[Andre Jute]

wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain. The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Jenn]

Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

[[email protected]]

Hi RATs!

Perhaps we each hear whatever we think we hear, even if we do not
always communicate what we think as clearly as we might if we were not
just excited by Music, but Masters of Words.

Or, bored by everything, even our own toilet vocabulary, right Joy Boy
Berty? Sigh.

I am amused by people who think it is important for them to spread the
word that it all sounds the same to them. Gosh. If only I could be that
perceptive ...

And, let us be honest, for a brief moment, if you don't like tubes nor
own any tube equipment you enjoy, what makes you think those of us high
on the mythology need you to talk us back to your dreary planet? Just
because you can't get an erection does not mean sex is stupid

All speakers have their moments. Some have more than others. None get
all the moments. Life ain't pretty, sometimes, but, our audio
engineering expertise is pretty evenly spread - a bit thin

Happy Ears!
Al

[Margaret von B]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

[[email protected]]

Andrew Jute McCoy diverted with:
crap about speakers....

The list is precisely as accurate, truthful and as factual as the
writer. Most specifically when the Lowther horns are added in... or any
other point-source "full-range" single driver.

It is the half-truths presented as the full-truths that are most
dangerous.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

You're not being nice to Mr. Jute- and that after, he so modestly, put
his own $ 200:00
speaker as only the fifth best in the world.
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On 28 Aug 2006 18:20:26 -0700, "
wrote:


Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

Of course you realize that such a plaque will improve the sound no
end--Andre himself guarantees that. And if you scribble on the back of
it "I adore Andre Jute" in Italics (doesn't work otherwise) the sound
will be so three dimensionally lifelike you will probably be seriously
injured by your reaction (backflips, spinning in the air etc). I
suggest you leave things as they are. :-)

[Tom Alaerts]

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

enjoy, Tom

[Patrick Turner]

Tom Alaerts wrote:

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

enjoy, Tom

The trouble with ESL57 is that many have come to the end of their service
lives and need to be
re-built by a specialist, and when listening to any given pair, you may be
hearing sub-optimum
music because of the panel problems.

There are a few guys in Oz here that do the restoration work of replacing
the
membranes for about aud $3,000 a pair, John Hall of melbourne is one,
and I think EAR Audio in Perth offer a kit, as well as their own brand of
ESL.

So afaiac, I wouldn't pay more than $100 for an old pair of Quad ESL57
because I know that sooner or later
I'd have to re-build them at rather a high expense.

I'd love to have a pair though just to see if what they say is true, that
they
image well and are non tiringly accurate and entertaining, ie, musical.


For many things I would like in life, I will have to win the lottery to
attain them...

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.


This has all come a bit too quickly for me. Can you wait a month for
a considered answer?

I had an invitation from a member of a Lowther group in
Sweden to attend their September get-together at his
weekend place "just outside" Stockholm. There is a pic
of the location at:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...therIsland.jpg


There's gold in them there 'orns:-)

Iain

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 18:20:26 -0700, "
wrote:


Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

Of course you realize that such a plaque will improve the sound no
end--Andre himself guarantees that. And if you scribble on the back of
it "I adore Andre Jute" in Italics (doesn't work otherwise) the sound
will be so three dimensionally lifelike you will probably be seriously
injured by your reaction (backflips, spinning in the air etc). I
suggest you leave things as they are. :-)

Your sage advice reached me just in time.The miracle of the internet
prevented serious injury.
The only problem that remains is the mysterious sign at the end of your
message.
Like that :-). I see that it is called a "smiley". Is it meant to
restrict your true meaning to the members of a smiley club? Can anyone
join? Are Andre Jute and Arny Krueger members?
Ludovic M.

[Bill Riel]

In article . com,
says...

The only problem that remains is the mysterious sign at the end of your
message.
Like that :-). I see that it is called a "smiley". Is it meant to
restrict your true meaning to the members of a smiley club? Can anyone
join? Are Andre Jute and Arny Krueger members?

Ludo,

you too can join this illustrious club. Basically they are called
"emoticons" and the intent of their use is to help clarify a posters
meaning (since written language contains none of cues that face to face
communication conveys).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

Of course, many people use them to "justify" nasty behaviour, but you'll
never see examples of that on RAO ;-)

--
Bill

[KMM]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.


Any list that does not inlcude Dynaudio is incomplete, and demonstrates a
lack of knowledge and hearing acuity in the person composing the list.

[[email protected]]

Bill Riel wrote:
In article . com,
says...

The only problem that remains is the mysterious sign at the end of your
message.
Like that :-). I see that it is called a "smiley". Is it meant to
restrict your true meaning to the members of a smiley club? Can anyone
join? Are Andre Jute and Arny Krueger members?

Ludo,

you too can join this illustrious club. Basically they are called
"emoticons" and the intent of their use is to help clarify a posters
meaning (since written language contains none of cues that face to face
communication conveys).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

Of course, many people use them to "justify" nasty behaviour, but you'll
never see examples of that on RAO ;-)

--
Bill

Thank you for your help. I have known what smiley is intended to mean
for the last few years.
My faux naive comment was meant to illustrate why I refuse to use this
childish notation to warn ALL the readers that I'm speaking tongue
-in-cheek. Basically I refuse to use it because I do not care if my
perverted sense of humour doesn't reach those whom it fails to reach.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

KMM wrote:

Any list that does not inlcude Dynaudio is incomplete, and demonstrates a
lack of knowledge and hearing acuity in the person composing the list.

Hi RATs!

Actually, thinking a list is clever and judicious use of one's time and
talents suggests a lack of both intelligence and insight.

OK for late night TV, but, otherwise, c'mon.

Just think of the horror! Krew's favorite 500,000 amps. Sigh!

Eyesore's favorite six million film caps. Sigh!

Oh, the humanity!

Happy Ears!
Al

I have two favorites: L and R!

[George M. Middius]

said:

Basically I refuse to use it because I do not care if my
perverted sense of humour doesn't reach those whom it fails to reach.


Thank's Mr. Mirabel for, admitting Mr. Mirablew that its like you already
know you are a failure Mr. Mairble, LOt"S.

;-)




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius bleated:
Its usual crap.

Now, inquiring minds wish to know, Mr. Middius:

Which is it that bothers you mo That Mr. McCoy's fingers are so far
up your fundament that you can taste them at the back of your throat,
or that you are only its second favorite sockpuppet?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[George M. Middius]

Worthless Wiecky whinnied:

Its usual crap.

I didn't write those words, Wiecky. You're always doing this. In fact, I
looked a few posts up in this thread and I don't see where anybody wrote
"Its usual crap."

Now, inquiring minds wish to know, Mr. Middius:

Are you brain-damaged?

That Mr. McCoy's fingers are so far

Who is this "Mr. McCoy" you're always railing about, Worthless?

You still haven't rationalized your conniving with Bwian McDip****. You
know he's a criminal, right?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On 29 Aug 2006 14:14:11 -0700, "
wrote:


Thank you for your help. I have known what smiley is intended to mean
for the last few years.
My faux naive comment was meant to illustrate why I refuse to use this
childish notation to warn ALL the readers that I'm speaking tongue
-in-cheek. Basically I refuse to use it because I do not care if my
perverted sense of humour doesn't reach those whom it fails to reach.
Ludovic Mirabel

Well, I ceased using it for a while, until Trevor Wilson took
something written in jest seriously and got momentarily upset. Since
I don't wish to upset people, I sometimes resort to my friend Smiley.

Oh, here he is now..... :-)

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
said:

Basically I refuse to use it because I do not care if my
perverted sense of humour doesn't reach those whom it fails to reach.


Thank's Mr. Mirabel for, admitting Mr. Mirablew that its like you already
know you are a failure Mr. Mairble, LOt"S.

;Thanks Mr. Middius for taking notice of me at last. I was getting worried that I must be doing everything wrong escaping your arrows for so long. But I needn't have worried. It is all there including the brilliantly witty variations on my last name. The kids in my preschool never did as well.
I would not dream of competing with you Mr. Middius. It is Middius
isn't it?
Ludovic Mirabel




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Andre Jute]

Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:

You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

We should all have paid more attention.

As I say, I'm sorry that it happened to a fellow with stacked Quads,
whom I would otherwise have expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with
me against the barbarians. Don't feel bad about it. You are in noted
company, including Krueger, Pinkostinko, MeKelpie, Poopie, Pompass
Plodnick (was that Magnequest Scummie's name Pasternick, something like
that), and suchlike genealogical accidents too impressed by themselves
to laugh at the world.

