"George Orwell"

Which of the Quad ESL is the best loudspeaker ever made?
aus.hi-fi

Phil Allison

You see, there is only one speaker that is better and that is the ESL
989.


The Quad ESL989 may well be better than the ESL63, but it is not the only
speaker that is better.

The finest speaker ever made, for transparency and fidelity, is the first
series Quad ESL, often mistakenly called the ESL57. It is the choice of
musicians and performers, and of the best loudspeaker designers as a
reference for their own work, because it truly approaches reproducing the
live experience in the concert hall closer than anything else, including its
newer siblings.

(snip)


** If you put my remark back into its original context ( instead of
making a lonely shag on a rock out of it) the prior assumption was that a
person already owned ESL63s and was attempting to upgrade.

What do they buy that is really an upgrade ???

Not the old 57s since they are no longer made and have some drawbacks
compared to the ones they own.

They could buy the new ESL988s - but that is barely an upgrade at all
being essentially the same speaker.

Someone with damaged or faulty ESL63s might do this rather than pay for
them to be repaired - especially if a generous trade-in valuation is given
by a dealer ;-)

So they are left with one option for an upgrade - the giant Texas
Specials ESL989s - the ones with with big bass.

This is a very expensive option.

So mostly they resort to "masterful inactivity" and keep listening to
their 63s.




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

"George Orwell" wrote in message
...
Which of the Quad ESL is the best loudspeaker ever made?
aus.hi-fi

Phil Allison wrote:
You see, there is only one speaker that is better and that is the ESL
989.

The Quad ESL989 may well be better than the ESL63, but it is not the only
speaker that is better.

The finest speaker ever made, for transparency and fidelity, is the first
series Quad ESL, often mistakenly called the ESL57. It is the choice of
musicians and performers, and of the best loudspeaker designers as a
reference for their own work, because it truly approaches reproducing the
live experience in the concert hall closer than anything else, including its
newer siblings. (Phil has since I drafted this sent a post with an excellent
comparison of the ESL57 and the ESL63, which among other things explains why
the ESL63 is the more audiophile of the two. To the people I just listed
who prefer the earlier speaker, audiophile is a swearword. They describe
themselves merely as music lovers.)

The ESL63 is the only loudspeaker known to me with industrial strength
quality control. You can put in a new panel and it instantly sounds the same
as the other ESL63 in the pair. There is no break-in as for a cone speaker
and thus no change in the sound over time, and replacement panels are the
same as the originals, exact duplicates in material and method. Clearly the
same applies to the 989. But the same no longer applies to the ESL57.

BUYING AND REPAIRING OR REBUILDING USED QUAD ESL57
ESL57 are not fragile, as the uninformed claim. They will withstand
significant electrical and substantial physical abuse. I should know. I used
mine to develop all kinds of tube amps. But none are available that are less
than (almost) a quarter century old, and they can be up to (almost) half a
century old. Even best quality British craftsmanship wears out.

Worse. In that time most ESL57 have passed from the original ownership
into the hands of people who did not necessarily know that they were
valuable. Good ones of the ESL57 are rarer than hens teeth, and when they do
break repairs are fraught with difficulties. A good one is defined as one
that has not been electrically abused and is in physically presentable
condition, in particular as regards the irreplaceable grille.

Rebuilding the electromechanicals of the ESL57, while not trivial, is a
straightforward job for an experienced DIYer, or is offered as a service by
people like Sheldon Stokes, who also rebuilds panels which he claims sounds
the same as the originals. Even new transformers can be had from British
firms.

The wood is easily refinished. The grille, if damaged, most often cannot
be straightened and is irreplaceable.

Replacement panels for the ESL57 are not made with the same materials as
the originals. The film used in the panels has not been available from ICI
for a good few years now.

A firm in Germany will sell you a complete new ESL57, made under license
from Quad and with the original molds, which they claim is a soundalike, but
they do not pretend it is an exact duplicate as regards internal materials.
Significantly, they did not offer to sell replacement panels for the
originals. I have not heard it but my understanding from people with ears I
trust is that it sounds superb. (It may thus be the best speaker in the
world that you can buy new, just to throw a cat among the pigeons.) The
price the last time I looked, several years ago, was about 2400 sterling,
say 4000 American dollars, an apparently reasonable price if the speaker is
all the makers claim.

So the significant question with elderly ESL57, which does not arise with
elderly ESL63, is: Where do you find matching replacement panels? It was
this consideration which persuaded me to sell my last pair of good ESL57
when a Japanese gentleman who licensed an amp from me made me an exceptional
offer to have them in his collection. We all make mistakes, but selling a
pair of ESL57 that was probably good for another forty years at even an
exceptional price was a very big mistake.

SO, SHOULD YOU BUY USED QUAD ESL57?
Some people are born lucky. Others are energetic networkers or scavengers.

I have noted Rogers remarks. I would certainly not buy used ESL57 unheard
and uninspected except from a known-good source. In fact, all the good
sources known to me, when I asked them in 1997 or 1998 to find me another
exceptional pair, declined, a couple saying that in the unlikely event of
finding such a pair they would keep them for themselves.

To those of you of incurable optimism, it is worth noting that a large
number of ESL57 were sold as singletons at a time when many audiophiles had
mono systems. The best one I ever had came to me as a singleton from a
deceased estate, and was offered to me by the son of the owner after he read
an article I wrote about the ESL57. Unable to make it into a pair, I traded
it in on ESL63 and three years later was offered another fine single ESL57.
It is possible that if you go haunting peoples attics you could make up a
good pair. Those old mono audiophiles tended to look after their gear. In
1957 a single ESL cost more than half the price of a car (British Ford
Anglia). I have correspondence with Peter Walker by an audiophile about the
purchase, with replies by Mr Walker in his own hand. It was not a purchase
lightly entered into.

A fellow I know found two pairs in separate second shops among the oil
radiators. The grilles on all four were wrecked and the woodwork was
externally damaged. He bought them for a pittance for spare parts for a good
set he already had, then discovered they were all four electrically perfect.
He discarded the grilles and exterior woodwork and built them into stacked
sets, and sold me the good set he previously had.

A wrecked grill or decorative woodwork is thus not necessarily a reason
not to buy an ESL57. You can make a new stand and cover it with cloth. Dicey
or even totally wrecked electromechanicals are a relatively cheap repair.
Dicey panels are without exception a definite reason to pass by an ESL57.

THAT REMINDS ME
I have just remembered a good pair of ESL57 in the original careful
ownership not ten miles from me on which about 1990 I made an offer. The
owner told me they would play at his funeral. Excuse me while I call his
widow.

Andre Jute

This is clearly a go-nowhere post. How many times have we heard the same
claims made about other speakers? Why Quad electrostatics? They don't even
sound lifelike because they are incapable of producing high SPLs and they
lack "real" bass. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?
Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject, all posts with "quad"
in the subject header are plonked.

"Fred"

** The above ranting nut case wrote:

This is clearly a go-nowhere post.


** Translation = it says the truth the nut case does not want said.


How many times have we heard the same
claims made about other speakers?


** Depends on the claims - but all Quad ESL's performance claims are
backed up by independent test results.

Review after review after review.



Why Quad electrostatics?


** The speakers with the least audible defects in reproducing recorded
sound.


They don't even sound lifelike because they are incapable of producing
high SPLs


** If you want disco SPL levels - then go to a damn disco.

In a domestic environment they produce enough SPL to please the vast
majority - but not a volume freak.


and theylack "real" bass.


** They have first class bass - especially the 63s, 988s and 989s.

What they do not have is boomy or gut shaking bass beloved by HT
freaks.

The 989 is Stereophile magazines most favoured speaker - the one most
of their reviewers say they would like to own.


.. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?


** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.


Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject


** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.



.......... Phil

. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

But Phil, you are off in la-la land once again.

I know folks who grew to loathe the Quad ESLs they owned,
then spent far more on domes and cones.
Quad is OK only for those who like them.
One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his
blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

But Phil, you are off in la-la land once again.


** Go **** yourself Turneroid.


I know folks who grew to loathe the Quad ESLs they owned,
then spent far more on domes and cones.


** You know a bunch of criminals and whores.


Quad is OK only for those who like them.


** How banal.


One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.


** More lies from the Turneroid.


But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.


** Total idiocy .



.......... Phil

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:15:36 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

But Phil, you are off in la-la land once again.

I know folks who grew to loathe the Quad ESLs they owned,
then spent far more on domes and cones.
Quad is OK only for those who like them.
One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Patrick Turner.

One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

Congratulations on getting good sound out of $500.
Imagine how good it would be if you spent $5,000 but kept
the same 'attention to detail and cost' .

I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive, and hard to DIY.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"


Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

** Rubbish.

They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.




ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.


** So what ?? - go figure all the folk who buy Bose.



I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive,


** What a ****ing liar Turneroid is.

One of this Turneroid turd's valve anachronism's costs far more than a
pair of Quad 57s or 63s.




........ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

** Rubbish.

They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.


Sort of true. People always wanted them. Just more people can afford to want
them now so they sell more. For the amounts of LSI's and technology in
a cell phone, i still find it amazing how cheap they are. And how disposable
they are in a year or two. Think how many Mercedes or Lexus they could
sell if the Chinese made them.


ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

** So what ?? - go figure all the folk who buy Bose.


Bose buyers are like lemmings, they would all huddle together in mass
and run over a cliff to there death if Bose told them to do it.
And then be buried in a Bose wave casket.



I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive,



So Phil, now that this deal of the century fell apart. What are you looking for
now? More Quads, or something else?

I find the whole import issues quite interesting. Its too bad more companies
cannot pay there real taxes

Bob



....... Phil



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"BOB URZ"


So Phil, now that this deal of the century fell apart. What are you
looking for
now? More Quads, or something else?


** I was thinking of offering Harry $2000 for the same speakers.

As a favour like - just to take them off his hands.

He has been stuck with them for ages now.

How do you think he will react ?




.......... Phil

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:10:06 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:


One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

good point, but haven't good sounding speakers always had a niche
market?

ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
see above

Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

well i think as you further and further up the line the differences
between speakers become very subtle. My 13 year old brother said a
year ago that hee couldnt tell the difference between a theatre sound
system and his pc speakers, which say on the back 20-20khz, 130 watt
pmpo. While of course not everyone would be like him, (in fact that
state was only temporary for him, as last week he commented on how
good the 1812 overture sounded on my system ) I think people are
willing to accept products which may not sound as good as ESLs because
their priorities aren't on what they hear in their listening room. FOr
example, I'd venture to guess that most of the larger(physically)
speaker market is now home theatre oriented. In such a circumstance,
people want raw SPL, big bass, and a price which won't result in
precious inches off their tv screen. But lets forget about the
speaker market as a whole and concentrate on the market who label
themselves lovers of hifi. These people will pay big bucks to buy
cables which have been shown to have no measurable difference in sound
reproduction, and clame with a straight face that the difference is
there. Obviously the psychalogical effect of these cables is strong.
Now I beleive that with a lot of these people, the psychalogical
effect from new cables and cd player stands filled with the tonail
clippings of virgins stands stronger and more pronounced than any
actual difference they hear in the (very high end ) speakers. Thus we
have a niche market in a niche market for top of the line speakers.
Think of the difference as with a top of the line car to another one,
just a bit worse than it. Some people won't feel a difference at all.
Of the people who do, very few may be able to justify the expense of
either car over a more moderately priced one. I still have lots to
type but i'll let you reply first
Congratulations on getting good sound out of $500.
Imagine how good it would be if you spent $5,000 but kept
the same 'attention to detail and cost' .

Thankyou very much
Second hand is great for hifi I find. Well, maybe not for foam
surrounds, but otherwise good
I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive, and hard to DIY.

Patrick Turner.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

** Rubbish.

They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.

Most ppl don't want Quad ESL.

With no demand, there is nothing to get makers off their butts,
and produce them in their millions, and thus saleable in western countries for
far less than at present.
And with chinese labour at $2 per day, Quad is still expensive.
Demand propels production, mass production propels
streamlined mass production, and the costs tumble.

The rest of PS's post is just crap.

Patrick Turner.

Arpit wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:10:06 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:


One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

good point, but haven't good sounding speakers always had a niche
market?

Well designed speakers sound well, and form the minority of what is on the
market,
and some are very niche, and very expensive.
It should be easy for competitors, with chinese labour at $2 per day.



ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
see above

Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

well i think as you further and further up the line the differences
between speakers become very subtle. My 13 year old brother said a
year ago that hee couldnt tell the difference between a theatre sound
system and his pc speakers, which say on the back 20-20khz, 130 watt
pmpo. While of course not everyone would be like him, (in fact that
state was only temporary for him, as last week he commented on how
good the 1812 overture sounded on my system )

There must have been some BS about the 20 Hz to 20 kHz some place.


I think people are
willing to accept products which may not sound as good as ESLs because
their priorities aren't on what they hear in their listening room. FOr
example, I'd venture to guess that most of the larger(physically)
speaker market is now home theatre oriented.

Nah, more like the opposite.
ppl want 5 tiny speakers and a sub woofer, which often is just a
bass speaker, with no great extension to 15 Hz.

In such a circumstance,
people want raw SPL, big bass, and a price which won't result in
precious inches off their tv screen. But lets forget about the
speaker market as a whole and concentrate on the market who label
themselves lovers of hifi. These people will pay big bucks to buy
cables which have been shown to have no measurable difference in sound
reproduction, and clame with a straight face that the difference is
there.

Ppl who buy a Mazzeratti don't buy seat covers from K-mart.
Its got to be a Gucci, to match the dumb blonde and snakeskin travel bags.

Obviously the psychalogical effect of these cables is strong.

Not to paupers.


Now I beleive that with a lot of these people, the psychalogical
effect from new cables and cd player stands filled with the tonail
clippings of virgins stands stronger and more pronounced than any
actual difference they hear in the (very high end ) speakers. Thus we
have a niche market in a niche market for top of the line speakers.
Think of the difference as with a top of the line car to another one,
just a bit worse than it. Some people won't feel a difference at all.
Of the people who do, very few may be able to justify the expense of
either car over a more moderately priced one. I still have lots to
type but i'll let you reply first
Congratulations on getting good sound out of $500.
Imagine how good it would be if you spent $5,000 but kept
the same 'attention to detail and cost' .

Thankyou very much
Second hand is great for hifi I find. Well, maybe not for foam
surrounds, but otherwise good
I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive, and hard to DIY.

Patrick Turner.


And a Fosters also improves the sound,

Patrick Turner.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:03:32 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



Arpit wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:10:06 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:


One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

good point, but haven't good sounding speakers always had a niche
market?

Well designed speakers sound well, and form the minority of what is on the
market,
and some are very niche, and very expensive.
It should be easy for competitors, with chinese labour at $2 per day.

nevertheless, they need to pay for administrative overheads and
renting the factory and paying off loans for machines etc. With small
demand, price increases. I'm sure you have experienced this yourself
to some extent with your (very pretty and blue glowy ) amplifiers,
having to raise the price to make the whole operation worth your
while.


ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
see above

Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

well i think as you further and further up the line the differences
between speakers become very subtle. My 13 year old brother said a
year ago that hee couldnt tell the difference between a theatre sound
system and his pc speakers, which say on the back 20-20khz, 130 watt
pmpo. While of course not everyone would be like him, (in fact that
state was only temporary for him, as last week he commented on how
good the 1812 overture sounded on my system )

There must have been some BS about the 20 Hz to 20 kHz some place.

naturally. i merely quoted the specs so you knew what sort of
speakers they were, the 25 dollar ones you get at the computer store
sort of thing with clames of 130 watts, then in brackets, pmpo,
meanwhile using a 7 watt plugpack as for frequency response,
50-15khz would be pushing it.


I think people are
willing to accept products which may not sound as good as ESLs because
their priorities aren't on what they hear in their listening room. FOr
example, I'd venture to guess that most of the larger(physically)
speaker market is now home theatre oriented.

Nah, more like the opposite.
ppl want 5 tiny speakers and a sub woofer, which often is just a
bass speaker, with no great extension to 15 Hz.


good point. still, ultimately my point is that for most people
speakers arent a big priority, which i think is somewhat reinforced by
what you said
In such a circumstance,
people want raw SPL, big bass, and a price which won't result in
precious inches off their tv screen. But lets forget about the
speaker market as a whole and concentrate on the market who label
themselves lovers of hifi. These people will pay big bucks to buy
cables which have been shown to have no measurable difference in sound
reproduction, and clame with a straight face that the difference is
there.

Ppl who buy a Mazzeratti don't buy seat covers from K-mart.
Its got to be a Gucci, to match the dumb blonde and snakeskin travel bags.

i'll assume your talking about the tv's relation to the speakers, if
not you'll have to explain your reference im afraid. You draw a good
comparison, the tv as the car and the speakers as the seat covers.

Obviously the psychalogical effect of these cables is strong.

Not to paupers.

could you explain that please?

Now I beleive that with a lot of these people, the psychalogical
effect from new cables and cd player stands filled with the tonail
clippings of virgins stands stronger and more pronounced than any
actual difference they hear in the (very high end ) speakers. Thus we
have a niche market in a niche market for top of the line speakers.
Think of the difference as with a top of the line car to another one,
just a bit worse than it. Some people won't feel a difference at all.
Of the people who do, very few may be able to justify the expense of
either car over a more moderately priced one. I still have lots to
type but i'll let you reply first
Congratulations on getting good sound out of $500.
Imagine how good it would be if you spent $5,000 but kept
the same 'attention to detail and cost' .

Thankyou very much
Second hand is great for hifi I find. Well, maybe not for foam
surrounds, but otherwise good
I'd also like Quad speakers to add to my collection,
but they are too expensive, and hard to DIY.

Patrick Turner.


And a Fosters also improves the sound,




Patrick Turner.

In message , Arpit
writes
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:15:36 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

But Phil, you are off in la-la land once again.

I know folks who grew to loathe the Quad ESLs they owned,
then spent far more on domes and cones.
Quad is OK only for those who like them.
One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Patrick Turner.





But it's not just the price. It's mainly that they are dipole radiators
and need 2 metres space behind them to stop the reflected wave causing a
'comb-filter' effect at the listening position.

I have pair of Magneplanar MG2.5r speakers. Lovely units, though not as
good as a 989 electrostatic. I can't use these however in my current
house as I simply don't have a room long enough. (I'm looking for
another house!)

I wonder how many people who have heard Quads (and other types of
dipole) in a totally inappropriate setting have been put off them.
Dipoles are VERY fussy about positioning.
--
Chris Morriss

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:32:37 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

In message , Arpit
writes
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:15:36 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

But Phil, you are off in la-la land once again.

I know folks who grew to loathe the Quad ESLs they owned,
then spent far more on domes and cones.
Quad is OK only for those who like them.
One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Patrick Turner.





But it's not just the price. It's mainly that they are dipole radiators
and need 2 metres space behind them to stop the reflected wave causing a
'comb-filter' effect at the listening position.

I have pair of Magneplanar MG2.5r speakers. Lovely units, though not as
good as a 989 electrostatic. I can't use these however in my current
house as I simply don't have a room long enough. (I'm looking for
another house!)

I wonder how many people who have heard Quads (and other types of
dipole) in a totally inappropriate setting have been put off them.
Dipoles are VERY fussy about positioning.

hmmm, thanks for that info, i never realised that before, but it seems
to make sense. I actually was under the impression that dipoles were
less fussy about placement, no doubt a misinterpretation of what
linkwitz said about them reducing room modes, which, in retrospect, is
a different issue entirely

Real bass doesnt have boom Mr Allison.
The quads arent even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output. They would
be horrible at less than 80hz.

There is a lot of bass in many modern records I dont mean just DVD movie special
effects that the quads would have no idea of.

you dont know what bass is. Go listen to a system will real bass. With high
quality 18 inch driver and dedicated amp. Then at least youll have a frame of
reference at the moment your just speaking hot air. But then your an annoying
fool.


Phil Allison wrote:

"Fred"

** The above ranting nut case wrote:

This is clearly a go-nowhere post.

** Translation = it says the truth the nut case does not want said.

How many times have we heard the same
claims made about other speakers?

** Depends on the claims - but all Quad ESL's performance claims are
backed up by independent test results.

Review after review after review.

Why Quad electrostatics?

** The speakers with the least audible defects in reproducing recorded
sound.

They don't even sound lifelike because they are incapable of producing
high SPLs

** If you want disco SPL levels - then go to a damn disco.

In a domestic environment they produce enough SPL to please the vast
majority - but not a volume freak.

and theylack "real" bass.

** They have first class bass - especially the 63s, 988s and 989s.

What they do not have is boomy or gut shaking bass beloved by HT
freaks.

The 989 is Stereophile magazines most favoured speaker - the one most
of their reviewers say they would like to own.

. Is this aus.hi-fi or aus.fantasy.land?

** No. Nor is it an asylum for ignorant, deaf lunatics like Fred.

Due to the lack of truth here regarding this subject

** There is no truth originating from Fred - the stench of his blatant
lies drives it all away.

......... Phil

"Patrick Turner"


Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted
one.

** Rubbish.

They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.



Most ppl don't want Quad ESL.


** No one whats the ****ing garbage the Turneroid makes.



And with chinese labour at $2 per day, Quad is still expensive.


** The ESLs are still made in the UK - the tenth time you have been
told - ****head.




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

"paul james"

Real bass doesnt have boom Mr Allison.


** All box woofers boom - every one - all the time.


The quads arent even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output.


** ESL 63s or 988s are flat down to 40 Hz in a mid sized room.



There is a lot of bass in many modern records I dont mean just DVD movie
special
effects that the quads would have no idea of.


** Bull****.


you dont know what bass is.


** I have been using a sub for 19 years.




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

Phil Allison wrote:

"BOB URZ"

So Phil, now that this deal of the century fell apart. What are you
looking for
now? More Quads, or something else?

** I was thinking of offering Harry $2000 for the same speakers.

As a favour like - just to take them off his hands.

He has been stuck with them for ages now.

How do you think he will react ?

......... Phil

Like Hitler around 1943 if you asked him politely to give Poland back....

You could always try a rubber nose & glasses, and a wig.
Maybe he would not recognize you then????

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Arpit wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:03:32 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:



Arpit wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:10:06 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:


One eyed Phil thinks Quads are all there is.

But the ppl of the universe think somewhat differently,
or all of them would have purchased Quad.

don't be silly, very few people can afford quad speakers. i'd love to
have quad speakers personally, but they are way out of my price range,
considering i spend about 200 dollars on my present system, well about
500 if you count the materials for making my subwoofer. It sounds very
nice indeed, considering its price, and compares very favourably to
sub 1000 dollar speakers i've heard ina lot of shops,which tend to
have similar faults as my current system. I don't kid myself that it
is a great system though

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted one.

good point, but haven't good sounding speakers always had a niche
market?

Well designed speakers sound well, and form the minority of what is on the
market,
and some are very niche, and very expensive.
It should be easy for competitors, with chinese labour at $2 per day.

nevertheless, they need to pay for administrative overheads and
renting the factory and paying off loans for machines etc. With small
demand, price increases. I'm sure you have experienced this yourself
to some extent with your (very pretty and blue glowy ) amplifiers,
having to raise the price to make the whole operation worth your
while.

I don't run a mass production factory, so the concerns of the big makers are not
mine.
The very nice photographer who spent an evening capturing the blue
glow almost over did it.
A customer of mine owed me a little money, the photographer
owed my customer a favour, and i ended up with very cheap photos,
and the 3 of us were happy.

The bigtime production world has not got great attraction for me.
I just enjoy making the gear, getting occasional sales,
and meeting people along the way.


ESL speakers have failed to go the same way.
Why?
see above

Because folks just don't all come to the conclusion that they
are especially better than domes and cones.

well i think as you further and further up the line the differences
between speakers become very subtle. My 13 year old brother said a
year ago that hee couldnt tell the difference between a theatre sound
system and his pc speakers, which say on the back 20-20khz, 130 watt
pmpo. While of course not everyone would be like him, (in fact that
state was only temporary for him, as last week he commented on how
good the 1812 overture sounded on my system )

There must have been some BS about the 20 Hz to 20 kHz some place.

naturally. i merely quoted the specs so you knew what sort of
speakers they were, the 25 dollar ones you get at the computer store
sort of thing with clames of 130 watts, then in brackets, pmpo,
meanwhile using a 7 watt plugpack as for frequency response,
50-15khz would be pushing it.

Some of the cheap speakers from asia are improving but
all the electronics being sold is charged at what the market will bear,
with little relation to cost of production.
Asian product leaves the factory at $100, and ends up
in some store selling for $3,000.
I have to compete with that.
I raise my hat to Conrad Johnson and ARC,
it gives the rest of us a chance.


Obviously the psychalogical effect of these cables is strong.

Not to paupers.

could you explain that please?

Poor folks see the price, before they hear any benefit from
expensive cables.
The wealthy don't know the price,
and also might not hear any difference, but the cables have a nice sounding name,
like Nordost Valhalla, and they just look right alongside the Krell,
and the large Martin Logans in the 20 metre x 30 metre loungeroom.

The poor save for years to buy Quad,
the rich might not lower themselves to that.

Patrick Turner.

But it's not just the price. It's mainly that they are dipole radiators
and need 2 metres space behind them to stop the reflected wave causing a
'comb-filter' effect at the listening position.

I have pair of Magneplanar MG2.5r speakers. Lovely units, though not as
good as a 989 electrostatic. I can't use these however in my current
house as I simply don't have a room long enough. (I'm looking for
another house!)

I wonder how many people who have heard Quads (and other types of
dipole) in a totally inappropriate setting have been put off them.
Dipoles are VERY fussy about positioning.
--
Chris Morriss

And the last client whose Quad amp I fixed had his '57 tucked neatly
behind single lounge chairs.
That's how his wife liked it, and they thought the sound was very nice.
With the chairs pushed aside, the sound was just like
sound coming from loudspeakers, and not much bass.
They loved their Mozart, and imaging wasn't a big deal.

Patrick Turner.

you dont know what bass is.


Striped or bigmouth?

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
"Patrick Turner"

Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted
one.

** Rubbish.
They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.

More PA nonsense, they can only become cheap when sales are high enough to
produce economy of scale by making millions. Witness DVD players even more
so than CD players. Many people wanted one when they were $500 - $1000 each,
even more when they were $200 each, and now the price is under $80 for the
cheapest models, even kids have one in their bedroom. A continual process of
falling prices creates increased demand *PROVIDING* people want the product
in the first place (or can be convinced they want it), else the sales don't
increase and prices don't fall, or not as much anyway. Try to find a really
cheap DAT recorder, or even an MD player for example, nowhere near as cheap.

TonyP.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

** All box woofers boom - every one - all the time.

More meaningless PA drivel because you don't define what you mean by "boom".
A real tympani would boom by your argument.

The quads arent even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output.

** ESL 63s or 988s are flat down to 40 Hz in a mid sized room.

Not according to any response curves that have been published. What about
Max SPL and LF distortion, definitely not the Quads forte.

** I have been using a sub for 19 years.

So even *you* realise the Quad limitations.

TonyP.

"roverT"


"Phil Allison"


Turneroid:
Mobile telephones and CD players became cheap because everyone wanted
one.

** Rubbish.
They became cheap THEN everyone wanted one.


More PA nonsense, they can only become cheap when sales are high enough to
produce economy of scale by making millions.


** Volume production has to happen first - for the cost of manufacture to
fall.

Then the subsequent sales can jump as folk need less money to buy one.

That halfwit "roverT" has misinterpreted ( as usual) what is "wanted".




.......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

More PA nonsense, they can only become cheap when sales are high enough
to
produce economy of scale by making millions.

** Volume production has to happen first - for the cost of manufacture
to
fall.

Yep, and that won't happen until demand is large enough to justify the
investment. For many things it never does.

Then the subsequent sales can jump as folk need less money to buy
one.

Exactly what I said.

TonyP.

"roverT"

"Phil Allison" ** All box woofers boom - every one - all the
time.

More meaningless PA drivel because you don't define what you mean by
"boom".

** Boom = the sound in the room contains numerous resonances due to
standing waves.

Real bass instruments played in the same room may boom too - but the aim
of hi-fi is to eliminate one's own listening room and reproduce the original
performance complete with the original acoustics. ESLs excite a room's LF
resonances far less than a box woofer - helping make the room disappear as
is needed for hi-fi.



The quads arent even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output.

** ESL 63s or 988s are flat down to 40 Hz in a mid sized room.

Not according to any response curves that have been published.


** That is bull****.

See: www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm


What about Max SPL and LF distortion, definitely not the Quads forte.


** James Moir and Associates found the THD of the first ESL63s to be always
under 0.1 % at 96 dB SPL (about 10 watts input), often as low as 0.03 %,
when swept from 150 Hz up to 20 kHz.

Can you find a better result from **any** 2 or 3 way box speaker ???


Between 40 Hz and 150 Hz the THD is remains under 1% at the same 96 dB SPL
which is superior to the vast majority of box speakers made.

In a typical lounge room the sensitivity measures 90 dB per watt ( 2.83
volts rms wide band pink noise) at the listening position - from a pair.
With a 100 watt per channel amp this allows up to 110 dB SPL on steady tones
and 113 dB on peaks. That is damn loud.

There is no thermal, magnetic or other power compression with Quads either
to spoil the actual SPLs.



.......... Phil

"roverT"

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...


More PA nonsense, they can only become cheap when sales are high
enough
to produce economy of scale by making millions.

** Volume production has to happen first - for the cost of
manufacture
to fall.

Yep, and that won't happen until demand is large enough to justify the
investment.


** The "demand" for cheaper goods exists only a theory until those goods
appear on sale - then the low price creates the volume sales. Many goods
just do not sell well until the price falls below a particular threshold
that folk find to be easily affordable or cheaper than some alternative.



Then the subsequent sales can jump as folk need less money to buy
one.

Exactly what I said.


** It is the reverse of what you said.






......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

** Boom = the sound in the room contains numerous resonances due to
standing waves.

OK, a room problem.

Real bass instruments played in the same room may boom too - but the aim
of hi-fi is to eliminate one's own listening room and reproduce the
original
performance complete with the original acoustics. ESLs excite a room's LF
resonances far less than a box woofer - helping make the room disappear
as
is needed for hi-fi.

Less, maybe. Far less? No data provided. One things for sure, the problem is
not eliminated, so by your definition, Quads cause BOOM too.

Not according to any response curves that have been published.

** That is bull****.
See: www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm

You said FLAT. Your own quoted graph shows flattish to 70 Hz not 40 Hz. Plus
some alarming resonances at the high end, and one at 45 Hz, which may or may
not be measurement related.
Interesting the 1/3rd octave pink noise shows response down 10dB at 45Hz!
Other response curves I have seen are even worse.

What about Max SPL and LF distortion, definitely not the Quads forte.

** James Moir and Associates found the THD of the first ESL63s to be
always
under 0.1 % at 96 dB SPL (about 10 watts input), often as low as 0.03 %,
when swept from 150 Hz up to 20 kHz.

No data provided below 150 Hz noted!

Between 40 Hz and 150 Hz the THD is remains under 1% at the same 96 dB
SPL
which is superior to the vast majority of box speakers made.

No such data provided. According to Aust HiFi, the ESL63 is not capable of
96dB/40Hz at 2 metre, let alone at 1% distortion.

In a typical lounge room the sensitivity measures 90 dB per watt ( 2.83
volts rms wide band pink noise) at the listening position - from a pair.
With a 100 watt per channel amp this allows up to 110 dB SPL on steady
tones
and 113 dB on peaks. That is damn loud.

Not according to most measurements, the sensitivity is FAR below that, even
at 1 metre! And the Max SPL even further. Subtract a further 5 - 10dB at 40
Hz for response fall off. Not to mention excursion limitations of the
membrane.

TonyP.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
More PA nonsense, they can only become cheap when sales are high
enough
to produce economy of scale by making millions.

** Volume production has to happen first - for the cost of
manufacture
to fall.

Yep, and that won't happen until demand is large enough to justify the
investment.

** The "demand" for cheaper goods exists only a theory until those goods
appear on sale - then the low price creates the volume sales. Many
goods
just do not sell well until the price falls below a particular threshold
that folk find to be easily affordable or cheaper than some alternative.

** It is the reverse of what you said.

No, I said it is a continual procedure. Everything is NOT sold at a loss
until demand increases to match an initial oversupply. Sometimes that is
done for marketing purposes, but a manufacturer has to be damn sure the risk
is worth it.

The fact that CD players were originally $1000 in 1982 and DVD players were
that much originally is in total conflict with your assertions! It took
years for CD player prices to drop to mass market levels, and a few years
for DVD players too. Obviously the demand was always there if the price was
right!
The fact that Video Laser Disk players never dropped to general consumer
acceptable levels is also in conflict with your assertions. The price never
dropped low enough before the technology was obsolete!

TonyP.

"roverT"


"Phil Allison"



** The "demand" for cheaper goods exists only a theory until those goods
appear on sale - then the low price creates the volume sales. Many
goods just do not sell well until the price falls below a particular
threshold
that folk find to be easily affordable or cheaper than some alternative.

** It is the reverse of what you said.


No, I said it is a continual procedure.


** Where?


The fact that CD players were originally $1000 in 1982 and DVD players
were
that much originally is in total conflict with your assertions!

** How ?


It took years for CD player prices to drop to mass market levels, and a few
years
for DVD players too. Obviously the demand was always there if the price
was
right!


** The term "demand" does not mean "desire to own" - this is your repeated
mistake.

Or else Rolls Royces are always in enormous demand.

Demand refers to having folk ready to pay the asking price - the more
folk the greater the demand is said to be.

An increase in demand with no other change in the market normally causes
asking prices to *rise*.

A reduction in price increases demand.



The fact that Video Laser Disk players never dropped to general consumer
acceptable levels is also in conflict with your assertions.


** How?




.......... Phil

"roverT"


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

** Boom = the sound in the room contains numerous resonances due to
standing waves.

OK, a room problem.


** One all rooms have and box woofers excite to the max.



Real bass instruments played in the same room may boom too - but the
aim
of hi-fi is to eliminate one's own listening room and reproduce the
original
performance complete with the original acoustics. ESLs excite a room's
LF
resonances far less than a box woofer - helping make the room
disappear
as is needed for hi-fi.


Less, maybe. Far less? No data provided. One things for sure, the problem
is
not eliminated, so by your definition, Quads cause BOOM too.


** You cannot use word games to proves conclusions about reality.

High time you learnt that.




Not according to any response curves that have been published.

** That is bull****.
See: www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm

You said FLAT.

** You said:

" The quads aren't even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output."


Your own quoted graph shows flattish to 70 Hz not 40 Hz.


** Notice the speaker was mounted 7 metres up in mid air for the test
curves.

When used in a room on the floor the last octave come up by 5 or 6 dB.

The net result is flat output down to 40 Hz in a typical installation.



Plus some alarming resonances at the high end,


** The text makes it clear they are not resonances at all but due to short
range reflections.

As there is no stored energy - it aint a resonance and it does not
sound like one either.


and one at 45 Hz, which may or may not be measurement related.


** Again - not a resonance but the result of minor phase cancellation.


Interesting the 1/3rd octave pink noise shows response down 10dB at 45Hz!


** That is an anomaly with pink noise testing - since half of the signal
energy is above and half below the centre frequency. Depending on how
sharply limited the 1/3 oct bands are half of the 40 Hz band energy is
actually between 20 and 40 Hz - ie below the range.

The slow swept response tells the truth.




What about Max SPL and LF distortion, definitely not the Quads forte.

** James Moir and Associates found the THD of the first ESL63s to be
always under 0.1 % at 96 dB SPL (about 10 watts input), often as low as
0.03 %,
when swept from 150 Hz up to 20 kHz.


No data provided below 150 Hz noted!


** It is all on the response graph - go look dickhead.



Between 40 Hz and 150 Hz the THD is remains under 1% at the same 96 dB
SPL which is superior to the vast majority of box speakers made.


