[Andre Jute]

wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain. The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

Hi RATs!

Perhaps we each hear whatever we think we hear, even if we do not
always communicate what we think as clearly as we might if we were not
just excited by Music, but Masters of Words.

Or, bored by everything, even our own toilet vocabulary, right Joy Boy
Berty? Sigh.

I am amused by people who think it is important for them to spread the
word that it all sounds the same to them. Gosh. If only I could be that
perceptive ...

And, let us be honest, for a brief moment, if you don't like tubes nor
own any tube equipment you enjoy, what makes you think those of us high
on the mythology need you to talk us back to your dreary planet? Just
because you can't get an erection does not mean sex is stupid

All speakers have their moments. Some have more than others. None get
all the moments. Life ain't pretty, sometimes, but, our audio
engineering expertise is pretty evenly spread - a bit thin

Happy Ears!
Al

[paul packer]

On 28 Aug 2006 16:53:00 -0700, "
wrote:

Just because you can't get an erection does not mean sex is stupid


Eh?

[Andre Jute]

Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:

You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

We should all have paid more attention.

As I say, I'm sorry that it happened to a fellow with stacked Quads,
whom I would otherwise have expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with
me against the barbarians. Don't feel bad about it. You are in noted
company, including Krueger, Pinkostinko, MeKelpie, Poopie, Pompass
Plodnick (was that Magnequest Scummie's name Pasternick, something like
that), and suchlike genealogical accidents too impressed by themselves
to laugh at the world.

But all is not lost. I am always vastly entertained when people tell me
how great their wit is, and especially when they tell me how much
wittier they are than poor little old me. I admire them for aiming as
high as the certified gold standard, even when they manage only to
pucture their self-esteem against my ankles. I imagine that eventually,
if they are not too stupid, they learn that wit isn't claimed but
demonstrated.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...re%20Jute.html


wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:

You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

We should all have paid more attention.

As I say, I'm sorry that it happened to a fellow with stacked Quads,
whom I would otherwise have expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with
me against the barbarians. Don't feel bad about it. You are in noted
company, including Krueger, Pinkostinko, MeKelpie, Poopie, Pompass
Plodnick (was that Magnequest Scummie's name Pasternick, something like
that), and suchlike genealogical accidents too impressed by themselves
to laugh at the world.

But all is not lost. I am always vastly entertained when people tell me
how great their wit is, and especially when they tell me how much
wittier they are than poor little old me. I admire them for aiming as
high as the certified gold standard, even when they manage only to
pucture their self-esteem against my ankles. I imagine that eventually,
if they are not too stupid, they learn that wit isn't claimed but
demonstrated.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/T...re%20Jute.html


wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

I'l have a drink to that. All is for the best in this best of the
possible worlds now that I have your word that I own the best in the
world.. Four stacked Quad Esl 57 are residing right now in a place of
honour in my listening room.


2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.


Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.

Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek.
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.

Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval?

Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground. Cheer up and lighten
up- you're not alone. Paul Packer who is is much funnier than I'll ever
be has the same problem with equally deadly serious Arny Krueger. What
happened to the famous English sense of humour? Or did it emigrate to
Australia to join Paul and left you behind all alone and easily upset?
On reflexion maybe I'm throwing my hat up in the air about my Quads too
soon. If your taste matches your reading comprehension....


LOL.

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair

Now that we know which is the FOURTH best speaker in the world- did
you "test" any others? Like five or six or seven or a hundred and two?
On the other hand it does not matter because I think that "testing"
speaker preferences by ABXing is self-defeating nonsense. That's how
"scientific" I am.
You still don't give us a progress report about the part played by Mr.
Ludwig in the Chinese Communist party conspiracy to keep you out of the
limelight. Mr. Jute the preceding is a leg-pull, a LEG-PULL. Get it?
Don't worry it will all turn out OK. Hope this helps.
Regards. Yours Ludovic M.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg ),
and only then multi-driver boxes of any persuasion; another notable
trend was that the bigger the box, the more likely it was to be chosen,
which puts bookshelf speakers in their place. The smaller the
mutltidriver boxes, the more electronics they need to gimmick the sound
right, the less chance they have from behind the curtain with certified
golden ears. Interestingly, when I tried a Yamaha DSP (whose effects I
loved to bits -- now that's a *great* use of silicon) as the amp,
virtually the entire test group complained of "unnatural sound" on all
the speaks.

Mystery upon mystyery.

