Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:35:04 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

The Devil said:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

Schizophrenia! You two are the same person!

God. Please don't wish that on me. Or him.

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:00:20 GMT, alex wrote:

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

None.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: : them to produce the family sound, but do they? ...
: : How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

None do, I'm afraid. There are some narrow ESLs. I think they're
called Wings, or something like that. I don't know how they sound as
I've never heard them, however. Also, I think they cost about the same
as 988s.

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

No they don't, we try to stick to facts on UKRA.

Don't have a cow. Next time I'll swap the smiley for this so you
know I'm only joking.

ooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o o$ $$ o$
o $ oo o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$o $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$o $$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ """$$$
"$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ "$$$
$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ "$$$o
o$$" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $$$o
$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
o$$$oooo$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$"$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$""""""""
"""" $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" o$$$
"$$$o """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$" $$$
$$$o "$$""$$$$$$"""" o$$$
$$$$o oo o$$$"
"$$$$o o$$$$$$o"$$$$o o$$$$
"$$$$$oo ""$$$$o$$$$$o o$$$$""
""$$$$$oooo "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
""$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
""""$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$"
"$$$""""

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote

If foreigners bother you so much, maybe you shouldn't keep cross-posting.
Perhaps you're mentally handicapped, though, and you have difficulty
understanding cause and effect.


Cross-posting? Pot, kettle, calling, black the - rearrange into a wll known
phrase or idiom :o)

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

snipped bits and pieces

mick wrote:

Ian Molton said:


Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?


grin
I don't think Ian is particularly anti-foreigner, just anti-Phil (who is
a clued up bloke, but has the attitude of a belligerent kangeroo at
times!). Have you read rec.audio.tubes? It can be "enlightening". ;-)


Did you mean to say rec.audio.tubes is "enlightening" or did you mean
Phil's posts on rec.audio.tubes are "enlightening"?


Btw, doesn't "Pommy" mean "English" instead of "British"? Going back to
the original insult, Stewart sure isn't English!

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:12:45 +1100, Tat Chan wrote:

snipped bits and pieces

mick wrote:

Ian Molton said:


Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?


grin
I don't think Ian is particularly anti-foreigner, just anti-Phil (who is
a clued up bloke, but has the attitude of a belligerent kangeroo at
times!). Have you read rec.audio.tubes? It can be "enlightening". ;-)


Did you mean to say rec.audio.tubes is "enlightening" or did you mean
Phil's posts on rec.audio.tubes are "enlightening"?


erm... well... yeah... grin
r.a.t can be enlightening at times - Phil's posts can vary wildly in
their enlightenment capability! He has a wonderful vocabulary of
insults. ;-)

Btw, doesn't "Pommy" mean "English" instead of "British"? Going back to
the original insult, Stewart sure isn't English!

Good point!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:39:04 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"tony sayer"
In article

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated
reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

** None - when you include both the good square wave and close
frequency
/ phase matching.

Bull****. Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around. All Dunlavys, all
single-driver KEF Uni-Qs, and those egg-shaped ones with a single
driver, whose name I forget, just for starters.
--

Don't forget the entire Thiel line.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"TonyP" wrote in message
. net...
Robert Morein wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

Alright, they have four panels, which I know, having a bunch of spares in my
closet, but they are identical in size and frequency response.
The substance of the discussion is not changed by this revelation.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:58:19 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy
****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

What's the word you buggers use to refer to unnatural sex?

Americans.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering