at first,
** The things carry serial numbers that have been consecutive since the
very first ones.
Long as those numbers are close you have a pair of the same age.
> and thus have aged differently, and since this model
> of Quad speaker could be up to 48 years old, they could be at the end of
> their
> service life,
** There are only a tiny few ESL57s that are 48 years old. Once again -
the serial numbers will give you a good guide to age plus most owners can
supply a full history since they bought them new.
> and will need a major and costly re-furbish.
** If that has not been done - then the price needs to reflect that
fact.
> In Oz, John Hall of Melbourne charges about aud $1,000+ for
> re-panneling a single '57.
** That is for two bass panels and one mid/treble unit - a lot of work
indeed.
> I would be hesitabt to ever buy a pair, unless they were aud $200.
** You are not interested in buying a pair at all - you fucking LIAR.
The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers
!!!!!!!!!
>
> '63 are more likely to be in good original condition, and to have been
> purchased
> as a pair,
> and if I ever see a pair for aud $1,000, I might be tempted to buy them.
** You are not interested in buying a pair at all - you fucking LIAR.
The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers
!!!!!!!!!
> They were about aud $5,000 in 1982, new, or about equivalent
> to aud $25,000 now.
>
** Good condition ESL63s sell in Aussie for about $3,000 to $ 5000 a pair.
A brand new pair of ESL988s sells for $13,000.
Get your facts straight - Turneroid arsehole.
> It all makes me want to aquire an ESL kit,
** You are not interested in buying a kit at all - you fucking LIAR.
The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers
!!!!!!!!!
> since I have some natural ability to make things.
** Only very expensive anachronisms.
............ Phil
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
I have made only 3 sets of speakers in the last 6 years.
I have only ever "sold" speakers to ppl who have built the enclosures
shown at my website themselves, and then had me install drivers and crossovers,
and do all the tweaking.
On numerous occasions I have expressed a wish I could buy a pair of Quad ESL57.
But after seeing recently what a client will have to pay
upgrade his '57, I am quite reluctant, unless the price was dirt cheap.
If I had the far higher income I had when working as a successful
building contractor 15 years ago, I might take a gamble on spending
$1,000 but ppl don't/won't spend like they do on hi-fi what they do on
houses, so spending more than peanuts for ESL is out of the question until
I will the damn lottery.
The boxed speakers I make are regarded here as reference types, better or
equal to anything in the hi-fi shops.
It is unknown whether my speakers would sound better/worse than a pair of
ESL57 in mint or good restored order.
Unfortunately, I would have to reduce the quality of my designs
to compete with the shops' products, and no doubt you realize
just how difficult it is to be an economically viable producer of anything in Oz
which has superior crafting, since most imports are
the results of asian slave labour, and serious design compromises.
>
> >
> > '63 are more likely to be in good original condition, and to have been
> > purchased
> > as a pair,
> > and if I ever see a pair for aud $1,000, I might be tempted to buy them.
>
> ** You are not interested in buying a pair at all - you fucking LIAR.
>
> The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers
> !!!!!!!!!
>
> > They were about aud $5,000 in 1982, new, or about equivalent
> > to aud $25,000 now.
> >
>
> ** Good condition ESL63s sell in Aussie for about $3,000 to $ 5000 a pair.
>
> A brand new pair of ESL988s sells for $13,000.
>
> Get your facts straight - Turneroid arsehole.
I didn't state the facts wrong; I didn't say what '63 s/h prices are now,
or what price the '988 are.
I merely said that what cost about $5,000 in the early 1980's
was equal to spending $25,000 now.
I recall ESL63 were retailed at $4,800 in 1982.
I bought a Teac cassette deck for $400 back them; and that was like spending
$2000 now. Quite an absurd amount of money, but I made
around $400 a week easily in 1982.
Now I make less than that.
The cost of living and the value of my house has all risen about 5 times.
>
>
> > It all makes me want to aquire an ESL kit,
>
> ** You are not interested in buying a kit at all - you fucking LIAR.
>
> The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers
> !!!!!!!!!
>
> > since I have some natural ability to make things.
>
> ** Only very expensive anachronisms.
>
> ............ Phil
Phil makes nothing except noise.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:
** Yeah right - because they are overpriced pieces of shit.
> On numerous occasions I have expressed a wish I could buy a pair of Quad
> ESL57.
** You are not interested in buying a pair at all - you fucking LIAR.
The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers.
> If I had the far higher income I had when working as a successful
> building contractor 15 years ago,
** YOU DAMN LIAR !!!
You charge $5500 for one of your valve amps and a similar for those POS
boxes.
> The boxed speakers I make are regarded here as reference types, better or
> equal to anything in the hi-fi shops.
** CRAP !!
> It is unknown whether my speakers would sound better/worse than a pair of
> ESL57 in mint or good restored order.
** DOUBLE CRAP !!!
> Unfortunately, I would have to reduce the quality of my designs
** Puke ......
> I didn't state the facts wrong;
* Yes you did.
> Now I make less than that.
** YOU CHARGE LIKE A FUCKING WOUNDED BULL F OR THE PIECES OF
SHIT YOU MAKE
YOU criminal, libelling, fucking A - R - S - E - H- O- L- E
!!!
> The cost of living and the value of my house has all risen about 5 times.
** The cost of living in real terms has gone down - you fucking IDIOT
!!
>> > since I have some natural ability to make things.
>>
>> ** Only very expensive anachronisms.
>>
>> ............ Phil
>
> Phil makes nothing except noise.
** You have no bloody idea what I do or do not make.
One thing is for sure - I do not rip anyone off like YOU DO !!!
Piss the hell off - you vile, criminal, stinking TURD !!!!
................ Phil
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Patrick Turner"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >>
> >> > The Quad II won't drive the '63 very well.
> >> > That's what a couple of my customers say.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ** Puke ...
Delete a usual large amount of noise....
> > Phil makes nothing except noise.
>
> ** You have no bloody idea what I do or do not make.
Its just noise.
Patrick Turner.
Dave Plowman (News)
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I never cease to be amazed at how many commercial speaker designers
> >> have a set of Quad 57 behind the curtain as their own aspirational
> >> reference.
> >
> >Absolutely. If you're doing the live male voice versus the same via a
> >speaker from behind an acoustically transparent curtain, no MC speaker
> >I've ever heard will come close to the original ESL for this.
> Actually, this is rubbish. Just take the grilles off '63s, and they
> are superior in every way to the '57. As is the off-the-shelf 989.
So the '63 is an MC design?
--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner"
> Phil Allison wrote:
** You have no bloody idea what I do or do not make.
......... Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Andre Jute <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
> There is no problem in making up a pair. They are numbered in sequence.
> Many were sold in pairs originally. In any event, they were built to
> ferocious quality
Matched pairs referred to the wood trims - not the performance.
--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *
Chris Hornbeck
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
<good stuff snipped for bandwidth>
>More on placement. The Quads really reward an understanding of how dipoles
>work and a bit of lateral thinking based on it. I often use my stats like big
>earphones. Put the speakers either side of your chair, about three feet from
>your ears. That suits me well across a similar breadth of room to yours; across
>the length (of a rather longer room than yours) it doesn't work so well unless
>you move the speakers to halfway between ear and wall or even nearer the wall.
>There is definitely an optimum distance from the back wall in any room, depending
>on the room, but theory will do you no good: arrange empirically to suit your
>own ears.
If you can hold your nose about the snake oil aspects, there's a good
place to start at:
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring=Room+Setup
It seems to work pretty well for dipoles, although designed for
omni's. I've had very good results in lotsa situations using this as a
starting point, and letting the owner deal with WAF.
Personally, like you, I go for nearfield listening.
Good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Fleetie
> who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which should
> be stated when reporting hearsay.
So why the '63 then?
Come on! You're welcome to your opinion, but....
It was nearly 50 years ago.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk
Phil Allison
"Fleetie"
>>
>> Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made.
>> Anyone
>> who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which
>> should
>> be stated when reporting hearsay.
>
> So why the '63 then?
** Even Peter Walker never claimed the ESL63 was necessarily a better
*sounding* speaker than the old 57.
The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much easier
to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample, protected itself from
overpowering, presented a benign load to the amplifier, handled more power,
operated down to a lower frequency limit, had wider dispersion of high
frequencies - and was styled to blend into modern decors.
Those already familiar with the sound of 57s found the 63s generally very
similar - with more deep bass and a bit less high frequency energy. The
ability to use *any* amplifier ( valve or SS) up to 100 wpc more quite
safely was a huge bonus - especially to all the thousands of 405 owners.
.............. Phil
TT
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4d4b3dc...@davenoise.co.uk...
: In article <TO6NLSQA38424.7975694444@anonymous>,
Everyone should get the Quad expert here, Phil Allison, to
tell you how *HE* went about buying second hand Quad 63s.
Yes he tried very hard to get sequential frame numbers only
to find out later how there was 6dB difference in SPLs. He
then had to sue the second hand dealer and it took him
nearly 12 months to get his money back.
So "Caveat Emptor" and "try before you buy". Two very good
bits of advice.
Cheers TT
Patrick Turner
Andre Jute wrote:
> Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made. Anyone
> who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which should
> be stated when reporting hearsay.
>
> There is no problem in making up a pair. They are numbered in sequence. Many
> were sold in pairs originally. In any event, they were built to ferocious quality
> control so making up a pair is not difficult even across the years. I know
> a reliable dealer who does it as often as the opportunity offers. I've bought
> ESL blind from this guy before and had them delivered without going to hear
> them (I'm not suggesting such careless practice to anyone else, of course--I've
> dealt with this dealer for decades and he knows I'll screw him into the ground
> if he cheats me).
>
> It is true that an ancient pair of first series ESL *might* be semi-fragile
> in modern professional use (lots of handling and bumping) but they *are* fully
> rebuildable. Of how many other half-century old speakers can one say that?
>
> One can buy brandnew first series ESL in Germany, made with the original dies
> and the original methods, very reasonably priced. The same firm also sells
> fully rebuilt and guaranteed originals and bauhaus moderne versions built under
> license by Braun.
>
> Excluding newer Quad speakers of the same design but larger, which are reportedly
> even more fabulous, the 63 is the second best-sounding speaker ever made. It
> is a more practical bet for pros and for people who worry about repairs on
> the 57. I've rebuilt my 63 (one pair from the first year of production, in
> use for years at the BBC before they came to me, one pair only turned on by
> a little old on Sundays to play church music--it of course broke before the
> constantly-on ex-Beeb pair) with parts from Huntingdon, a simple job if you
> take it slowly so as to avoid ruining new panels with blobs of hot solder...
> I've owned several 57, only one pair new (bought when I was student more years
> ago than I'm willing to let on but the first pair in the country), and have
> never had to make a repair. That's why I talk about the owner's perception,
> and the potential, rather than actual fragility.
>
> John Smith should choose between the Quad ESL57 and the ESL63 on the sound
> he prefers, nothing else.
>
> Given the shape of John's listening room and the placement of the door, and
> consequently how often he will pass in close proximity to c5.5 kilovolt, the
> advice from Pinkerton to remove the protective grilles on the 63 is beyond
> dangerous and irreponsible, it is malicious.
>
> The same effect can in any event be achieved simply by raising the ESL63 14in
> and tilting them back while leaving the protective covers in place. (1) You
> used to be able to buy a stand which raised 63 just right. (I built my own
> stands to hold dipole subs and when I disposed of the dipoles for failing to
> please I filled the boxes with sand to use as simple stands.) Phil Allison
> described bolting the 57s, which have the tilt built in (not enough in my opinion
> but near enough) to solid tables. That's the right idea, especially if the
> brackets can be bent until one achieves a perfect position. For a long time
> I had mine stacked on oldfashioned solidly built steamer trunks stuffed with
> books and LPs to stop them resonating.
>
> Buying an ESL kit is a genuinely dumb idea. (I know, I've had it!) I've never
> heard an ESL kit, or of one, that wasn't somehow compromised; apparently simple
> things can trip up even experienced and knowledgeable DIYers.
Someone emailed me about the guys at
http://www.eraudio.com.au/
He reckoned they were better than '57.
I doubt I will ever have time to find out....
> Amazing as it
> may seem, Quad ESLs are the cheapest competent ESLs you can buy. Look harder
> for a good pair, Patrick, or resign yourself to rebuilding an abused pair but
> in either case stop whining about the price (in truth very little when discounted
> over the years and considering resale value) and dig deep into your pocket
> to provide exquisite pleasure for the rest of your life.
>
> Andre Jute
If I had the spare $$$$$$ I would go straight out and buy a pair of
ESL57, if only to be able to see if my own creations were as good,
and knowing perhaps I might be able to sell them on at not a large loss
if I was unhappy.
But what I have not experienced for myself I cannot hold as being true for me.
I rarely gamble.
I do recall the change in sound when i went from
generic asian made drivers to SEAS drivers, and both lots of speakers had
received enormous attention to silencing the enclosures
and optimizing the crossover design.
The north euro drivers were just plain clearer sounding.
And for fine strings large cones are usually deadly, and multiple
close mounted well made smaller cones have a better chance...
The only big recollection that ESL could be sonically marvellous was
at an audiophile meeting in Sydney on a sunday in one of the shops
where they demoed a pair of 1.2 m high Martin Logans, and which were
powered by a solid state amp.
The massed strings in the opera Carmen were I thought far better than I had
ever heard before.
They seemed to have the right sort of sizzle and warmth rather than
the coldness and smear of many systems.
( what would a decent tube have done with these speakers? )
But in other demos of '57 speakers I have heard since, I was not so swept away at all,
and I remain slightly skeptical.
Then I have met a few folks who think Quad ESLs are all crap,
and Acustat is the only thing, another dude far preferred Stax, which I got to listen
to,
but I wondered what the fuss was about.
Recently a client of mine recently brought a well stuffed '57 to me,
and the quote from a guy in Melbourne, John Hall, did seem high.
But his price for repairing a bass panel is aud $350,
and there is some real and skilled work involved.
John is a lot cheaper than germans and their panel costs.
He is half the price of a guy in Sydney who fixes Quads.
Another client of mine with stacked Quads has very high regard for John so
I left my original client to proceed with John directly as he finds the funds;
I didn't want to be caught being a middleman.
The vast majority of ppl I deal with don't like a speaker repair bill for a grand
when there are so many other expenses, school fees, house and car payments,
and all the rest.
I'd be very wary about removing grilles from ESLs.
My last cat died from old age, she knew where the best sweetzone was,
and I think she had a definate preference for classical....
I have a house mate and she is allergic to cats, so I get by without an animal.
Animals are very pleasant, but i prefer the company of people.
Patrick Turner.
>
>
> (1) There were hallelujahs and miaows in my house when I discovered this. I
> used to have an understudy cat, who was not permitted above the landing on
> the stairs below my study or my studio. She waited there until my study cat
> had an accident with unsheathed ESL63, then she was promoted to dead cat's
> basket. Unprotected ESL63 requires two listening rooms and two pairs of speakers
> because the smell of electrostated pet takes a while to clear from the air.
> And of course another pet in waiting. As dear old Zip used to say on RAHE,
> a true audiophile needs true commitment. Yes, not only from himself but from
> his family and pets as well...
>
> Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > John Smith wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I'm thinking of buying some Quad ESLs and I've been reading a lot on the
> net
>
> > > trying to decide what I want. The more I read the more I understand (I
>
> > > think) but also the more confused I get.
>
> > >
>
> > > I would appreciate some info from those who own or have long term knowledge
>
> > > of these speakers.
>
> > >
>
> > > I'm planning to use a pair of Quad IIs as the main amp (I do also have
> a
>
> > > Quad 33/303 setup but for now I want to use the Quad IIs).
>
> > >
>
> > > My main listening room is about 14x17 feet. Without re-arranging the room
>
> > > (and probably moving the fireplace and/or the patio doors) the speakers
> will
>
> > > have to fit near the back wall facing the patio doors. Problem: the door
>
> > > into the room is at that end and so the speakers will need to be within
> 2
>
> > > (maybe 3) feet of that back wall or I will have to climb over one to get
>
> > > into the room..
