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!

The other was held in the ballroom of the Old Swan Hotel (remember
Agatha Christie?) The demo was by Philips using the biggest of their
then range of three motional feedback units. Again I don't know what
the recorded sources were, but it was of one of the famous Yorkshire
Brass bands - Black Dyke I think - and it was an A-B test with the
band live. Now THAT was something!


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:24:07 GMT, "harrogate2"
wrote:

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!

I remember hearing the then new ESL63s with a recording of the
Winchester Cathedral choir in a music shop in Winchester. The
recording was made on a reel-to-reel tape deck (a Revox if I remember
correctly) at 15ips. For its day, it was amazing.


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

In article , Chris Isbell
writes
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:24:07 GMT, "harrogate2"
wrote:

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!

I remember hearing the then new ESL63s with a recording of the
Winchester Cathedral choir in a music shop in Winchester. The
recording was made on a reel-to-reel tape deck (a Revox if I remember
correctly) at 15ips. For its day, it was amazing.



I've still got some old tapes like this. Warts and all recordings, but
they do sound absolutely lifelike

Over ESL63's of course)
--
Tony Sayer

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

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

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?)

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"

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

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.

--
Anthony Edwards

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