Nah, only if you let the meterheads bull**** you. When you bring the
best to test the best, the coincidence between blind and sighted tests
is always very striking. One can always trust the taste of cultured
people of some achievement (I'm not talking of trendies and hangers-on
and bureaucrats now -- their opinion is what I tell them it should be).

Ludovic Mirabel

Hope this helps.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
---------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Jute says:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.
Mr. Jute answers:

"Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
" You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek."
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute -

Anxious not to be classed with Mr. Hornbecks unsophisticated
compatriots and to learn from those more worldly than myself I reread
your posting several times:.
I found the hilarious passages that must be the "subtle jokes" you're
referring to:
I asked you: "How was this classification arrived at?"
You answered:
"Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls".
Now that I get it I, your "dear fellow" and devoted pupil in the humour
doctoral class, I'm seized with helpless laughter. How could I have
missed it?
Next, even subtler (and funnier) joke
I asked naively thinking that my satirical intention will be obvious:
"Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval? "
You answered:
"LOL.
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain. The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me. The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair"
Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them. Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?
Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something. Nothing like an example.

[paul packer]

On 30 Aug 2006 11:30:45 -0700, "
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:

Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them. Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?
Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something. Nothing like an example.


But you must admit Andre IS funny, Ludo. That thing about people
throwing themselves against his ankles---I still chuckle every time I
read that. I mean, you don't get truly profound conceptual wit like
that every day, even on RAO, the source of most of the wit on usenet.
I think you should give Andre his due.

Plus all his wit is malicious, which is the kind I like best. Don
Rickles, where are you!?

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 11:30:45 -0700, "
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:

Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them. Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?
Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something. Nothing like an example.


But you must admit Andre IS funny, Ludo. That thing about people
throwing themselves against his ankles---I still chuckle every time I
read that. I mean, you don't get truly profound conceptual wit like
that every day, even on RAO, the source of most of the wit on usenet.
I think you should give Andre his due.

Plus all his wit is malicious, which is the kind I like best. Don
Rickles, where are you!?
--------------------------------------------------
Paul says:
But you must admit Andre IS funny, Ludo. That thing about people
throwing themselves against his ankles---I still chuckle every time I
read that. I mean, you don't get truly profound conceptual wit like
that every day, even on RAO, the source of most of the wit on usenet.
I think you should give Andre his due.

Of course he is hilariously funny. Your evidence is foolproof. I tried
to match it quoting his nomination of "a $200:00 speaker I designed "
for the 4th. best in the world.
Some puzzlement: does he too think it is funny?t Is it a part of his
"subtle wit" praised by his American admirer ? Or is he at his best
when he intends to be taken seriously ie. is he unintentionally funny.
Anyone wants to vote?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Andre Jute]

wrote:

Big snip of repetitons for bandwidth.

Mr. Jute says:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.
Mr. Jute answers:

"Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
" You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek."
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute -

Anxious not to be classed with Mr. Hornbecks unsophisticated
compatriots and to learn from those more worldly than myself I reread
your posting several times:.
I found the hilarious passages that must be the "subtle jokes" you're
referring to:
I asked you: "How was this classification arrived at?"
You answered:
"Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls".
Now that I get it I, your "dear fellow" and devoted pupil in the humour
doctoral class, I'm seized with helpless laughter. How could I have
missed it?

It's a multiple choice answer, see? If you're a qualified friendly, you
clasp my hand warmly because I've just made you an insider. If you're a
hostile, the manner of my answer patronises you without you quite
knowing why or how, and you react angrily and make a fool of yourself,
as you have, as you continue to do.

Next, even subtler (and funnier) joke
I asked naively thinking that my satirical intention will be obvious:
"Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval? "
You answered:

"LOL.
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have etc

No, that wasn't my answer. I put a linespace between "LOL" and the next
paragraph to separate two ideas. It is another multiple choice
presented, see? If you're a fool merely looking to score a quick point
off me, you will rush over the linespace -- and have your tires
shredded by the tintacks in the linespace following "LOL". Wit is as
much what is said as what is not said. Empty space resonates, though
God knows it is a disgraceful circumstance that I need to say something
so basic on an *audiophile* conference, that I need to tell a Quad
electrostat owner something that obvious.

"LOL" refers to an *earned* right to sneer at Krueger and his
pretentions. The linespace was a warning to ask if you didn't already
know, a flashing neon sign to anyone sensitive to the language (as a
wit must be). You blundered straight past it.

"LOL.

[[[Linespace reinserted to change gears from establishing my *earned*
right to sneer at Krueger and his pretentions to sneering at Mirabel
and his pretentions:]]]

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

I don't understand why you didn't get this. I even put quotation marks
around *scientific* to alert you in case you were dullwitted. For you
to miss it makes you very dullwitted indeed. What do you want me to do,
use emoticons, what your claque of dullards calls "smilies"?

It is so boring to explain a joke but here we go. We're still talking
about the single sentence
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.
The "you" in the active "you're" will be dismissed as everyday
vernacular by a friendly but, in a position where I could have used
"we" or "one" or even "I" and didn't, ties a hostile through the chain
of association to Krueger's stupidities. The word *scientific* to a
friendly is a smack at Krueger's pretentions, a delicious joke; I put
it in quotes to help you decide which you are and you missed the boat.
"ABX-ed" is another sneer; when I spent USD160m a year on market
research I called this class of taste investigation "placebo tests"; it
is well known that I think pretentiously "scientific" bow-wow words
like "ABX" merely identify the user as a jumped-up techie presuming to
judge cultural questions he doesn't even know exist. "Behind a curtain"
is another sneer at the Krueger perversion of "scientific method", and
also a double entendre about John Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" which has
earned me several "heh-hehs" from friends in Boston. The implication is
that from behind the veil emerges merely more non-kulturny ignorance
(cake homogenized sizewise -- never mind, Mr Mirabel, it is a joke for
my Boston chums).

Again, the sentence we have just parsed presents you with several
choices of at least two answers each. Who you will be proven to be, and
whether consequently I approve of you, depends on which interpretation
you choose to react to. Your observed reactions tell me that you are a
chequebook audiophile and a wannabe netwarrior, that I needn't waste
too much time on you.

Let's take one more sentence:

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me.

"Worldclass reputations" should have told you this is an ironic
statement. It is another point where I tell you I back my own
*cultural* judgement regardless of the opinion of anyone else. Your
original mail invited me to take potshots at Krueger and his ABX Krowd,
and I did (this is another), and you were so thick you misinterpreted
them all and took them for potshots at you. And *then* you tell us what
a wit you are! Just as well you told us or we wouldn't have known.

The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair"
Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them.

Eh? I share information with you that cost me a lot of time and money
to gather -- and you want to practice your infantile sarcasm on me?

Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?

"Try writing for"? Doesn't work like that. I suppose amateurs may "try"
writing for a journal. But a professional writer is given a commission,
paid in advance, guaranteed publication.

Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something.

Thank you for the invitation but I don't see any gain from wasting more
time explaining the obvious to you.

Nothing like an example.

Above are the examples you chose, fully elucidated. If you don't like
the truth, tough.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the ability by just smiling quietly to induce apoplectic
fits in the unworthy

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

Big snip of repetitons for bandwidth.

Mr. Jute says:
Ludovic Mirabel ) wrote:
Mr. Jute, my poor jokes fell on stony ground.
Mr. Jute answers:

"Oh no, not at all, my dear fellow. It is I who must apologize most
profusely that my jokes were so subtle that they caused you to
embarrass yourself in public. Chris Hornbeck did recently warn both me
and those of his fellow-Americans less sophisticated than him:
" You write with a humor style somewhere drier than Brut,
so shouldn't complain when Americans miss the tongue in
cheek."
-- Chris Hornbeck to Andre Jute -

Anxious not to be classed with Mr. Hornbecks unsophisticated
compatriots and to learn from those more worldly than myself I reread
your posting several times:.
I found the hilarious passages that must be the "subtle jokes" you're
referring to:
I asked you: "How was this classification arrived at?"
You answered:
"Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls".
Now that I get it I, your "dear fellow" and devoted pupil in the humour
doctoral class, I'm seized with helpless laughter. How could I have
missed it?

It's a multiple choice answer, see? If you're a qualified friendly, you
clasp my hand warmly because I've just made you an insider. If you're a
hostile, the manner of my answer patronises you without you quite
knowing why or how, and you react angrily and make a fool of yourself,
as you have, as you continue to do.

Next, even subtler (and funnier) joke
I asked naively thinking that my satirical intention will be obvious:
"Was it
checked with Mr. Krueger for the ABX approval? "
You answered:

"LOL.
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have etc

No, that wasn't my answer. I put a linespace between "LOL" and the next
paragraph to separate two ideas. It is another multiple choice
presented, see? If you're a fool merely looking to score a quick point
off me, you will rush over the linespace -- and have your tires
shredded by the tintacks in the linespace following "LOL". Wit is as
much what is said as what is not said. Empty space resonates, though
God knows it is a disgraceful circumstance that I need to say something
so basic on an *audiophile* conference, that I need to tell a Quad
electrostat owner something that obvious.

