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

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.

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

"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

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

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.

wrote:

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.

No, that part is correct. It's all the other stuff about stacking,
either above or behind, which is wrong.

--
Eiron.

Yo, anonymous , are you the same clown who earlier
this week displayed a mountainous inferiority complex by sending us
your complete curriculum vitae and then becoming so flustered you
forgot to sign it? This sort of ignorant crap won't make us think any
more kindly of your supposed "qualifications".

On Dec 29, 5:12*pm, " wrote:
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.

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.

Either the Quad ESL63 is a real point source, which you have already
denied, or a faux point source. If it is a faux point source, then it
doesn't need to answer to the theoretical parameters of a real point
source, the particular parameter under discussion here being that it
must be a singularity.

It seems to me, anonymous emmaco, that when Mr Walker explained the
principle of his speaker to you, you salivated so much at the prospect
of dropping his name that the liquid got into your ears and interfered
with your hearing. The only alternative explanation is that you're
claiming that Peter Walker lied about the physics of his speaker. Who
will believe that from some American public address rigger?

Of course even that would be a pointless discussion...

Oh, I don't think so. You are too much given, anonymous emmaco, to
uttering dumb sweeping statements and then hiding behind your
"qualifications" when people laugh at your stupidities. So here it is
again, offered for you to *prove* the contrary if you can:

"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." -- Andre Jute

If you have access to a Quad ESL from the -63 forward, I suggest that
before you make a fool of yourself again, you try the experiment
either with your ears, if they aren't deaf yet from testing your PA
installations, or with a meter, if you have one and know how to use
it. There are two point sources as anyone with a Quad ESL63 or later
will tell you. They are empirically confirmable -- in SoCalSpeak:
listen with your own ears, sonny.

Remember Zappa's Law: *There are two constants in the universe:
hydrogen and stupidity.

Goes double for blustering clowns from Southern California, as we can
see here.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

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

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