[Andre Jute]

On Dec 27, 5:04*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus



On Dec 26, wrote:
Bob.

Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....
--
TonySayer

It depends what you're doing whether "the point source will be sodded
up". For instance, Bessel is a form of stacking in which the point
source, far from being "sodded up" is enhanced. For another, several
of the stacking schemes for ESL63 and similar (for which it becomes
even less necessary, but I'm just humouring Poopie because it is
Christmas) I explained are for very grand or even public rooms, in
which a tiny loss in potential quality will not be noticed because no
one will sit down to listen for it, and the overwhelming quality of
the stats *will* be noticed. For yet another, it is easy to stack the
ESL63 and derivatives in pairs so that the point source of one
precisely meets the point of origin of the other, which is only
notionally possible, and only at one listening point, for any other
type of speakers (especially multiple cones!), the upshot being that
ESL-63 is probably the most stackable speaker there is...

Yeabut how can you have more than the one -point- source?....

Its physically impossible unless there is another dimension your keeping
from us;?...

--
TonySayer

Put a single ESL63 or derivative -- minimum case, yeah? one speaker
only, okay? -- in the middle of an empty room. Play music. Stand in
front of the speaker. Hear the point source. Walk around the music.
Hear the point source on the other side of the speaker. So what do you
have? One speaker, two point sources.

Yeabut which point source are you on about PW only ever mentioned One
point source;!.,..

Quite. But he was pulling the leg of the ivory tower engineers a
little, d'y'see? I'm surprised that none of the diplomaed quarterwits
has yet lectured us on the true nature of a point source, which is a
singularity in space totally undifferentiated to any listening point
anywhere else in space by frequency or any other of ways in which we
tell loudspeaker reproduction is merely *high* fidelity, a misleading
phrase that hides more than it explains, rather than the unqualified
and vastly more powerful fidelity.

Being urbane men of the world, you and I, Tony, we shall of course
forgive a genius like Peter Walker his small commercial conceit, for
the ESL63 is not a point source speaker by the scientific definition.
It is a faux point source speaker. It mimics a point source. And,
being a symmetrical dipole by its construction, it mimics the point
source to either side of concentric centre of its circular panels.
Which of these point sources you perceive is a matter of where you
stand.

Those of such a coarse disposition that they insist on "enhancing" the
sound of perfection may use the duality of faux point sources
conveniently to create a single point source double speaker, as I
explained above.

***
I should point out that I was merely going into these matters to
educate Poopie Stevenson. While I can see the point of stacking ESL57,
or anyway did once (I wouldn't do it again), I see no point in
stacking ESL63 for domestic use -- why gild a wonderful lily?

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

[Eiron]

Andre Jute wrote:

Those of such a coarse disposition that they insist on "enhancing" the
sound of perfection may use the duality of faux point sources
conveniently to create a single point source double speaker, as I
explained above.

***
I should point out that I was merely going into these matters to
educate Poopie Stevenson. While I can see the point of stacking ESL57,
or anyway did once (I wouldn't do it again), I see no point in
stacking ESL63 for domestic use -- why gild a wonderful lily?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a812569f57084b

You are only explaining that you know nothing about electrostatic
loudspeakers.
No need to stop though, you are entertaining hundreds with your buffoonery.

--
Eiron.

[Fleetie]

"tony sayer" wrote
In article , Fleetie
scribeth thus
Not according to the "Hi-Fi Choice" article I read in the late 80s.
It had a picture of his room, and in it were (at least) 2 pairs
of stripped-down (grilles removed) ESL-63s, arranged so that for
each channel there were 2 speakers right next to each other, but
set at 90 degrees to each other.

I forget his name right now but I know it's still somewhere in my
memory. Oh yes, "ARA", I think. Alastair Robertson-Aikman or something?


Hi-fi jurno was he then?....

Martin
--
Tony Sayer

What?

It was a feature article about him and his system, with interview
content and stuff.

I'm surprised you didn't read the article yourself.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

[Andre Jute]

Yo, anonymous , are you the same clown who earlier
this week displayed a mountainous inferiority complex by sending us
your complete curriculum vitae and then becoming so flustered you
forgot to sign it? This sort of ignorant crap won't make us think any
more kindly of your supposed "qualifications".

On Dec 29, 5:12*pm, " wrote:
Thank you Jim for adding some sanity to this discussion. *The Quad 63
series is indeed a phased array intended to mimic a point source at an
assumed distance. *At least that's how Peter Walker described it to me
back in 1979.

As an aside, the following paragraph is perhaps the silliest things
ever written about Quads:

"Put a single ESL63 or derivative -- minimum case, yeah? one speaker
only, okay? -- in the middle of an empty room. Play music. Stand in
front of the speaker. Hear the point source. Walk around the music.
Hear the point source on the other side of the speaker. So what do
you
have? One speaker, two point sources."

Apparently Andre never learned the definition of a point in middle
school.

Either the Quad ESL63 is a real point source, which you have already
denied, or a faux point source. If it is a faux point source, then it
doesn't need to answer to the theoretical parameters of a real point
source, the particular parameter under discussion here being that it
must be a singularity.

It seems to me, anonymous emmaco, that when Mr Walker explained the
principle of his speaker to you, you salivated so much at the prospect
of dropping his name that the liquid got into your ears and interfered
with your hearing. The only alternative explanation is that you're
claiming that Peter Walker lied about the physics of his speaker. Who
will believe that from some American public address rigger?

Of course even that would be a pointless discussion...

Oh, I don't think so. You are too much given, anonymous emmaco, to
uttering dumb sweeping statements and then hiding behind your
"qualifications" when people laugh at your stupidities. So here it is
again, offered for you to *prove* the contrary if you can:

"Put a single ESL63 or derivative -- minimum case, yeah? one speaker
only, okay? -- in the middle of an empty room. Play music. Stand in
front of the speaker. Hear the point source. Walk around the music.
Hear the point source on the other side of the speaker. So what do you
have? One speaker, two point sources." -- Andre Jute

If you have access to a Quad ESL from the -63 forward, I suggest that
before you make a fool of yourself again, you try the experiment
either with your ears, if they aren't deaf yet from testing your PA
installations, or with a meter, if you have one and know how to use
it. There are two point sources as anyone with a Quad ESL63 or later
will tell you. They are empirically confirmable -- in SoCalSpeak:
listen with your own ears, sonny.

Remember Zappa's Law: *There are two constants in the universe:
hydrogen and stupidity.

Goes double for blustering clowns from Southern California, as we can
see here.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

[[email protected]]

I'm hardly anonymous Jute, and you conveniently forget to add that you
asked me to send my CV in our last exchange. Regardless of your silly
shots, the qualifications are real.
For you to claim you don't know who I am is ridiculous.

Yet if by some odd chance you can qualify for a free industry
magazine, you could read my monthly columns in Live Sound
International, or buy a compilation book of my last 13 years of
columns at http://www.lulu.com/content/806117. There's apparently
is a reason I get paid to write about audio irrespective of the
continuing cheap shots you take at my credentials.

None of the Quad speakers are a real point source (why Walker
developed the Balls), which 99% of the thread readers probably already
knew at the start of this thread. The 63 and its successors mimic an
ideal sphere using a sequential delay lines radiating out
concentrically from a center area. Hence the 11 miles of coil
windings in each one. That would be something the rest of the
audiophile world has already known for roughly 25 years now.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index6.html

Why one would want to stack one radiating sphere on top of another
other to approximate two unique point sources alludes me. That being
said, I actually did hook up two set of Quads (top pair 63's on Arcici
stands, bottom pair 988s as you suggest. Plays louder, distorts the
image- not very surprising. Defeats the whole point of the speaker to
begin with...

Would someone just take Jute's keyboard away please?

Currently listening to the Quad Knole harpsichord CD which Ross gave
me years ago... still stunning. I've never had a great deal of
success adding a sub to the 63's, but always hoped it would work out
well. I'm very please to hear it can.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article
,
at wrote on 12/30/07 3:21 PM:

I'm hardly anonymous Jute, and you conveniently forget to add that you
asked me to send my CV in our last exchange. Regardless of your silly
shots, the qualifications are real.
For you to claim you don't know who I am is ridiculous.

Yet if by some odd chance you can qualify for a free industry
magazine, you could read my monthly columns in Live Sound
International, or buy a compilation book of my last 13 years of
columns at http://www.lulu.com/content/806117. There's apparently
is a reason I get paid to write about audio irrespective of the
continuing cheap shots you take at my credentials.

None of the Quad speakers are a real point source (why Walker
developed the Balls), which 99% of the thread readers probably already
knew at the start of this thread. The 63 and its successors mimic an
ideal sphere using a sequential delay lines radiating out
concentrically from a center area. Hence the 11 miles of coil
windings in each one. That would be something the rest of the
audiophile world has already known for roughly 25 years now.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index6.html

Why one would want to stack one radiating sphere on top of another
other to approximate two unique point sources alludes me. That being
said, I actually did hook up two set of Quads (top pair 63's on Arcici
stands, bottom pair 988s as you suggest. Plays louder, distorts the
image- not very surprising. Defeats the whole point of the speaker to
begin with...

Would someone just take Jute's keyboard away please?

Currently listening to the Quad Knole harpsichord CD which Ross gave
me years ago... still stunning. I've never had a great deal of
success adding a sub to the 63's, but always hoped it would work out
well. I'm very please to hear it can.


Good post.

I previewed your book and like your style. It is descriptive, succinct, and
has punch. One ex-pat So. African fabulist and 3rd-rate author could learn
a lot from it . . .

Oh, don't worry about Andre. He ain't happy unless he's making up **** or
****ting on someone else.

What is your favorite speaker model, if you have one? Or if not, pls. give
a few examples.

Thanks.

Jon

[Andre Jute]

anonymous " wrote:
I'm hardly anonymous Jute,

Sigh. Your letter is still unsigned, sonny, and I still don't know who
you are. Why don't you tell me before I lose interest in yet another
clown rolling into RAT like a snowball into hell, soon to be another
damb squib.

and you conveniently forget to add that you
asked me to send my CV in our last exchange. *

I did? I must have forgotten that sarcasm, the crudest wit of all, is
mistaken for flattery by the coarser kind of ugly American.

This is as far as I read. This is what a signature looks like:

Andre Jute
Sometimes it includes a witty remark, like this:
SoCal PA riggers need not apply



Regardless of your silly
shots, the qualifications are real.
For you to claim you don't know who I am is ridiculous.

Yet if by some odd chance you can qualify for a free industry
magazine, you could read my monthly columns in Live Sound
International, or buy a compilation book of my last 13 years of
columns athttp://www.lulu.com/content/806117. * *There's apparently
is a reason I get paid to write about audio irrespective of the
continuing cheap shots you take at my credentials.

None of the Quad speakers are a real point source (why Walker
developed the Balls), which 99% of the thread readers probably already
knew at the start of this thread. *The 63 and its successors mimic an
ideal sphere using a sequential delay lines radiating out
concentrically from a center area. * Hence the 11 miles of coil
windings in each one. *That would be something the rest of the
audiophile world has already known for roughly 25 years now.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index6.html

Why one would want to stack one radiating sphere on top of another
other to approximate two unique point sources alludes me. * That being
said, I actually did hook up two set of Quads (top pair 63's on Arcici
stands, bottom pair 988s as you suggest. *Plays louder, distorts the
image- not very surprising. *Defeats the whole point of the speaker to
begin with...

Would someone just take Jute's keyboard away please?

Currently listening to the Quad Knole harpsichord CD which Ross gave
me years ago... *still stunning. *I've never had a great deal of
success adding a sub to the 63's, but always hoped it would work out
well. * I'm very please to hear it can.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article ,
Andre Jute at wrote on 12/30/07 6:32 PM:



This is as far as I read. This is what a signature looks like:

Andre Jute
Sometimes it includes a witty remark, like this:
SoCal PA riggers need not apply



Thank you Gray Glasser/ Nomen Nescio / Bill May / Rafael, et. al. for giving
us the proper form of a signature.

Jon

[[email protected]]

My all time favorite speaker is the Hill Plasmatronics 1A, which we're
fortunate enough to own a pair (they only made 60)... They use a
helium/air plasma burn from 700 Hz to about 30 kHz with no frequency
or phase anomalies. I had a good friend at JBL re-engineer the mid
bass and LF sections and we run them in a triamped mode. We use it in
our "all plasma" system with a 50" Panasonic. Here's a pictu
http://hill-plasmatronics.googlegrou...fgpQ-sZU1Fy-pw

We have two other systems in regular use. The second is an all Quad
34/FM4/306 system, which I normally listen to for low level listening
in the wee hours. No longer have any 57s (sold them to my best
friend), but a true fan of the company and products. Also have a pair
of 63's, but they're fragile in comparison to the 988s.
http://lecson-audio.googlegroups.com...wkQDWveO3Dq A

My "favorite system" is fairly unique which may spark a few memories
amongst the old timers. Transcriptor Skeleton with Vestigal/ADC XLM,
Gale GT20101 with SME IIi and Grado cartridge, Lecson AC1, FM1, and
AP1 and AP3 driven Gale GS401A's on the chrome stands. I run a Lecson
Google Group site: http://groups.google.com/group/lecson-audio that
some might find interesting. Stan Curtis is a regular contributor.


A picture of the last system can be found at:
http://lecson-audio.googlegroups.com...iJ7UbTIup-M2XP


As for Andre's comments failings of my signature and being an ugly
American, he may actually be correct about something. I don't
suppose I would win too many beauty contests. I am very proud of
being an American, and hope my children are as well. One suspects
Andre wouldn't be so negative about the world had he grown up in
California; it was bright and sunny again today as it is about 350
days/year. His need to insult my country may be a reflection on his
own limitations.

Although I was Director of Operations for Maryland Sound years ago
(acts like Michael Bolton, Frank Sinatra, George Benson, Neil Diamond,
Pink Floyd, The Cure, etc.), I've never actually "rigged" a PA in my
career. The systems were all precabled and motorized anyway...

[[email protected]]

I chopped off part of the Lecson system picture link:

http://lecson-audio.googlegroups.com...XXMx-R8xkKUgoQ

[Jon Yaeger]

in article ,
at wrote on 12/30/07 8:16 PM:

My all time favorite speaker is the Hill Plasmatronics 1A, which we're
fortunate enough to own a pair (they only made 60)... They use a
helium/air plasma burn from 700 Hz to about 30 kHz with no frequency
or phase anomalies. I had a good friend at JBL re-engineer the mid
bass and LF sections and we run them in a triamped mode. We use it in
our "all plasma" system with a 50" Panasonic. Here's a pictu
http://hill-plasmatronics.googlegrou...stem%20Reduced
.JPG?gda=m7UOVFAAAABcRP0t-ygC4jGXPczmESS1iADB4csoaMJpc1sRLkQSmmG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2
XPURDQ1CSSbH_eQTtIk0qaXEhiK5Ac-iRnyfgpQ-sZU1Fy-pw

We have two other systems in regular use. The second is an all Quad
34/FM4/306 system, which I normally listen to for low level listening
in the wee hours. No longer have any 57s (sold them to my best
friend), but a true fan of the company and products. Also have a pair
of 63's, but they're fragile in comparison to the 988s.
http://lecson-audio.googlegroups.com...?gda=fvCmO0QAA
AAEOH9TvB6svVkOnZ2u0FwjxAr_KF4okcWUafUAs7PR_mG1qiJ 7UbTIup-M2XPURDQwkRvgQ0Z3sDg
qSdQQDR05IdEAhumLrGwkQDWveO3DqA

My "favorite system" is fairly unique which may spark a few memories
amongst the old timers. Transcriptor Skeleton with Vestigal/ADC XLM,
Gale GT20101 with SME IIi and Grado cartridge, Lecson AC1, FM1, and
AP1 and AP3 driven Gale GS401A's on the chrome stands. I run a Lecson
Google Group site: http://groups.google.com/group/lecson-audio that
some might find interesting. Stan Curtis is a regular contributor.


A picture of the last system can be found at:
http://lecson-audio.googlegroups.com...=Ruj2kEIAAAAEO
H9TvB6svVkOnZ2u0FwjxAr_KF4okcWUafUAs7PR_mG1qiJ7UbT Iup-M2XP


As for Andre's comments failings of my signature and being an ugly
American, he may actually be correct about something. I don't
suppose I would win too many beauty contests. I am very proud of
being an American, and hope my children are as well. One suspects
Andre wouldn't be so negative about the world had he grown up in
California; it was bright and sunny again today as it is about 350
days/year. His need to insult my country may be a reflection on his
own limitations.

Although I was Director of Operations for Maryland Sound years ago
(acts like Michael Bolton, Frank Sinatra, George Benson, Neil Diamond,
Pink Floyd, The Cure, etc.), I've never actually "rigged" a PA in my
career. The systems were all precabled and motorized anyway...



Emmaco,

Very impressive toy collections! Thanks for sharing.

I've been curious about the plasma technology since I read an article in
Radio-Electronics or Popular Electronics about an experimental plasma
speaker (I think I still have the article around here somewhere).

Obviously the plasma speakers are rare and cool. But are they also
sonically superior, and if so, why?

Don't mean to pester . . . but I'm very curious, since I don't think I'll
come across a pair.

Thanks

Jon

[[email protected]]

Why is a properly implemented plasma speaker so much better?

The only mass they have is the media itself (air/helium mixture) would
be the simplest answer. We're currently working on a Hill Google
Group, which isn't ready for prime time yet. Nonetheless, check out
this frequency and phase response measurement:

http://hill-plasmatronics.googlegrou...qn3un8nKr9-w11

From 1000 Hz to 30 kHz, there is no other drive I've ever seen that
even comes close. This is from an actual unit in a living room using
a B&K calibrated mic. The impulse response (ETC) is as perfect as
I've ever seen.

The Plasmatronics system allows you to play tricks on people that are
remarkable. It sounds like the real thing- not a recording on a pair
of speakers- something the Quad stuff occasionally hints at but never
really holds on to you for dear life. The plasma music transcends
the technology; close your eyes and it triggers your brain into
thinking you're actually involved in an event. Very difficult to
describe without being mocked, and with the angry man lurking about
I'll leave it at that...

There are a number of rumors about the Hill system that are
ridiculous. Many are ozone related and perpetuated by those never
having owned or even heard a set. I do tend to wear sunglasses while
listening for the same reason welders do and you have to refill the
helium tanks every hundred hours or so...