>
> > >
>
> > > Which ESLs would be best in this situation? One american review by someone
>
> > > who really seemed to know his audio from his elbow (and his Claude Debussy
>
> > > from his Miles Davis) says the ESL57s are happier nearer the back wall
> than
>
> > > the ESL63s BUT another review by someone else who also seems to be very
>
> > > knowledgeable says EXACTLY the opposite.
>
> > >
>
> > > Advice please before I go completely mad and buy a pair of each.
>
> >
>
> > The Quad II won't drive the '63 very well.
>
> > That's what a couple of my customers say.
>
> >
>
> > Most ppl with '63 say they are better than '57.
>
> >
>
> > The '57 you might buy could be different ages, bought singly
>
> > at first, and thus have aged differently, and since this model
>
> > of Quad speaker could be up to 48 years old, they could be at the end of
> their
>
> > service life,
>
> > and will need a major and costly re-furbish.
>
> > In Oz, John Hall of Melbourne charges about aud $1,000+ for
>
> > re-panneling a single '57.
>
> > I would be hesitabt to ever buy a pair, unless they were aud $200.
>
> >
>
> > '63 are more likely to be in good original condition, and to have been purchased
>
> > as a pair,
>
> > and if I ever see a pair for aud $1,000, I might be tempted to buy them.
>
> > They were about aud $5,000 in 1982, new, or about equivalent
>
> > to aud $25,000 now.
>
> >
>
> > It all makes me want to aquire an ESL kit, since I have some natural ability
>
> > to make things.
>
> >
>
> > Patrick Turner.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Thanks,
>
> > >
>
> > > John Smith.
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Eiron
>>Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made. Anyone
>>who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which should
>>be stated when reporting hearsay.
>
>
> So why the '63 then?
The '63 is for people with friends.
--
Eiron.
Phil Allison
"Eiron"<
** ???????
All my friends thought my ES 57s sounded incredibly good - so much so
that several of them bought pairs, one bought two pairs and stacked them.
I suppose you are alluding to the slightly wider dispersion angle of the
63s - which is there but does not make the stereo "sweet spot" any
bigger than the principles of acoustics permits.
............ Phil
Stewart Pinkerton
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Fleetie"
>>>
>>> Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made.
>>> Anyone
>>> who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which
>>> should
>>> be stated when reporting hearsay.
>>
>> So why the '63 then?
>
>** Even Peter Walker never claimed the ESL63 was necessarily a better
>*sounding* speaker than the old 57.
Not while the '57 was on sale, certainly! :-)
>The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much easier
>to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample, protected itself from
>overpowering, presented a benign load to the amplifier, handled more power,
>operated down to a lower frequency limit, had wider dispersion of high
>frequencies - and was styled to blend into modern decors.
In other words, it sounded better..................
>Those already familiar with the sound of 57s found the 63s generally very
>similar - with more deep bass and a bit less high frequency energy.
Actually, a *lot* less treble energy if you were 'in the beam' of the
'57!
>The
>ability to use *any* amplifier ( valve or SS) up to 100 wpc more quite
>safely was a huge bonus - especially to all the thousands of 405 owners.
Gee, I wonder why he designed the 405 the way he did........ :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
(Andre Jute) wrote:
>Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made. Anyone
>who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which should
>be stated when reporting hearsay.
You are an idiot, which should be stated when reporting anything you
say. The ESL57 *was* a very good speaker, but >40 years of progress do
count for something, hence we have the 989.
>There is no problem in making up a pair. They are numbered in sequence. Many
>were sold in pairs originally. In any event, they were built to ferocious quality
>control so making up a pair is not difficult even across the years.
They bloody weren't. I had a pair which were *very* shoddily built,
but easily fixable in those days. However, since it's physically a
very simple design, pair matching is indeed not a big problem.
> I know
>a reliable dealer who does it as often as the opportunity offers. I've bought
>ESL blind from this guy before and had them delivered without going to hear
>them (I'm not suggesting such careless practice to anyone else, of course--I've
>dealt with this dealer for decades and he knows I'll screw him into the ground
>if he cheats me).
Ooooh, you're so masterful! :-)
>It is true that an ancient pair of first series ESL *might* be semi-fragile
>in modern professional use (lots of handling and bumping) but they *are* fully
>rebuildable. Of how many other half-century old speakers can one say that?
No one in their right mind would use them professionally - they have a
ragged frequency response, no bass, and very limited loudness. BTW, no
ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
>John Smith should choose between the Quad ESL57 and the ESL63 on the sound
>he prefers, nothing else.
Or Martin-Logan, or Acoustat, or any one of a number of excellent
modern moving-coil designs which do have the same clarity (if not the
same dispersion pattern). Let us not forget that the '63 is *not* a
dipole, it's a simulated point source.
>Given the shape of John's listening room and the placement of the door, and
>consequently how often he will pass in close proximity to c5.5 kilovolt, the
>advice from Pinkerton to remove the protective grilles on the 63 is beyond
>dangerous and irreponsible, it is malicious.
What do you think is one of the main improvements on the 988/9? You
really are an ignorant clown. Many top people in the audio industry,
including the redoubtable ARA of SME, use 'naked' 63s, as many people
do regard this as the finest speaker ever made, unlike it's cruder
predecessor. It's certainly possible to rig a safety screen which will
not affect the sound so badly as does the original grille.
Stewart Pinkerton
<fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Walker's ES:57 is simply the best-sounding loudspeaker ever made. Anyone
>> who doesn't agree has some kind of odd requirement or prejudice, which should
>> be stated when reporting hearsay.
>
>So why the '63 then?
>
>Come on! You're welcome to your opinion, but....
>
>It was nearly 50 years ago.
And it's revealing that Walker had already started work on the '63
three years before the '57 even went on sale in 1966. An interesting
coincidence is the price of the '57 when it was launched - £57.
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
>
> And it's revealing that Walker had already started work on the '63
> three years before the '57 even went on sale in 1966.
** The ESL 57 first went on sale in 1957 - you silly ass.
Hence the name ........
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
> No one in their right mind would use them professionally - they have a
> ragged frequency response, no bass, and very limited loudness. BTW, no
> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
** What a fucking MORON !!!!
http://www.quad-musik.de/Products_/ESL57/esl57.html
Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - All fucking bullshit.
............ Phil
Phil's Mum
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:39ilucF...@individual.net...
*** Well, where does one start?
Phil is surely not shy when it comes to voicing an opinion. Usually a bit
more colourfully than most would prefer and with that personal touch that
only my Philip has.
He reckons he invented a new type of ammeter?? I tried to tell him he was a
silly boy as some other old fart had done this already, but I have to give
him credit where credit is due - he did make up some fancy box of tricks.
Got no idea what it's suppose to do but it looks technical.
In about 1996 he designed a pocket oscillator that is sold as a DIY kit that
is marketed for about AU$23.00. He got diddled and doesn't get anything for
it.
In audio circles Phil is infamous for buggering up a pair of second-hand
Quad ESL63s and earned the handle "Quad Boy". He said the dealer was a
shonk. No one believes him but what is a mum to do? He had some ESL57s but
he got rid of them. I think one is been used as a spark guard in front of
an open fire place in an inner city suburb.
He is also known for his "expertise" in "fixing / buggering up" toasters and
therefore is well known in aus.electronics as "Toaster Boy". Well, back
when he was a boy he tried getting a bit of burning crumpet out of the
toaster with a fork. Went off with a big blue flash, an awful bang and
blacked out one side of the street.
Above all, Phil is known mostly in several newsgroups for his inability to
carry on a rational discussion or debate on any subject without introducing
a personal insult (or five) and colouring his posts with the odd bit of
profanity. I honestly don't know where he gets this sort of behaviour from.
The doctor said we should all show him a bit of compassion and tolerance for
his Tourette's syndrome. I often wonder if the shock from the toaster had
anything to do with that?
I wish my Philip would take up a nice hobby like a girlfriend for instance.
