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.

Thanks,

John Smith.

In article , John Smith
writes
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.

Thanks,

John Smith.



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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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)

"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

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,
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.

In article , John Smith
wrote:


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.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article , Eiron
writes
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,
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.


Yes theres Bass, and Bass, and accurate low frequency reproduction....
--
Tony Sayer

"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

In article ,
Phil Allison 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"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

In article ,
Nomen Nescio 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 *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.

Course you might have to trade the SWMBO in for a more sympathetic one
but if the ends warrant the means etc)......
--
Tony Sayer

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.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:04:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Nomen Nescio 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

In article , tony sayer

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. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article , TT wrote:



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/Scot...o/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 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.

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.

"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

"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

"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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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 Allison wrote:

"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 ****ing LIAR.

The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers

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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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.

"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 ...

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 ****ing LIAR.

The Turneroid pig makes and sells bloody expensive box speakers

I have made only 3 sets of speakers in the last 6 years.



** Yeah right - because they are overpriced pieces of ****.


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 ****ing 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 ****ING WOUNDED BULL F OR THE PIECES OF
**** YOU MAKE

YOU criminal, libelling, ****ing 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 ****ing 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 !!!

**** the hell off - you vile, criminal, stinking TURD !!!!






................. Phil

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.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton 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.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:


** You have no bloody idea what I do or do not make.






.......... Phil

In article TO6NLSQA38424.7975694444@anonymous,
Andre Jute 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 *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
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?ar...g =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

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.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

"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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
: In article TO6NLSQA38424.7975694444@anonymous,
: Andre Jute
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
*
:
: Dave Plowman
London SW
: To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

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 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.

Fleetie 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?

The '63 is for people with friends.

--
Eiron.

"Eiron"
Fleetie 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?

The '63 is for people with friends.



** ???????

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:01:25 +1100, "Phil Allison"
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 | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 Mar 2005 00:08:30 -0000, er
(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 | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:37:06 GMT, "Fleetie"
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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"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

"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 ****ing MORON !!!!

http://www.quad-musik.de/Products_/ESL57/esl57.html



Stewart Pinkerton | Massive Fart - All ****ing bull****.




............. Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:


** You have no bloody idea what I do or do not make.






......... Phil



*** 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

In article , Phil Allison
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/Scot...o/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