[Patrick Turner]

For those who thought I was lying about
my reports of ESL57 responses, they should look at the graphs
and much more sophisticated test results by Lynn Olson, done in 2006.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS2.html

and more...

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS4.html

Enjoy using the brain to try to understand.

Patrick Turner.

[Arny Krueger]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
For those who thought I was lying about
my reports of ESL57 responses, they should look at the graphs
and much more sophisticated test results by Lynn Olson, done in 2006.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS2.html

and more...

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS4.html


Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off badly below 300 Hz.

Gotta love the smooth response above that, though.

Of course what's not shown is polar response. Polar response is more
important to subjective listening pleasure than all of the cool-looking
impulse and waterfall charts.

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger"


Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off badly below 300 Hz.

** Do learn to read sometime - Arny .


" Don't be fooled by the ESL57's apparent rolloff below 400 Hz; this is an
artifact of the short time window and the Quad's location in the room. In
order to get reliable low-frequency measurements, it's common practice to
separately measure below 300 Hz using nearfield techniques, and join the two
graphs together. "


Funny how selective quoting and emotional interpretation are the absolute
hall marks of audiophools and religious zealots alike ...

Fact is - they have lots alike.

Both cause us buckets full of trouble.




...... Phil

[TT]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger"


Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off
badly below 300 Hz.

** Do learn to read sometime - Arny .

Philthy, do learn to stop being a one eyed religious bigoted
fool!



" Don't be fooled by the ESL57's apparent rolloff below
400 Hz; this is an artifact of the short time window and
the Quad's location in the room. In order to get reliable
low-frequency measurements, it's common practice to
separately measure below 300 Hz using nearfield
techniques, and join the two graphs together. "

So Anechoic chamber tests mean nothing eh?

Funny how selective quoting and emotional interpretation
are the absolute hall marks of audiophools and religious
zealots alike ...

Sighhhhh........... Pot - Kettle - Toaster - Black!

Fact is - they have lots alike.

Since when have you dealt in FACTS??????


Both cause us buckets full of trouble.



..... Philthy the hypocrite

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic bass! You
can add graphs, doodle on paper or even make Origami for
anyone cares but the cold hard fact still remains!

So until you actually have something positive to contribute
why don't you and Arny both sit quietly in a corner and swap
mutual appreciation stories about your beloved Sony CDP101s!

TT

[Patrick Turner]

TT blurted......

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic bass! You
can add graphs, doodle on paper or even make Origami for
anyone cares but the cold hard fact still remains!

So until you actually have something positive to contribute
why don't you and Arny both sit quietly in a corner and swap
mutual appreciation stories about your beloved Sony CDP101s!

TT

Since you are into facts, can you supply evidence to support your
assertions?

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:05:01 +0800, "TT"
wrote:

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic bass!

Meep. They do reproduce realistic bass, not realistic low bass.

Indeed. But they won't do any really huge volume below 100Hz.
Not much anything below 50Hz, so ppl use a sub.

One has to relax, wind down, pour a red, and sit back
and not have levels up too far, and bass seems to be there
for most music.

Patrick Turner

[TT]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
TT blurted......

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic bass!
You
can add graphs, doodle on paper or even make Origami for
anyone cares but the cold hard fact still remains!

So until you actually have something positive to
contribute
why don't you and Arny both sit quietly in a corner and
swap
mutual appreciation stories about your beloved Sony
CDP101s!

TT

Since you are into facts, can you supply evidence to
support your
assertions?

Patrick Turner.

There are countless opinions/tests/reviews all over the web.
Also why do people stack Quads and why did Peter Walker
design the 63 "with more" bass *if* the 57 was adequate?

I could also cite your own graphs as supplied. BTW why do
you blame your room for the bass roll off in a Quad but not
for any other speaker you measure?

I am not conversant with MLSSA but doesn't it use a pulse
signal to eliminate room acoustics to do the measurement?

Cheers TT

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:12:34 +0800, "TT"
wrote:

I am not conversant with MLSSA but doesn't it use a pulse
signal to eliminate room acoustics to do the measurement?

MLSSA time windows measurements to dis-include
room reflections, causing a definable
low-frequency rolloff.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"Ghidorah is a space monster; the monsters from Earth cannot win.
I will get in touch with you when you feel like giving up."
- Kiraaku Queen, "Destroy All Monsters"

[Patrick Turner]

TT wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
TT blurted......