It would stop from abusing himself and that blow up doll he keeps under the
bed with the plastic urinal. Besides it would give all you nice folk on the
newsgroups a bit of a break from his frustrations. But as my Philip is now
in his late 50's I don't hold much hope for him on the romance side. He's a
bit too set in his ways to change now. :(
.......... Phil's Mum
Jim Lesurf
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much
> easier to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample, protected
> itself from overpowering, presented a benign load to the amplifier,
Erm... word of caution here. The early issues of ESL63's actually have a
quite 'difficult' load characteristic. Later issues are somewhat better due
to revised circuitry. I would not personally describe early issues of the
63's as 'presenting a benign load' as people might find that misleading.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
Phil Allison
>
>> The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much
>> easier to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample, protected
>> itself from overpowering, presented a benign load to the amplifier,
>
> Erm... word of caution here. The early issues of ESL63's actually have a
> quite 'difficult' load characteristic.
** Where is your evidence of this ???????
> Later issues are somewhat better due
> to revised circuitry.
** See above.
> I would not personally describe early issues of the
> 63's as 'presenting a benign load' as people might find that misleading.
** Your above mysterious piece of posturing is far worse than misleading.
Maybe you think the ESL57 was released in 1966 too ???????
............... Phil
Patrick Turner
Eiron wrote:
Indeed, the '57 does have great imaging, but only for
one person, unless sitting
right behind one's friend, or infront of them
leads to furtheration of the friendship.
So it is implied that '57 purchesors had few if any friends,
or that they had a busy wife.
I have never heard of a woman who ever purchased a pair of '57.
Patrick Turner.
>
>
> --
> Eiron.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner"
>
> So it is implied that '57 purchesors had few if any friends,
> or that they had a busy wife.
>
> I have never heard of a woman who ever purchased a pair of '57.
** I have never heard of any blatantly criminal, maliciously libelling,
incorrigibly lying, artistically mentally defective, pig ignorant
bricklayer and tone deaf FUCKWIT who ever bought a pair either.
What a VILE piece of sub human shite like Pat Turner has **NOT** heard of
could fill the known universe ten times.
Fuck the hell off Turneroid - you ARE a stinking criminal arsehole
!!!!!!!!
............ Phil
Patrick Turner
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In 1957, average wages was about 3 quid a week in Oz, and i forget
how much more the pomme quid was worth more than the Oz quid
which is what we had before about 1966, when went all yank
and invented the Oz dollar, and ppl ever since have had trouble
with a price of a banana.
So a pair of Quads cost 19 weeks of pay,
or about $16,000 by today's figures.
A valve operated b&w TV also cost about the same as
a huge plasma screen does now.
The graziers, doctors, lawyers, dentists and a few plumbers had no trouble
affording Quad gear.
The lower orders, ie, everyone else, made do with attrocious gear
unless you studied a bit and made your own amps and speakers,
and then you were the first real audiophiles.
Some even built their own TV sets.
There was still a lot of WW2 surplus 807 around.
But boxed speakers in 1957 were mostly the finest
crap money could be wasted upon.
But most ppl now in their 50s and 60s kept their parents
too poor, distracted, distressed and worried if not depressed to ever
allow them the luxury of spending more than 5 minutes
of uninterupted pleasure listening to the new wonders of recorded
music in stereo, and hi-fi, let alone hours of tinkering time.
Patrick Turner.
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <TO6NLSQA38424.7975694444@anonymous>,
> Andre Jute <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>> There is no problem in making up a pair. They are numbered in sequence.
>> Many were sold in pairs originally. In any event, they were built to
>> ferocious quality
>
>Matched pairs referred to the wood trims - not the performance.
>
Well FWIW I was over at the Quad factory some years ago and saw a demo
of taking any stat off the production line and comparing it with an
early sample and the resultant display of a square wave replayed 'thro
it and the phase cancellation when the wave was switched out of phase.
Very impressive:)
--
Tony Sayer
Phil Allison
"tony sayer"
** He says - posting totally out of CONTEXT !!!!!!!
> Well FWIW I was over at the Quad factory some years ago and saw a demo
> of taking any stat off the production line and comparing it with an
> early sample and the resultant display of a square wave replayed 'thro
> it and the phase cancellation when the wave was switched out of phase.
** The context is the old ESL57 - dick wad.
Not the ESL63 !!!
............ Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> In 1957, average wages was about 3 quid a week in Oz, and i forget
> how much more the pomme quid was worth more than the Oz quid
> which is what we had before about 1966, when went all yank
> and invented the Oz dollar, and ppl ever since have had trouble
> with a price of a banana.
Average wage in the UK would have been about 10 gbp.
--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *
Dave Plowman (News)
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Well FWIW I was over at the Quad factory some years ago and saw a demo
> > of taking any stat off the production line and comparing it with an
> > early sample and the resultant display of a square wave replayed 'thro
> > it and the phase cancellation when the wave was switched out of phase.
> ** The context is the old ESL57 - dick wad.
I was talking about the '57.
--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?
Patrick Turner
and like a wind up toy beating its lill drum it noisily
paddle walks to the edge of the table.
Caaaaareful Phil!, don't go over the edge!
Anyone would think I suggested you had not a friend in the world Phil
by implying subtly that buyers of Quad 57 were the nutter-friendless types
because the image was only available to one person.
But it wasn't my intention to portray buyers in any particularly poor light.
But I have heard a litany of claims from my generation ...
"Daddy, why were you not there for us..."
"Mummy, why didn't you understand me..."
and "My dad didn't seem to have any real friends..."
All mostly BS of course.
In fact what Phil says about the ESL imaging from Quad is fairly correct, ie,
the image is very precise, and the sense of being there is very real.
But unfortunately, and i make no apologies for the "buts" i refer to,
many folks think such pin-point accurate imaging is entirely unatural, because
like
last time I heard some '57, when one moves 1 foot
side to side, a singer in the centre appears to whiz across the stage in the
opposite? direction.
This does not occur at a concert, where the image is about as real as could be
hoped for, and any greater sense
of sound stage and performer placement is quite unreal, and therefore need not
be reproduced, as long as that sense "of being in a theatre and not at home"
was clearly preserved in a replay.
People say, " I listen to my system and I can point to where
mu aunt is signing in her choir"
Yeah?
Anyone believe that?
Blind folded, i reckon they'd have buckley's chance of knowing where
their aunt Mildred was positioned at a concert, unless she was
a solo special and up front.
Somewhere out in front of us is all most people really know
where things are, but many try to posture by saying thay percieve
more than someone else.
Some do, some don't.
But there is a difference surely between the soundstage produced
by an orchestra and scattered artists compared to sound from
two speakers 8 feet apart.
An image or illusion is a fragile creation, hence movement
when listening to a good image destroys the image, because it is but just an
image,
not like the real waves one hears at a concert.
But with some systems, some movement of ourselves does not produce the same
amount
of false artist movement experienced with '57, yet I have heard ppl say the
imaging is fine.
Are such systems worse, or better? I thought all that depended on
subjective personal preferences.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Dave Plowman (News)"
> Phil Allison
>> > Well FWIW I was over at the Quad factory some years ago and saw a demo
>> > of taking any stat off the production line and comparing it with an
>> > early sample and the resultant display of a square wave replayed 'thro
>> > it and the phase cancellation when the wave was switched out of phase.
>
> >
>> ** The context is the old ESL57 - dick wad.
>
> I was talking about the '57.
** That test was only done routinely with the ESL63 - manufactured since
1982.
ESL 57s were never so consistent .
Your story is fake.
................ Phil
Phil Allison
** Snip all the Turneroid psychotic, criminal SHIT !!
.............. Phil
tony sayer
Sorry Mr Allison sir;( most 'umble apologies meant the 63!, how should I
do me penance ?, grill cloth and ashes fer a week will that be OK?, or
do you need some further appeasement?.
--
Tony Sayer
Jim Gregory
Whatever became of the Shackman ELS, each about the size of a door? Now,
they sounded punchy and OK in the early '70s.
And around then, there was another exotic, gas- or plasma-driven speaker
thing, really, but I can't recollect its make.
Stewart Pinkerton
LOL! Beautifully put! Succinct, accurate, and very much to the
'point'.
Stewart Pinkerton
> Hence the name ........
No, you ignorant cretin, the *design* process started in 1957, hence
the name. The '63 didn't go on *sale* until 1981.
Stewart Pinkerton
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton"
>
>> No one in their right mind would use them professionally - they have a
>> ragged frequency response, no bass, and very limited loudness. BTW, no
>> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
>> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
>
> ** What a fucking MORON !!!!
>
>http://www.quad-musik.de/Products_/ESL57/esl57.html
WTF has that to do with professional use, you ignorant cretin?
Besides, I challenge that dating:
http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/history2.htm
Mike Coatham
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message . BTW, no
> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
The Quad Electrostatic was on sale in 1957 - and I have numerous original
Quad brochures from that time which clearly show that it was on sale in
1957.
It also appears in the HiFi Year Book of 1958 , this being the earliest one
I have. I don't know where your 1966 date came from but it isn't correct.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
OK, I can't hardly argue with the Hi-Fi Yearbook, although that jibes
with the Quad site, and shows inconsistency between the naming of 57,
63, and 98x.
Ohhhhh, boogggger! :-(
Dave Plowman (News)
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >> > Well FWIW I was over at the Quad factory some years ago and saw a
> >> > demo of taking any stat off the production line and comparing it
> >> > with an early sample and the resultant display of a square wave
> >> > replayed 'thro it and the phase cancellation when the wave was
> >> > switched out of phase.
> >
> > >
> >> ** The context is the old ESL57 - dick wad.
> >
> > I was talking about the '57.
> ** That test was only done routinely with the ESL63 - manufactured
> since 1982.
> ESL 57s were never so consistent .
Well, apart from those before and after the power supply mods, Walker said
they were. And I've had wildly varying serial numbers sent back for
overhaul and had them come back sounding the same. And *he* told me
matching pairs referred to the woodwork.
YMMV.
--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*
Dave Plowman (News)
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
> >> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
> >
> >The Quad Electrostatic was on sale in 1957 - and I have numerous
> >original Quad brochures from that time which clearly show that it was
> >on sale in 1957. It also appears in the HiFi Year Book of 1958 , this
> >being the earliest one I have. I don't know where your 1966 date
> >came from but it isn't correct.
> OK, I can't hardly argue with the Hi-Fi Yearbook, although that jibes
> with the Quad site, and shows inconsistency between the naming of 57,
> 63, and 98x.
> Ohhhhh, boogggger! :-(
I'd just put it down to the creature. More water with it is the answer. ;-)
--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton" ...
>>
>>The '63 is for people with friends.
>
> LOL! Beautifully put! Succinct, accurate, and very much to the
> 'point'.
>
** It was nothing more than a piece of smartarse bullshit.
Just like Pinko himself.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - All the rest is Bullshit
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Dave Plowman (News)"
> >
>> ** That test was only done routinely with the ESL63 - manufactured
>> since 1982.
>
>> ESL 57s were never so consistent .
>
> Well, apart from those before and after the power supply mods, Walker said
> they were.
** Got a tape recording of that have you ???
Even if you did - it does not constitute information about ESL 57s.
> And I've had wildly varying serial numbers sent back for
> overhaul and had them come back sounding the same.
** Yawn - more unsupported assertions involving you.
> And *he* told me matching pairs referred to the woodwork.
** Got a tape recording of that have you too ???
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
>>
>>> And it's revealing that Walker had already started work on the '63
>>> three years before the '57 even went on sale in 1966.
>>
>>** The ESL 57 first went on sale in 1957 - you silly ass.
>
>> Hence the name ........
>
> No, you ignorant cretin, the *design* process started in 1957,
** No - you PIG IGNORANT CUNT - again you are 100 % WRONG !!!!!
The design process started in 1948 - the first prototype displayed in 1955
and the famous ESL 57 was on sale in 1957.
Quad called it the "Quad Electrostatic Speaker" - the name ESL57 was
applied by others later.
The speaker pre-dates the era of stereo.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - All the rest is Fucking Bullshit
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
>>
>>> No one in their right mind would use them professionally - they have a
>>> ragged frequency response, no bass, and very limited loudness. BTW, no
>>> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
>>> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
>>
>> ** What a fucking MORON !!!!
>>
>>http://www.quad-musik.de/Products_/ESL57/esl57.html
>
> WTF has that to do with professional use, you ignorant cretin?
** It has to do with their age - you DUMB FUCKING POMMY CUNT !!!
> Besides, I challenge that dating:
** You are a FUCKING ASS Pinkerton.
> http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/history2.htm
** Ha, ha - some masturbating jerk off working for another company that
bought the Quad name has got it wrong.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - All the rest is Bullshit
............ Phil
Chris Hornbeck
<pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>It's certainly possible to rig a safety screen which will
>not affect the sound so badly as does the original grille.
Also, the high voltage charge appears on the moving
diaphragm, not on the stators. These have significant
signal voltage, but *not* Kilojolts.
Chris Hornbeck
"I just don't think it's right to have a club like this.
It ain't in the Bible," said Gary Colwell, 18, a brick mason
who grew up in the area. "We see them walking around holding
hands, and it makes everybody feel uncomfortable."
Phil Allison
"Chris Hornbeck = congenital fuckwit.
Stewart Pinkerton = criminal liar
>>It's certainly possible to rig a safety screen which will
>>not affect the sound so badly as does the original grille.
>
> Also, the high voltage charge appears on the moving
> diaphragm, not on the stators.
** There is no shock risk from the diaphragms of an ESL 63 or 57 - the
DC supply voltage is fed from a very high impedance source and the Mylar
film has a coating that is only very weakly conductive.
> These have significant signal voltage, but *not* Kilojolts.
** The middle unit's stator panels of the ESL63 or 57 *ARE* capable of
delivering a serious shock - since the AC drive voltage ranges up into
the kilovolt region and the source impedance from the step up transformers
is quite low.
The stators are coated with a paint that provides a measure of insulation
but there are exposed metal contact areas too.
There is good reason to be wary.
............. Phil
Mike Coatham
No worries.......just thought that in the interests of accuracy etc. etc.
Wouldn't want to try & re-write history would we :).
The ESL '57 was in production from 1957 to 1985
The ESL'63 was manufactured from 1981 to 1999
(The '63 bit related to the year in which serious development work started )
I'll be paying a visit to the UK in about 6 weeks time and as luck would
have it, one of my relatives live about 5 miles from Quad in Huntingdon . I
might just have to call in and say gidday ..
Having emigrated to NZ in 1963 and having never travelled since, I expect I
might just notice one or two changes to the 'old country' when I get back :0
Cheers Mike
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
>
> If you avoid early issues, the 63 is also a much easier load for the amp
> than the 57.
>
** Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
being very different in relation to the load impedance and not presenting a
"benign" load to the amp as I claimed and YOU contradicted here ???
Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in 1981
. ( Look under "Technical" )
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
I await your reply or apology.
............. Phil
dersu
"Mike Coatham" <coa...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d15iqs$gaj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Having emigrated to NZ in 1963 and having never travelled since, I expect
> I
> might just notice one or two changes to the 'old country' when I get back
> :0
>
You can say that again!! You will find it unrecogniseable. Try and get hold
of Peter Hitchens book "The Abolition of Britain" as some preparatory
reading for the shock you will experience if you have anything other than
childhood memories of the place.
I left England in 1983 and have been in NZ for 12 years. I went back last
March and found it so GHASTLY I couldn't wait to get on a plane and come
home again. I arrived Saturday morning and flew out on the following
Thursday. I won't go again.
Hope you have a good trip nonetheless.
D.
Stewart Pinkerton
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <eb2c31tk0701gnc80...@4ax.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
>> >> too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
>> >
>> >The Quad Electrostatic was on sale in 1957 - and I have numerous
>> >original Quad brochures from that time which clearly show that it was
>> >on sale in 1957. It also appears in the HiFi Year Book of 1958 , this
>> >being the earliest one I have. I don't know where your 1966 date
>> >came from but it isn't correct.
