![]() |
|
What's the best system you ever heard?
In article , harrogate2
wrote: I heard two interesting sources at the same Hi-Fi fair - one of the last held here in Harrogate. The first was Peter Walker demonstrating his (then) brand new ESL63's. The source was an LP, the amp I know not but presumably either the 33/303 or a 405, and all in a very large room before a medium audience. It was just so realistic! My first hearing of the 63's was in a hifi shop in North London. I was there with a few other people trying out an amp I'd brought to the shop. The people in the shop initially insisted in using Linn Isobark's. These sounded poor, and after I kept pointing out something was wrong they finally investigated and discovered a popped tweeter.[1] After more complaints from myself that I wanted to try other speakers they finally dragged in a pair of 63's. They did this with an air of great reluctance and made it plain that they did not like them. Only took about 30 seconds of listening to the 63's for me to decide they were the best speakers I'd ever heard. Later on I bought a pair of 63's and used them as my main speakers for about 20 years. Only recently switched to using 988's and have added a sub to help move the air at LF. PJW, thank you, once again. :-) If anyone in the hi fi biz has done more to help people enjoy music than any another, I'd vote for it being PJW. Slainte, Jim [1] May tell you something about the golden-eared salespeople in the shop that they had not noticed this until I insisted they investigate. They'd been using the speakers for many weeks as demo speakers... -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
What's the best system you ever heard?
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:47:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article , harrogate2 wrote: I heard two interesting sources at the same Hi-Fi fair - one of the last held here in Harrogate. The first was Peter Walker demonstrating his (then) brand new ESL63's. The source was an LP, the amp I know not but presumably either the 33/303 or a 405, and all in a very large room before a medium audience. It was just so realistic! My first hearing of the 63's was in a hifi shop in North London. I was there with a few other people trying out an amp I'd brought to the shop. The people in the shop initially insisted in using Linn Isobark's. These sounded poor, and after I kept pointing out something was wrong they finally investigated and discovered a popped tweeter.[1] After more complaints from myself that I wanted to try other speakers they finally dragged in a pair of 63's. They did this with an air of great reluctance and made it plain that they did not like them. Only took about 30 seconds of listening to the 63's for me to decide they were the best speakers I'd ever heard. Later on I bought a pair of 63's and used them as my main speakers for about 20 years. Only recently switched to using 988's and have added a sub to help move the air at LF. PJW, thank you, once again. :-) If anyone in the hi fi biz has done more to help people enjoy music than any another, I'd vote for it being PJW. Seconded, although IMHO Bob Stuart has to be running him close, for the 'digital' generation. And Raymond Cooke and John Bowers probably brought better good hi-fi to more people. [1] May tell you something about the golden-eared salespeople in the shop that they had not noticed this until I insisted they investigate. They'd been using the speakers for many weeks as demo speakers... Aren't Linnies fun? :-) Talk about all sizzle and no steak! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
What's the best system you ever heard?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Later on I bought a pair of 63's and used them as my main speakers for about 20 years. Only recently switched to using 988's and have added a sub to help move the air at LF. Jim, what sub are you using with your 988s? I was informed that it is hard to find a matching sub for ESLs due to the nature of ESLs (dipoles? planars?) |
What's the best system you ever heard?
Tat Chan wrote:
Jim, what sub are you using with your 988s? I was informed that it is hard to find a matching sub for ESLs due to the nature of ESLs (dipoles? planars?) I reckon a servodrive contrabass would be a good match... -- Teal'c: "Dr Jackson's preliminary electroencephalogram proved anomalous" O'Neill: "I dare you to say that again" |
What's the best system you ever heard?
In article , Tat Chan
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: Later on I bought a pair of 63's and used them as my main speakers for about 20 years. Only recently switched to using 988's and have added a sub to help move the air at LF. Jim, what sub are you using with your 988s? MJ Acoustics MJA Pro 50. Relatively cheap and cheerful compared with some of the subs on offer. I chose this because - at the time - I was far from convinced that I'd end up deciding that a sub was worthwhile. I am also using quite a small room and I only listen at relatively low levels, so high power probably wasn't really needed. Hence I would not say the above was an 'optimum' choice, or would suit anyone else. So I decided to try the Pro 50 as an experiment/gamble at modest cost. I was informed that it is hard to find a matching sub for ESLs due to the nature of ESLs (dipoles? planars?) Yes and no. :-) I suspect that there are problems with matching a sub with almost *any* decent speakers and room. I certainly spent many weeks fiddling about with the settings and positioning. Giving myself longer an longer periods between 'adjustments' to get used to the results before experimenting with a change. The 'problem' with ESLs is, I think, that they lack colourations and cabinet resonances, and have low distortion. Hence any of these from the sub may be more noticable. The dipolar nature at LF mainly means that the ability of the ESL to drive the room falls. But it does this in a fairly 'good natured' way as it decouples itself from the ability change the pressure in its surroundings. I don't know if it would have been quicker/easier to get decent results if I hadn't been using ESLs. or in another room. I assumed in advance that getting speaker postions, etc, satisfactory was likely to take a lot of patience. :-) FWIW in the end I concluded that adding the subs did indeed give better results. The effective hand-over point is well below 100Hz. I'd estimate somewhere around 40-50Hz. The sub is currently placed up against the wall behind one of the ESLs which are a bit over a metre from the back walls, and angled in both the vertical and horizontal so that the axies cross just in front of my nose. :-) The main 'defect' so far is that there is a room resonance somewhere around 40Hz (IIRC). The ESLs didn't excite this very strongly, but a sub does as it can pressure the room. Hence I have been considering buying a replacement sub that has its own notch filter to cut down the room's first non-zero resonance. But ignoring this, the Pro 50 seems to work nicely. If I switch off the power amp driving the ESLs the only sound from the Pro 50 is the occasional deep note/noise with no obvious colourations or complaints at higher frequencies. I also use a modified Quad 34, which lets me either increase or cut the LF levels where desirable. Some films and TV broadcasts have excessive LF, whereas some classical music CDs are a bit light on LF - particularly old EMI recordings from the days they were terrified of 'the jumping stylus'. :-) You have reminded me that I should re-measure the setup as I have made various minor changes since I last did that. :-) That said, my previous experience has been that having - by measurement - got a roughly 'flat' transition - I then tended to lower the sub level a bit. Not yet sure if this says something about what is recorded, or my taste, or it being due to the room resonance... Overall, I'd say it was well worth while experimenting with a sub to go with ESLs. You need to spend time adjusting and re-positioning, but the results with things like piano or orchestra can be good. However with the main hifi I used for many years I got similar results by using a modified low bass contour applied using a modified Quad 34. This does not go as 'deep' as the sub, and means you have to avoid high levels, but the results are more 'coherent'. All depends on the room, though. If interested, the modified 34 may be a better option. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
What's the best system you ever heard?
In article , Anthony Edwards
wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:01:27 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: I chose this because - at the time - I was far from convinced that I'd end up deciding that a sub was worthwhile. I am also using quite a small room and I only listen at relatively low levels, so high power probably wasn't really needed. As a flat dweller, I am trying to train myself to listen at lower levels. If you have a sound level meter, would you mind posting the typical dB readings at which you listen? I would be interested to compare with my own experience. I am currently at this moment listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, with the sound level peaking at around 80dB at the listening position; a considerable drop from my more usual 90dB or so, but I am more quickly than expected getting used to it. Only going on my memory as I haven't checked recently. But using an old B&K meter with A weighting I think I was typically getting peaks in the mid 70-80dB range. The actual peaks may well be higher as the meter is an analogue type with short-term average readings, not a PPM. Given the weighting it largely ignores the LF. I was also using a 1 inch mic head which I know tends to have reduced sensitivity above a few kHz. So in practice, the actual peaks may well be around 80dBA. When I get a chance it is now on my 'to do list' to repeat the measurements I made in the past of overall response, typical level, etc, as I want to check this before considering if I want to modify the sub arrangement. However since I'm basically enjoying results I keep not bothering. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
What's the best system you ever heard?
I'm sat listening to Evanescence - anywhere but home, in 5.1 averaging 75dbA, peaking about 81. I would say that's loud for living room listening... -- Teal'c: "Dr Jackson's preliminary electroencephalogram proved anomalous" O'Neill: "I dare you to say that again" |
What's the best system you ever heard?
"Ian Bell" wrote in message ... Andy Evans wrote: With the sales on, and itchy fingers near wallets, this may be a good time to ask everyone on the ng what they think is the best seperates and system they ever heard in their entire listening lives. You can nominate: a) Front end b) Amplifier c) Speakers d) Entire system Should be interesting to see the results! === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. Neumann mics, Neve 8048 mixer, Studer A80 16 track with Dolby A noise reduction, and Tannoy 15 inch monitor Golds in cabinets you could live in. Ian Nice:-) And Himmler, has something sim'lar: JEC console. Studer A80 MkII 24 track. DolbyA Leevers Rich E200. (Dolby SR) Radford STA100 Kef K1's (3 ways with 18x13 inch drivers) Iain |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk