[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of
bass. I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is
very true, though.

If I remember correctly virtually flat down to 40 Hz. Speakers with an
'impressive' bass end usually have a peak rather higher than that. But
it's not difficult to use a sub to give you that last octave. For organ
music and the odd bass drum etc. I doubt any rock instruments go that low.


People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for, but with
proper setup in the right room they are fine performers.

Yes - you should always try them in the room they're going to be used in
before buying. Generally, they don't like anything approaching a cube.
They are usually best in a long narrow room firing from a narrow end.
Which is fortunate in the UK as many are like that - two rooms knocked
into one.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 31 May 2014 14:32:48 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of
bass. I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is
very true, though.

If I remember correctly virtually flat down to 40 Hz. Speakers with an
'impressive' bass end usually have a peak rather higher than that. But
it's not difficult to use a sub to give you that last octave. For organ
music and the odd bass drum etc. I doubt any rock instruments go that low.


People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for, but with
proper setup in the right room they are fine performers.

Yes - you should always try them in the room they're going to be used in
before buying. Generally, they don't like anything approaching a cube.
They are usually best in a long narrow room firing from a narrow end.
Which is fortunate in the UK as many are like that - two rooms knocked
into one.

All true, and all in keeping with what I mean about truly great
speakers not inducing a "wow" response. And you are dead right about
rock music. The target age group generally can't afford good equipment
so the music is filtered and eq'd to provide fake, virtual bass -
reconstructed in the ear from overtones.

And speakers in bass guitar cabs don't go down to 42Hz (low E), they
barely make 100. You wouldn't keep the cones in the cabinets at full
chat otherwise.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

And speakers in bass guitar cabs don't go down to 42Hz (low E), they
barely make 100. You wouldn't keep the cones in the cabinets at full
chat otherwise.

That said the dance music guys are becoming interested in the possibilities
of actual low end reproduction for the first time. Some of this is due to
synthesis, some of it may just be because they heard stuff in the studio
that they wanted to try and reproduce live.

As a consequence of this there are some attempts to reproduce real low
end on concert systems. I have actually heard musicians say "there's too
much thud and not enough of the drop" which I think is a good sign of
progress.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 31 May 2014 14:10:31 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

And speakers in bass guitar cabs don't go down to 42Hz (low E), they
barely make 100. You wouldn't keep the cones in the cabinets at full
chat otherwise.

That said the dance music guys are becoming interested in the possibilities
of actual low end reproduction for the first time. Some of this is due to
synthesis, some of it may just be because they heard stuff in the studio
that they wanted to try and reproduce live.

As a consequence of this there are some attempts to reproduce real low
end on concert systems. I have actually heard musicians say "there's too
much thud and not enough of the drop" which I think is a good sign of
progress.
--scott

Interesting, but the speakers are going to be monsters. So they will
need to be house speakers - or we will need bigger roadies.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 31 May 2014 14:10:31 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

As a consequence of this there are some attempts to reproduce real low
end on concert systems. I have actually heard musicians say "there's too
much thud and not enough of the drop" which I think is a good sign of
progress.

Interesting, but the speakers are going to be monsters. So they will
need to be house speakers - or we will need bigger roadies.

Yes, those W-bins aren't going to cut it anymore.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2014 14:32:48 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of
bass. I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is
very true, though.

If I remember correctly virtually flat down to 40 Hz. Speakers with an
'impressive' bass end usually have a peak rather higher than that. But
it's not difficult to use a sub to give you that last octave. For organ
music and the odd bass drum etc. I doubt any rock instruments go that low.


People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for, but with
proper setup in the right room they are fine performers.

Yes - you should always try them in the room they're going to be used in
before buying. Generally, they don't like anything approaching a cube.
They are usually best in a long narrow room firing from a narrow end.
Which is fortunate in the UK as many are like that - two rooms knocked
into one.

All true, and all in keeping with what I mean about truly great
speakers not inducing a "wow" response. And you are dead right about
rock music. The target age group generally can't afford good equipment
so the music is filtered and eq'd to provide fake, virtual bass -
reconstructed in the ear from overtones.


