Nomen Nescio wrote about Quad ESLs:


There is only one finer speaker in all history,

and that is its older sister, the ESL, often called ESL-57
A word about the bass of the Quad ESL-63,

mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I hear crap about its bass

being deficient so often that I have devised a test...

The bass of a Quad ESL is a matter of record and IMHO
a flat frequency response down to 30 Hz is necessary
and sufficient....Don't think much of your tests. :-)

Any ideas about the audible effects of a transformer
in the signal path, or two if using a valve amplifier?

--
Roger

In article , Nomen Nescio
wrote:


[Snip]

A word about the bass of the Quad ESL-63, mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I hear crap about its bass being deficient so often that I have devised a test
to sort out those who have never heard 63s but regurgitate what they have read
or heard said by other uninformed idiots, fashion victims (like the one in
this thread, who seems to think that because 63s are not this mornings latest
thing, the are therefore no good), those who have cloth ears, those who dont
go to live concerts, headbangers, and suchlike undesirables. I take such
people into my workroom and play music through the ESL-63 but tell them Im
using the big horns. They always love the bass. The truth is that the 63s
have, to any regular concert goer in rooms with good acoustic, realistic bass
down to about 35Hz, and more bass from 45Hz up than most box speakers. But it
is very clean bass, repeat clean bass. People have listened to distorted bass
from small vented boxes so much that it has become their reference. They hear
monstrous distortion and mistake it for more bass output. It is not, it is
merely more noise. I once ran blind test with panels, horns, and big IB and
small vented boxes, plus a live quartet, and guess what, the panels lost on
the sighted test, and won on the blind test where the audience couldnt see
which speaker was playing, and of course the big infinite baffles killed the
bookshelf reflex boxes stone dead.

Hi Andre,

Your post makes me want to go right out and hunt up a pair of ESL's, you
make them sound so good!

My real reason for posting is to ask you about the "big IB" you used in
the test you devised. I am casting about for an interesting and unusual
project, and a pair of IB's had floated to the top of my list even before
you mentioned them. Can you tell me a little about the "big IB's" you
used in the test, as well as your general thoughts on IB's? What size
were the IB's you used, and what was the driver complement? Do you have
any thoughts on the best type of drivers to use? What sort of
Thiele-Small driver parameters are best for use with an IB?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

I once ran blind test with panels, horns, and big IB and
small vented boxes, plus a live quartet, and guess what, the panels lost on
the sighted test, and won on the blind test where the audience couldnt see
which speaker was playing, and of course the big infinite baffles killed the
bookshelf reflex boxes stone dead.

Andre says that infinite baffles give less distorted better bass than bookshelf
reflexes.
I would agree.

But then it depends on few other salient factors, like the size of the infinite
baffle,
presumably, the larger the better, to prevent the front and back waves from
cancelling each other, but with some regard for the driver resonances.
Two years ago, I repaired a pair of Sonus Faber Concertinos,
which are bookshelfs, with purpose made 5" drivers to suit the
small vented boxes. The bass at low levels from such small speakers a
was a suprise, but compared to vented reflex bass units of 130L with a 12" driver,
their inadequacies became obvious, especially at slightly loud levels.
Methinks the small bookshelf speakers have a quite highish Fb, maybe 70 Hz,
right in the middle of of where you want the bass to sound clear,
and tuneful, and distinct from the rest of the music when your mind focuses on it.
The small bookshelves start sounding muddled, and perhaps this is a function
of a too small a speaker producing serious imd or the higher frequencies, and trying
to wear too many hats.
Meanwhile my well concieved 3 way system with the large 12" in the larger box
gives effortless clean bass; the Fb is 27Hz, below nearly all of what is heard
in music, and so bass is linearly made at least down to 45 Hz, and the cut off to
the mids is at
250 Hz, and the distortion is very low.



Hi Andre,

Your post makes me want to go right out and hunt up a pair of ESL's, you
make them sound so good!

My real reason for posting is to ask you about the "big IB" you used in
the test you devised. I am casting about for an interesting and unusual
project, and a pair of IB's had floated to the top of my list even before
you mentioned them. Can you tell me a little about the "big IB's" you
used in the test, as well as your general thoughts on IB's? What size
were the IB's you used, and what was the driver complement? Do you have
any thoughts on the best type of drivers to use? What sort of
Thiele-Small driver parameters are best for use with an IB?

The largest IB possible is a speaker mounted in a hole in the wall of your house.
If Fs is low, you get nice bass, but you also get beaming
of higher F, so methinks the IB should, like all bass speakers, be used only as
such.

I know a guy with a 15" woofer mounted in a plywood panel screwed across the
front of an old disused fireplace, so the cavern behind the panel and the chimney
form
a sort of vent, and I doubt there is any kind of compliance to T&S parameters,
but he gets good bass.

Andre's comments about ESL are interesting, and there are some who prefer the ESL57,

Quad's first ESLs, and I keep an eye out for a pair of either 57 or 63, but
I am not anxious because I don't have them.
At a clients place recently, I was not overly impressed with the 57,
after I had his amps running properly.
At another listening some years back, I had come to the same conclusion.
I just couldn't conclude they were dramatically better than well designed and made
domes and cones in non resonant enclosures.
And the ESL lacked bass, and I like good bass.

Patrick Turner.



Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

"Patrick Turner"


At a clients place recently, I was not overly impressed with the 57,
after I had his amps running properly.
At another listening some years back, I had come to the same conclusion.
I just couldn't conclude they were dramatically better than well designed
and made
domes and cones in non resonant enclosures.