No such data provided.


** It is recorded on the response graph and commented on in the text too
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THD was swept at the same time SPL was swept - see the scale with 0.1%
and 0.33 % ???



According to Aust HiFi, the ESL63 is not capable of
96dB/40Hz at 2 metre, let alone at 1% distortion.


** Yawn - see the graph = 96 dB SPL free air, at 44 Hz, with
under 1% THD.

Aust Hi-Fi stuffed their test up.




In a typical lounge room the sensitivity measures 90 dB per watt ( 2.83
volts rms wide band pink noise) at the listening position - from a
pair.
With a 100 watt per channel amp this allows up to 110 dB SPL on steady
tones and 113 dB on peaks. That is damn loud.


Not according to most measurements, the sensitivity is FAR below that,
even
at 1 metre!


** This is a ***real measurement** - and it accords exactly with
prediction.

One ESL 63 gives 87 dB SPL at 1 metre on axis in **free air** from 1
nominal watt of wide band pink noise (50 Hz to 15 kHz) At 2.5 metres,
installed in a typical lounge room, the reading is 85.5 dB SPL on axis.

The SPL does not drop the usual 6 dB for double distance in the near field
since the sound source is so large.

Add a second ESL63 and the pressure increases 5.5 dB to 90 dB - on axis
of both.



Subtract a further 5 - 10dB at 40 Hz for response fall off.


** The speaker is flat ( flatter than most any other) to 40 Hz in a typical
room, with well under 1% THD at 104 dB SPL from a pair at the listening
spot. That is what the data shows.



Not to mention excursion limitations of the membrane.


** That is not what James Moir and Associates found.




......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
news:3ff3b740$0$18747


One ESL 63 gives 87 dB SPL at 1 metre on axis in **free air** from 1
nominal watt of wide band pink noise (50 Hz to 15 kHz) At 2.5 metres,
installed in a typical lounge room, the reading is 85.5 dB SPL on axis.


** Should be 84.5 not 85.5 dB SPL.



.......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

No, I said it is a continual procedure.
** Where?

Yes, I know you can't read.

It took years for CD player prices to drop to mass market levels, and a
few
years
for DVD players too. Obviously the demand was always there if the price
was
right!

** The term "demand" does not mean "desire to own" - this is your
repeated
mistake.
Or else Rolls Royces are always in enormous demand.

More semantic acrobatics, how unusual. The desire to own a Rolls Royce at a
Hyundai Price does exist to an enormous extent.

Demand refers to having folk ready to pay the asking price - the more
folk the greater the demand is said to be.

Yep, the lower the price the greater the demand IF "THE DESIRE TO OWN"
EXISTS.

An increase in demand with no other change in the market normally
causes
asking prices to *rise*.

ONLY if supply is limited. This is *YOUR* continual mistake. If supply
increases the price will fall due to economy of scale and increased
competition, AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

A reduction in price increases demand.

ONLY IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO OWN. Most goods fall in price when they are
discontinued. Goods are often scrapped because they can hardly give them
away.

The fact that Video Laser Disk players never dropped to general consumer
acceptable levels is also in conflict with your assertions.

** How?

Connect the dots yourself. Your chicken and egg game is tedious if you keep
redefining both the chicken and the egg.

TonyP.

"roverT"


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

No, I said it is a continual procedure.
** Where?

Yes, I know you can't read.


** Minds ??? After the event ??????



** The term "demand" does not mean "desire to own" - this is your
repeated mistake.

Or else Rolls Royce's are always in enormous demand.


More semantic acrobatics, how unusual. The desire to own a Rolls Royce at
a
Hyundai Price does exist to an enormous extent.


** A fantasy is not "demand".



Demand refers to having folk ready to pay the asking price - the
more
folk the greater the demand is said to be.

An increase in demand with no other change in the market normally
causes asking prices to *rise*.


ONLY if supply is limited.


** Did you see the words - "no other change " ???????????



A reduction in price increases demand.


ONLY IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO OWN.


** If that did not exist then the product would not.

You are clutching as straws - as usual - ad nauseam.




The fact that Video Laser Disk players never dropped to general
consumer
acceptable levels is also in conflict with your assertions.

** How?


Connect the dots yourself.


** No way - you cannot so you are stuffed yet again.



Your chicken and egg game is tedious if you keep
redefining both the chicken and the egg.


** Go get rooted up the arse and lay an egg.

You really are a brainless chook.




........ Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
** You cannot use word games to proves conclusions about reality.
High time you learnt that.

Sorry, I forgot only you are allowed to do that.

** You said:
" The quads aren't even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz output."

Where did *I* say that?

** Notice the speaker was mounted 7 metres up in mid air for the test
curves.
When used in a room on the floor the last octave come up by 5 or 6 dB.
The net result is flat output down to 40 Hz in a typical installation.

Yeah, if you don't like the measurements just change the test conditions to
suit.

** The text makes it clear they are not resonances at all but due to
short
range reflections.

Yep, poor measurement techniques.

** Again - not a resonance but the result of minor phase cancellation.

Yep, poor measurement conditions.

Interesting the 1/3rd octave pink noise shows response down 10dB at
45Hz!


** That is an anomaly with pink noise testing - since half of the signal
energy is above and half below the centre frequency. Depending on how
sharply limited the 1/3 oct bands are half of the 40 Hz band energy is
actually between 20 and 40 Hz - ie below the range.

It is 1/3rd Octave *NOT* ONE octave Phil. You do now the difference? 1/2
the energy will *NOT* be one octave away, and still be called 1/3 octave! In
fact the lowest frequency will be only 1/6 octave below 40Hz. At 50 hz
almost ALL the energy should be above 40Hz. Is the response flat there? *NO*

The slow swept response tells the truth.

No it doesn't, it is neither near field, or true anechoic. The closest
boundary being 7 metres apparently.

** James Moir and Associates found the THD of the first ESL63s to be
always under 0.1 % at 96 dB SPL (about 10 watts input), often as low as
0.03 %,
when swept from 150 Hz up to 20 kHz.

No data provided below 150 Hz noted!

