In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations in pop
recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with infinite
baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the impression
that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker bass drum:-)

They can be OK for that - but only at limited sound pressure levels in a
small enough room. So not a very 'safe' choice for such a task I guess in
pop studios. Hence suitable for careful home use, but probably not for use
at sound levels that try to match the orginal for such a source. :-)

Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
for their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.

They were used because they met the expectations of producer, engineer,
client and musician. You can't ask much more than that, can you?

That seems fine given that the people using them have presumably gained
experience in 'calibrating' the change in sound between what they hear when
at work using these, and what the results then tend to be with domestic
systems.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I'm not much of
a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
Yorks.

Neither of those rate very highly in the Tannoy range IMO.

Quite possibly.

The old
Lancaster was good,

Didn't much like those - in 15" form at least.

also the old (and new) Canterbury. The Westminster
is wonderful.

Haven't heard either.

But so was the Little Red Monitor. albeit in a different
class.

There we must differ. Absolutely hate the things, despite their
popularity. Perhaps I just dislike large speakers in small boxes.

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

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

In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.


Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS (the prof version
wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.

They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
room monitoring.

Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
much higher SPL.

Yes. I would have been afraid of breaking them just doing a drum check:-)

The concensus was that the mids were
beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)

The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
Hz.

When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak,

Was that the 57 ELS?..


--
Tony Sayer

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers. Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

David.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio
monitors.


Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS (the prof version
wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.

They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
room monitoring.

Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
much higher SPL.

Yes. I would have been afraid of breaking them just doing a drum check:-)

The concensus was that the mids were
beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)

The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
Hz.

When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak,

Was that the 57 ELS?..

No. The later "pro" version intended for USA export IIRC.
Black with handles on the side.

Iain

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

Iain Churches wrote...

When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.

Peter Walker once remarked that if you wanted more bass than the ELS
produced then one could kick a cardboard box in time to the music.


--
Ken

Feeble audio links site
http://unsteadyken.sitegoz.com/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Iain Churches wrote...

When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.

Peter Walker once remarked that if you wanted more bass than the ELS
produced then one could kick a cardboard box in time to the music.


Walker was a bit of a chauvinist about his own products. ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
not talking about quiet.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is why.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
not talking about quiet.

That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
why.

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal
noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting
in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[2] "

In the case of speakers, the logical low level noise level would be set by
human hearing at 0 dB SPL, or the "room tone" of the room the speaker is
used in. Since both values are the same for all speakers being compared to
each other in a fair way, dynamic range in a given room could be a logical
means for comparison.