>
>> OK, I can't hardly argue with the Hi-Fi Yearbook, although that jibes
>> with the Quad site, and shows inconsistency between the naming of 57,
>> 63, and 98x.
>
>> Ohhhhh, boogggger! :-(
>
>I'd just put it down to the creature. More water with it is the answer. ;-)
I mostly drink wine these days, so that's not good advice!
Jim Lesurf
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "Jim Lesurf" Phil Allison
> >
> >> The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much
> >> easier to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample,
> >> protected itself from overpowering, presented a benign load to the
> >> amplifier,
> >
> > Erm... word of caution here. The early issues of ESL63's actually have
> > a quite 'difficult' load characteristic.
> ** Where is your evidence of this ???????
1) In the early reviews. For example, in MC's reviews in 'Hi Fi Choice'
number 26, 1981. This shows a dip down to about 3 Ohms in the 10-15kHz
region, and also at 50Hz and below. He comments in that review that the 63
isn't as easy a load as Quad implied. Rated the load in his summary as
"fairly difficult". IIRC In another article he also pointed out that at LF the
early 63's had an impedance that was level dependent.
2) I do have an early pair which I bought new. I did measure them at the
time and got results that seemed consistent with the reviews
Above said, it is fair enough that what is 'difficult' is a matter of
circumstances. However I would not personally rate a speaker that dips down
to about 3 Ohms as described above as a 'benign load'. So a word of caution
seems appropriate to me. Particularly in the context of amps like the 303
or some other amps which may become current limited by the impedance dips
and hence not enable the full output implied by a given voltage ability.
> > Later issues are somewhat better due to revised circuitry.
> ** See above.
See above. :-)
See also the service manuals for the ESL63s. If you examine the circuitry
you will see the changes from one issue to another. IIRC some later reviews
also show impedances that don't dip so low and are less reactive around the
dips.
> > I would not personally describe early issues of the 63's as
> > 'presenting a benign load' as people might find that misleading.
> ** Your above mysterious piece of posturing is far worse than
> misleading.
Alternatively, if you check the references I cite you may find that what I
said is based on evidence. :-)
It may be the case that you have only seen, or recall, the details of the
later issues of ESL63 boards, etc. For the reasons outlined above these
can show an easier impedance.
> Maybe you think the ESL57 was released in 1966 too ???????
Afraid I can't recall when it first went on sale. The precise date may
be listed in KK's book on QUAD, but I'm afraid my copy of that is
currently shelved at work by the anechoic chamber, so I can't check it
immediately.
My copy of the 1957 "Hi Fi Yearbook" has an article on the ESL which
describes it in terms like "when such units eventually become available."
However the speaker was reviewed by Ralph West in the November 1957
issue of Hi Fi News and that indicates it was on sale. Hence I assume
that the yearbook was published early in the year, and the 'ESL57' went
on sale sometime during 1957. However as I say, I can't recall a date,
and I haven't checked in detail.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
tony sayer
<coa...@es.co.nz> writes
Yes, I take it you know they moved from St Peters road somewhile ago;)
--
Tony Sayer
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
Phil Allison
>>>
>> >> The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much
>> >> easier to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample,
>> >> protected itself from overpowering, presented a benign load to the
>> >> amplifier,
>> >
>> > Erm... word of caution here. The early issues of ESL63's actually have
>> > a quite 'difficult' load characteristic.
>
>
>> ** Where is your evidence of this ???????
>
>
> 1) In the early reviews. For example, in MC's reviews in 'Hi Fi Choice'
> number 26, 1981. This shows a dip down to about 3 Ohms in the 10-15kHz
> region, and also at 50Hz and below.
** In reality, it never falls below 4 ohms - as shown by innumerable
reviews by others.
I asked for EVIDENCE - NOT fucking dumb errors.
> He comments in that review that the 63
> isn't as easy a load as Quad implied.
** So you have no evidence that the load other than benign at all.
> Rated the load in his summary as "fairly difficult".
** Based on erroneous data.
> IIRC In another article he also pointed out that at LF the
> early 63's had an impedance that was level dependent.
** Errr - what is the relevance ???
> 2) I do have an early pair which I bought new. I did measure them at the
> time and got results that seemed consistent with the reviews
** " Well your worship - he would say that now, wouldn't he ????
"
> Above said, it is fair enough that what is 'difficult' is a matter of
> circumstances. However I would not personally rate a speaker that dips
> down
> to about 3 Ohms as described above as a 'benign load'.
** But the clear evidence is that it does not dip below 4 ohms in the audio
band or beyond.
Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
being very different in relation to the load impedance and not presenting a
"benign" load to the amp as I claimed and YOU contradicted here ???
Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in 1981
( Look under "Technical" )
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
I await your reply or apology.
> See also the service manuals for the ESL63s. If you examine the circuitry
> you will see the changes from one issue to another.
** Grrrrrrrrrrrr :
Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
being very different in relation to the load impedance and not presenting a
"benign" load to the amp as I claimed and YOU contradicted here ???
Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in 1981
( Look under "Technical" )
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
I await your reply or apology.
> IIRC some later reviews
> also show impedances that don't dip so low and are less reactive around
> the
> dips.
** Oh really ............................................................
Case dismissed your honour .....
>> > I would not personally describe early issues of the 63's as
>> > 'presenting a benign load' as people might find that misleading.
>
>
>> ** Your above mysterious piece of posturing is far worse than
>> misleading.
>
> Alternatively, if you check the references I cite ....
** That is a *** bloody outrage*** Mr Lesurf - you quoted the
unsupported words of a notorious audiophool and an outright bloody criminal.
Martin Colloms is a criminal charlatan - just like you .
> It may be the case that you have only seen, or recall, the details of the
> later issues of ESL63 boards, etc. For the reasons outlined above these
> can show an easier impedance.
** Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr :
Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
being very different in relation to the load impedance and not presenting a
"benign" load to the amp as I claimed and YOU contradicted here ???
Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in 1981
( Look under "Technical" )
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
I await your reply or apology.
>> Maybe you think the ESL57 was released in 1966 too ???????
>
> Afraid I can't recall when it first went on sale.
** Just like every other bloody thing !!!!
" The witness is excused as no sane person would believe a single thing he
said . "
............... Phil
Iain M Churches
"dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4236...@clear.net.nz...
As a Swedish pal of mine puts it:
"The UK is a great place to be *from*
Iain
Don Pearce
That works with or without the final word. London has just been voted
the city with the best food in the world - can't remember the source
but it wasn't UK.
d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Iain M Churches
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:4237c125....@news.plus.net...
Yes indeed. I visit London often. Lunch at the Savoy Grill is one
of the highlights. It's a fantastic city. I lived there for many years.
But now I am always glad to get away from the 12 million people -
that's more than the entire population of Sweden:-)
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Well, apart from those before and after the power supply mods, Walker
> > said they were.
> ** Got a tape recording of that have you ???
No - it was an off the record conversation after an IBS meeting he'd been
invited to.
> Even if you did - it does not constitute information about ESL 57s.
It's good enough for me.
> > And I've had wildly varying serial numbers sent back for
> > overhaul and had them come back sounding the same.
> ** Yawn - more unsupported assertions involving you.
Considering each and every one was quality checked after repair I don't
find it unsupported? Have you ever visited the Quad factory and had
speakers repaired while you waited? Because I have, on more than one
occasion, when they offered that service.
> > And *he* told me matching pairs referred to the woodwork.
> ** Got a tape recording of that have you too ???
See above.
Wonder what it is about this group that attracts some of the rudest
people on the net?
--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.
Jim Lesurf
<coa...@es.co.nz>
wrote:
The speaker is featured in an article in the 1957 yearbook, and described
in terms that indicated that at the time the article was written it was not
yet one sale. I think the yearbooks were written and published 'early' so
as to have a long life as being for the 'current' year.
The first review of the ESL57 I'm aware of at the moment is in the November
1957 issue of HFN, and that implies it was then on sale.
Jim Lesurf
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "Jim Lesurf"
> >
> > If you avoid early issues, the 63 is also a much easier load for the
> > amp than the 57.
