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

Hey, Jim, this is my thread which I started and shared with UKRA for
edification and laughter. It's a bit mean of you, in this season too,
to grab it all for yourself by editing the distribution list, thereby
depriving us of your great wisdom and knowledge, especially when
you're in agreement with me, thereby affirming your great wisdom and
knowledge.

On Dec 24, 12:05 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
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'... :-)

I am always amazed (and entertained by their stupidity, er,,, on
Christmas day I mean chutzpuh) of people whose own speakers bottom out
around 100Hz lecturing me on how my Quad ESL-63 are "bass light"
because they heard some other clown say it. (Dave Plowman already made
the point about most people's idea of bass being around 100Hz. Gordon
Rankin, the American amp designer, once made the point in a discussion
of designing boxes for Diatech speakers that the cleanest sound is by
rolling them off at about 60Hz rather than the 10 or even 15Hz lower
that was then the mode. I tried it. Wonderful sound for box speakers;
made the more normal designs sound wretched. On another occasion I was
trying a crossover point on 57s to woofers of 110Hz and somehow in a
listening session, the woofer wasn't operating -- I swear I didn't do
it on purpose -- and none of my panel of self-declared audiophiles,
though none of them with electrostats at home, noticed a thing...)

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.

It is worth saying that Quad stats, in a room say smaller than 3000
cubic feet, *will* damage your ears, and the more so if you stack them
correctly to enhance the bass, because the bass is enhanced more than
the mid- and high-frequencies. What happens on a stat is that bass is
so clean that you think there is less of it, you turn it up, there
isn't the grunge expected from boomboxes which also acts as a level-
signal, you keep turning it up, and the actual sound energy reaching
your ears is much higher than you would permit with a boombox. I
became very aware of this when I bought a STAX electrostatic earphone
as a gift for myself last Christmas. In test, trying to level-match
B&O, Sennheiser and STAX headphones, I discovered that I used the STAX
consistently 2dB and more above the level of the conventional driver
headphones. I don't have a dummy measuring head, so my numbers may be
a bit of a kludge, but the tendency is clear, and the reason is the
clean bass, the absence of warning signals included in lower quality
bass.

Slainte,

****ing outside in the green and beloved island. I was planning a ride
on my bike this afternoon. Oh well...

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

May you never come to the notice of the authorities!

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:

Hey, Jim, this is my thread

Usenet is public not private.

It's NOT 'your thread'.

Graham

On 12/26/07 11:50 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
wrote:



Andre Jute wrote:

Hey, Jim, this is my thread

Usenet is public not private.

It's NOT 'your thread'.

Graham


Graham,

If you are a narcissist, it is . . . .

;-)

In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:

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.

In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57 variety.
What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them such that
they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric rings and
imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered useless?

Cheers,

Bob.


Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57
variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them
such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric
rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered
useless?


Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....

I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is
limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the
most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent
imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to
really decide how well it worked.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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

On Dec 26, 12:49 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In an attempt to improve both the LF extension and spl stacking is
sometimes used and I can see that that would be fine with the 57
variety. What about your 63s? Presumably you would have to arrange them
such that they form part of an outer circle otherwise their concentric
rings and imaginary point source behind the speakers will be rendered
useless?
Unless you must have it louder there wouldn't be any point and as said
the point source will be sodded up....

I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics is
limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps the
most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had excellent
imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a stacked set up to
really decide how well it worked.

Well, I had stacked ESL57 for years, and perhaps everyone should
experience them once but stacks are not the end-all and be-all of
stats; I'm just explaining to Poopie how it is done with the round-
form diaphraghms like the ESL-63 because he doesn't appear to have the
brains to work it out.

The 57 is tricky to stack right; you can as easily muddle your sound
as boost its volume. You stack ESL-57 one on top of the other, the top
one turned upside down and angled towards the bottom one, the entire
assembly pivoted around the joint towards the listening chair, ditto
for the assembly on the other side. Each assembly is also angled
inwards in relation to the side wall to face the listening chair
squarely (line from the listening chair to the radiating face hits it
perpendicularly). Now you're looking at four imaginary lines making a
pyramid towards the listening chair. It helps to get the four lines
the same length if you raise the assembly on each side several feet
and tilt it over towards the listening chair. As by now you suspect,
stacking ESL57 turns your music into a perfectly lonely pastime; the
sweet spot becomes hypercritical in three dimensions. I kept stacked
ESL for years because mine was aimed at my work chair in front of my
computer, in which I sat in the sweet spot for hours. Visitors to my
study had only a partial experience of the music...