But all is not lost. I am always vastly entertained when people tell me
how great their wit is, and especially when they tell me how much
wittier they are than poor little old me. I admire them for aiming as
high as the certified gold standard, even when they manage only to
pucture their self-esteem against my ankles. I imagine that eventually,
if they are not too stupid, they learn that wit isn't claimed but
demonstrated.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...re%20Jute.html


wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:

Its usual crap. All over again...

Touched a nerve, did we?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

Of course, if you were as wealthy as I certainly wish you could all be,
you would have Quads for chamber music and a concert hall with built-in
underfloor horns beyond the swimming pool for symphonic music. Or, of
course, you would just hire a symphony orchestra and Jenn to conduct,
any time the mood took you.

By the way, though I did once buy new Quad ESL 57 (they're long since
gone), the Quad ESL of various types I own now were acquired used,
previously loved by a little old lady who used them only on Sundays for
church music, abused by the BBC (via rebuilding at Huntingdon),
delivered by Peter Walker himself to an old chappie who saved five
years for just one when they cost the price of car and willed to me by
him, and so on. For the price of crappy "high-end" boxes you can have
second-hand Quads that will serve for years still.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

To avoid encouraging checkbook "audiophiles", those plaques are
sanctioned for speakers of first class provenance in pleasing
installions in superior reproduction chains by cultured music-lovers of
the highest sensitivity.

Perhaps you would care to explain how you qualify, Mr Mirabel.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.


This has all come a bit too quickly for me. Can you wait a month for
a considered answer?

I had an invitation from a member of a Lowther group in
Sweden to attend their September get-together at his
weekend place "just outside" Stockholm. There is a pic
of the location at:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...therIsland.jpg

I hope the summer isn't over by the time you get there.

There's gold in them there 'orns:-)

Iain

Any time you're ready, Iain. We could do with a little experienced
input here.

Andre Jute

[George M. Middius]

L.M. said:

Basically I refuse to use it because I do not care if my
perverted sense of humour doesn't reach those whom it fails to reach.

Thank's Mr. Mirabel for, admitting Mr. Mirablew that its like you already
know you are a failure Mr. Mairble, LOt"S.

;Thanks Mr. Middius for taking notice of me at last. I was getting worried that I must be doing everything wrong escaping your arrows for so long. But I needn't have worried. It is all there including the brilliantly witty variations on my last name. The kids in my preschool never did as well.

I would not dream of competing with you Mr. Middius.

Not to worry, making up mock-Krooglish is a game for everybody. Not at all
competitive.

It is Middius isn't it?

Genuine Krooglish does not acknowledge the traditional notion of "correct
spelling".




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
George M. Middius wrote:

Its usual crap. All over again...

Touched a nerve, did we?

The irony of Middius complaining about people who cavort with criminials is
pretty amazing.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com


I would not dream of competing with you Mr. Middius. It
is Middius isn't it?

Surely you jest.

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

With stacked ESL57, would you not get a line array driver effect,
with sound being radiated in vertical wave fronts rather than tending to be
spherical?
This is suppoed to aid imaging I am told, but having never
used a line array speaker or stacked quads, then I really don't know if
claims about
imaging are correct. Does a line array make a violin sound like its 3
metres high
and played by a giant?

Suspended line array dynamic speakers are increasingly popular due to
sensitivity gains
and variable directionality especially with PA systems coupled to PC
controlled
speaker directionality so the sound at the back of the audience can be
adjusted to be about the same loudness
and F response as at the front row.
At a recent cultural festival gig in town last summer line array systems
were used and were
very much smaller but better than walls of much larger "normal" speakers
each side of the stage,
and I had little urge to use ear plugs necessary at such events.

Patrick Turner.

[George M. Middius]

Krooglish from the source.

criminials

From "THe USeNET hand-book of Reel wurds, LOt"S", c. 1999, LiarBorg Press,
Goose Puke, MI:

criminials (n): 1. individuals known or suspected by the Krooborg to
have participated in conspiracies against the Krooborg 2. undercover
kiddie porn police officers 3. former Kroopologists


I can certainly recognize some of these "criminials" who populate your
nightmares, Arnii. In that sense, I am qualified to label them as such.

BTW, I can't help but notice that you have never repudiated the unflagging
support you receive from Bwian McConArtist.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Sander deWaal]

"Andre Jute" said:


I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.


I prefer Maggies ..........

