Fleetie wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote

Fleetie wrote:

A) ESL-57s look OLD, DATED, UGLY, BROWN, and just YUCKY.

OSAF.


Sorry, "OSAF"?

Opinion stated as fact.


TBH, If I didn't know they were speakers, I'd assume from their appearance,
and those awful legs that they stand on, that they were heaters.


So thats a assumption, I don't see what it has to do with anything other
than you opinions.


Again OSAF, you say you have only heard them once, but feel confidant that you know what they sound like.


True, I can't deny that. If you want my opinion, they look like they
sound middy and squawky. And that's about it.


Ok, and I guess your speakers look like they should sound woody and boxy
then ?


D) "Emperor's OLD clothes".


Whatever that means.


It means that the establishment still bows down before them but they're
out-of-date antiques and definitely unworthy of the reverence afforded
them. And I say that having heard them once. I remember not being impressed,
cos I was already aware of them when I saw and heard them.


I don't think you can have a up to date antique.

I am not suggesting that I regard them with reverence, just questioning
that anything in your original statement was based on anything other
than YOUR opinion. Which of course you are allowed to have, but you
start to sound like others on the NG, when you state that opinion in
this way.



Well, you could point exactly the same finger at the valve amp you have/had. the valves date from just about the same time (or a
bit earlier maybe)


There is little about a _valve_ that is fundamentally flawed. But let's
not get distracted down that side-alley. This sub-thread is not about amp
technology, it's about the fact that ESL-57s are past their use-by date.


But why, again, you have said that the 57's are old and therefor
worthless, you haven't yet given one reason for that to be the case.
Quad themself replaced them, so they must have had reasons, but I have
yet to hear one from you, thats my point. From the the above statement,
you are inferring that there is something flawed about 57's, again, that
may be so, but you have failed to tell us what it is.

And we ALL know that speakers introduce FAR FAR more distortion than amps
do, under normal conditions. So your argument is specious. Well, not even.


No argument about that, thought I don't see what that has to do with
anything. I wasn't proposing a argument, and certainly not mentioning
distortion. All I was doing was pointing out, that if the only flaw with
57's was their age, then exactly the same point must be true of valves,
and anything else more than 48 years old.


Not sure going louder is in itself a issue.


It is; the ear's frequency response flattens with increasing SPL.

Yes, but I don't see the point of hearing a piano louder than a piano
(for example). if something is played at natural volume then is that not
the point at which the ear's FR matches what would be heard in a live
situation.


You know from when I visited you (for which hospitality thanks again) that
I like to listen loud.


Yes. and so I can see why the 57's would not be a good choice for you,
but again, thats about you and the 57's not the 57's on their own.


I would guess your Dyneaudios go louder, higher and lower, but I will bet you the midrange sucks on the dyneaudios compaired to
the ELS's


I will bet you it doesn't.

Unfortunatly I don't own a pair so I can't take that any further. I do
know of a kit built static speaker in Leeds that would take a lot to
match with anything moving coil. Again IMHO.


Although it's hard to define a formal metric for that without invoking
capacitor mics and oscilloscopes and so on.


Even given mics and scopes I don't see what you would get. Other than
measuring the THD at (say) 1k, at which I suggest the ELS would romp
away with it.

I would be interested to know what the ESL-57s sold for (* 2 for a pair)
back when they were a current model, and what that'd be "in real terms"
today. I suppose they'd be pretty expensive, but that's a guess.


And the point of that guess is ?

Even still, The Dynaudios'd thrash 'em I reckon.


Good, that means you are happy with what you have, just as well you
opinion goes that way.

I would be interested to hear the squawky abominations again just to confirm
my suspicions that they're overrated and ugly antiques. They ought to be
"cheap as chips", apart MAYBE from the fact that they are undeniably a
milestone in hi-fi.

I agree with Stew, thay have been improved on, I prefer the next model
myself, and I haven't heard the current ones enough to have a opinion.
But one thing I have never heard a electostatic do is make any noise
that could be described as a "squawk", unless maybe its being used to
play a BBC sound effect record :-)

--
Nick

"Life has surface noise" - John Peel 1939-2004