In , Sander deWaal wrote :

(jclause) said:

In article , says...

I also know (and Villchur knew this, too) that gilding the lily
does not mean perfection.


Now "gilding the lily" can be good
When Allison had done all he could
Peter Walker's ol' quad
Does away with the facade
And allows the music to be understood.

Hammingaway

Agreed...
Don't know why but it remembers me a recent thread about "high-end audio"
and "wine"...

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
you judge it.

I have not judged it.

Sure you have.

As best I can recall, when Lip****z
did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
have much use for them in mathematical terms.

Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
brains.

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Midrange, midrange, midrange.

By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

That's why Gradient subs were made: to reduce Quad midrange clarity.

Stephen

In article . com,
says...


Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker.


Now Howie, he ain't into the quad
As we know, Mr. Allison's his "God"
He likes the nine-o-one
An' he thinks it's fun..
While to others sound that splatters seems odd.

Hammingaway

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:58:45 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?

Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
early Quad models.

You need to look a little closer at the various Quad speakers, Howard.

I know enough about speaker sound now to realize that there
is nothing mysterious about what speakers are called upon to
do. And what the Quad does that is special is not going to
add up to all that much. I also know (and Villchur knew
this, too) that gilding the lily does not mean perfection.

Why don't you get rid of your Allisons and stick with AR3s then?

You STILL need to look at the dimensions of the speaker, 'cause I
think you're confusing them with huge panel speakers.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:02:05 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
you judge it.

I have not judged it.

Sure you have.

As best I can recall, when Lip****z
did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
have much use for them in mathematical terms.

Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
brains.

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Hmmmm, Howard...you're starting to get it, even if you don't even know
it.

By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

So says the guy who's never heard a subwoofer'd Quad system.

Does that mean that your Allisons are lacking in clarity and detail?

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:03:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

Actually, it's HOWARD that doesn't seem to know that.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:

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

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating element, which
used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board of annular
rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped into a lake.
These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11 miles of wire!)
which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound first at the
center and last at the periphery, as if it were a radiating sphere‹the
ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point source with
an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The single element in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind, treble-beaming
effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher
frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
delay
line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:


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

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
element,
which
used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board
of annular
rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped
into a lake.
These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11
miles of wire!)
which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound
first at the
center and last at the periphery, as if it were a
radiating sphere
ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point
source
with an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The
single element
in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
treble-beaming
effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
you, Stephen?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher
frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
delay
line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:


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

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
element... The single element in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
you, Stephen?

http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Pat...ents/walpd.jpg

What does "single element" mean to you?

Stephen

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:55:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
element,
which
used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board
of annular
rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped
into a lake.
These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11
miles of wire!)
which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound
first at the
center and last at the periphery, as if it were a
radiating sphere
ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point
source
with an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The
single element
in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
treble-beaming
effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
you, Stephen?

What do "unique radiating element", "flat diaphragm", "it" in relation
to the phrase "flat diaphragm", and "single element" mean to you?

Of course, I tried to make the point that Howard was mistaken about
the Quad's design when it came to being worried about bad comb
filtering, so that horse left the barn a long time ago.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher
frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked
the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the
Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
delay
line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry
Greenhill:



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

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique
radiating
element... The single element in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple
panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean
to
you, Stephen?


http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Pat...ents/walpd.jpg

At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

What does "single element" mean to you?

Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
be pretty obvious, Stephen?

The fact that you had to change references suggests that
you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

Arny Krueger wrote:
the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
each successively delayed in time.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
each successively delayed in time.

If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.

If the various annular elements cause different portions of
the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
are multiple diaphragms.

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From everything I have gathered, when it comes to speaker
performance the ESL-63 provided a solution to a problem that
simply does not exist to any important degree with good,
other-technology speakers.

Lip****z also feels (or at least felt a number of years ago)
that a coincident-microphone recording technique is (or at
least when he wrote an article dealing with the topic, was
at that time) superior to other techniques, such as the
spaced array. I have listened to enough recordings by now to
believe that he was only half right, with a host of other
factors being equally as important or even more important.