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic bass!
You
can add graphs, doodle on paper or even make Origami for
anyone cares but the cold hard fact still remains!

So until you actually have something positive to
contribute
why don't you and Arny both sit quietly in a corner and
swap
mutual appreciation stories about your beloved Sony
CDP101s!

TT

Since you are into facts, can you supply evidence to
support your
assertions?

Patrick Turner.

There are countless opinions/tests/reviews all over the web.
Also why do people stack Quads and why did Peter Walker
design the 63 "with more" bass *if* the 57 was adequate?

The 63 has concentric readiators and a delay line to simulate
the surface of a sphere.

The 63 design is very different to 57, and for reason other than you
simplistic notion
of "more bass". I suggest you read all about at sites on the web.

I could also cite your own graphs as supplied. BTW why do
you blame your room for the bass roll off in a Quad but not
for any other speaker you measure?

There is not any roll off for which I blame the room.
In fact I think the room causes some of the peaking between 60 and
130Hz.

In other speakers the bass room resonances show up if they are there.
I am using pink noise and room testing, so the method isn't perfect,
but its still very useful.

I am not conversant with MLSSA but doesn't it use a pulse
signal to eliminate room acoustics to do the measurement?

Nor am I conversant with MLSSA.

I wish I did have the program and others, and I could devote an old PC
to it all.
It would save me having to slowly go along the band with switched filter
and pink noise source which I built about 6 years ago.

The measuring I use tells me 90% of what I need to know.
I doubt the last 10% matters, and the results after working on many new
and re-engineered speakers are very pleasing and listenable.
Old speakers which I have repaired and re-done are invariably
much better than when new.
Most loudspeakers apart from a few top of the range are extremely poorly
engineered
and are like having a 7 band graphic equaliser in your system with the
slides all turned up and down in a random
manner which colours the sound. Its why speakers saound so different to
each other.
Unlike amplifiers they have a response which is uncontrolled by any NFB
and
are subject to the very non linear frequency amplitude behaviour of
transducers.

When I here guys talking about speakers and the subjective response, you
have to rememember
that much of their impressions are formed by very far from ideal speaker
technical behaviour.


You'll have to do your own research to find out more.

Patrick Turner

Cheers TT

[roughplanet]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger"

Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off badly below 300 Hz.

** Do learn to read sometime - Arny .

" Don't be fooled by the ESL57's apparent rolloff below 400 Hz; this is an
artifact of the short time window and the Quad's location in the room. In
order to get reliable low-frequency measurements, it's common practice to
separately measure below 300 Hz using nearfield techniques, and join the
two
graphs together. "

Funny how selective quoting and emotional interpretation are the absolute
hall marks of audiophools and religious zealots alike ...
Fact is - they have lots alike.
Both cause us buckets full of trouble.

Can't argue with any of that. I never found ESL57's to have boomy bass. If I
had, they wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes, nor did I find the rising output
at around 20 kHz unpleasant either. In fact, I don't remember ever noticing
it. But in between was just pure bliss.

ruff

[TT]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


TT wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in
message
...
TT blurted......

FACT!!! Quad ESL 57s *DO NOT* reproduce realistic
bass!
You
can add graphs, doodle on paper or even make Origami
for
anyone cares but the cold hard fact still remains!

So until you actually have something positive to
contribute
why don't you and Arny both sit quietly in a corner
and
swap
mutual appreciation stories about your beloved Sony
CDP101s!

TT

Since you are into facts, can you supply evidence to
support your
assertions?

Patrick Turner.

There are countless opinions/tests/reviews all over the
web.
Also why do people stack Quads and why did Peter Walker
design the 63 "with more" bass *if* the 57 was adequate?

The 63 has concentric readiators and a delay line to
simulate
the surface of a sphere.

The 63 design is very different to 57, and for reason
other than you
simplistic notion
of "more bass". I suggest you read all about at sites on
the web.

I have previously read a lot about quads and ESLs in general
when I was looking at going down this track. Alas they
*all* suffer from the same problems - lack of bass. Why do
think so many manufactures e.g. Martin Logan make hybrid
speakers.

I could also cite your own graphs as supplied. BTW why
do
you blame your room for the bass roll off in a Quad but
not
for any other speaker you measure?

There is not any roll off for which I blame the room.
In fact I think the room causes some of the peaking
between 60 and
130Hz.

