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

On Dec 26, 12:00*pm, tony sayer wrote:
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

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...

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

"tony sayer" wrote
Yes but that was the ESL57 series and quite well that worked, but the
modern designs are sufficient for purpose if you want to hear what
really went on...

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?


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

Andre Jute wrote:

... 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...

Do please elaborate, Andre. We could do with some education today.

--
Eiron.

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

I'll get into it with Andre one more time as I tire his cheap
uniformed shots at audio engineers. As usual, part of what Andre
writes (here and on his website) is slightly correct, but much of it
misleading and uninformed half truths. He is a self appointed expert
without the benefit of an audio engineering education and is more
often wrong than right. Every forum needs a clown to keep it
entertaining, and Andre without his vitriol would fit the bill
nicely.

A couple of caveats: Andre and I have got into it before and I've
endured his personal attacks which don't bother me. He knows my
qualifications and hopefully won't waste time questioning them
again. Only one of us is a member of the AES, SMPTE, and ASA.

I've also been a big Quad fan my entire adult life, which means I've
owned and (and repaired) Quads since 1976, including 57's, 63', 988's,
989's. I've also listened to the new 9805's for roughly eight hours
of listening time. Toured the Huntington factory three times (twice
with Peter Walker, once with Ross) before it closed. I am listening
to a Kate Bush CD on 988's as I write this...

The traditional calculation of damping factor is a ratio of the total
impedance of the speaker divided by the total impedance to the speaker
system being driven. Both vary with frequency, especially the speaker
complex impedance. Assuming a given amplifier with a fixed impedance
of 0.1 ohm across its power output (a huge assumption, especially with
tube equipment), we only have to deal with the three other impedances
associated with the speaker: acoustic, electrical, and mechanical of
the speaker cable, speaker, and listening environment. The last two
vary across the entire listening spectrum rather radically. Most
audio engineers don't waste time calculating damping factor anymore as
the number is somewhat meaningless from a comparative standpoint.

Just the static electrical/mechanical impedance of a Quad 57 can be
seen on this website: http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml. You
tell me how to provide a single number based on that impedance graph,
let alone with the acoustic impedance of the room added. The simple
answer is you can't. Calculating these three impedances is
impossible, although it can be measured fairly easily with B&K, TEF,
MLSSA, and other commerically available machines in a given acoustic
space with a given speaker. I suspect Andre has never seen, owned, or
operated one of these devices based on my previous experiences with
his writing.

The "lowest frequency in a room" calculation stumping most audio
engineers is an even more specious argument, because it stumps all of
them! You can only estimate it, even after having all of the
dimensions and materials entered into you auralization program (like
EASE or Bose's). Again, you have to measure it with computer driven
analytic tools to really know what's going on.

The acoustic size of a room (not the mechanical size) varies with
frequency. In smaller rooms (like the one you're probably in right
now) you have dramatic differences in energy densities with time,
which argues against the traditional homogenous, statistically
reverberant sound field calculations. The acoustic juncture between
of a small room can fall as high as 500 Hz, where it is typically
below 30 Hz in a small room. The frequency dependency of the
pressure zone, modal zone, the diffusion zone, and specular reflection
zones will alter with room treatments. In other words, the low
frequency cutoff changes constantly as you play your music.

I suspect the same is true of your listening acuity as well, which
further complicates the issue.

Andre Jute wrote:

Hey, Jim, this is my thread

Usenet is public not private.

It's NOT 'your thread'.

Graham

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.

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 . . . .

;-)

"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