** It is all on the response graph - go look dickhead.

To use your term, Bull****!
You may believe distortion is below 1% at 30 Hz and 96 dB (for *ONE* panel),
but I certainly don't. No figures are given for any harmonic greater than
3rd anyway, so no way is that THD.

** Yawn - see the graph = 96 dB SPL free air, at 44 Hz, with
under 1% THD.

OK please provide a corroborating test, one with a Lab certification.


Aust Hi-Fi stuffed their test up.

I see no Lab accreditation details for either, they are probably both wrong!

One ESL 63 gives 87 dB SPL at 1 metre on axis in **free air** from 1
nominal watt of wide band pink noise (50 Hz to 15 kHz) At 2.5 metres,
installed in a typical lounge room, the reading is 85.5 dB SPL on axis.
The SPL does not drop the usual 6 dB for double distance in the near
field
since the sound source is so large.

Interesting statement, care to expand on it?

Add a second ESL63 and the pressure increases 5.5 dB to 90 dB - on
axis
of both.

More semantic acrobatics I see. You never mentioned TWO when comparing to
box speakers, which are *nearly always* better than the quads.

** The speaker is flat ( flatter than most any other) to 40 Hz in a
typical
room, with well under 1% THD at 104 dB SPL from a pair at the listening
spot. That is what the data shows.

So if the room suits, it is OK, just like many box speakers. If not all bets
are off.

TonyP.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
An increase in demand with no other change in the market normally
causes asking prices to *rise*.

ONLY if supply is limited.

** Did you see the words - "no other change " ???????????

Yep, NO change in ability to supply. ie. If the supply is unlimited, it
STAYS unlimited.


A reduction in price increases demand.
ONLY IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO OWN.

** If that did not exist then the product would not.

Like hell, the world is full of failed products.

You are clutching as straws - as usual - ad nauseam.

You sure are.


TonyP.

"roverT"

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

** You cannot use word games to proves conclusions about reality.
High time you learnt that.

Sorry, I forgot only you are allowed to do that.
** More word games .........


** You said:
" The quads aren't even in the ball park nothing even near 40hz
output."

Where did *I* say that?

** Paul James made the comment - then you backed him up and have done
that since.


** Notice the speaker was mounted 7 metres up in mid air for the test
curves.
When used in a room on the floor the last octave come up by 5 or 6
dB.
The net result is flat output down to 40 Hz in a typical
installation.


Yeah, if you don't like the measurements just change the test conditions
to
suit.

** More word games...........


Interesting the 1/3rd octave pink noise shows response down 10dB at
45Hz!


** That is an anomaly with pink noise testing - since half of the
signal
energy is above and half below the centre frequency. Depending on how
sharply limited the 1/3 oct bands are half of the 40 Hz band energy is
actually between 20 and 40 Hz - ie below the range.


It is 1/3rd Octave *NOT* ONE octave Phil.


** 1/3 octave refers to the -3dB bandwidth or the spacing of a set of
filters.


You do now the difference? 1/2 the energy will *NOT* be one octave away,

** More word games......


and still be called 1/3 octave!


* But 1/2 the energy IS always below 40 Hz for a band centered on that
frequency.


In fact the lowest frequency will be only 1/6 octave below 40Hz.


** Utter BULL**** !!!!

1/3 oct filters are not BRICK WALL !!!



The slow swept response tells the truth.


No it doesn't, it is neither near field, or true anechoic.


** Yes - it is both. At 1 metre and in the wide open.


The closest boundary being 7 metres apparently.


** That boundry being the ground.



** James Moir and Associates found the THD of the first ESL63s to be
always under 0.1 % at 96 dB SPL (about 10 watts input), often as low
as
0.03 %, when swept from 150 Hz up to 20 kHz.

No data provided below 150 Hz noted!

** It is all on the response graph - go look dickhead.


To use your term, Bull****!


** More word games - he never even looked till now.


You may believe distortion is below 1% at 30 Hz and 96 dB (for *ONE*
panel),
but I certainly don't. No figures are given for any harmonic greater than
3rd anyway, so no way is that THD.


** At 30 Hz the SPL is shown as 86 dB.

The THD is related to that level.

At low frequencies 2nd and 3rd harmonics dominate the THD.

Read the comments - the go weep ARSEHOLE !!!!!




** Yawn - see the graph = 96 dB SPL free air, at 44 Hz,
with
under 1% THD.

OK please provide a corroborating test, one with a Lab certification.


** Go get ****ed with your ASININE certification crap !!!!!!!



Aust Hi-Fi stuffed their test up.

I see no Lab accreditation details for either, they are probably both
wrong!


** Go get ****ed with your ASININE certification crap !!!!!!!


One ESL 63 gives 87 dB SPL at 1 metre on axis in **free air** from 1
nominal watt of wide band pink noise (50 Hz to 15 kHz) At 2.5 metres,
installed in a typical lounge room, the reading is 85.5 dB SPL on axis.
The SPL does not drop the usual 6 dB for double distance in the near
field since the sound source is so large.

Interesting statement, care to expand on it?


** The inverse square law does not apply in the near field of any source.



Add a second ESL63 and the pressure increases 5.5 dB to 90 dB - on
axis of both.


More semantic acrobatics I see.


** More ****wit word games .....


You never mentioned TWO when comparing to
box speakers,


** I gave SPL values in dB.

There was no comparison.



** The speaker is flat ( flatter than most any other) to 40 Hz in a
typicalroom, with well under 1% THD at 104 dB SPL from a pair at the
listening
spot. That is what the data shows.


So if the room suits, it is OK,


** Typical rooms suit well.


just like many box speakers.


** Which boom like all **** in typical rooms.


If not all bets are off.



** Go get rooted - you asinine liar.



......... Phil

"roverT"


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
An increase in demand with no other change in the market normally
causes asking prices to *rise*.

ONLY if supply is limited.

** Did you see the words - "no other change " ???????????


Yep, NO change in ability to supply. ie. If the supply is unlimited,



** No even air in unlimited - go get screwed arsehole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



A reduction in price increases demand.
ONLY IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO OWN.

** If that did not exist then the product would not.

Like hell, the world is full of failed products.


** No - the world is full of failed people - like you ARSEHOLE !!!!





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