In other speakers the bass room resonances show up if they
are there.
I am using pink noise and room testing, so the method
isn't perfect,
but its still very useful.

I am not conversant with MLSSA but doesn't it use a pulse
signal to eliminate room acoustics to do the measurement?

Nor am I conversant with MLSSA.

On the first post in this thread your link is to a MLSSA
Gallery with graphs. I was assuming this is the program you
are using as well so you could compare "Apples with Apples".

I wish I did have the program and others, and I could
devote an old PC
to it all.

see above.

It would save me having to slowly go along the band with
switched filter
and pink noise source which I built about 6 years ago.

The measuring I use tells me 90% of what I need to know.

Forgive the cynicism here but if you keep blaming room nodes
on your measurements then I would have to doubt this ;-)


I doubt the last 10% matters, and the results after
working on many new
and re-engineered speakers are very pleasing and
listenable.
Old speakers which I have repaired and re-done are
invariably
much better than when new.
Most loudspeakers apart from a few top of the range are
extremely poorly
engineered

Absolutely agreed.

and are like having a 7 band graphic equaliser in your
system with the
slides all turned up and down in a random
manner which colours the sound. Its why speakers saound so
different to
each other.

Yep.


Unlike amplifiers they have a response which is
uncontrolled by any NFB
and
are subject to the very non linear frequency amplitude
behaviour of
transducers.

Speakers are the singular most variable component in the
hi-fi chain of gadgets. Unless we are discussing turntables
;-)


When I here guys talking about speakers and the subjective
response, you
have to rememember
that much of their impressions are formed by very far from
ideal speaker
technical behaviour.

To play the Devil's Advocate here most of the these people
do not have access to any form of measuring gear at all and
so subjective evaluation is all that they have.



You'll have to do your own research to find out more.

I certainly do. I then try and objectively listen to other
systems and discuss the results and my conclusions with
other people. This is where it is very difficult for you
know what I hear and perceive and vice versa ;-) Reliable
measurements are an excellent aid for people to try and
understand what someone else can perceive - perhaps ;-) The
only problem then is overcome preconceived ideas and
prejudices and that Patrick is what makes us all human ;-)

My ultimate test is compare what I listen to live with what
is being reproduced on a system I am listening to. And many
a time when I have listened to live I have wished I was
listening to it canned ;-) Spaced out rodies, football
stadiums and incompetent idiots on mixing desks do not a
good concert make! Likewise, a small jazz band with the
number one egotist of the group over miked is also a PITA.
But a small ensemble with minimal amplification at a live
venue playing great stuff is still really hard to beat.

Cheers TT

[Patrick Turner]

I have previously read a lot about quads and ESLs in general
when I was looking at going down this track. Alas they
*all* suffer from the same problems - lack of bass. Why do
think so many manufactures e.g. Martin Logan make hybrid
speakers.

My tests of the 57 don't reveal a lack of bass at all
for music.
Makers of speakers have to compete with each other, and today you'd
never sell a speaker
if it can't be turned up loud like the better dynamics, ao to give them
headroom
they use a dynamic bass driver. It can also be configured to be a sub
woofer as well,
ie, a simple full range bass driver covering 22Hz to 220H.

This allows thew ESL to be a bit smaller and thus more saleable.

The 57 I have here has no lack of bass for music and appears to have
more than my dynamics
That's because it produces a peaked response in my room between
60 and 120. But it won't play as loud as my dynamics.

The ERA I am now testing without stiction problems has even more bass
in comparison the rest of the band, partially because of a peaky
high pass filter I have in series with the panel to keep signal
F below 40Hz out. The poom-poom bass quality is almost annoying,
amnd ny dynamics with a flatter response sound more natural.
The ERA are hopelessly insensitve compared to my dynamics,
and they cannot go very loud, mainly because the bass they do make
cannot
go louder than a low threshold.

But this moring while music testing ERA ESL-IIIB, Quad 57, and my
dynamics,
both ESL had plenty of bass in balance to the rest of the music.

People who may spend $15,000 on a pair of speakers expect that when they
turn it up
a little beyond their normal listening levels,
the speaker just goes louder while staying linear.
In my case my dynamics achieve real loudness, the ESL57
just make it, and as I have the ERA at present with only
2.5kV EHT, they don't make it.
However at levels below about 79dB average all 3 perform well,
and my ears tell me the ERA are less smooth than the Quads
probably because the 50 watt amp is being pushed a lot harder,
and a CRO observation of the waves to the speaker indicated
just how much voltage signal, all 20Vrms of range is used to produce
such low
output level.
I think I am hearing the sound of amp distortions when I push the ERA
hard.