The canonical Ampeg SVT is all about that. It's really an overgrown
guitar amp.

And speakers in bass guitar cabs don't go down to 42Hz (low E), they
barely make 100. You wouldn't keep the cones in the cabinets at full
chat otherwise.

d


For roughly a $1000, 1000 watt bass amp...

G&K has made some cabs that will produce more 40Hz than most bass
systems. G&K 115-SBX-II from 2006 will outrun everything but
good bass bins ( one moderately priced example being Yorkville with a
lot of power behind them).

the cab. dimensions correspond well with a WinISD ported design
based on an Eminence Delta from that time period. This was
right before everything went all neodymium.

I don't think these sold that well.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 31 May 2014 14:10:31 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

And speakers in bass guitar cabs don't go down to 42Hz (low E), they
barely make 100. You wouldn't keep the cones in the cabinets at full
chat otherwise.

That said the dance music guys are becoming interested in the possibilities
of actual low end reproduction for the first time. Some of this is due to
synthesis, some of it may just be because they heard stuff in the studio
that they wanted to try and reproduce live.

As a consequence of this there are some attempts to reproduce real low
end on concert systems. I have actually heard musicians say "there's too
much thud and not enough of the drop" which I think is a good sign of
progress.
--scott

Interesting, but the speakers are going to be monsters. So they will
need to be house speakers - or we will need bigger roadies.

d


What's the highest capacity Meyer makes for subs? I'm thinking it's 1200
watts per driver. They're shrewd enough not to publish a
sensitivity figure...

I think Brad Paisley keeps 11+ trucks rolling for every show. It's
gotten huge. There was a "Modern Marvels" from 2011.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
There are always exceptions but all you have to do is troll YouTube for
endless examples of just how bad live sound can be.

While I don't disagree live sound can be BAD, using crappy Youtube clips to
judge what it was like at the venue is simply nonsense.

Trevor.



You ( well, I can, anyway ) can distinguish the horrible camera audio
from the room garbage and from the alleged "PA".

--
Les Cargill

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

Hikaru,

There really are no perfect headphones, so I think you need to try
different models to find ones you are comfortable with and generally feel
good about. Then simply allow yourself to get used to them and don't
worry.

I would not take the information at this site too seriously, and only as
a rough comparison, but I found this site useful:

http://www.headphone.com/pages/build-a-graph

Assuming they used nearly the same method to measure each model, you can
use it to compare different models to see differences. Along with the
experiences you've had so far, this might help guide you towards what you
like the best.

Don't be too critical or a perfectionist. No matter what you settle on
now, later there will be some new technology or design that is better,
and still imperfect. In the 1960s and 1970s, people were making excellent
recordings using the headphones and studio monitors that were available
then. In my opinion, you only need to be within a certain range of
quality to be able to get really good final results. That's my opinion!

[William Sommerwerck]

A few years ago I pulled out my review sample of the Yamaha YHD-1 orthodynamic
headphones. They are awfully good, "comparable" to electrostatics.

Planar-magnetic headphones are the rage, probably because dynamic headphones
have reached their limit of improvability. It will be interesting to see how
their popularity influences the perception of headphone accuracy.

The Yamahas go for $100 to $300 on eBay. Perhaps this will encourage Yamaha to
bring the YHD-1 back.

[geoff]

On 1/06/2014 12:50 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.

Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of bass.
I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is very
true, though.

People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for, but with
proper setup in the right room they are fine performers.
--scott



Very beamy treble. For increased headroom stack 2 pairs and run each
side in series. Makes an easier amp load as well ( else singely dips to
around 3 ohms at HF).

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/06/2014 8:38 a.m., Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 18:19:53 -0400, Hikaru Ichijyo wrote
:

They're like Sony MDR-7506's, but musical and pleasant instead
of brash and pins and needles. They hype the treble to the sky so you
can hear everything perfectly, but totally unrealistic. Great for
editing, horrible for mixing. Yet, unlike MDR-7506's, it's an enjoyable
thing...it doesn't hurt your ears, and it's quite beautiful.


My 7506 don't do this.