Perhaps he is also only half right about the ESL-63.

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
each successively delayed in time.

If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.


No




If the various annular elements cause different portions of
the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
are multiple diaphragms.



No. I see the concept is over your head.





Scott Wheeler

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:03:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

Actually, it's HOWARD that doesn't seem to know that.

I am fully aware of the point (pun intended) behind the
design of the ESL-63. I never said it made use of a
monolithic diaphragm.

My take on the speaker, with its concentric-ring driving
surface, and ever-shrinking radiating surface as the
frequency climbs, is that it is a solution looking for a
problem to solve. A problem that most conventional speakers
do not have to an audibly meaningful degree.

On the other hand, its "solution" notwithstanding, the
speaker should still suffer from various other nettling
little, electrostatic-design-related problems that those
other, more conventional speakers will rarely encounter to a
significant extent.

Yeah, Dave, I have not heard the system, but as best I can
tell it is an overkill, Rube Goldberg approach to speaker
building. A way to make a design that has inherent problems
overcome those problems while still adhering to belief that
some have in electrostatic speaker technology.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Midrange, midrange, midrange.

In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
considerably below the range where the response falls off
and gets choppy.

I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:02:05 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

So says the guy who's never heard a subwoofer'd Quad system.

This artifact would hold with any system or combination of
systems.

Does that mean that your Allisons are lacking in clarity and detail?

Note that this apparent loss in clarity does not have
anything to do with the quality of the speakers. It involves
the way the ear response to wide-bandwidth sound in
comparison to bandwidth limited (in the bass) performance.
Filter out the bass from any wide-bandwidth signal source
and there will be an apparent improvement in overall
clarity.

What you tweakos do not know about psychoacoustics would
fill a book.

Howard Ferstler

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:22:01 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Pat...ents/walpd.jpg

At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

It worked earlier this morning. You should probably try it again. It's
simply the patent page which clearly shows the rings.

What does "single element" mean to you?

Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
be pretty obvious, Stephen?

Yeah - it's pretty obvious all right, unlike YOUR rather vague
interpretation.

The fact that you had to change references suggests that
you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

Amazing how you can spin this.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:18:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From everything I have gathered, when it comes to speaker
performance the ESL-63 provided a solution to a problem that
simply does not exist to any important degree with good,
other-technology speakers.

Lip****z also feels (or at least felt a number of years ago)
that a coincident-microphone recording technique is (or at
least when he wrote an article dealing with the topic, was
at that time) superior to other techniques, such as the
spaced array. I have listened to enough recordings by now to
believe that he was only half right, with a host of other
factors being equally as important or even more important.

Perhaps he is also only half right about the ESL-63.

Maybe he was only half right about response curves of large-diaphragm
drivers.

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

I guess we should use this analogy when discussing your relationship
with Mr. Allison. I also wonder if his opinion of you is clouded by
the fact that you are one of his biggest promoters.

BTW, I DID speak to Roy once, on the telephone, for about a minute. He
had the flu and couldn't meet with me at the factory. I wished him a
speedy recovery and then went to see the immigrant ladies paint doping
material on woofers with house paint brushes. It was charming.

Howard Ferstler wrote:
As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one
could say that Churchill was acquainted with Joe
Stalin, too. I wonder what Dr. Lip****z really thinks
about your magazine.

Stanley does indeed have some issue with my opinions
on audio. However, when I was having a spot of bother
with the INS some years ago, he very kindly wrote a
testimonial on my behalf, for which I will always be
in his debt.

Regarding your opinions on the sound of the Quad
ESL-63, I do feel that those opinions would be
better informed had you ever auditioned the
loudspeaker.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:18:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

I guess we should use this analogy when discussing your relationship
with Mr. Allison. I also wonder if his opinion of you is clouded by
the fact that you are one of his biggest promoters.

Actually, Roy and I get along in a championship way, but
mainly via email. (For one thing, we swap internet jokes.)
You do need to remember that he proofed all of the audio
sections of my 1991 book, High Fidelity Audio-Video Systems,
and proofed several sections in my 1994 book, The Home
Theater Companion. If we did not get along and agree on most
topics, that kind of collaboration would not have happened.

