![]() |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
On Dec 27, 5:04*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article s.com, Andre Jute scribeth thus On Dec 26, wrote: Bob. Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said the point source will be sodded up.... -- TonySayer It depends what you're doing whether "the point source will be sodded up". For instance, Bessel is a form of stacking in which the point source, far from being "sodded up" is enhanced. For another, several of the stacking schemes for ESL63 and similar (for which it becomes even less necessary, but I'm just humouring Poopie because it is Christmas) I explained are for very grand or even public rooms, in which a tiny loss in potential quality will not be noticed because no one will sit down to listen for it, and the overwhelming quality of the stats *will* be noticed. For yet another, it is easy to stack the ESL63 and derivatives in pairs so that the point source of one precisely meets the point of origin of the other, which is only notionally possible, and only at one listening point, for any other type of speakers (especially multiple cones!), the upshot being that ESL-63 is probably the most stackable speaker there is... Yeabut how can you have more than the one -point- source?.... Its physically impossible unless there is another dimension your keeping from us;?... -- TonySayer Put a single ESL63 or derivative -- minimum case, yeah? one speaker only, okay? -- in the middle of an empty room. Play music. Stand in front of the speaker. Hear the point source. Walk around the music. Hear the point source on the other side of the speaker. So what do you have? One speaker, two point sources. Yeabut which point source are you on about PW only ever mentioned One point source;!.,.. Quite. But he was pulling the leg of the ivory tower engineers a little, d'y'see? I'm surprised that none of the diplomaed quarterwits has yet lectured us on the true nature of a point source, which is a singularity in space totally undifferentiated to any listening point anywhere else in space by frequency or any other of ways in which we tell loudspeaker reproduction is merely *high* fidelity, a misleading phrase that hides more than it explains, rather than the unqualified and vastly more powerful fidelity. Being urbane men of the world, you and I, Tony, we shall of course forgive a genius like Peter Walker his small commercial conceit, for the ESL63 is not a point source speaker by the scientific definition. It is a faux point source speaker. It mimics a point source. And, being a symmetrical dipole by its construction, it mimics the point source to either side of concentric centre of its circular panels. Which of these point sources you perceive is a matter of where you stand. Those of such a coarse disposition that they insist on "enhancing" the sound of perfection may use the duality of faux point sources conveniently to create a single point source double speaker, as I explained above. *** I should point out that I was merely going into these matters to educate Poopie Stevenson. While I can see the point of stacking ESL57, or anyway did once (I wouldn't do it again), I see no point in stacking ESL63 for domestic use -- why gild a wonderful lily? Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Andre Jute wrote:
Those of such a coarse disposition that they insist on "enhancing" the sound of perfection may use the duality of faux point sources conveniently to create a single point source double speaker, as I explained above. *** I should point out that I was merely going into these matters to educate Poopie Stevenson. While I can see the point of stacking ESL57, or anyway did once (I wouldn't do it again), I see no point in stacking ESL63 for domestic use -- why gild a wonderful lily? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a812569f57084b You are only explaining that you know nothing about electrostatic loudspeakers. No need to stop though, you are entertaining hundreds with your buffoonery. -- Eiron. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , tony sayer
1) From wherever in space you pick up the signals from a 'point source' the radiation always seems to come from the same point source location. An Isotropic radiator in fact!.... Yes. Although that isn't reserved for point sources. I was going to say that The Sun is a 'blindingly obvious' pun example of an extended source which approximate being an isotropic radiator. However I've seen no sign of it today due to rain and cloud, so am relying on hearsay to assume it still exists. :-) 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 |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
"tony sayer" wrote
In article , Fleetie scribeth thus Not according to the "Hi-Fi Choice" article I read in the late 80s. It had a picture of his room, and in it were (at least) 2 pairs of stripped-down (grilles removed) ESL-63s, arranged so that for each channel there were 2 speakers right next to each other, but set at 90 degrees to each other. I forget his name right now but I know it's still somewhere in my memory. Oh yes, "ARA", I think. Alastair Robertson-Aikman or something? Hi-fi jurno was he then?.... Martin -- Tony Sayer What? It was a feature article about him and his system, with interview content and stuff. I'm surprised you didn't read the article yourself. Martin -- M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890 Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk scribeth thus In article , tony sayer 1) From wherever in space you pick up the signals from a 'point source' the radiation always seems to come from the same point source location. An Isotropic radiator in fact!.... Yes. Although that isn't reserved for point sources. I was going to say that The Sun is a 'blindingly obvious' pun example of an extended source which approximate being an isotropic radiator. However I've seen no sign of it today due to rain and cloud, so am relying on hearsay to assume it still exists. :-) Been quite mild here today, around 12 C so it must exist somewhere?.. Now what's that deg symbol again?, alt summat or 't other... Slainte, Jim -- Tony Sayer |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
Thank you Jim for adding some sanity to this discussion. The Quad 63
series is indeed a phased array intended to mimic a point source at an assumed distance. At least that's how Peter Walker described it to me back in 1979. If you want more bass output, buy a 989 or 9805 instead of this silly stacked arrangement of 63s. It keeps the point source mimicry with greater SPL and lower frequency output. That was the point in making them, after all. As an aside, the following paragraph is perhaps the silliest things ever written about Quads: "Put a single ESL63 or derivative -- minimum case, yeah? one speaker only, okay? -- in the middle of an empty room. Play music. Stand in front of the speaker. Hear the point source. Walk around the music. Hear the point source on the other side of the speaker. So what do you have? One speaker, two point sources." Apparently Andre never learned the definition of a point in middle school. Of course even that would be a pointless discussion... Remember Zappa's Law: There are two constants in the universe: hydrogen and stupidity. |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
|
The damping factor and the sound of real music
wrote in message ... Thank you Jim for adding some sanity to this discussion. The Quad 63 series is indeed a phased array intended to mimic a point source at an assumed distance. At least that's how Peter Walker described it to me back in 1979. If you want more bass output, buy a 989 or 9805 instead of this silly stacked arrangement of 63s. It keeps the point source mimicry with greater SPL and lower frequency output. That was the point in making them, after all. Or add an REL sub and spend some time setting it up correctly - best improvement I ever made to my Quad 63 setup, although removing the metal protective grilles also helped. Geoff MacK |
The damping factor and the sound of real music
In article , Geoff Mackenzie
wrote: Or add an REL sub and spend some time setting it up correctly - best improvement I ever made to my Quad 63 setup, although removing the metal protective grilles also helped. FWIW I added a sub to use with the 988s I use a speakers in my 'AV' system in the living room. Although I spent some weeks fiddling about, the results were certainly an improvement. However for the hifi system (in another room) I experimented a sub to go with the 63s but could not get results I preferred, so went back to using the 63s with no sub. Overall, I find the hifi with the 63s and no sub has a better sound. But there are various other differences between the two systems, so it is hard to draw a general conclusion beyond the predictable - all depends on the details. :-) 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 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 AM. |
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