Mine do, even on real headphone amps. In HF the headphone equiv of a C1000.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their
maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.

Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of bass.
I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is very
true, though.

Right, which is especially problematic at the bass end as I suggested. If
you only want to measure the bass without actually being able to hear or
feel it, then they are fine.


People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for,

Right, and music they aren't suited for.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
There are always exceptions but all you have to do is troll YouTube for
endless examples of just how bad live sound can be.

While I don't disagree live sound can be BAD, using crappy Youtube clips
to
judge what it was like at the venue is simply nonsense.


You ( well, I can, anyway ) can distinguish the horrible camera audio from
the room garbage and from the alleged "PA".

Then you're kidding yourself since a lousy camera placed too far away can
make even the best sound in a good hall sound horrendous IME. Very few
people who post clips on YouTube have any idea how to capture good sound,
regardless of how good the FOH really was. Not that I care, I see hundreds
of actual live concerts, and rarely watch the amateur crap posted on
YouTube.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have
plenty, plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum
SPL is very true, though.

Right, which is especially problematic at the bass end as I suggested.
If you only want to measure the bass without actually being able to
hear or feel it, then they are fine.

If your definition of good bass is bass you can feel, I wouldn't like your
ears.

People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for,

Right, and music they aren't suited for.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion - no matter how flawed it is.
;-)

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That's too broad a statement to be meaningful. If you mean that recordings
made to "sound natural" will be handled well by speakers designed to be
neutral -- what are you saying we don't already know?

In practice, recordings mixed on less-than-great speakers simply won't sound
very good on "better" speakers.

Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites) high playback
levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That's too broad a statement to be meaningful. If you mean that
recordings made to "sound natural" will be handled well by speakers
designed to be neutral -- what are you saying we don't already know?

Not what I meant.

In practice, recordings mixed on less-than-great speakers simply won't
sound very good on "better" speakers.

That's too broad a statement to be true too.

Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites) high playback
levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

For control room monitoring? Of course not. Far too delicate too.

But are you saying a pair isn't suitable for normal high quality domestic
use across the whole variety of audio?

--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

In practice, recordings mixed on less-than-great speakers
simply won't sound very good on "better" speakers.

That's too broad a statement to be true. too.

Well, I've heard it.


Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites) high
playback levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

For control room monitoring? Of course not. Far too delicate too.

But are you saying a pair isn't suitable for normal high quality
domestic use across the whole variety of audio?

Yes, I am. "the whole variety of audio" includes material the QUADs just
aren't suitable for. No one is going to listen to heavy metal with QUADs.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites) high playback
levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

I thought this was about ESL-63s?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
But are you saying a pair isn't suitable for normal high quality
domestic use across the whole variety of audio?

Yes, I am. "the whole variety of audio" includes material the QUADs just
aren't suitable for. No one is going to listen to heavy metal with
QUADs.

You're wrong there. My pal John did. All sorts of music. And they sounded
excellent on everything. He did have a sub for the last octave, though. It
would surprise many how little it added - especially on 'heavy metal'.
Where there is rarely any deep bass.

I did buy a pair ages ago but they didn't suit the room.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites)
high playback levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

I thought this was about ESL-63s?

Whether or not, it's way off-track of the original discussion.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Some music -- even classical -- that requires (or invites) high
playback levels. The ESL-57 simply isn't suitable for this.

I thought this was about ESL-63s?
--scott

I originally mentioned the ELS 57 as being the most natural speaker for
male speech I'd ever heard. And that male speech is a pretty good test of
any loudspeaker and something anyone can access easily - unlike, say, a
live music performance.

If you mix anything so it sounds good on a basically flat and uncoloured
monitoring system it will likely sound good anywhere. The reverse is less
likely to be true.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Hikaru Ichijyo" wrote in message
eb.com...

I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this type of experience if
anyone has any. Have you ever had this experience of "EQ
disorientation," for want of a better way of putting it? Perhaps you've
gone away from an often used monitoring device for awhile, only to come
back to it weeks or months later, and find that it's doesn't sound at
all the way you remember it?