> >
> ** Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
See a reply I wrote and posted a little while ago. :-)
> Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
> response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in
> 1981 . ( Look under "Technical" )
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
OK, I'll have a look when I get a chance and compare it with the service
manuals and reviews I have from the relevant periods. Thanks for the URL.
May be useful as another source of data if accurate.
> I await your reply or apology.
You should find that I have already posted a message giving a reply to
your orginal questions and providing some references. So your wait may
be shorter than you expected. ;->
Jim Lesurf
> In article <39n2tbF...@individual.net>, Phil Allison
> <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
> > response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in
> > 1981 . ( Look under "Technical" )
> > http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
> OK, I'll have a look when I get a chance and compare it with the service
> manuals and reviews I have from the relevant periods. Thanks for the
> URL. May be useful as another source of data if accurate.
I've now had a chance to have a brief look at the material on the above
website. What I've seen seems mostly to duplicate or copy material I
already have. However it was useful for me in two ways. One was that the
'late' 63 circuit diagram does remind me of that for the 988 rather than
the circuit for the 'early' 63. However the diagrams seem to agree with
those I have, and confirm my understanding that the circuit, and the input
impedance, of the 63 did change from early to later issues.
The second point was from seeing the excerpts from TA's review of the 63
in HFN (Oct 1981 issue as the second part of his review has most of the
measured results). I could not recall off-hand where I'd seen the
measurements of the level-dependency of the impedance of (some?) of the
63's. However the excerpt on the above website reminded me that this was
in TA's review. Apart from that, though, his results seem broadly
consistent with MC's which I referenced in a previous posting. However it
may be worth noting that TA's impedance plots look like a hand or
flexicurve drawing through some data, whereas the data shown by MC seems
to be a copy of a pen-chart plot, so may be more precise by avoiding
redrawing errors.
If we refer back to the OP's comments:
On 11 Mar in uk.rec.audio, John Smith <J.W.T...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
> I'm thinking of buying some Quad ESLs and I've been reading a lot on the
> net trying to decide what I want. The more I read the more I understand
> (I think) but also the more confused I get.
> I would appreciate some info from those who own or have long term
> knowledge of these speakers.
> I'm planning to use a pair of Quad IIs as the main amp (I do also have a
> Quad 33/303 setup but for now I want to use the Quad IIs).
The relevant point here is the wish to use either a 303 or a pair of II's
as the power amps. The 63 has an impedance that drops below 4 Ohms at some
frequencies and maybe down to about 3 Ohms in some board issues in some
circumstances. Taking the 303 and an example: If the power amp which it is
intended to use can only provide the order of 3 A then it means that this
may at times mean the signal becomes current limited to be around 12V or
less.
This is somewhat below the 30V implied by what the 303 is nominally able to
deliver into higher impedance loads. The real values won't be exactly as
described here, but the point is that the amps the OP proposed to use might
not find the 63 - particularly in some issues - a benign load in this
respect. Afraid I can't recall the values for the II, but can check these
if someone wishes. However I suspect that is also limited in its current
capability and might have a similar effect to take into account.
The above does not mean you can't use 63's with a 303 or II's quite
happily. Depends on the levels, etc, required by the user. I'd expect the
amps to be quite stable and work fine within their current/voltage limits.
But some other amp may well be able to make better use of the 63's in terms
of exploiting their power handling and not being restricted by the
impedance dips. Also the output impedances of the 303 or II may well
interact with the speaker impedance to slightly alter the response. Again,
depends on the user, etc, if this matters or not.
Stewart Pinkerton
<ta...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:4237c125....@news.plus.net...
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:57:39 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
>> <ta...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As a Swedish pal of mine puts it:
>>>"The UK is a great place to be *from*
>>>
>>>Iain
>>>
>>
>> That works with or without the final word. London has just been voted
>> the city with the best food in the world - can't remember the source
>> but it wasn't UK.
>>
>> d
>
>
>Yes indeed. I visit London often. Lunch at the Savoy Grill is one
>of the highlights. It's a fantastic city. I lived there for many years.
>But now I am always glad to get away from the 12 million people -
>that's more than the entire population of Sweden:-)
It's still a good place to be if you're out in the country, but with
easy access to the cities. I live about half an hour from Birmingham,
and an hour and a half from Central London, but I get hawks, pheasants
and foxes (not the urban kind!) in my garden all the time.
Stewart Pinkerton
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Jim Lesurf"
>Phil Allison
>>>>
>>> >> The 63 was, however, a technically improved design - it was much
>>> >> easier to manufacture, far more consistent sample to sample,
>>> >> protected itself from overpowering, presented a benign load to the
>>> >> amplifier,
>>> >
>>> > Erm... word of caution here. The early issues of ESL63's actually have
>>> > a quite 'difficult' load characteristic.
>>
>>
>>> ** Where is your evidence of this ???????
>>
>>
>> 1) In the early reviews. For example, in MC's reviews in 'Hi Fi Choice'
>> number 26, 1981. This shows a dip down to about 3 Ohms in the 10-15kHz
>> region, and also at 50Hz and below.
>
>** In reality, it never falls below 4 ohms - as shown by innumerable
>reviews by others.
Untrue, as the printed curves clearly show.
> I asked for EVIDENCE - NOT fucking dumb errors.
Check Hi-Fi Choice issues 26, 31 and 36, in each of which the
impedance curve is printed. It's not printed in Issue 46 of 1986, but
the same difficulty of drive is noted by Colloms.
>> He comments in that review that the 63
>> isn't as easy a load as Quad implied.
>
>** So you have no evidence that the load other than benign at all.
See the impedance curve.
>Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
>response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in 1981
> ( Look under "Technical" )
>
>http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
>
> I await your reply or apology.
The shape is similar, Colloms detects a deeper dip around 10kHz. Take
it up with Moir and Colloms.
Iain M Churches
> It's still a good place to be if you're out in the country, but with
> easy access to the cities. I live about half an hour from Birmingham,
> and an hour and a half from Central London, but I get hawks, pheasants
> and foxes (not the urban kind!) in my garden all the time.
> --
My main location is even more rural. Within a 2hr drive of the city
we have elk, wolves and brown bears (not in a zoo, roaming wild
in the forest:-)
Iain
dizzy
<Phil's_...@buggeroff.com> wrote:
>Above all, Phil is known mostly in several newsgroups for his inability to
>carry on a rational discussion or debate on any subject without introducing
>a personal insult (or five) and colouring his posts with the odd bit of
>profanity.
I don't understand why everyone doesn't plonk the POS.
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
Phil Allison
>> ** Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
>
> See a reply I wrote and posted a little while ago. :-)
** The fuckwit opinions of Martin Colloms are of no value or interest.
You made very specific claims - all false ones.
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
Phil Allison
>> > Look - I'll even make it **real ** easy for you - this URL has
>> > response, impedance and full schematics dating from the first units in
>> > 1981 . ( Look under "Technical" )
>
>> > http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
>
>> OK, I'll have a look when I get a chance and compare it with the service
>> manuals and reviews I have from the relevant periods. Thanks for the
>> URL. May be useful as another source of data if accurate.
>
>
> However the diagrams seem to agree with
> those I have, and confirm my understanding that the circuit, and the input
> impedance, of the 63 did change from early to later issues.
** I see no change at all that would affect the input impedance.
Try posting some facts instead of pompously quoting you OWN wrong opinions
!!!
> The 63 has an impedance that drops below 4 Ohms at some
> frequencies and maybe down to about 3 Ohms in some board issues in some
> circumstances.
** This you have UTTERLY failed to show.
The graph in the URL shows an impedance that remains above 4 ohms across the
whole audio band.
There were NO changes to circuit values in the path from speaker terminals
to the two input transformer primaries - including the 1989 version.
Tests published in ETI magazine by Louis Challis and Associates in Nov.
1982 of ESL63, s/n 8552 states:
" LF minimum at 10 Hz = 4.0 ohms ,
HF minimum at 10 kHz = 5.4 ohms. "
> Taking the 303 and an example:
** The 303 will deliver 40 watts or more ( 16 volts rms) at any
frequency from 45 Hz to 5 kHz into an ESL63. It is not ideal for the '63
since it is not built to operate into 4 ohms - but there is no real
problem either.
