Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
"tony sayer"

** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated
reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

** None - when you include both the good square wave and close
frequency
/ phase matching.

Bull****.


** Kindly post evidence of another speaker that passes the *same* out of
phase matching test the ESL 63s do.

I will not hold my breath.


Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around.



** The phrase back then was "time aligned" - ie drivers mounted on
stepped baffles.

None came even close to the ESL63's synthesised point source




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

"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.




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

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".

** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.

Try not to be such a **** here as you are in RAT.

** Go to *straight into hell* you vile lump of pommy excrement.

Argued with your usual wit and brilliance.............



** There is no point in wasting pearls on pathological, pommy swine like
you.



Shame all the components are made in the Chinese factory.

No shame at all, lots of good stuff is made in China these days.


** Shame speakers are not among them.



Yes, they are *manufactured* in China, but to a UK design suited to UK
ears and rooms.

** It is a Chinese made speaker - badged "Quad" to dramatically
increased
the price and fleece the gullible.

Xenophobic ****.


** Argued with your usual wit and brilliance........

The wit of a ****wit and the brilliance of a dead torch bulb.


Stewart Pinkerton | Bull**** Artist - Public Masturbator.




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

"Ian Molton"
Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your claim
a bit? where is his math faulty?



** Don't waste your time on this Eiron fruitcake - the Quad 405 et alia
work as advertised.





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

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.


I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

--
Eiron.

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.


Proffer me 'err profuse apologies guv, but U must admit sometimes a bit
of snipping isn't soo bad;(

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.
--
Tony Sayer

Phil Allison wrote:
"Ian Molton"

Eiron wrote:


We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your claim
a bit? where is his math faulty?

** Don't waste your time on this Eiron fruitcake - the Quad 405 et alia
work as advertised.

Well, mine doesnt since I broke it but I intend to rebuild it... :-)

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Alex wrote:

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the budget,
or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come closest to that
magical electrostatic sound? [Answers from friends have ranged from
well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't
know about (DCM Time Window).]

Magnepan.


Dumb ass!

"Alex" wrote in message ...
Arny Krueger wrote:

: For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the
: budget, or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come
: closest to that magical electrostatic sound?
:
: IOW, a wannabe speaker?
:
: Rule of thumb - you get better results when you seek things that are
: true to their own identity.

Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

Genelec S30D. Amp included.

Cheers,

Margaret

In rec.audio.tech Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:08:20 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Dave Plowman

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.

Over a very limited angle, especially vertically. A square wave through the
ESL-63 still retains its integrity over virtually any angle.

But you already knew that.

Also anything in your size/price range from Avalon Acoustics. The Eidolon
Diamond is arguably the most transparent dynamic speaker in existence.

Margaret



"Alex" wrote in message ...
Arny Krueger wrote:

: For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the
: budget, or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come
: closest to that magical electrostatic sound?
:
: IOW, a wannabe speaker?
:
: Rule of thumb - you get better results when you seek things that are
: true to their own identity.

Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message
...
Also anything in your size/price range from Avalon Acoustics. The Eidolon
Diamond is arguably the most transparent dynamic speaker in existence.

Margaret

However, the upper crust Avalons feature instrument placement that is
pinpoint accurate in a way that cannot be replicated with any ES (or other
speaker) that I know of. Some people like it more than others. And as far as
the soundstage is concerned, the Avalons can match the width but not the
height of really good stats. OTOH, no stat (or other speaker) that I know of
can match the soundstage depth of the better Avalons.

Cheers,

Margaret

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.

What!???

They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in
Seattle.

Basically, they're ribbons backed with Kapton, Mylar, etc. (A true ribbon
is a
pure metal strip, with no backing.) The backing eliminates the ribbon's
fragility and adds mass that lowers the driver's fundamental resonance.

The classic Infinity EMIT and EMIM drivers are orthodynamic. The drivers
in
Apogee speakers are orthodynamic, not ribbon (except for the tweeter used
in the
Diva and one or two others). There have been orthodynamic headphones, such
as
the Yamaha YP-1 [sic] of a few years back.

Orthodynamic drivers have much of the "speed" and low coloration of
electrostatics. Having owned Acoustat Sixes and Apogee Divas, I actually
find
the latter to be (subjectively) more accurate -- and the Sixes were hardly
chopped liver.


Hi William,

Do you still have the Divas? If not, I'm curious to know what speaker
bettered them...

Cheers,

Margaret

Bob Cain wrote:


Ah, I was searching on them as a phrase rather than as either word
appearing independantly. Looked at all 37 and the word seems to be used
a fair bit but not defined often. Two sources indicated that
orthodynamic and isodynamic are a distinction based on how the force is
applied. They both say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a
single point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers. They
say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their whole surface
driven and would encompass, electrostatics, magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning surface driven.

Too, the dictionary defines "isodynamic" as meaning "equal
force" which would seem to imply a fully driven surface.

Orthodynamic isn't a dictionary type of word.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Robert Morein wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:06:49 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

Two sources indicated that orthodynamic and isodynamic are
a distinction based on how the force is applied. They both
say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a single
point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers.
They say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their
whole surface driven and would encompass, electrostatics,
magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning
surface driven.

Aside from the Wharfedale Isodynamic headphones, which were correctly
described.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:37:00 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.