** You need to have the ESLs set up properly - on stands - in a well
damped, not too big and not too small room.

You need to sit in the mid position - as with any pair of speakers -
to hear proper stereo.

You need to put the box speakers next to the ESLs and aligned to the
same sitting position.

You need a remote A-B switch to change over during a piece of music.

You need high quality and familiar material.

You need the ability to recognise what is speaker sound and music.

Until you do this you have no basis for comment.

If you still prefer the box speakers - that says a lot about you
and very little about ESLs.



And the ESL lacked bass, and I like good bass.


** As someone who has proved here that he has idea what stereo is and
no idea what good sound even is preference for lots of boomy bass says it
all.





......... Phil

Snip all the stuff about AB testing,
which is regurgitated common sense,


** As someone who has proved here that he has idea what stereo is and
no idea what good sound even is preference for lots of boomy bass says it
all.

Again you are incorrect about some preference I might have for "boomy bass",
which generally shows up as a peaked response between 50 and 120 Hz.
But the amount of bass or treble people want to hear, or what suits their ears
which vary between listeners is a personal choice thing, and its why
tone controls are placed on amp systems, to try to counter room effects and
hearing preferences, and limiting of bass in the recording studio.
I do have a fairly well damped room, and I know the struggles of those
who persevere with bare timber floors and bare walls.


Stereo means the correct reproduction of the image recorded, and I have to say
Quad ESL 57 I have heard are very good at imaging, providing you sit right
in one position, and don't move.
Other systems give good imaging.

But what I have found is that the sound quality apart from the imaging
in one 57 system I heard was poor, and the "restored" panels seemed to be
arcing,
or having clipping problems, even at levels I thought not all that loud,
whereas a dome and cone speakers have a more gracious overload.
The feeling of intimacy with the performance
recorded wasn't all that stunning with the ESL57.
I liked a pair of Martin Logans a lot better.

Perhaps you need to have an AB test to discern anything, but there are those of
us
who know good sound when its just there.

I can offer anecdotal evidence that Quad don't make attrocious speakers,
and as I have told you often in discussions at aus.hi-fi, that I would like
to aquire a pair, to add to my collection, but I am not in any hurry,
and I don't think I am missing out on much by not owning them.

I know you had a pair of ESL57 for a very long time.
So why did you sell them?


Patrick Turner.



........ Phil

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Snip all the stuff about AB testing,
which is regurgitated common sense,


** But which you did not ****ING do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


** As someone who has proved here that he has idea what stereo is
and
no idea what good sound even is preference for lots of boomy bass says
it
all.


Again you are incorrect about some preference I might have for "boomy
bass",


** No I am not.


Stereo means the correct reproduction of the image recorded, and I have to
say
Quad ESL 57 I have heard are very good at imaging, providing you sit right
in one position, and don't move.


** Stereo images are virtual - you move and so do they.

You have no idea what stereo even is.


Other systems give good imaging.


** None give better than with Quad ESLs.



But what I have found is that the sound quality apart from the imaging
in one 57 system I heard was poor, and the "restored" panels seemed to be
arcing,


** Then the speakers were faulty.

or having clipping problems,


** Then the amp was clipping - you ****wit.



even at levels I thought not all that loud,
whereas a dome and cone speakers have a more gracious overload.


** Quad ESLs do not "overload ".

The amp should be sized to not put the speakers at risk.



The feeling of intimacy with the performance
recorded wasn't all that stunning with the ESL57.
I liked a pair of Martin Logans a lot better.


** So you heard faulty speakers under bad conditions.

That is no basis to from an opinion on.



Perhaps you need to have an AB test to discern anything,


** To hear a difference clearly defined one needs an A-B test.

You are a posturing arsehole - Turner.



but there are those of
us who know good sound when its just there.


** You could and would never be one of them - you posturing TURD.



I can offer anecdotal evidence that Quad don't make attrocious speakers,
and as I have told you often in discussions at aus.hi-fi, that I would
like
to aquire a pair, to add to my collection, but I am not in any hurry,
and I don't think I am missing out on much by not owning them.


** Brainless ****wits don't think at all - they just blow bull****
out their arses.



I know you had a pair of ESL57 for a very long time.
So why did you sell them?


** I sold them only with great reluctance.




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

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Snip all the stuff about AB testing,
which is regurgitated common sense,


** But which you did not ****ING do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


** As someone who has proved here that he has idea what stereo
is
and
no idea what good sound even is preference for lots of boomy bass says
it
all.


Again you are incorrect about some preference I might have for "boomy
bass",


** No I am not.


Stereo means the correct reproduction of the image recorded, and I have
to
say
Quad ESL 57 I have heard are very good at imaging, providing you sit
right
in one position, and don't move.


** Stereo images are virtual - you move and so do they.

You have no idea what stereo even is.


Other systems give good imaging.


** None give better than with Quad ESLs.



But what I have found is that the sound quality apart from the imaging
in one 57 system I heard was poor, and the "restored" panels seemed to
be
arcing,


** Then the speakers were faulty.

or having clipping problems,


** Then the amp was clipping - you ****wit.



even at levels I thought not all that loud,
whereas a dome and cone speakers have a more gracious overload.


** Quad ESLs do not "overload ".

The amp should be sized to not put the speakers at risk.



The feeling of intimacy with the performance
recorded wasn't all that stunning with the ESL57.
I liked a pair of Martin Logans a lot better.


** So you heard faulty speakers under bad conditions.

That is no basis to from an opinion on.