For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my
music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's
own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play
just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the
contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting
away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical
experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my
reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard. Soundstaging
is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for
what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a
party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the
enjoyment of music.

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

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:
I've oft wondered about that. My actual experience of electrostatics
is limited in depth to the original Quad design. And those had perhaps
the most critical sweet spot of any speaker, but when in it had
excellent imaging. I never did have an opportunity to live with a
stacked set up to really decide how well it worked.

Well, I had stacked ESL57 for years, and perhaps everyone should
experience them once but stacks are not the end-all and be-all of
stats; I'm just explaining to Poopie how it is done with the round-
form diaphraghms like the ESL-63 because he doesn't appear to have the
brains to work it out.

The 57 is tricky to stack right; you can as easily muddle your sound
as boost its volume. You stack ESL-57 one on top of the other, the top
one turned upside down and angled towards the bottom one, the entire
assembly pivoted around the joint towards the listening chair, ditto
for the assembly on the other side. Each assembly is also angled
inwards in relation to the side wall to face the listening chair
squarely (line from the listening chair to the radiating face hits it
perpendicularly). Now you're looking at four imaginary lines making a
pyramid towards the listening chair. It helps to get the four lines
the same length if you raise the assembly on each side several feet
and tilt it over towards the listening chair. As by now you suspect,
stacking ESL57 turns your music into a perfectly lonely pastime; the
sweet spot becomes hypercritical in three dimensions. I kept stacked
ESL for years because mine was aimed at my work chair in front of my
computer, in which I sat in the sweet spot for hours. Visitors to my
study had only a partial experience of the music...

What I suspected. I only really heard them once and was plonked in the
listening chair by the owner. And was reasonably impressed - although I
need long term experience to form a firm opinion.

For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my
music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's
own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play
just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the
contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting
away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical
experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my
reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard. Soundstaging
is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for
what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a
party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the
enjoyment of music.

I totally disagree. Everything being equal good stereo adds considerably
to the enjoyment of pretty well any music or indeed reproduced sounds. It
is of course more difficult to get good stereo in an average room and
possibly also to record it. Certainly to reproduce it on early media which
had to be mono compatible. Both FM radio and LP suffered flaws through the
adoption of stereo.

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

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

I totally disagree. Everything being equal good stereo adds considerably
to the enjoyment of pretty well any music or indeed reproduced sounds. It
is of course more difficult to get good stereo in an average room and
possibly also to record it. Certainly to reproduce it on early media which
had to be mono compatible.


Both FM radio and LP suffered flaws through the
adoption of stereo.

And of course digital Radio adopts better to Mono than Stereo;!....
--
Tony Sayer

"Andre Jute" wrote

snupped to isolate the point

Snupped??

Whatever....


For years I also had a singleton 57 from some old chappie who read my
music column; it came complete with correspondence in Peter Walker's
own hand which I still have. Sometimes for months on end I would play
just the single 57, and not because I was moving around, quite the
contrary: I was sitting at my desk for 16 hours every day grafting
away on a big book. I remember that as one of the sweetest musical
experiences ever, a really good reason to go mono; that is still my
reference of the purest, most angelic sound I ever heard.


Hah!


Soundstaging
is really a rather trivial trick, and the only one stereo offers for
what is often a very high price in its associated downsides; it is a
party trick for "audiophiles" who have no real interest in the
enjoyment of music.


It never fails to amaze me: a) that so many people dismiss mono simply
because it isn't stereo and b) don't know when they are listening to mono
anyway!!

Only last night, my visitor (presently suffering from ME and struggles to
get out of the house atm and whose weekly 'Tuesday therapy' transcends
trivial interruptions like Christmas) who is a good listener and good
*hearer* requested Brubeck at hideous o'clock last night/early this morning.
I put on the version I like best (original '59 mono recording on Fontana
TFL5085) and we were listening to it; suddenly he said 'That's *mono*!' - I
said 'Yes, do you like it? 'Oh yes!', sez he (Take Five - wot else?)

Stereo has got a lot to answer for with some stuff - 20' wide violins and
pianos being wheeled backwards and forwards across the stage and such!
Here's a Christmas 'Stereo Quiz' game: Change the following in 5 moves, only
one letter at a time:

ENHANCED
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
****EDUP