So, you *are* going to be as big a **** here as you are on RAT.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:54:28 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

What is there to discuss? It works as claimed, the only bar to
perfection being a theoretical requirement for a zero impedance at one
point in the circuit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:54:28 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

What is there to discuss? It works as claimed, the only bar to
perfection being a theoretical requirement for a zero impedance at one
point in the circuit.

Also that to keep the bridge balanced, the class-A (correction)
amplifier must never get into slew-rate limiting. Hence the use of a
low-pass filter on the input to the amp.


--
Chris Morriss

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"


Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.

So, you *are* going to be as big a **** here as you are on RAT.....


** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.



Stewart Pinkerton | Masturbation is his game - Audio is is crippled
victim.





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

"Dave H."
"Phil Allison" wrote


** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.


Hmmm.... does one detect the merest hint of racism here?

racism != xenophobia

Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

The Devil wrote:

: Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3
: of the very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers
: (small in floor area, as tall as need be)?
:
: I do beg your pardon. I misread your post. I thought you were asking
: how Quad's ESLs compared to Proac, Dynaudio and Spendor.

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: : them to produce the family sound, but do they? ...
: : How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:35:22 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Ah! Darned cross-posting! I dragged myself out of that slough of
despond years ago............

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

No they don't, we try to stick to facts on UKRA.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:00:20 GMT, alex wrote:

The Devil wrote:

: Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3
: of the very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers
: (small in floor area, as tall as need be)?
:
: I do beg your pardon. I misread your post. I thought you were asking
: how Quad's ESLs compared to Proac, Dynaudio and Spendor.

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

None, because none of them are large planar dipoles.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: : them to produce the family sound, but do they? ...
: : How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

Sorry, you won't find any, although there are certainly some good
towers around. Try Spendors for a good natural sound, or the excellent
B&W N804.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:39:04 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"tony sayer"
In article

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated
reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive How many moving coil designs could do
that....

** None - when you include both the good square wave and close
frequency
/ phase matching.

Bull****. Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around. All Dunlavys, all
single-driver KEF Uni-Qs, and those egg-shaped ones with a single
driver, whose name I forget, just for starters.
--

Don't forget the entire Thiel line.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

"TonyP" wrote in message
. net...
Robert Morein wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

Alright, they have four panels, which I know, having a bunch of spares in my
closet, but they are identical in size and frequency response.
The substance of the discussion is not changed by this revelation.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:58:19 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

Americans.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

Robert Morein wrote:

"TonyP" wrote in message
. net...

Robert Morein wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

Alright, they have four panels, which I know, having a bunch of spares in my
closet, but they are identical in size and frequency response.
The substance of the discussion is not changed by this revelation.

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"? The 1+1's did,
so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong. And 4 drivers are not a
single driver.
Have a nice day.

"William Sommerwerck"

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full
audio
range.


** Shame about all those tube amplifies with output transformers that are
flat from a few Hz to 100 kHz .

Shame about the Quad ESL 57, 63, 988 etc which use step up transformers
covering the whole audio range.





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

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:57:41 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

Curious that Sound Lab, Quad, Martin-Logan, C-J, ARC et al seem to
have no trouble finding high power wideband trannies..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.


You've not noticed the odd fundamental difference between speakers and
headphones?

If you are hinting that headphones have only one driver,
I have a pair of old Pioneer dual-concentric phones.

A fine example of marketing leading engineering.


I have a pair of AKG K340's, elecrostatic plus dynamic for LF.
So, 2 drivers for engineering reasons in a headphone.

Regards
Ian

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:57:41 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

audio range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary
outputs of a large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small
transformer (with poor HF performance) using a simple first-order
crossover. This was the Medallion system, I believe.

Duh? Did I read that the right way? Both transformers had a poor HF
performance? I trust that they had super hong-kong tweeters to go with
them then... ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary
outputs of a large transformer (with poor HF performance) with
a small transformer (with poor HF performance) using a simple
first-order crossover.

Duh? Did I read that the right way? Both transformers had a poor
HF performance? I trust that they had super hong-kong tweeters
to go with them then... ;-)

It was a copy-and-paste oversight. It should have been HF and LF, respectively.

In article ,
Ian wrote:
A fine example of marketing leading engineering.


I have a pair of AKG K340's, elecrostatic plus dynamic for LF.
So, 2 drivers for engineering reasons in a headphone.

Only if electrostatic drivers had any real benefit in headphones. Which I
doubt.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

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

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:33:35 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:


It was a copy-and-paste oversight. It should have been HF and LF,
respectively.

grin I think we figured that out ok.
I was only being a pita just out of badness. :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

William Sommerwerck wrote:

And in your transformers, they don't have a "crossover"?
The 1+1's did, so I assume so do the 2+2's. I could be wrong.

You're not. But the drivers were, nevertheless, driven full-range.

Thanks Bill. I sold my 1+1's and gave away all the literature I had for
it (bought the speakers new back in the 80's). I know that the panels
were full range.

It's virtually impossible to build a transformer that covers the full audio
range. So Acoustat got the clever idea of combining the secondary outputs of a
large transformer (with poor HF performance) with a small transformer (with poor
HF performance) using a simple first-order crossover. This was the Medallion
system, I believe.

I enjoyed the speakers for many years. I heard some that sounded better,
but not worth the cost. The high end of the speakers was there, although
slightly veiled. I never messed with the "slider" where you could
increase the high frequency tilt by +2db or so. I left it in a "flat"
position.