Perhaps you need to have an AB test to discern anything,


** To hear a difference clearly defined one needs an A-B test.

You are a posturing arsehole - Turner.



but there are those of
us who know good sound when its just there.


** You could and would never be one of them - you posturing TURD.



I can offer anecdotal evidence that Quad don't make attrocious
speakers,
and as I have told you often in discussions at aus.hi-fi, that I would
like
to aquire a pair, to add to my collection, but I am not in any hurry,
and I don't think I am missing out on much by not owning them.


** Brainless ****wits don't think at all - they just blow bull****
out their arses.



I know you had a pair of ESL57 for a very long time.
So why did you sell them?


** I sold them only with great reluctance.




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

Pot - Kettle - Black Phil. Where do you get off by accusing some else of
"posturing"?

Listen again it is very simple. Despite your one eyed, bigoted and
preconceived notions about your beloved ESls they *do not* reproduce
realistic SPL of bass. It has got nothing to do with HT or boom box bass
levels. A 3mm diaphragm deflection just can't do it without the aid of
some sort of enclosure and if you do try and drive these things louder and
bassier they *will* arc causing damage!

SS

"Patrick Turner"

Phil Allison wrote:

Snip all the stuff about AB testing,
which is regurgitated common sense,

** But which you did not ****ING do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No need to swear about it,


** Yes there is - you are posting absolute crap.


this is a an audio chat group, where
rigourous scientific discipline applied to each and every statement
is not required.


** Discovering the true facts requires no less.

Turner the Turd has no interest in **that** whatsoever.

Brick layers are not much chop at science.




Again you are incorrect about some preference I might have for "boomy
bass",

** No I am not.

Just your opinion....

** Much better than yours.



** Stereo images are virtual - you move and so do they.

Ah, but there are those who say the position of a singer on a stage
should stay put between the speakers, rather than move wildy
from one side to another, by moving one'e head from side to side.


** Shame that the virtual image of normal stereo does not permit that.


At a concert, moving one's head a bit don't change where
people appear to be, unless there are wall reflections, etc.


** A live concert is not the same as stereo - you ****WIT !!!!!!!

Like I said -you do not know what stereo even is.



You have no idea what stereo even is.

Its in the ear of the listener, not just as defined by you.


** QED - Turner the Turd is an absolute ****ing moron.



Other systems give good imaging.

** None give better than with Quad ESLs.

Oh, so only Quads?
what of other brands of ESL?


** Learn to read - ****head.

What do you think " None give better ...." means ???



The amp should be sized to not put the speakers at risk.

More like the amp used shouldn't be turned up too high, irrespective of
size.


** Go **** yourself - Turner.

You have no idea about ESLs at all.


I imagine the Quad 405 would be able to overdrive most speakers, including
Quad.


** The 405 will not overdrive the ESL63 *and* with the voltage limiting
mod fitted the same goes for the ESL57.


***** Notice how whenever Turner the Turd does not have facts to hand
he simply invents some. *****




The feeling of intimacy with the performance
recorded wasn't all that stunning with the ESL57.
I liked a pair of Martin Logans a lot better.

** So you heard faulty speakers under bad conditions.

I had no idea of the condition of amps or speakers in the
tests I heard,


** Then it is time for you to ****ing shut up.

Reviewers **world wide** have for over 45 years heaped lavish praise on
the technical performance and sound quality of Quad ESLs.

They are easily the world's most respected audio transducers.

The ill informed opinions of one geriatric, mental cripple, ex-brick layer
are not about to change that.




but I can describe what I heard, and that the owners said nothing
was wrong with them or the amps, and these ppl were technically minded.
As a result, I was not overly impressed by Quad speakers.


** Turner the Turd cannot see he is only talking about himself.



As you say, some speakers do some things better than others.


** Turner the Turd again invents words I did not post.



I know you had a pair of ESL57 for a very long time.
So why did you sell them?

** I sold them only with great reluctance.


Got something better now?


** No - way inferior unfortunately.

Does well enough for TV and DVDs though.




.......... Phil

With so much foul language
in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.

To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"


With so much foul language


** Not even 1 % of what you really deserve - you vile pig.



in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.


** Turner has nothing left to say - since he is thoroughly outgunned on
all sides.


To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.


** There are only valid facts - not valid opinions.

There are well informed opinions - and the other kind.

Turner the Turd cannot see that - since he only has the other
kind.




......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner"


With so much foul language


** Not even 1 % of what you really deserve - you vile pig.



in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.


** Turner has nothing left to say - since he is thoroughly outgunned on
all sides.


To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.


** There are only valid facts - not valid opinions.

There are well informed opinions - and the other kind.

Turner the Turd cannot see that - since he only has the other
kind.




........ Phil

As usual in a battle of wits Phil is unarmed so he resorts to his normal (?)
vile, low self delusions.

SS

"TT"


** Anything ever posted by the above gear box mechanic.






.......... Phil

"Nomen Nescio"


SNIP 90 WORDS BY TURNER EXPLAINING HOW QUAD ESL ARE INFERIOR TO THE
SPEAKERS HE MAKES. THAT IS A WRETCHED LIE, BUT I REALLY CANNOT BE BOTHERED
ONCE MORE TO EXPLAIN THE APPALLING IMPROPRIETY OF HIS BEHAVIOUR TO THIS
COMMERCIAL WRETCH. PAY FOR YOUR OWN ADVERTISING, TURNER!

Andre Jute


** "Appalling impropriety" ......... hmmmmmmm.

I suppose that does have a classier tone to it than : ".... a load of
self serving bull**** !! " .