"LOL" refers to an *earned* right to sneer at Krueger and his
pretentions. The linespace was a warning to ask if you didn't already
know, a flashing neon sign to anyone sensitive to the language (as a
wit must be). You blundered straight past it.

"LOL.

[[[Linespace reinserted to change gears from establishing my *earned*
right to sneer at Krueger and his pretentions to sneering at Mirabel
and his pretentions:]]]

Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.

I don't understand why you didn't get this. I even put quotation marks
around *scientific* to alert you in case you were dullwitted. For you
to miss it makes you very dullwitted indeed. What do you want me to do,
use emoticons, what your claque of dullards calls "smilies"?

It is so boring to explain a joke but here we go. We're still talking
about the single sentence
Since you're so keen to show how "scientific" you are, sure, I have
ABXed ESL and horns behind a curtain.
The "you" in the active "you're" will be dismissed as everyday
vernacular by a friendly but, in a position where I could have used
"we" or "one" or even "I" and didn't, ties a hostile through the chain
of association to Krueger's stupidities. The word *scientific* to a
friendly is a smack at Krueger's pretentions, a delicious joke; I put
it in quotes to help you decide which you are and you missed the boat.
"ABX-ed" is another sneer; when I spent USD160m a year on market
research I called this class of taste investigation "placebo tests"; it
is well known that I think pretentiously "scientific" bow-wow words
like "ABX" merely identify the user as a jumped-up techie presuming to
judge cultural questions he doesn't even know exist. "Behind a curtain"
is another sneer at the Krueger perversion of "scientific method", and
also a double entendre about John Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" which has
earned me several "heh-hehs" from friends in Boston. The implication is
that from behind the veil emerges merely more non-kulturny ignorance
(cake homogenized sizewise -- never mind, Mr Mirabel, it is a joke for
my Boston chums).

Again, the sentence we have just parsed presents you with several
choices of at least two answers each. Who you will be proven to be, and
whether consequently I approve of you, depends on which interpretation
you choose to react to. Your observed reactions tell me that you are a
chequebook audiophile and a wannabe netwarrior, that I needn't waste
too much time on you.

Let's take one more sentence:

The tests told me which of my
subjects (generally practising musicians, some with worldclass
reputations) have the taste to agree with me.

"Worldclass reputations" should have told you this is an ironic
statement. It is another point where I tell you I back my own
*cultural* judgement regardless of the opinion of anyone else. Your
original mail invited me to take potshots at Krueger and his ABX Krowd,
and I did (this is another), and you were so thick you misinterpreted
them all and took them for potshots at you. And *then* you tell us what
a wit you are! Just as well you told us or we wouldn't have known.

The vast majority choose
either of the ESL (depending on specialty, for instance singers
absolutely adore the ESL57), then the horn, then any point source
speaker (including one I designed to be built for under 200 bucks a
pair"
Mr. Jute I see the light. "Subtle wit" can go no further. You're bang
in there with the best of them.

Eh? I share information with you that cost me a lot of time and money
to gather -- and you want to practice your infantile sarcasm on me?

Did you try writing for that
screamingly funny citadel of subtle English wit the "Punch" mag.?

"Try writing for"? Doesn't work like that. I suppose amateurs may "try"
writing for a journal. But a professional writer is given a commission,
paid in advance, guaranteed publication.

Ludovic Mirabel
Please don't hesitate to straighten me out if I'm still missing
something.

Thank you for the invitation but I don't see any gain from wasting more
time explaining the obvious to you.

Nothing like an example.

Above are the examples you chose, fully elucidated. If you don't like
the truth, tough.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the ability by just smiling quietly to induce apoplectic
fits in the unworthy

Now, that you documented for the at length how witty and wise you are I
feel like apologising for ever having doubted it.
As soon as I reemerge to take breath I'll reread your sermon several
times and try to make head or tail of your occult message(s).
Necessarily it will take time.
In the meantime- keep on trucking Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On 28 Aug 2006 18:20:26 -0700, "
wrote:


Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

Of course you realize that such a plaque will improve the sound no
end--Andre himself guarantees that. And if you scribble on the back of
it "I adore Andre Jute" in Italics (doesn't work otherwise) the sound
will be so three dimensionally lifelike you will probably be seriously
injured by your reaction (backflips, spinning in the air etc). I
suggest you leave things as they are. :-)

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 18:20:26 -0700, "
wrote:


Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

Of course you realize that such a plaque will improve the sound no
end--Andre himself guarantees that. And if you scribble on the back of
it "I adore Andre Jute" in Italics (doesn't work otherwise) the sound
will be so three dimensionally lifelike you will probably be seriously
injured by your reaction (backflips, spinning in the air etc). I
suggest you leave things as they are. :-)

Your sage advice reached me just in time.The miracle of the internet
prevented serious injury.
The only problem that remains is the mysterious sign at the end of your
message.
Like that :-). I see that it is called a "smiley". Is it meant to
restrict your true meaning to the members of a smiley club? Can anyone
join? Are Andre Jute and Arny Krueger members?
Ludovic M.

[Bill Riel]

In article . com,
says...

The only problem that remains is the mysterious sign at the end of your
message.
Like that :-). I see that it is called a "smiley". Is it meant to
restrict your true meaning to the members of a smiley club? Can anyone
join? Are Andre Jute and Arny Krueger members?

Ludo,

you too can join this illustrious club. Basically they are called
"emoticons" and the intent of their use is to help clarify a posters
meaning (since written language contains none of cues that face to face
communication conveys).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

Of course, many people use them to "justify" nasty behaviour, but you'll
never see examples of that on RAO ;-)

--
Bill

[Andre Jute]

wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

Jenn, how could you? And just after I ordered an engraved plaque to put
on myQuads:
"Endorsed by Andre Jute"
Ludovic Mirabel

To avoid encouraging checkbook "audiophiles", those plaques are
sanctioned for speakers of first class provenance in pleasing
installions in superior reproduction chains by cultured music-lovers of
the highest sensitivity.

Perhaps you would care to explain how you qualify, Mr Mirabel.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Jenn wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

I LOVE the sound of the Quads you mentioned, but the speakers in the
best system I've ever heard was the Genesis 1.1 system. Of course,
there is a huge difference of scale here, but that system was something
I'll never forget.

The second sentence of the manufacturer's blurb for the Genesis 1.1
runs "At $165,000 per system, the Genesis 1.1 is a product people long
to own." If even the makers are more impressed with the price and
exclusivity than the quality, I start to wonder how they will sound
behind the veil of ignorance (what the jumped-up techies describe as
"ABX tests"). Tell us, Jenn, did you decide the Genesis 1.1 are the
best before you heard the price or after? I understand you're talking
about the system rather than the speakers in isolation -- in fact,
that's altogether a really good point you're making, that in other
people's homea we judge a system, not a component.

Andre Jute

[Margaret von B]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

You're not being nice to Mr. Jute- and that after, he so modestly, put
his own $ 200:00
speaker as only the fifth best in the world.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Andre Jute]

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

Of course, if you were as wealthy as I certainly wish you could all be,
you would have Quads for chamber music and a concert hall with built-in
underfloor horns beyond the swimming pool for symphonic music. Or, of
course, you would just hire a symphony orchestra and Jenn to conduct,
any time the mood took you.

By the way, though I did once buy new Quad ESL 57 (they're long since
gone), the Quad ESL of various types I own now were acquired used,
previously loved by a little old lady who used them only on Sundays for
church music, abused by the BBC (via rebuilding at Huntingdon),
delivered by Peter Walker himself to an old chappie who saved five
years for just one when they cost the price of car and willed to me by
him, and so on. For the price of crappy "high-end" boxes you can have
second-hand Quads that will serve for years still.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

With stacked ESL57, would you not get a line array driver effect,
with sound being radiated in vertical wave fronts rather than tending to be
spherical?
This is suppoed to aid imaging I am told, but having never
used a line array speaker or stacked quads, then I really don't know if
claims about
imaging are correct. Does a line array make a violin sound like its 3
metres high
and played by a giant?

Suspended line array dynamic speakers are increasingly popular due to
sensitivity gains
and variable directionality especially with PA systems coupled to PC
controlled
speaker directionality so the sound at the back of the audience can be
adjusted to be about the same loudness
and F response as at the front row.
At a recent cultural festival gig in town last summer line array systems
were used and were
very much smaller but better than walls of much larger "normal" speakers
each side of the stage,
and I had little urge to use ear plugs necessary at such events.

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute]

Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

With stacked ESL57, would you not get a line array driver effect,
with sound being radiated in vertical wave fronts rather than tending to be
spherical?

The best way to stack two ESL57 is definitely vertically, top to top
with the upper one upside down. Two further ESL57 added to the same
stack would go in the same configuration and then that new unit would
be placed back to back with the first unit at an angle, the open end of
the angle against the side wall of the room, possibly at the halfway
point of its length.

A Bessel Array isn't a line array; the speakers are just placed in
horizontal line. What in fact happens is that the signal is processed
inside the multiple amplifiers required (or in a very complicated
pre-amp which is theoretically possible but which gives me a
mathmigraine just to contemplate) by attenuating and inverting it for
only a few of the speakers in the set, so that the set creates a single
image which has stereo elements. That is why Bessel Arrays of any size
are normally built with point source drivers rather than multi-driver
boxes.

This is suppoed to aid imaging I am told, but having never
used a line array speaker or stacked quads, then I really don't know if
claims about
imaging are correct. Does a line array make a violin sound like its 3
metres high
and played by a giant?

You're talking about an intirely different sort of array to the Bessel
Array I have in mind, which ia a row of speakers horisontally disposed
and manipulated to produce a continuous single wide image with stereo
elements. One would normally build it only with point source speakers
or faux point source speakers like ESL63.

Suspended line array dynamic speakers are increasingly popular due to
sensitivity gains
and variable directionality especially with PA systems coupled to PC
controlled
speaker directionality so the sound at the back of the audience can be
adjusted to be about the same loudness
and F response as at the front row.

About twenty years ago I was given the Quad II that had been the design
studio reference tube amps at Philips of Eindhoven. The retired Philips
engineer who gave them to me had cheap PA speaks in foam balls hanging
from the two stories-high peaked ceiling of his house, which was also
his listening room after he broke out all the interior walls and and
intermediate floors. Those PA speakers, under the control of a Yamaha
DSP or a bank of gimmicked small, cheap tube amps, gave amazing
quality. He told me then that such arrays of cheap speaks were the
future. Bessel, incidentally, was a Philips engineer and Tony had met
him.

At a recent cultural festival gig in town last summer line array systems
were used and were
very much smaller but better than walls of much larger "normal" speakers
each side of the stage,
and I had little urge to use ear plugs necessary at such events.

Says something awful about the organizers of such events, and the
expectations of their clientele, if those aware that ears are fragile
need to wear earplugs!

Patrick Turner.

BTW. Is that where you picked up your German lady friend?

Andre Jute
Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res -- family motto

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.

With stacked ESL57, would you not get a line array driver effect,
with sound being radiated in vertical wave fronts rather than tending to be
spherical?

The best way to stack two ESL57 is definitely vertically, top to top
with the upper one upside down. Two further ESL57 added to the same
stack would go in the same configuration and then that new unit would
be placed back to back with the first unit at an angle, the open end of
the angle against the side wall of the room, possibly at the halfway
point of its length.

A Bessel Array isn't a line array; the speakers are just placed in
horizontal line. What in fact happens is that the signal is processed
inside the multiple amplifiers required (or in a very complicated
pre-amp which is theoretically possible but which gives me a
mathmigraine just to contemplate) by attenuating and inverting it for
only a few of the speakers in the set, so that the set creates a single
image which has stereo elements. That is why Bessel Arrays of any size
are normally built with point source drivers rather than multi-driver
boxes.

You have completely boom-flazzeled me.
I am not familiar with a Bessel anything very much.

I just visualised having 4 stacked speakers 1,2,3,4 on top of each other to make
a column...



This is suppoed to aid imaging I am told, but having never
used a line array speaker or stacked quads, then I really don't know if
claims about
imaging are correct. Does a line array make a violin sound like its 3
metres high
and played by a giant?

You're talking about an intirely different sort of array to the Bessel
Array I have in mind, which ia a row of speakers horisontally disposed
and manipulated to produce a continuous single wide image with stereo
elements. One would normally build it only with point source speakers
or faux point source speakers like ESL63.

Hmmmmmm....



Suspended line array dynamic speakers are increasingly popular due to
sensitivity gains
and variable directionality especially with PA systems coupled to PC
controlled
speaker directionality so the sound at the back of the audience can be
adjusted to be about the same loudness
and F response as at the front row.

About twenty years ago I was given the Quad II that had been the design
studio reference tube amps at Philips of Eindhoven. The retired Philips
engineer who gave them to me had cheap PA speaks in foam balls hanging
from the two stories-high peaked ceiling of his house, which was also
his listening room after he broke out all the interior walls and and
intermediate floors. Those PA speakers, under the control of a Yamaha
DSP or a bank of gimmicked small, cheap tube amps, gave amazing
quality. He told me then that such arrays of cheap speaks were the
future. Bessel, incidentally, was a Philips engineer and Tony had met
him.

Foam balls with drivers are different to line arrays.....



At a recent cultural festival gig in town last summer line array systems
were used and were
very much smaller but better than walls of much larger "normal" speakers
each side of the stage,
and I had little urge to use ear plugs necessary at such events.

Says something awful about the organizers of such events, and the
expectations of their clientele, if those aware that ears are fragile
need to wear earplugs!

Patrick Turner.

BTW. Is that where you picked up your German lady friend?

Well, I met her through the local newspaper; its always worked better than trying

to date someone local via the dammed Internet, where about 300 local women
lurk and wait to snare the Ideal Man who doesn't exist.

But alas the German Lady romance didn't blossom and I am happily alone again.

Meanwhile I am doing about 200Km a week on the bike and have lost 4 Kg in 6
weeks,
and can ride up hills without granny gears.

I'd rather go for a good ride than a good root.

Patrick Turner.



Andre Jute
Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res -- family motto

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:

Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res -- family motto

I would expect so, given your behavior.

Gentle in manner, resolute in thing. Neither being either applicable or
accurate.

Suaviter in modo, fortiter in Gentle in manner, resolute in
execution.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

[Sander deWaal]

"Andre Jute" said:


I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.


I prefer Maggies ..........

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/654...rruimtept9.jpg

The dogs don't bite ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Andre Jute]

Sander DeWaal wrote:
"Andre Jute" said:


I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie. Go along to your plutocratic chum
Ludovic Mirabel and listen to his stacked Quads. You get 3dB extra
every time you stack another set of Quads. Four stacked-63 per side are
just about right for totally anti-social volumes in any room up to 44ft
long; more look like showing off. Or a Bessel Array with 7 or 11 ESL,
depending on how long your wall is and how much space you want to give
to amps to drive a Bessel, makes a very impressive stereo wall of
sound. Nobody could make dumb cracks about Uranus before such a wall of
sound.


I prefer Maggies ..........

I like Maggies too. I liked Margaret Thatcher (though she wrote me a
sharp note when I demonstrated that she is, according to the Communist
Manifesto of 1848, a better communist than Karl Marx), and several of
the ladies who carry my water and dry clothes up mountains for me are
called Margaret or Mairead (pronounced Muh-raid) which is Margaret in
Gaelic.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/654...rruimtept9.jpg

Can you run Maggies that close to the wall or ist a trick of
photographic perspective?

The dogs don't bite ;-)

I'm not worried. Dalmations have had a mystical affinity to me ever
since I called Cruella de Ville a psycho dyke.

Andre Jute

[Sander deWaal]

"Andre Jute" said:


Can you run Maggies that close to the wall or ist a trick of
photographic perspective?


The MG1s are about 1 meter from the wall, the SMGAs are a bit closer.
Not optimal theoretically, but in the listening position, this suited
me best.
The door on the left is a problem, though.
I need to put carpet on it, or hang some curtains behind the left
speakers.

In my hurry to finish a certain amplifier, I forgot to include a
volume pot to match levels between both pairs.....
The proto is built into the ugly Yamaha case that is on top of my even
uglier hybrid 19 inch case ;-)


Real beauty lies inside! (that's what my wife tells me every time I
look in the mirror and spot some more grey hairs....)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[paul packer]

On 30 Aug 2006 10:41:50 -0700, "Andre Jute" wrote:

several of the ladies who carry my water and dry clothes up mountains for me

Is Women's Lib altitude limited?

[Margaret von B]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie.

Quads are cheap, you dumb ass.

[George M. Middius]

Margaret von B said:

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie.

Quads are cheap, you dumb ass.

To paraphrase an old saw about inept engineer-wannabes: If you only have a
nickel, every greenback looks like a C-note.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Andre Jute]

Margaret von B wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Margaret von B wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.


Yeah, Planets sounds so grand with the Quads.

I'm sorry you're poor, Maggie.

Quads are cheap, you dumb ass.

Well then, you will have no problem stacking as many as required to
give you whatever thrill you require from your journeys in
interplanetary space.

So what is it you were whining about, then?

Andre Jute
Whose ass may be dumb,
whose ass may be numb
but who has no worries
about creeping cellulities

[[email protected]]

Andrew Jute McCoy diverted with:
crap about speakers....

The list is precisely as accurate, truthful and as factual as the
writer. Most specifically when the Lowther horns are added in... or any
other point-source "full-range" single driver.