> The real values won't be exactly as
> described here, but the point is that the amps the OP proposed to use
> might
> not find the 63 - particularly in some issues - a benign load in this
> respect.
** You are still using a false claim you have NOT proved !!!
The input impedance of the ESL63 is ABOVE 4 ohms across the working range
!!
It is NOTHING like the ESL 57 that drops to 0.3 ohms at DC !!
The ESL 63 is **benign** since it will not cause damage to a direct
coupled SS amp like the ESL 57 can.
There was NO change in the ESL 63 load impedance as FALSELY asserted by YOU
.
Piss off.
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Dave Plowman = FUCKING CONTEXT REMOVER !!!!!!
> Phil Allison
>
>> ** That test was only done routinely with the ESL63 - manufactured
>> since 1982.
>
>> ESL 57s were never so consistent .
>
>> > said they were.
>
>> ** Got a tape recording of that have you ???
>
> No - it was an off the record conversation after an IBS meeting he'd been
> invited to.
>
>> Even if you did - it does not constitute information about ESL 57s.
>
> It's good enough for me.
** But you are a complete fool and a liar.
>> > And I've had wildly varying serial numbers sent back for
>> > overhaul and had them come back sounding the same.
>
>> ** Yawn - more unsupported assertions involving you.
>
> Considering each and every one was quality checked after repair I don't
> find it unsupported?
** Using your own opinions as proof again - what worthless drivel.
>> > And *he* told me matching pairs referred to the woodwork.
>
>> ** Got a tape recording of that have you too ???
>
> See above.
** Get fucked.
> Wonder what it is about this group that attracts some of the rudest
> people on the net?
** What - lying idiots like you ?
............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
>>> 1) In the early reviews. For example, in MC's reviews in 'Hi Fi Choice'
>>> number 26, 1981. This shows a dip down to about 3 Ohms in the 10-15kHz
>>> region, and also at 50Hz and below.
>>
>>** In reality, it never falls below 4 ohms - as shown by innumerable
>>reviews by others.
>
> Untrue, as the printed curves clearly show.
** No they fucking do not - more stinking LIES from Pinko the Fuckwit.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm
The curve here shows the impedance is at or above 5 ohms from 80 Hz to 8
Hz - and just dipping to 4 ohms at 20 Hz.
Published data from ETI magazine, Nov 1982, states the LF min as 4.0 ohms at
10 Hz and the HF min as 5.4 ohms at 10kHz.
In comparison to the ESL 57, and many other speakers - this is a very benign
load characteristic.
Someone who has NO FUCKING IDEA when the " Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker
" was released needs to learn to FUCKING SHUT UP !!!!!
.............. Phil
TT
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahte311phvb1fg6oj...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:44:57 +0800, "Phil's Mum"
I don't understand why Phil's Mum didn't practice safe sex
;-)
atec
TT
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:39pnpdF...@individual.net...
: :
: Someone (like Phil) who has NO F***ING IDEA when A "
Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker : " is a DUD needs to learn
to F***ING SHUT UP !!!!!
:
:
:
: .............. Phil (AKA Quad Boy)
:
:
Come on Phil tell everyone here how **YOU** go about buying
dud ESL63s and then have to sue the dealer to get your money
back?
Come on?
Everyone here needs to know your *TRUE* level of total
incompetence and at the same time have a really jolly, good
old laugh at your expense.
Or perhaps you would prefer I told the story? BTW I
promise it will be the non-contradictory and facts omitted
version ;-)
TT
Stewart Pinkerton
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Stewart Pinkerton"
>"Phil Allison"
>
>
>>>> 1) In the early reviews. For example, in MC's reviews in 'Hi Fi Choice'
>>>> number 26, 1981. This shows a dip down to about 3 Ohms in the 10-15kHz
>>>> region, and also at 50Hz and below.
>>>
>>>** In reality, it never falls below 4 ohms - as shown by innumerable
>>>reviews by others.
>>
>> Untrue, as the printed curves clearly show.
>
>
> ** No they fucking do not - more stinking LIES from Pinko the Fuckwit.
You really do need to try some new medication.
>Someone who has NO FUCKING IDEA when the " Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker
>" was released needs to learn to FUCKING SHUT UP !!!!!
Sure I do, now that the original misunderstanding has been cleared up.
Some of us learn and move on, others just scream ever more loudly.
Unfortunately for you, you can't increase the font size of your
capitals on my screen..........................
Stewart Pinkerton
I trust you don't drive an A-class Merc! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Jim Lesurf"
> Phil Allison
>
>>> ** Where is your evidence of "early issues" (what serial numbers ?)
>>
>> See a reply I wrote and posted a little while ago. :-)
>
>
>** The fuckwit opinions of Martin Colloms are of no value or interest.
Not opinions, you cretin, measured and published impedance curves.
>
> You made very specific claims - all false ones.
Jim doesn't make false claims - unlike you.
Chris Isbell
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>** I see no change at all that would affect the input impedance.
>
>Try posting some facts instead of pompously quoting you OWN wrong opinions
>!!!
Jim's posts are always polite and well argued, and are never pompous.
It would be well if you posted in a similar manner rather than
insulting him. His contributions are far more valuable than your
rants.
Please learn the distinction between reasoned disagreement and
unreasoned ranting.
--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK
Phil Allison
"Chris Isbell"
"Phil Allison"
>
>>** I see no change at all that would affect the input impedance.
>>
>>Try posting some facts instead of pompously quoting you OWN wrong opinions
>>!!!
>
> Jim's posts are always polite and well argued,
** Absolute bullshit !!!!
> and are never pompous.
** Like bloody hell they are not - and yours are 10 times worse.
Fuck off - arse licker.
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Stewart Pinkerton"...
"Phil Allison"
>>
>>** The fuckwit opinions of Martin Colloms are of no value or interest.
>
> Not opinions, you cretin, measured and published impedance curves.
** Pinko the Cunt is so utterly fucked in the head he has no idea what the
issue is.
>> You made very specific claims - all false ones.
>
> Jim doesn't make false claims ...
** ROTFLMAO .....
From the biggest bloody LIAR on the NG !!!!
> Stewart Pinkerton | A Sub Human, Criminal Piece of Garbage
............. Phil
Mike Coatham
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d4bf50...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <d15084$4s8$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Mike Coatham
> <coa...@es.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message . BTW, no
> > > ESL57 is half a century old, it first went on sale in 1966 - you're
> > > too used to writing pot-boiler fiction.
>
> > The Quad Electrostatic was on sale in 1957 - and I have numerous
> > original Quad brochures from that time which clearly show that it was
> > on sale in 1957. It also appears in the HiFi Year Book of 1958 , this
> > being the earliest one I have. I don't know where your 1966 date came
> > from but it isn't correct.
>
> The speaker is featured in an article in the 1957 yearbook, and described
> in terms that indicated that at the time the article was written it was
not
> yet one sale. I think the yearbooks were written and published 'early' so
> as to have a long life as being for the 'current' year.
>
> The first review of the ESL57 I'm aware of at the moment is in the
November
> 1957 issue of HFN, and that implies it was then on sale.
>
> Slainte,
unpacking all my books & reference material following a house shift. It's
amazing what you accumulate in 20 years between shifts.
I have a full set of Wireless Worlds from 1953 through to early '80's as
well Gramophone & HiFi News covering a similar period.
The November 1957 WW has a full page advert by Acoustical Manuf. Co. a.k.a.
as Quad. Along with a picture of the ESL, is the following statement -
"To those who are waiting the availability of this loudspeaker, we are very
pleased to say that it is now in production and that orders are being
accepted through our usual channels. It is likely that demand will exceed
supply for some time - in waiting for your delivery please remember that we
are allocating supplies as fairly as we can".
In the Gramophone for November 1957, the late Percy Wilson in 'Technical
Talk" reporting on the British Sound Recording Assn's annual exhibition
detailed that a Mr Philip Tandy had won a raffle for the first ESL off
production i.e. Serial No. 1.
So I think we can safely deduce that production started in October or
November 1957.
Mike