Roy is anything but boisterous the way I am, and so he
probably would be a bit unsettled by my performance on RAO
and my often arm-waving enthusiasm for what he has
accomplished. In any case, it is pointless for me to
formally "promote" him these days, since he is retired. I do
like to point out his legacy, however.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
each successively delayed in time.

If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.

I doubt if even berrylium diaphragms move as a "single unit".

If the various annular elements cause different portions of
the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
are multiple diaphragms.

In this case we have multiple concentric diaphragms driven in time
coordinated manner to simulate the response of a point source. Somehow
I don't think the math Howard is referring to takes any of this into
consideration.

ScottW

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one
could say that Churchill was acquainted with Joe
Stalin, too. I wonder what Dr. Lip****z really thinks
about your magazine.

Stanley does indeed have some issue with my opinions
on audio.

Having read some of his work, I am not surprised.

However, when I was having a spot of bother
with the INS some years ago, he very kindly wrote a
testimonial on my behalf, for which I will always be
in his debt.

John, regarding you as a recording engineer I would be glad
to give positive testimony concerning your competence. Not
your editorial work, however, although your speaker
reviewing seems to be pretty good, even though I have not
read many of your reviews. I know of one competent engineer
who has no use at all for your magazine's philosophy, but
who thinks your speaker reviews are first rate.

Regarding your opinions on the sound of the Quad
ESL-63, I do feel that those opinions would be
better informed had you ever auditioned the
loudspeaker.

No doubt. Unlikely to happen, however.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Midrange, midrange, midrange.

In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
considerably below the range where the response falls off
and gets choppy.

Unless there were some kind of design compensation, of course.

I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.

Yes, I just read a reviewer who praised the 63 because he had "become
tired of speakers that recess the midrange to cater to the fashionable
craving for more 'depth.'"

Stephen

PS The review (of the 989) mentions an upgrade of the delay line wire to
OFC.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.

You're over the line, Howard.

Stephen

ScottW wrote:

In this case we have multiple concentric diaphragms driven in time
coordinated manner to simulate the response of a point source. Somehow
I don't think the math Howard is referring to takes any of this into
consideration.

This is correct. Lip****z was dealing with a fixed-diaphragm
model.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
will have a skewed response curve at higher
frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked
the
artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the
Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
delay
line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry
Greenhill:



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

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique
radiating
element... The single element in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple
panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean
to
you, Stephen?


http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Pat...ents/walpd.jpg

At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

That's odd; I checked it just before I posted. It's working now.

What does "single element" mean to you?

Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
be pretty obvious, Stephen?

The fact that you had to change references suggests that
you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

Hint: a diaphragm is not a voice coil.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

Midrange, midrange, midrange.

In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
considerably below the range where the response falls off
and gets choppy.

Unless there were some kind of design compensation, of course.

I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.

Yes, I just read a reviewer who praised the 63 because he had "become
tired of speakers that recess the midrange to cater to the fashionable
craving for more 'depth.'"

Yep, that recessed-midrange depth artifact can indeed exist,
particularly in smaller listening rooms. The result may be a
flat, clean first-arrival signal but with a weak
reverberant-field supporting signal. It can actually sound
quite good under some conditions.

Many two-way systems pretty much automatically have this
kind of suppressed midrange, due to the requirements of
their combination woofer/midrange drivers. Generally, the
result is a reverberant-field sag beginning at 800 to 1000
Hz, bottoming out at maybe 2 to 2.5 kHz, and then not coming
back up to average levels below 800 Hz until as high up as 4
kHz. The dip can bottom out at anywhere from 3 to 6 dB,
depending upon the diameter of the woofer/midrange driver
and the crossover design. I have discussed this artifact in
several The Sensible Sound commentary articles, as well as
in numerous reviews.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.

You're over the line, Howard.

Stephen

But they did not like each other.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.

You're over the line, Howard.

But they did not like each other.

Okay, you're over the line and inapposite.

Stephen