It is the half-truths presented as the full-truths that are most
dangerous.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Tom Alaerts]

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

enjoy, Tom

[Patrick Turner]

Tom Alaerts wrote:

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

enjoy, Tom

The trouble with ESL57 is that many have come to the end of their service
lives and need to be
re-built by a specialist, and when listening to any given pair, you may be
hearing sub-optimum
music because of the panel problems.

There are a few guys in Oz here that do the restoration work of replacing
the
membranes for about aud $3,000 a pair, John Hall of melbourne is one,
and I think EAR Audio in Perth offer a kit, as well as their own brand of
ESL.

So afaiac, I wouldn't pay more than $100 for an old pair of Quad ESL57
because I know that sooner or later
I'd have to re-build them at rather a high expense.

I'd love to have a pair though just to see if what they say is true, that
they
image well and are non tiringly accurate and entertaining, ie, musical.


For many things I would like in life, I will have to win the lottery to
attain them...

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute]

Tom Alaerts wrote:
Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:
1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.
2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

Have you heard any of the newest Quads? First reactions are very good.
I love the 57, but it's a bit too limited as a universal speaker, the
63 can handle more music, but the midrange is -ever so slightly- less
superb than in the 57.

Personally, while I always loved Quad ESLs (myself I only have quad
electronics), I also think that there are many really superb speakers
these days. I think that the advantages of ESLs were more evident in
the past than nowadays.

Some other speakers which impressed me as much as ESLs -but in
different ways- over the years: big magneplanars with ribbon tweeter,
certain more upmarket Sonus Faber speakers, JBL S2600 (hardcore model
with an Everest-type horn), Bert Doppenberg's horn speakers with AER
fullrange drivers, and a speaker with those German white ceramic driver
units from Thiel (the German Thiel Acuton, not the American Thiel).

That's an interesting selection. I wouldn't mind hearing the newer
Quads. But, measured as pleasure per buck spent, I think my Quads win
hands down over anything else, including over Lowther horns. It seems
to me that Quad electrostats are the standard in every generation since
they appeared. Mr Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale in 1955 when he first
saw Peter Walker's first full range electrostatic speaker demonstrated
at the Waldorf Hotel in New York with Stanley Kelley (a maker of ribbon
speakers) "solemnl agreed to changin into black and meet in due course
in the workhouse." But the very next paragraph of Mr Briggs's
entertaining account starts, "But practical considerations always prove
in the long run to be more potent than theoretical or technical
perfection..."

The truth is that speaker fashions come and go but that I have never
heard any speaker for which I would exchange my Quad electrostats. The
key is not the immediate impact at a show or in a showroom but longterm
livability. There the Quads are supreme precisely because they are so
restrained. Quad electrostats are of couse not speakers for audiophiles
-- who are people who talk more about hi-fi than they listen to music.
Quad electrostats are for music lovers.

enjoy, Tom

Thanks, Tom.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[KMM]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

And which "much more expensive" speaker system outclasses even the
second best Lowther?

Here is a classification of the best speakers ever made:

1. Quad first series ESL of 1957. The speaker designer's reference.

2. Quad ESL63 of 1981.

3. Tannoy Royal Westminster horn. This is such a rare and expensive
beast, many don't count it, putting the Lowther below in third
position.

4. Any Lowther driver in a horn is a contender. The classical Lowther
drivers are not ranked by number or price but as units with their
enclosures. Fidelio horns to my ears sound best with PM6A, which are
about midway up the present price scale of Lowther drivers, though the
Fideliio enclosure is expensive to build.

This is my version of the Fidelio
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20T91HWAF3.jpg
and on one of these pics you can see my ESL63 behind the Fidelio horn
on test
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...0T68MZ417A.jpg

How was this classification arrived at?

Experience. Taste. Judgement. Consultation. Over forty years in the
concert halls.


Any list that does not inlcude Dynaudio is incomplete, and demonstrates a
lack of knowledge and hearing acuity in the person composing the list.

[[email protected]]

KMM wrote:

Any list that does not inlcude Dynaudio is incomplete, and demonstrates a
lack of knowledge and hearing acuity in the person composing the list.

Hi RATs!

Actually, thinking a list is clever and judicious use of one's time and
talents suggests a lack of both intelligence and insight.

OK for late night TV, but, otherwise, c'mon.

Just think of the horror! Krew's favorite 500,000 amps. Sigh!

Eyesore's favorite six million film caps. Sigh!

Oh, the humanity!

Happy Ears!
Al

I have two favorites: L and R!