In article ,
UnsteadyKen
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote...

But at present I'm too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening
to the Honegger Pacific 231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this
morning. Very good. :-))

Jim, what is it about the sound of ESL's that has led to you using them
for so long? I've never heard a pair but have read many rave reviews,
one of the things that comes across is that they need room to breathe,
how are yours set up?

For me it is the superbly convincingly 'natural' stereo imaging for
excellent source material. e.g. for Proms and other good BBC R3 broadcasts.
The instruments are laid out in space beyond the speakers in the acoustic
of the hall in a way that sounds like the real thing. The speakers just
dissapear with no sense that any sounds are coming from them. I can't
really explain this to people. Once heard, you'd know. :-)

I suspect this is very much a personal perception thing and that some
people simply don't detect this, or care. And I do wonder about the extent
to which stereo is a 'trick' that some people aren't 'fooled' by so never
do hear it because their hearing is 'too good'.

But how do you explain what 'red' really looks like to someone with no
colour vision or someone who has never had a chance to see it?

They also give an excellent reproduction of human voice, and piano. Again
good for R3. But also a recent example is some Linn SACDs of piano music
played by Pizarro (Chopin, Ravel, etc). These aren't quite such good images
as they are like many CDs - the mics take you 'too close' for my taste. But
the clarity of the transients of the notes and the following 'thrum' simply
sounds to my ears far more like the real thing than I've heard from other
speakers. FWIW for test purposes I made some 96/24 versions from the SACD
to make them easier to play and examine.These sound excellent to me,
allowing for the over-wide, over-close imaging of the recording.

The main drawback people mention is the lack of bass and loudness. I'd say
this depends on the room, what you listen to, and how loud you want your
music. So again, may or may not affect someone depending on the case. The
bass seems fine to me. Indeed, on R3, it seems more 'natural' to me.

I'd say the main drawback is that they show up the poor practice of many
commercial recordings - issues like mics too close that pick up too much
'presence' range and treble that doesn't actually carry into a hall, or
multimic with panpot and echo faked stereo.

The other drawback is that if you try them and like them, other speakers
won't really 'hit the spot' for you after that. You are hooked. 8-]

Positioning in the room (for the listening seat as well as the speakers) is
quite fussy. I can understand that in some places the user may never find a
satisfactory sound. It initially took many weeks of adjustments until I got
what I felt was optimum results. This is with the following geometry:

Speaker centers about 180 cm apart and each about 95 cm from the side
walls. (Note that the room isn't particularly big!) The speaker centers are
about 140 cm from the wall behind them. The paths from each speaker center
to my listening position are about 230cm long. My head is actually close to
the nominal plane of the wall behind me *but* there is a window bay behind
me that means the actual surfaces are a bit further away than the plane of
the wall would be if there were no bay.

There is also a large 'rug' on the wall behind the speakers. This looks
good and helps damp longitundinal modes a bit.

The speakers are angled so that the axies perpendicular to their array
centers pass in front of me at about chest height when I'm sitting in the
chair.

However in another room (and for another listeners, etc!) the optimum might
be very different.

FWIW It is many years since I made much attempt to try out alternative
'new' speakers, simply because what I get from the Quads (inc the new ones
which so far sound to me like the 63s on top form) seems ideal to me. But
in past days when I tried 'cone and box' I found two things put me off.

One was that the bass tended to 'boom' to me. Like a less obvious version
of ye olde 'radiogram boom'. The other was imaging that seemed to string
things on a washing line *in front* of the speakers unless they were well
tilted so their tweeter axis was well away from pointing towards me.

For all I know I'd find the best modern 'cone and box' speakers excellent.
But don't really care if happy with what I am using.

I'd used 57s for many years. (FWIW I also use LS3/5As in another room.) But
on a trip to Graham's HiFi one day I was subjected to having to listen to a
pair of Isobariks for an hour until I complained that there was no image
and that the speakers weren't matched. (When they checked at my insistence
they found one had a popped tweeter.) They then very reluctantly brought in
a pair of 63s and we used them. They started dismissing them as rubbish
compared with the Linns. But for me the sound was the audible equivalent of
switching the lights on so I could hear what was where, and identify it
clearly! My first hearing of the 63s. Stunning!

I got a pair as soon as I had the money and a room big enough. Kept them
for 25 years. Only changed now because they clearly needed a refurb or
service and on balance I decided to try the 2805s instead. FWIW I did think
of the 2905s but decided the room was just too small for them.

To me the 2805s do have all the natural charm of the 63s. I'm not yet
certain if they sound any 'better' if I ignore why I decided to let go the
63s. Maybe all the extra mass an rigidity helps, maybe not. My jury is out
on that, and I can't do any quick AB comparisions. So I just enjoy the
results. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html