If I had a dynamic speaker to do the bottom end, I'd not need such a
high
drive voltage, so they'd effectively be a lot more sensitive and go
louder.




To play the Devil's Advocate here most of the these people
do not have access to any form of measuring gear at all and
so subjective evaluation is all that they have.

And many want to tell me all about speakers and they don't
have 3 good brands in a row to compare them.

I don't believe them all.



You'll have to do your own research to find out more.

I certainly do. I then try and objectively listen to other
systems and discuss the results and my conclusions with
other people. This is where it is very difficult for you
know what I hear and perceive and vice versa ;-) Reliable
measurements are an excellent aid for people to try and
understand what someone else can perceive - perhaps ;-) The
only problem then is overcome preconceived ideas and
prejudices and that Patrick is what makes us all human ;-)

I measure things and I listen. I see why everyone does not have ESL
speakers.



My ultimate test is compare what I listen to live with what
is being reproduced on a system I am listening to. And many
a time when I have listened to live I have wished I was
listening to it canned ;-) Spaced out rodies, football
stadiums and incompetent idiots on mixing desks do not a
good concert make! Likewise, a small jazz band with the
number one egotist of the group over miked is also a PITA.
But a small ensemble with minimal amplification at a live
venue playing great stuff is still really hard to beat.

The sound of unamplified music is the gold standard.

That is the calibration for my brain.

With "live" music with amplifiers and re-inforcements, you have PA,
not hi-fi.
Mainly young ppl like music, and like it very loud
and that isn't hi-fi; its noise that is nice.
The sensation of sound needs to sweep them right away.
Just a lot of noisy bang bangs and twangs and screaming tomcats.
Before about 60 years ago, this wasn't within human experience.
But people loved to gather in huge crowds at the footy, the soccer,
or in the 1930s to listen to Hitler ranting at them through sound
systems.
Some need the loud experience daily, and they don't buy ESL than can't
do it.

I hate all the noise, the crowds, and the power of the mob.

Patrick Turner.






Cheers TT

[Adam F[_2_]]

roughplanet wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger"

Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off badly below 300 Hz.

** Do learn to read sometime - Arny .

" Don't be fooled by the ESL57's apparent rolloff below 400 Hz; this is an
artifact of the short time window and the Quad's location in the room. In
order to get reliable low-frequency measurements, it's common practice to
separately measure below 300 Hz using nearfield techniques, and join the
two
graphs together. "

Funny how selective quoting and emotional interpretation are the absolute
hall marks of audiophools and religious zealots alike ...
Fact is - they have lots alike.
Both cause us buckets full of trouble.

Can't argue with any of that. I never found ESL57's to have boomy bass. If I
had, they wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes, nor did I find the rising output
at around 20 kHz unpleasant either. In fact, I don't remember ever noticing
it. But in between was just pure bliss.

ruff



Probably coz only rats and teenagers can hear 20kHz

--
//Adam F

[WindsorFox]

Phil Allison wrote:
"Arny Krueger"

Interesting. Even when stacked, they are falling off badly below 300 Hz.

** Do learn to read sometime - Arny .


" Don't be fooled by the ESL57's apparent rolloff below 400 Hz; this is an
artifact of the short time window and the Quad's location in the room. In
order to get reliable low-frequency measurements, it's common practice to
separately measure below 300 Hz using nearfield techniques, and join the two
graphs together. "


Funny how selective quoting and emotional interpretation are the absolute
hall marks of audiophools and religious zealots alike ...

Fact is - they have lots alike.

Both cause us buckets full of trouble.




..... Phil



Yes, always the charmer I see.

[Dr Rod Crawford]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
For those who thought I was lying about
my reports of ESL57 responses, they should look at the graphs
and much more sophisticated test results by Lynn Olson, done in 2006.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS2.html

and more...

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS4.html

Enjoy using the brain to try to understand.

Patrick Turner.


What I find even more remarkable about Olson's "waterfall" measurements over
the range it is sensible to compare them is that a good conventional driver
such as the Eton is probably better than the planar speakers (comparing
against such dreadful speakers as Klipsch is setting up straw men to easily
knock over).