But does it get the message across to the unwashed masses just as well ??

I wonder about that.




.......... Phil

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:33:47 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Nomen Nescio"


SNIP 90 WORDS BY TURNER EXPLAINING HOW QUAD ESL ARE INFERIOR TO THE
SPEAKERS HE MAKES. THAT IS A WRETCHED LIE, BUT I REALLY CANNOT BE BOTHERED
ONCE MORE TO EXPLAIN THE APPALLING IMPROPRIETY OF HIS BEHAVIOUR TO THIS
COMMERCIAL WRETCH. PAY FOR YOUR OWN ADVERTISING, TURNER!

Andre Jute


** "Appalling impropriety" ......... hmmmmmmm.

I suppose that does have a classier tone to it than : ".... a load of
self serving bull**** !! " .

But does it get the message across to the unwashed masses just as well ??

I wonder about that.

......... Phil



Wow this long distance cock sucking is a real hoot.

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...
With so much foul language
in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.

To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.

Remind you of anyone ?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

PLONK!

From: Nomen Nescio
Organization:
Newsgroups: aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:20:04 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Words most audiophiles would like to hear.....

Andre says that infinite baffles give less distorted better bass than
bookshelf
reflexes.
I would agree.

Should I care ****? Why? I play music through my speakers, Turner, a cultural
actitvity. You have no culture. That makes your opinion on hi-fi or
loudspeakers utterly worthless.

SNIPPED 175 WORDS OF TOTALLY IRRELEVANT CRAP ABOUT REFLEX SPEAKERS. THIS
SUB-THREAD IS ABOUT INFINITE BAFFLES, TURNER. TAKE A REMEDIAL READING CLASS.

Meanwhile my well concieved 3 way system
SNIPPED 54 WORDS OF SEMI-LITERATE ULTRA-THICKSKINNED SELF-REVIEW BY A WANNABE
MANUFACTURER

. . . grotesquely misaligned in the time-domain, smearing in all directions,
boof-boofing its one-note way quite low but very monotonously, like an escapee
from the organ-loft?

This is the post from John Byrns directed to me on which Turner is muscling in
to promote his own commercial rubbish.

Hi Andre,

Your post makes me want to go right out and hunt up a pair of ESLs, you
make them sound so good!

My real reason for posting is to ask you about the "big IB" you used in
the test you devised. I am casting about for an interesting and unusual
project, and a pair of IBs had floated to the top of my list even before
you mentioned them. Can you tell me a little about the "big IBs" you
used in the test, as well as your general thoughts on IBs? What size
were the IBs you used, and what was the driver complement? Do you have
any thoughts on the best type of drivers to use? What sort of
Thiele-Small driver parameters are best for use with an IB?

Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

SNIP 90 WORDS BY TURNER EXPLAINING HOW QUAD ESL ARE INFERIOR TO THE SPEAKERS
HE MAKES. THAT IS A WRETCHED LIE, BUT I REALLY CANNOT BE BOTHERED ONCE MORE TO
EXPLAIN THE APPALLING IMPROPRIETY OF HIS BEHAVIOUR TO THIS COMMERCIAL WRETCH.
PAY FOR YOUR OWN ADVERTISING, TURNER!

Andre Jute

On 9 Dec 2003 04:40:27 -0800, (MDHJWH) wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...
With so much foul language
in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.

To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.

Remind you of anyone ?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

LOL
awesome.....now that alarm clock makes sense.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Andre says that infinite baffles give less distorted better bass than bookshelf
reflexes.
I would agree.

Should I care ****? Why? I play music through my speakers, Turner, a cultural actitvity. You have no culture. That makes your opinion on hi-fi or loudspeakers utterly worthless.

SNIPPED 175 WORDS OF TOTALLY IRRELEVANT CRAP ABOUT REFLEX SPEAKERS. THIS SUB-THREAD IS ABOUT INFINITE BAFFLES, TURNER. TAKE A REMEDIAL READING CLASS.

But Andre, I use infinite baffles for speakers all the time.
And if I wanna spend time comparing them to reflex boxes, I will,
and you jolly well cannot stop me.

I see you really don't like my presence, and abhore me replying to your posts,
but you place your posts in a public forum,
so you have to be a real man and accept that you are going to get whatever
response I feel like at the time.
Its no use spitting the dummy like Phil Allison does.
Speaker design is a broad subject.
And I hope I broaden the discussions.


Meanwhile my well concieved 3 way system
SNIPPED 54 WORDS OF SEMI-LITERATE ULTRA-THICKSKINNED SELF-REVIEW BY A WANNABE MANUFACTURER

. . . grotesquely misaligned in the time-domain, smearing in all directions, boof-boofing its one-note way quite low but very monotonously, like an escapee from the organ-loft?

But you speak with words of an idiot, Mr Jute, for you have never heard
any product of mine, and you think you have a monopoly
on audio correctness, but I assure you that you don't,
and when you talk down to me in your high and mightily puffed up tones,
I shall prick with a needle to deflate you.



This is the post from John Byrns directed to me on which Turner is muscling in to promote his own commercial rubbish.

I repeat again, be prepared for more open discussions when you post
in a public forum.
The alternative is to post privately to Mr Byrns.
But you prefer the limelight.
But the stage is wide, and we are ALL on it in this group.

And just where did I promote anything? Reflex enclosures are
used by the vast majority of bass speaker enclosures.
Some are quite good, and some are horrible,
and both are discussible on a thread about infnite baffles.



Hi Andre,

Your post makes me want to go right out and hunt up a pair of ESLs, you
make them sound so good!