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong. It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

I just discussed some of this in the Measurement Microphones thread. This
all points out some of the reasons for the fantastic observations in the
high end audio press. I think the psychoacoustic reasons for all this work
like this: Some days you system doesn't sound like you remember it, so you
look to the equipment rather than your hearing or mood. You make some
adjustment, any adjustment. You clean your contacts, buy some new cables,
measure your speaker positioning one more time. It then sounds better and
you can relax once again, even though you haven't really changed a thing.
For the "high end" audiophiles of course there is also the price factor,
where everything that costs unreasonable dollars and no sense just naturally
sounds better due to the Emperor's New Clothes effect.

I sure hope most of that doesn't apply to us, but the mind is an amazing
processor.

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have
plenty, plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum
SPL is very true, though.

Right, which is especially problematic at the bass end as I suggested.
If you only want to measure the bass without actually being able to
hear or feel it, then they are fine.

If your definition of good bass is bass you can feel, I wouldn't like your
ears.

Hell I can feel the typani at a classical concert, and *certainly* feel the
low pipes on a pipe organ, can't you?
If not I'm glad I don't have YOUR ears!


People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for,

Right, and music they aren't suited for.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion - no matter how flawed it is.
;-)

DITTO!


A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 59's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 59's, like the
LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly NOT others (like
pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I just discussed some of this in the Measurement Microphones thread. This
all points out some of the reasons for the fantastic observations in the
high end audio press. I think the psychoacoustic reasons for all this work
like this: Some days you system doesn't sound like you remember it, so you
look to the equipment rather than your hearing or mood. You make some
adjustment, any adjustment. You clean your contacts, buy some new cables,
measure your speaker positioning one more time. It then sounds better and
you can relax once again, even though you haven't really changed a thing.
For the "high end" audiophiles of course there is also the price factor,
where everything that costs unreasonable dollars and no sense just
naturally sounds better due to the Emperor's New Clothes effect.

I sure hope most of that doesn't apply to us,

I'm often amazed at how many musicians it does apply to, and technical
personel who should know better are certainly not immune IME.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
But are you saying a pair isn't suitable for normal high quality
domestic use across the whole variety of audio?

Yes, I am. "the whole variety of audio" includes material the QUADs just
aren't suitable for. No one is going to listen to heavy metal with
QUADs.

You're wrong there. My pal John did. All sorts of music. And they sounded
excellent on everything. He did have a sub for the last octave,

Right, so what your are really saying is that some good speakers are NOT
necessarily "good with all types of sound" then *unless* a sub woofer is
added?
Now you are getting a little closer to something we can agree on at least.

Trevor.

[Luxey]

I just discussed some of this in the Measurement Microphones thread. This

all points out some of the reasons for the fantastic observations in the

high end audio press.

I remember reading, there was some study in Russia, showing the hearing loss
problems were the cause for the vast majority of reported ghost encounters.

So if you see someone in chains, with his own decapitated head under his own arm,
chances are you should visit otologist, or simply move to geriatrics.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
You're wrong there. My pal John did. All sorts of music. And they
sounded excellent on everything. He did have a sub for the last octave,

Right, so what your are really saying is that some good speakers are NOT
necessarily "good with all types of sound" then

No I'm not.

Note I've snipped your statement in the same way as you snipped mine.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realise not all speakers are capable
of producing the SPL some may want. If being able to rattle the windows is
the most important thing to you that's fine by me.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

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

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You're wrong there. My pal John did. All sorts of music. And they
sounded excellent on everything. He did have a sub for the last octave,

Right, so what your are really saying is that some good speakers are NOT
necessarily "good with all types of sound" then

No I'm not.

So why was the sub woofer necessary IF the 57's are "good for ALL types of
sound, all sorts of music"?
Oh right that "last octave" (at least) they are NOT "good" for.

Note I've snipped your statement in the same way as you snipped mine.

I'm sorry you can't remember the bits that you wrote, which I wasn't
replying to anyway.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realise not all speakers are capable
of producing the SPL some may want.

So why claim they are?

If being able to rattle the windows is the most important thing to you
that's fine by me.

Or play pipe organ music, or the 1812 overture, and lots of modern music
that may not interest you, which is fine by me of course.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
It doesn't take much intelligence to realise not all speakers are
capable of producing the SPL some may want.

So why claim they are?

FFS, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never even remotely claimed
that.

If being able to rattle the windows is the most important thing to you
that's fine by me.

Or play pipe organ music, or the 1812 overture, and lots of modern music
that may not interest you, which is fine by me of course.

Funnily, the Saint-Saens organ symphony is a piece I know well and have
heard it on those ESL57s - both with and without the sub. It sounded
wonderful without and even better with - although as I've said you'd
probably be surprised just what a small difference it made. But a
worthwhile difference. Did rather depend on which recording (and which
organ), though.

I get the impression you have no idea how rare it is to get anything below
40 Hz in music. Even rarer in rock music.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

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

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
It doesn't take much intelligence to realise not all speakers are
capable of producing the SPL some may want.

So why claim they are?

FFS, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never even remotely claimed
that.

OK so you should have said they were fine for YOU for "all types of music"
and there would be no argument.
End of story.


If being able to rattle the windows is the most important thing to you
that's fine by me.

Or play pipe organ music, or the 1812 overture, and lots of modern music
that may not interest you, which is fine by me of course.

Funnily, the Saint-Saens organ symphony is a piece I know well and have
heard it on those ESL57s - both with and without the sub. It sounded
wonderful without and even better with - although as I've said you'd
probably be surprised just what a small difference it made.

Nope, you've made it obvious it makes little difference to YOU.


But a worthwhile difference. Did rather depend on which recording (and
which
organ), though.

So the speakers are fine as long as the recordings are not. Great! :-)


I get the impression you have no idea how rare it is to get anything below
40 Hz in music. Even rarer in rock music.

I get the impression you have never heard a real pipe organ then. Do a web
search on recordings that DO go BELOW 20Hz, let alone all the stuff that
actually has enough power in the sub 50 Hz range that ESL57's are a VERY
poor choice for playback (without a sub) indeed.

Frankly if they work for YOU though, I'm happy for you. I know others have
been happy over the years too. A few have even used them without a sub
woofer! :-)

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I just discussed some of this in the Measurement Microphones thread. This
all points out some of the reasons for the fantastic observations in the
high end audio press. I think the psychoacoustic reasons for all this work
like this: Some days you system doesn't sound like you remember it, so you
look to the equipment rather than your hearing or mood. You make some
adjustment, any adjustment. You clean your contacts, buy some new cables,
measure your speaker positioning one more time. It then sounds better and
you can relax once again, even though you haven't really changed a thing.
For the "high end" audiophiles of course there is also the price factor,
where everything that costs unreasonable dollars and no sense just naturally
sounds better due to the Emperor's New Clothes effect.


It's easy to theorize, but have you ever done any long-term subjective
evaluation of audio equipment? I have. What can you tell us, based on your own
experiences?

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
subjective evaluation. But I can tell you that I was never influenced by
price.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 57's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 57's,
like the LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly
NOT others (like pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!).

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might be a
fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for reproducing
sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced and under-performing
product.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 57's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 57's,
like the LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly
NOT others (like pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!).

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might be a
fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for reproducing
sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced and under-performing
product.

People went crazy over it because it was the first speaker they'd heard
which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was severely bandlimited
but it had astonishingly low distortion by the standards of the day.

I mixed on a pair for field monitors, having moved up from the AR 4-X, and
I sure did like them for mixing work. But they had absolutely no bottom end.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
It doesn't take much intelligence to realise not all speakers are
capable of producing the SPL some may want.

So why claim they are?

FFS, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never even remotely
claimed that.

OK so you should have said they were fine for YOU for "all types of
music" and there would be no argument. End of story.

Unlike you I only claim to speak for myself. Perhaps you find that hard to
understand.


If being able to rattle the windows is the most important thing to
you that's fine by me.

Or play pipe organ music, or the 1812 overture, and lots of modern music
that may not interest you, which is fine by me of course.

Funnily, the Saint-Saens organ symphony is a piece I know well and have
heard it on those ESL57s - both with and without the sub. It sounded
wonderful without and even better with - although as I've said you'd
probably be surprised just what a small difference it made.

Nope, you've made it obvious it makes little difference to YOU.

I've heard the piece performed live using an organ not of the best. It
wasn't the end of the world to an otherwise fine performance.


But a worthwhile difference. Did rather depend on which recording (and
which
organ), though.

So the speakers are fine as long as the recordings are not. Great! :-)

Again, you seem incapable of reading what I've written Or understanding
it.

I get the impression you have no idea how rare it is to get anything
below 40 Hz in music. Even rarer in rock music.

I get the impression you have never heard a real pipe organ then. Do a
web search on recordings that DO go BELOW 20Hz, let alone all the stuff
that actually has enough power in the sub 50 Hz range that ESL57's are
a VERY poor choice for playback (without a sub) indeed.

And you don't seem to know the meaning of rare, either.

Frankly if they work for YOU though, I'm happy for you. I know others
have been happy over the years too. A few have even used them without a
sub woofer! :-)

And you told them they were rubbish speakers as you've been implying here?

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

People went crazy over [the LS3/5a] because it was the first speaker
they'd heard which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was
severely bandlimited but it had astonishingly low distortion by the
standards of the day.

Natural-sounding voices? Low distortion? No one ever pointed out those things
to me. I heard the speaker many times (our store sold it), and remained
profoundly unimpressed.

I remember how they sounded at moderately high volume levels -- as if
Something Terrible Was About To Happen.

There was company called Transduction, Ltd, that handled the physical
importation of IMF loudspeakers. The two guys who ran it (and I apologize for
forgetting their names) were really good speaker designers. (35 years later, I
still think of them.)

They made a mini-monitor (the T3) using the same KEF drivers as the LS3/5a. It
knocked the pants off the LS3/5a -- with one "minor" problem -- it sounded a
bit "boxy", which is not uncommon for small speakers. I don't know if they
ever fixed it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 57's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 57's,
like the LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly
NOT others (like pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!).

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might
be a fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for
reproducing sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced
and under-performing product.

People went crazy over it because it was the first speaker they'd heard
which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was severely
bandlimited but it had astonishingly low distortion by the standards of
the day.

You've not been following the Quad ELS bit as regards male voice
reproduction? They predate the LS3/5a by many years. ;-)

But otherwise I'd agree with you. It was the 'cleanest' sounding speaker
in such a small package of its day. May not have been bettered in those
parameters, although plenty have tried.

I mixed on a pair for field monitors, having moved up from the AR 4-X,
and I sure did like them for mixing work. But they had absolutely no
bottom end. --scott

Think it's a trick of the ear that the bottom end (what there is of it)
sounds far better than it measures. ;-)

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might
be a fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for
reproducing sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced
and under-performing product.

Have you looked at what went into the construction of a genuine one made
to BBC spec before complaining it was overpriced? If it was overpriced
when new, that could also be said of many quality makes. But they do fetch
silly sums these days.

I'd agree with you they're not up to producing decent levels in a large
room.

But they're just great in our kitchen. And bedroom. ;-)

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

People went crazy over it because it was the first speaker they'd heard
which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was severely
bandlimited but it had astonishingly low distortion by the standards of
the day.

You've not been following the Quad ELS bit as regards male voice
reproduction? They predate the LS3/5a by many years. ;-)

That's true, but people on these shores didn't hear them.

But otherwise I'd agree with you. It was the 'cleanest' sounding speaker
in such a small package of its day. May not have been bettered in those
parameters, although plenty have tried.

I traded mine up for NHT Super Ones. They are a little more nasal but
they actually have a little bit of bass.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might
be a fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for
reproducing sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced
and under-performing product.

Have you looked at what went into the construction of a genuine one made
to BBC spec before complaining it was overpriced? If it was overpriced
when new, that could also be said of many quality makes. But they do fetch
silly sums these days.

I know it had a complex, expensive crossover.

To be //meaningfully// overpriced, there would have had to have been something
less-expensive with better sound. Frankly, I'd rather listen to Advents.