The relevant range of comparison is 1-4 kHz (where coincidentally the ear is
most sensitive). Below 1 kHz, the large & long "lumpiness" in the plots is
probably just measurement spurii - my experience is that they are very
dependant on measurement conditions. In addition, and as shown by Doppler
interferometers, conventional drivers become better (more pistonic) at lower
frequencies and the waterfall plots do not reflect this.



The comparison above 4 kHz is largely irrelevant as the 5 kHz resonance peak
in the Eton driver would be significantly reduced by the low-pass filter
(crossover) in a real loudspeaker (Olson just measured the raw driver). A
third order crossover at say 2.5 kHz would have the 5 kHz peak done by about
18 dB at 5Khz where it would be barely, if at all, noticeable amongst the
tweeter decay (and a good tweeter gives at least as good decay as the planar
drivers at these frequencies). Further, a 96 db/octave crossover such as
used in Legend's Big Red with the DEQX digital crossovers (www.deqx.com)
would reduce the Eton's 5 kHz peak to below the measurement noise floor!



BTW, for anyone interested, Legend's Big Reds will be demonstrated at the
Audio Society of NSW (ASoN) next meeting on 27 May at 3pm at Haberfield
Community Centre, 78-80 Dalhousie Rd, Haberfield 2045. Unfortunately I
cannot be there (currently completing a relocation to Tassie) but Kim Ryrie
of DEQX will be.



Cheers

Rod

www.legendspeakers.com.au

[Patrick Turner]

Dr Rod Crawford wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
For those who thought I was lying about
my reports of ESL57 responses, they should look at the graphs
and much more sophisticated test results by Lynn Olson, done in 2006.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS2.html

and more...

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS4.html

Enjoy using the brain to try to understand.

Patrick Turner.

What I find even more remarkable about Olson's "waterfall" measurements over
the range it is sensible to compare them is that a good conventional driver
such as the Eton is probably better than the planar speakers (comparing
against such dreadful speakers as Klipsch is setting up straw men to easily
knock over).


Allow me to translate that for the masses.

You are saying a speaker such as the Eton, which has conventional
dynamic drivers
will give better waterfall measurements than a Quad ESL57, and
a very poor measuring speaker like the Klipsch will make the Quad look
better.

At the end of the day, its what sounds better than matters.

I don't have a sample of Klipsch here to compare with anything,
but I do have my own speakers which I like better than a single
unrestored
Quad '57.
People should not make any firm conclusions about ancient old Quads they
hear
because ppl I know with much more ownership years of Quad know they
suffer reducing sound quality with passing years.



The relevant range of comparison is 1-4 kHz (where coincidentally the ear is
most sensitive). Below 1 kHz, the large & long "lumpiness" in the plots is
probably just measurement spurii - my experience is that they are very
dependant on measurement conditions. In addition, and as shown by Doppler
interferometers, conventional drivers become better (more pistonic) at lower
frequencies and the waterfall plots do not reflect this.

I have not mesured enough waterfall plots to corelate what i hear to
the kind of plots i get.

The only thing like a waterfall in my measures is the sound of pink
noise
as I test; its like standing beside a big one.

One of these days when I get time I'll get more test software.



The comparison above 4 kHz is largely irrelevant as the 5 kHz resonance peak
in the Eton driver would be significantly reduced by the low-pass filter
(crossover) in a real loudspeaker (Olson just measured the raw driver). A
third order crossover at say 2.5 kHz would have the 5 kHz peak done by about
18 dB at 5Khz where it would be barely, if at all, noticeable amongst the
tweeter decay (and a good tweeter gives at least as good decay as the planar
drivers at these frequencies). Further, a 96 db/octave crossover such as
used in Legend's Big Red with the DEQX digital crossovers (www.deqx.com)
would reduce the Eton's 5 kHz peak to below the measurement noise floor!

BTW, for anyone interested, Legend's Big Reds will be demonstrated at the
Audio Society of NSW (ASoN) next meeting on 27 May at 3pm at Haberfield
Community Centre, 78-80 Dalhousie Rd, Haberfield 2045. Unfortunately I
cannot be there (currently completing a relocation to Tassie) but Kim Ryrie
of DEQX will be.

Good luck with the demo.
They are not easily pleased.

Patrick Turner.

Cheers

Rod

www.legendspeakers.com.au