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/654...rruimtept9.jpg

The dogs don't bite ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Krooglish from the source.

criminials

From "THe USeNET hand-book of Reel wurds, LOt"S", c.
1999, LiarBorg Press, Goose Puke, MI:

criminials (n): 1. individuals known or suspected by the
Krooborg to
have participated in conspiracies against the Krooborg
2. undercover kiddie porn police officers 3. former
Kroopologists


I can certainly recognize some of these "criminials" who
populate your nightmares, Arnii. In that sense, I am
qualified to label them as such.

BTW, I can't help but notice that you have never
repudiated the unflagging support you receive from Bwian
McConArtist.


It's amazing how much snot Middius can liberate in just one post. His
immense schnzola no doubt resulted from his Pinocchio-like obsession with
lying.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is konfused.

Krooglish from the source.

criminials

From "THe USeNET hand-book of Reel wurds, LOt"S", c.
1999, LiarBorg Press, Goose Puke, MI:

criminials (n): 1. individuals known or suspected by the
Krooborg to have participated in conspiracies against the Krooborg
2. undercover kiddie porn police officers 3. former
Kroopologists

I can certainly recognize some of these "criminials" who
populate your nightmares, Arnii. In that sense, I am
qualified to label them as such.

BTW, I can't help but notice that you have never
repudiated the unflagging support you receive from Bwian
McConArtist.

It's amazing how much snot Middius can liberate[sic] in just one post. His
immense schnzola no doubt resulted from his Pinocchio-like obsession with
lying.

Arnii, I apologize because my Krooglish decoder failed to map "liberate"
onto a corresponding human word. Also, I would like to remind you of the
existence of a marvelous tool called a spell-checker. If your computer
skills were a little sharper, you would know how to use one, thereby
avoiding the embarrassment of plopping pseudo-words like "schnzola" in
public.

As to the substance of your complaint, all of the statements in my
preceding post are purely factual. It is a fact that you gibber in your
own private dialect, which we on RAO have nicknamed Krooglish. It is a
fact that you have embraced Bwian's support despite his documented history
as a criminal. And it is a fact that you are by far the snottiest poster
on RAO.

Facts must rattle you, Turdy. You can't do your "debating trade"
shilly-shally with facts.








This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

[Andre Jute]

Tom Alaerts wrote:
Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

That's an interesting selection. I wouldn't mind hearing the newer
Quads. But, measured as pleasure per buck spent, I think my Quads win
hands down over anything else, including over Lowther horns. It seems
to me that Quad electrostats are the standard in every generation since
they appeared. Mr Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale in 1955 when he first
saw Peter Walker's first full range electrostatic speaker demonstrated
at the Waldorf Hotel in New York with Stanley Kelley (a maker of ribbon
speakers) "solemnl agreed to changin into black and meet in due course
in the workhouse." But the very next paragraph of Mr Briggs's
entertaining account starts, "But practical considerations always prove
in the long run to be more potent than theoretical or technical
perfection..."

The truth is that speaker fashions come and go but that I have never
heard any speaker for which I would exchange my Quad electrostats. The
key is not the immediate impact at a show or in a showroom but longterm
livability. There the Quads are supreme precisely because they are so
restrained. Quad electrostats are of couse not speakers for audiophiles
-- who are people who talk more about hi-fi than they listen to music.
Quad electrostats are for music lovers.

enjoy, Tom

Thanks, Tom.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

Sander DeWaal wrote:
"Andre Jute" said:


I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.


I prefer Maggies ..........

I like Maggies too. I liked Margaret Thatcher (though she wrote me a
sharp note when I demonstrated that she is, according to the Communist
Manifesto of 1848, a better communist than Karl Marx), and several of
the ladies who carry my water and dry clothes up mountains for me are
called Margaret or Mairead (pronounced Muh-raid) which is Margaret in
Gaelic.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/654...rruimtept9.jpg

Can you run Maggies that close to the wall or ist a trick of
photographic perspective?

The dogs don't bite ;-)

I'm not worried. Dalmations have had a mystical affinity to me ever
since I called Cruella de Ville a psycho dyke.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

With stacked ESL57, would you not get a line array driver effect,
with sound being radiated in vertical wave fronts rather than tending to be
spherical?

The best way to stack two ESL57 is definitely vertically, top to top
with the upper one upside down. Two further ESL57 added to the same
stack would go in the same configuration and then that new unit would
be placed back to back with the first unit at an angle, the open end of
the angle against the side wall of the room, possibly at the halfway
point of its length.

A Bessel Array isn't a line array; the speakers are just placed in
horizontal line. What in fact happens is that the signal is processed
inside the multiple amplifiers required (or in a very complicated
pre-amp which is theoretically possible but which gives me a
mathmigraine just to contemplate) by attenuating and inverting it for
only a few of the speakers in the set, so that the set creates a single
image which has stereo elements. That is why Bessel Arrays of any size
are normally built with point source drivers rather than multi-driver
boxes.

This is suppoed to aid imaging I am told, but having never
used a line array speaker or stacked quads, then I really don't know if
claims about
imaging are correct. Does a line array make a violin sound like its 3
metres high
and played by a giant?

You're talking about an intirely different sort of array to the Bessel
Array I have in mind, which ia a row of speakers horisontally disposed
and manipulated to produce a continuous single wide image with stereo
elements. One would normally build it only with point source speakers
or faux point source speakers like ESL63.

Suspended line array dynamic speakers are increasingly popular due to
sensitivity gains
and variable directionality especially with PA systems coupled to PC
controlled
speaker directionality so the sound at the back of the audience can be
adjusted to be about the same loudness
and F response as at the front row.

About twenty years ago I was given the Quad II that had been the design
studio reference tube amps at Philips of Eindhoven. The retired Philips
engineer who gave them to me had cheap PA speaks in foam balls hanging
from the two stories-high peaked ceiling of his house, which was also
his listening room after he broke out all the interior walls and and
intermediate floors. Those PA speakers, under the control of a Yamaha
DSP or a bank of gimmicked small, cheap tube amps, gave amazing
quality. He told me then that such arrays of cheap speaks were the
future. Bessel, incidentally, was a Philips engineer and Tony had met
him.

At a recent cultural festival gig in town last summer line array systems
were used and were
very much smaller but better than walls of much larger "normal" speakers
each side of the stage,
and I had little urge to use ear plugs necessary at such events.

Says something awful about the organizers of such events, and the
expectations of their clientele, if those aware that ears are fragile
need to wear earplugs!

Patrick Turner.

BTW. Is that where you picked up your German lady friend?

Andre Jute
Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res -- family motto

[Andre Jute]

Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

The second sentence of the manufacturer's blurb for the Genesis 1.1
runs "At $165,000 per system, the Genesis 1.1 is a product people long
to own." If even the makers are more impressed with the price and
exclusivity than the quality, I start to wonder how they will sound
behind the veil of ignorance (what the jumped-up techies describe as
"ABX tests"). Tell us, Jenn, did you decide the Genesis 1.1 are the
best before you heard the price or after? I understand you're talking
about the system rather than the speakers in isolation -- in fact,
that's altogether a really good point you're making, that in other
people's homea we judge a system, not a component.

Andre Jute

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:

You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

We should all have paid more attention.

As I say, I'm sorry that it happened to a fellow with stacked Quads,
whom I would otherwise have expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with
me against the barbarians. Don't feel bad about it. You are in noted
company, including Krueger, Pinkostinko, MeKelpie, Poopie, Pompass
Plodnick (was that Magnequest Scummie's name Pasternick, something like
that), and suchlike genealogical accidents too impressed by themselves
to laugh at the world.

But all is not lost. I am always vastly entertained when people tell me
how great their wit is, and especially when they tell me how much
wittier they are than poor little old me. I admire them for aiming as
high as the certified gold standard, even when they manage only to
pucture their self-esteem against my ankles. I imagine that eventually,
if they are not too stupid, they learn that wit isn't claimed but
demonstrated.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...re%20Jute.html


wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.


Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
---------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Jute says:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.
Mr. Jute answers:

"Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
" You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek."
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute -

Anxious not to be classed with Mr. Hornbecks unsophisticated
compatriots and to learn from those more worldly than myself I reread
your posting several times:.
I found the hilarious passages that must be the "subtle jokes" you're
referring to:
I asked you: "How was this classification arrived at?"
You answered:
"Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls".
Now that I get it I, your "dear fellow" and devoted pupil in the humour
doctoral class, I'm seized with helpless laughter. How could I have
missed it?
Next, even subtler (and funnier) joke
I asked naively thinking that my satirical intention will be obvious:
"Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval? "
You answered:
"LOL.
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain. The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair"
Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them. Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?
Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something. Nothing like an example.