Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie. And you clearly didn't read
or understand what I said in the rest of my post, which you stupidly
snipped. I repeat the relevant paragraph for your education. When you
understand what I'm talking about, come back here and we'll test your
knowledge. Here we go:

"I might add that as a psychologist I understand perception, including
a point about musical perception that electronics engineers (1) have
the
greatest difficulty in grasping, to wit that the weight of the
fundamental is pretty low in reconstructing the frequency in the ear.
I demonstrated that the other day with regard to 196Hz on a violin in
a letter to Iain Churches which, typically, elicited no discussion
because no-one except he and I are interested, and we already know
about it. It means that the vaunted "audio range" of the engineers,
20Hz to 20kHz, is a joke at both ends, at the top end because most
people never were able to hear that high, at the bottom end because
the lowest note on any musical instrument, 16Hz on some organs, is
more than adequately produced in *any room of correct length* (and
preferably golden ratio proportions) by an amp that goes down to only
32Hz. "

Lord Above.

I'm always here for you, Poopie, because you are the least of us and
therefore need my help more than anyone else.

Tell us, Poopie, how long must a room be for say a Quad ESL-63
adequately to reproduce the lowest frequency of which it is capable.
It is a simple, straighforward question straight out of a high school
science test, so you should be able to give a straighforward answer.
You are permitted to go ask for help from your mates. Look forward to
your answer.

Graham

Andre Jute
Special tolerance for diplomaed quarterwits at Christmas

(1) According to the excellent John Byrns, electronics engineers with
experience in designing small radios have long since grasped the
point. They're excluded from my strictures. But Poopie Stevenson's
response proves my point about electronics engineers in audio in
general.

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's
a natural consequence of their very construction.

Graham

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.



It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light. It's
a natural consequence of their very construction.

Graham

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass
light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction.

You'd need to qualify 'bass light'. If an absolute term then the vast
majority of the speakers on the market qualify for that description. The
smooth LF response of an electrostatic makes it seem 'bass light' to many
used to honking cabinets - but that's a different matter. Electrostatics
tend to be more room sensitive too than some 'conventional' designs.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass
light. It's a natural consequence of their very construction.

You'd need to qualify 'bass light'.

The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical
construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic.

Graham

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrela
scribeth thus


Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light.
It's

Coloration light you mean...

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light.
It's

Coloration light you mean...

Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has
nothing to do with the bass.

The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have poor
bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the front
radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size).

Graham

In article , Eeyore
wrote:



Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but
that has nothing to do with the bass.

The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will
always have poor bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear
radiation cancels the front radiation more at low frequencies determined
by its physical size).

On the ESL63 the resulting LF roll-off is -6dB at about 35 Hz, roughly
second order IIRC. This, of course, is the nominal 'free space' value. In
the room I use for the main hifi system the last time I measured it was
only about -3dB at 30-35Hz. The result does not sound 'bass light' to me.
But this will of course depend on the room, etc, and the absence of a box
boom may make other speakers seem to have 'more bass'... :-)

It may be more significant that the sound pressure level you can get at low
frequencies is perhaps more restricted than a good conventional speaker of
similar price. But that is a question of sound power, not frequency
response.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote [to Patrick Turner]:

I have never been as impressed with ultra-low silicon-
level Rout as you are

Yeah, you're probably impressed by the phoney low end boost you get
with
moving coil loudspeakers when driving them from a high outout
impedance
(underdamped resonance). The phrase 'single note bass' comes to mind.


Nah. I have been going to live concerts and thinking seriously about
the music so as to be able to write about it for five decades now. I
know what reproduced music should sound like. If you want to know,
perhaps it is time for a guy your age, my dear Graham, to stop
pretending you're some kind of overage hipster, and replace those
boomboxes of yours with
a) a set of Mr Walker's marvellously precise electrostatic speakers
(ESL) and

Which don't have very much in the way of bass !

You must have heard that on the street corner where engineers who
cannot afford electrostats gather, Poopie.

It's a well known fact you complete idiot that electrostatics are bass light.
It's

Coloration light you mean...

Electrostatics may indeed have less colouration than most speakers but that has
nothing to do with the bass.

Define bass

The absence of any meaningful baffle means the electrostatics will always have
poor
bass repsponse. It's inherent to the design (the rear radiation cancels the
front

radiation more at low frequencies determined by its physical size).

So I wonder how I'm hearing that Organ recording I made 't other week?..

Humm.....

Graham


--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
The cancellation of low frequencies as a result of their physical
construction. Unless you know of an IB electrostatic.

Do you have true infinite baffle moving coil speakers? I doubt it.

Of course they will cancel at a certain frequency and below. That's why
they are so large. But the cutoff frequency is lower than perhaps most
conventional designs - if you set a realistic attenuation as a cutoff.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.