My real reason for posting is to ask you about the "big IB" you used in
the test you devised. I am casting about for an interesting and unusual
project, and a pair of IBs had floated to the top of my list even before
you mentioned them. Can you tell me a little about the "big IBs" you
used in the test, as well as your general thoughts on IBs? What size
were the IBs you used, and what was the driver complement? Do you have
any thoughts on the best type of drivers to use? What sort of
Thiele-Small driver parameters are best for use with an IB?

Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

SNIP 90 WORDS BY TURNER EXPLAINING HOW QUAD ESL ARE INFERIOR TO THE SPEAKERS HE MAKES. THAT IS A WRETCHED LIE, BUT I REALLY CANNOT BE BOTHERED ONCE MORE TO EXPLAIN THE APPALLING IMPROPRIETY OF HIS BEHAVIOUR TO THIS COMMERCIAL WRETCH. PAY FOR YOUR OWN ADVERTISING, TURNER!

Andre Jute

There is no need to post in capitol letters, I can read,
and when I snip your posts in reply, it simply means
I have nothing to add to the conversation included in the parts snipped.

If you wanna spend your days just spitting the dummy,
and being intolerant of opinions different to your own,
then be my guest, spit and hiss at me as loud as you want,
but you only make yourself look like an idiot.

Patrick Turner.

MDHJWH wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...
With so much foul language
in a post about ESL, I have no intention to reply.

To Phil there is only one valid opinion, his.

Remind you of anyone ?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

Cute red eyes, eh.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"

Its no use spitting the dummy like Phil Allison does.

** I spit on YOU Pat Turner.



Speaker design is a broad subject.


** Its not for the narrow minded and incompetent likes of Turner the
Turd.



And I hope I broaden the discussions.


** Not by running them over the with the Turner Steamroller.





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

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


The original ESL is, IMHO, one of the best loudspeakers ever made and
still comparable or even better than most of today's stuff.
The "lack of bass" fable is just that, a fable.
Because of the total absence of panel and driver resonances, they
*appear* to lack bass.


When overdriven, they will compress lower frequencies.


** Care to explain this ??

What do you mean by "overdriven" ??

What are you referring to with the term "compress" ?

Which are the lower frequencies alluded to ?



.......... Phil


ex Quad 57 owner

"Phil Allison" said:

When overdriven, they will compress lower frequencies.

** Care to explain this ??

By all means, oh hostile one.

What do you mean by "overdriven" ??

Too much of those perky little Watts at the poor speaker's input.

What are you referring to with the term "compress" ?

Compression, an effect I thought well known in audio circles.
Put more power in, but don't get more acoustical power out.
This happens first at the lower frequencies in case of the ESL.

......... Phil
ex Quad 57 owner

As an ex- ESL owner, I'm surprised you never noticed this.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Patrick Turner said:

At a clients place recently, I was not overly impressed with the 57,
after I had his amps running properly.
At another listening some years back, I had come to the same conclusion.
I just couldn't conclude they were dramatically better than well designed
and made
domes and cones in non resonant enclosures.
And the ESL lacked bass, and I like good bass.

The original ESL is, IMHO, one of the best loudspeakers ever made and
still comparable or even better than most of today's stuff.

**If you can tolerate the quite low maximum SPLs and the lack of deep bass,
then, yes, they are very good.

The "lack of bass" fable is just that, a fable.

**No, it is not. They do, indeed, lack low bass and high SPL capability.

Because of the total absence of panel and driver resonances, they
*appear* to lack bass.

**Nope. The lack of deep bass is real.

When overdriven, they will compress lower frequencies.

**Nope. When overdriven, the panels will arc.

Solution: turn the volume down.

**Duh.

They are however not very tolerant to source and amplifier problems.

**That much is common to most quality speakers. And the Quad ESLs, when
operated within their limits, are very, very good loudspeakers.


Analog playback, via a proper class A (tube) amp, can't sound better
than on said ESLs, still IMHO of course.

**They will operate fine on any amplifier capable of coping with 2 Ohm
loads. It need not be a tube amp, of course. Decent SS amps will operate
Quads just fine. Beter, in fact, than the vast majority of tube amps, since
they can operate as a Voltage source. Tube amps, generally, cannot.



Note: I don't own Quads (at this moment).

**I don't blame you. They're not for everyone.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Phil Allison" said:

When overdriven, they will compress lower frequencies.

** Care to explain this ??

By all means, oh hostile one.


** Only hostile to bull**** artists like you.


What do you mean by "overdriven" ??

Too much of those perky little Watts at the poor speaker's input.


** Ha ha - how about a proper answer - with some numbers in it ????


What are you referring to with the term "compress" ?


Compression, an effect I thought well known in audio circles.


** Wrong answer again - there is compression and there is amplitude
distortion.

Then there is whatever you are alluding ever so vaguely to.



Put more power in, but don't get more acoustical power out.
This happens first at the lower frequencies in case of the ESL.


** You have some evidence of this - and a mechanism ??

I won't hold my breath waiting for any sense to appear.



As an ex- ESL owner, I'm surprised you never noticed this.


** No surprise for someone not to notice what is simply not happening.





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

"Phil Allison" yapped:

** Only hostile to bull**** artists like you.

Oh dear, now you've done it.
Are you by any chance related to an Arnold B. Krueger? :-)

** Ha ha - how about a proper answer - with some numbers in it ????

What would you like to hear?
The ESLs I've used, ran fine on an ARC classic 60.
I've never measured peak output, but my guess would be around 20 Vpp
at the speaker's terminals.
Next time I have a pair available, I'll do some measuring.

** Wrong answer again - there is compression and there is amplitude
distortion.

Right. And speaker compression means......?

** You have some evidence of this - and a mechanism ??

Just my experience of about 25 years in audio, nothing more.
I realize your comments in this NG are to be taken far more seriously
than what my ears tell me, but there ya go...

I won't hold my breath waiting for any sense to appear.

Now *that* I wouldn't recommend, not even to a snotty wallaby like
you.
I hate common sense, especially when it leads to uninspiring
reproduction of music, something I think you OD'd on..

** No surprise for someone not to notice what is simply not happening.

Uh huh.......better stick to those bloating horns then :-)


Say, Phil, you're not a very happy person, are you?


--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**They will operate fine on any amplifier capable of coping with 2 Ohm
loads. It need not be a tube amp, of course. Decent SS amps will operate
Quads just fine. Beter, in fact, than the vast majority of tube amps, since
they can operate as a Voltage source. Tube amps, generally, cannot.

Umm....I'm driving Maggies with triode amps at this very moment :-)
Rather, semi triode amps. KT88 PPP does the trick just nice.
Quads would be a breeze to drive.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" said:

**They will operate fine on any amplifier capable of coping with 2 Ohm
loads. It need not be a tube amp, of course. Decent SS amps will operate
Quads just fine. Beter, in fact, than the vast majority of tube amps,
since
they can operate as a Voltage source. Tube amps, generally, cannot.

Umm....I'm driving Maggies with triode amps at this very moment :-)
Rather, semi triode amps. KT88 PPP does the trick just nice.
Quads would be a breeze to drive.

**BIG DIFFERENCE. Measure the impedance of the Maggies. They are so close to
a perfectly resistive (4 Ohm) load, it doesn't matter. Quads are as far from
resistive as it is possible to get. Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Sander deWaal"

"Phil Allison"


** Ha ha - how about a proper answer - with some numbers in it ????

What would you like to hear?


** No more of you stupid bull****.


** Wrong answer again - there is compression and there is amplitude
distortion.

Right. And speaker compression means......?


** There is thermal and magnetic compression ( no distortion) which ESLs
do not have.

Then there is large signal power handing - or amplitude limiting -
very distorting.

I only asked that you define your terms and not use poetry.




** You have some evidence of this - and a mechanism ??

Just my experience of about 25 years in audio, nothing more.


** So you have no facts to even let a person know what the hell you
alluding to ??????



I won't hold my breath waiting for any sense to appear.

Now *that* I wouldn't recommend, not even to a snotty wallaby like
you.


** So you have no facts, no brains - just all blown out your arse.



** No surprise for someone not to notice what is simply not
happening.

Uh huh.......better stick to those bloating horns then :-)


Say, Phil, you're not a very happy person, are you?


** I just love exposing frauds - and you are yet another one.



Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy ....... bad news, keep away.



.......... Phil

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**BIG DIFFERENCE. Measure the impedance of the Maggies. They are so close
to
a perfectly resistive (4 Ohm) load, it doesn't matter.

Quads are as far from resistive as it is possible to get.


** Is there any way to get you to say WHICH ****ING QUAD ESLs
???????

ESL57s and ESL 63s /988s are NOT similar in impedance nor many
other respects.



Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.


** As usual, TW will not define his terms - and has his own Wilson mad
logic going on in secret.



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

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**BIG DIFFERENCE. Measure the impedance of the Maggies. They are so
close
to
a perfectly resistive (4 Ohm) load, it doesn't matter.

Quads are as far from resistive as it is possible to get.


** Is there any way to get you to say WHICH ****ING QUAD ESLs
???????

ESL57s and ESL 63s /988s are NOT similar in impedance nor many
other respects.

**True. Both are worlds away from the almost perfectly resistive loads
presented by all Maggies. The early ESLs are tougher than the ESL63s.




Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.


** As usual, TW will not define his terms - and has his own Wilson
mad
logic going on in secret.

**I explained my logic earlier.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" said:

**They will operate fine on any amplifier capable of coping with 2 Ohm
loads. It need not be a tube amp, of course. Decent SS amps will operate
Quads just fine. Beter, in fact, than the vast majority of tube amps,
since
they can operate as a Voltage source. Tube amps, generally, cannot.

Umm....I'm driving Maggies with triode amps at this very moment :-)
Rather, semi triode amps. KT88 PPP does the trick just nice.
Quads would be a breeze to drive.

**BIG DIFFERENCE. Measure the impedance of the Maggies. They are so close to
a perfectly resistive (4 Ohm) load, it doesn't matter. Quads are as far from
resistive as it is possible to get. Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.

Quad II amps are used successfully with Quad 57 speakers.
Quad have since brought out the Quad 40 with 2 x KT88,
and got rave reviews, using ESL.

The 57 has a high z at LF, and descending z as F rises,
which isn't a problem since so little power is required for the HF.
This suits a tube amp, which likes a high z load, where thd is minimal, and DF
is highest.

I heard Peter Stein is busily designing a range of tube amps along
with a new range of SS amps since ME has been liquidated.
Any word on the progress?

Patrick Turner.





--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

Quads are as far from resistive as it is possible to get.


** Is there any way to get you to say WHICH ****ING QUAD ESLs
???????
ESL57s and ESL 63s /988s are NOT similar in impedance nor many
other respects.


**True.


** Then do not post the IDIOTIC **** you just did again
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.

** As usual, TW will not define his terms - and has his own Wilson
mad logic going on in secret.


**I explained my logic earlier.


** Using your own utterly mad logic to do so ????????????

Tubes has LESS problems driving reactive loads that transistors do since
tubes have **NO** "second breakdown " to worry about.

But a clueless moron like you does not even know what that is.




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

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" said:

**They will operate fine on any amplifier capable of coping with 2
Ohm
loads. It need not be a tube amp, of course. Decent SS amps will
operate
Quads just fine. Beter, in fact, than the vast majority of tube amps,
since
they can operate as a Voltage source. Tube amps, generally, cannot.

Umm....I'm driving Maggies with triode amps at this very moment :-)
Rather, semi triode amps. KT88 PPP does the trick just nice.
Quads would be a breeze to drive.

**BIG DIFFERENCE. Measure the impedance of the Maggies. They are so
close to
a perfectly resistive (4 Ohm) load, it doesn't matter. Quads are as far
from
resistive as it is possible to get. Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.

Quad II amps are used successfully with Quad 57 speakers.
Quad have since brought out the Quad 40 with 2 x KT88,
and got rave reviews, using ESL.

**I'm sure they did. Most reviewers don't do measurements and don't
understand that a linear frequency response is fundamental to the
performance of a good system. In fact, excepting the LF and HF, the Quad
tube amps with the Quad ESls, the sound quality can be quite respectable.
For me, though, I like to hear full range sound.


The 57 has a high z at LF, and descending z as F rises,
which isn't a problem since so little power is required for the HF.
This suits a tube amp, which likes a high z load, where thd is minimal,
and DF
is highest.

**Of course it is a problem. First off, the power required at HF may,
indeed, be substantial, but only required for very brief periods. Second
off, if DF is very high in tube amps, at HF.


I heard Peter Stein is busily designing a range of tube amps along
with a new range of SS amps since ME has been liquidated.
Any word on the progress?

**You have been informed incorrectly. Peter sees tubes as essentially a
dead-end technology. Peter is working on a new range of ME amps, based on
the technology he has developed over the last 27 years. IE: Critically
matched components, zero Global NFB, BJT, large power supply stuff. We
should see some interesting developments around mid-2004. Those developments
will first be able to be applied to old and existing products (ME75, ME55,
ME550, ME750, ME850, ME1400, ME1500). My tip is that the ME75 and ME750
amplifiers will benefit the most from the new technologies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I know the answer. The "Words most audiophiles would like to hear" a

NOTHING from Phil Allison or Andre Jute - & NOT A WORD from Patrick trying
to defend himself from these nattering nabobs of negativity (with a tip of
the hat to the late Spiro T. Agnew).

"Jon Yaeger"


** What a vile creep you are Jon.

Puke, puke, puke ......



.......... Phil

I heard Peter Stein is busily designing a range of tube amps along
with a new range of SS amps since ME has been liquidated.
Any word on the progress?

**You have been informed incorrectly.

I was only kidding about any new ME tube amps.

Peter sees tubes as essentially a
dead-end technology.

But if he could profit by making tube amps in Oz, he probably wouldn't see
tube amps as being "dead-end technology".
They said tubes were DET in 1960, and yet they are still firmly with us.
Quad and McIntosh make both tube and SS designs.

Peter is working on a new range of ME amps, based on
the technology he has developed over the last 27 years. IE: Critically
matched components, zero Global NFB, BJT, large power supply stuff. We
should see some interesting developments around mid-2004. Those developments
will first be able to be applied to old and existing products (ME75, ME55,
ME550, ME750, ME850, ME1400, ME1500). My tip is that the ME75 and ME750
amplifiers will benefit the most from the new technologies.

That's all OK.
I will stick with tubes.

Its easy to compete as low volume maker against the top names in tube audio,
in terms of sound quality and price.

Making SS amps in Oz will get more difficult,
as more asian made product enters the country, with increasing levels
of sound quality and sophistication.

Patrick Turner.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

Quads are as far from resistive as it is possible to get.


** Is there any way to get you to say WHICH ****ING QUAD ESLs
???????
ESL57s and ESL 63s /988s are NOT similar in impedance nor
many
other respects.


**True.


** Then do not post the IDIOTIC **** you just did again
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Tube amp operate well with resistive
loads. They do not operate well with highly reactive loads.

** As usual, TW will not define his terms - and has his own
Wilson
mad logic going on in secret.


**I explained my logic earlier.


** Using your own utterly mad logic to do so ????????????

Tubes has LESS problems driving reactive loads that transistors do since
tubes have **NO** "second breakdown " to worry about.

**SOME tube amps have LESS problems......

A properly designed SS amp will experience no difficulty with any Quad
loudspeaker. Moreover, unlike most tube amps, a properly designed SS amp
will maintain its output Voltage, regardless of the impedance swing of the
speaker attached to it.




--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Phil Allison" wrote in message


** As usual, TW will not define his terms - and has his own
Wilson mad logic going on in secret.


**I explained my logic earlier.


** Using your own utterly mad logic to do so ????????????

Tubes has LESS problems driving reactive loads that transistors do since
tubes have **NO** "second breakdown " to worry about.

**SOME tube amps have LESS problems......


** BULL**** - all tube amps use tubes - RIGHT ???

Therefore there is no second breakdown limits - RIGHT ???

Soooooo - any tube amp can drive load with large phase angles -
even 90 degrees.

The same is true fonly for a minority of SS amp designs.


Get real !!!!!




.......... Phil

Tubes has LESS problems driving reactive loads that transistors do since
tubes have **NO** "second breakdown " to worry about.

**SOME tube amps have LESS problems......

A properly designed SS amp will experience no difficulty with any Quad
loudspeaker. Moreover, unlike most tube amps, a properly designed SS amp
will maintain its output Voltage, regardless of the impedance swing of the
speaker attached to it.

Utter BS Trev.
Most tube amps convert what is a current source, ie high open loop
Ro, into a voltage source, where the Ro is then 1/10 of the RL value.

Positive current FB in tube amps can achieve an Ro of 0.0 ohms,
or an infinite DF, or even a negative Ro.

But no makers do this, because there is no need.
NFB achieves an adequately low Ro,
and for you to argue that SS amps with Ro = 0.04 ohms will sound dramatically
better, or better at all because of this is sheer BS, imho.

I have always known you to place more importance on measurements than
how something sounds, and you have never come to terms with folks who prefer
tubes,
despite their poorer measurements.

But it isn't difficult to get a class A tube amp using a pair of KT88 in
UL or acoustical to measure superlatively, and sound well.

And everyone should be aware of how you argued for months with me over 300B
amps vs
SS amps, saying how SET 300B amps couldn't provide hi-fi, and basically were
an illegitimate
form of amplifier, thus offending all the owners who hear things differently
to yourself.

And you never used an 8 watt solid state amp to compare with the 8 watt SET
amp
on a level playing field.

If you are going to start arguing SS vs tubes here on rec.audio.tubes,
get prepared for a lot of flak. ( and this is a cross posted thread from
aus.hi-fi ).

Patrick Turner.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...



Tubes has LESS problems driving reactive loads that transistors do
since
tubes have **NO** "second breakdown " to worry about.

**SOME tube amps have LESS problems......

A properly designed SS amp will experience no difficulty with any Quad
loudspeaker. Moreover, unlike most tube amps, a properly designed SS amp
will maintain its output Voltage, regardless of the impedance swing of
the
speaker attached to it.

Utter BS Trev.

**No, Patrick, it is fact.

Most tube amps convert what is a current source, ie high open loop
Ro, into a voltage source, where the Ro is then 1/10 of the RL value.

**You were SPECIFICALLY talking about the Quad tube amps and the Quad ESLs.
I couched my comments accordingly. Futhermore, I also explained to Sander
that his assumption that Quad ESLs were similar (WRT impedance curves) to
Maggies, is completely and utterly erroneous. His assumption that, because
his amplifier can drive Maggies, it must therefore be suitable to Quads, is
completely wrong. That does not mean that his amp cannot drive Quads, just
that it does not automatically follow that it can. Quads are far more
difficult to drive.


Positive current FB in tube amps can achieve an Ro of 0.0 ohms,
or an infinite DF, or even a negative Ro.

But no makers do this, because there is no need.
NFB achieves an adequately low Ro,
and for you to argue that SS amps with Ro = 0.04 ohms will sound
dramatically
better, or better at all because of this is sheer BS, imho.

**I said nothing of the sort. Read my words and re-phrase it, so your, now
wider, audience may read your misinterpretation of my words. For the record,
since I do not trust you to be honest, I will paraphrase my own words:

The Quad ESL has a falling impedance at HF. Such an impedance curve will
cause the output Voltage of a Quad tube amp to fall, thus preventing it from
supplying an accurate frequency response. This fault.is applicable to many
tube amps, but not to a properly designed SS amp.


I have always known you to place more importance on measurements than
how something sounds, and you have never come to terms with folks who
prefer
tubes,
despite their poorer measurements.

**Nope. Again, you rerepresent what I have said. I will paraphrase, for your
wider audience:

Unless a hi fi amplifier meets certain, basic criteria, there is no point in
bothing to use it in a hi fi system, since it is incapable of accurate sound
reproduction. That does not mean that it may not be enjoyable to SOME
people, just that it is not, nor can it ever be called 'High Fidelity'.


But it isn't difficult to get a class A tube amp using a pair of KT88 in
UL or acoustical to measure superlatively, and sound well.

**I never suggested otherwise. one of my favourite amplifiers is the Audio
research VT100. In every sense it is neutral and very accurate.


And everyone should be aware of how you argued for months with me over
300B
amps vs
SS amps, saying how SET 300B amps couldn't provide hi-fi, and basically
were
an illegitimate
form of amplifier, thus offending all the owners who hear things
differently
to yourself.

**I don't offend anyone, by telling the facts about amplifiers. If the
distortion of a 300B amplifier is inaudible, then it qualifies as 'hi fi'.
If the distortion is audible (as it is in every 300B I've heard, then it
does not qualify as hi fi. It may be a pleasant listening experience for
some listeners, but that does not make it hi fi.


And you never used an 8 watt solid state amp to compare with the 8 watt
SET
amp
on a level playing field.

**In fact, I have. I received a 3 Watt/ch tube amp in for service a few
years ago. It required massive amounts of work to get it operational. I
installed a small transformer, rectifier, caps and two power OP amps, to
provide around 6 watts/ch. I installed a gentle filter to roll off the LF at
around 70Hz and another at 10kHz. I left the tube filaments connected and
gave it back to the client, with a money back guarantee if he did not like
what I had done. The cost was less than 50% of what it would have been, if I
had replaced output trannies, filter and coupling caps, tubes, etc, etc. The
customer loved the result.


If you are going to start arguing SS vs tubes here on rec.audio.tubes,
get prepared for a lot of flak. ( and this is a cross posted thread from
aus.hi-fi ).

**As you wish, Patrick. I fail to see why you would wish to do such a thing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au