In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

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

I recall breaking out in a sweat hearing the 63s straining at a big-band
in full flight (Ted Heath, or Mike Westbrook, can't remember) And
that certainly could not be described as abuse. One has to be able to
reproduce the recording at the same level as the band played it in
the studio:-)


Same level at home too;?...

No. I am talk about studio codnditions, and the poor
suitability of the ESL63 in this environment. The players
in a big-band like the two mentioned aove expect power,
impact and a full dynamic from, "ppp" to " sffz" from
seven brass, five saxes, percussion and a rhythm section.
A monitor system in a large control room with perhaps
twenty people listening needs to be able to produce
high SPLs.


Yes well.. thats more like a PA rig then;, nothing to do with quality
assessment...

There was another consideration. As this pair of speakers
had been presented to Decca by PW himself, none of us
wanted the unenviable task of knocking on the door of the
technical director and tell him they had been damaged.


How very considerate..


It didn't seem worth "blotting ones copy book" for a pair of
speakers that clearly could not fulfill the requirements of a
studio role.


I remember seeing some being tested at the factory once and they were
fed with a square wave and the output on the scope from the B&K Mic was
.. well .. very square..


Their accuracy has never been in doubt. I remember
that Harley Usill, the recording director (producer) of
the Pygmalion recording to which I referred earlier, was
greatly impressed by the "realism" of the reproduction.

)...

Iain




--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
To my ears far less than any cone-and-box speakers I've ever heard.
Measureably lower distortion and resonances over the bulk of the
audible range. I certainly don't notice any colourations when using
them, but I do tend to with cone-and-box ones.

Indeed .. as good as what the Spendors and LS35/A's are here the Quads
are "the" ones for serious listening)..

LS 3/5a were designed by the BBC to be as good as possible a monitor where
space was severely restricted. Like in some applications in an outside
broadcast truck. Etc. Not as the best possible monitor regardless. And as
such they work well for domestic use. Where the same parameters apply.
I've got a pair in the kitchen and they have provided sterling service. As
do this pair in this room where this computer is.

Only someone who compares equipment by price would set them against larger
units.


Yes mine are in use for computer speakers, and very good for the app
they are too)...

Being driven via a Digigram soundcard which we had no other use for..




--
Tony Sayer

In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Trust me, if I had wanted ESLs in the past I'd have got ESLs and if I
find I
want them in the future (a bit unlikely) I'll *get* ESLs!!

Will that do ya? :-)

Yeabut you'd never get a SET amp to drive 'em

Unless you've got a few old transmitting triodes around;!...


I know your only joking, but I'll point out that the 'holy trinity' for me
is 'valves (triodes), vinyl and horns' - for other situations I use whatever
amp and speakers best suit the requirements.

Atm, my speaker/amp setups are as follows:

Vinyl - 2A3 SET/Fidelios (horns)

Cinema 1 - Sony SS multichannel/Ruarks/Tannoys

Those proper Tannoy's or the newer ones?...

Cinema 2 - KT88 PP valves/ Buschhorn Mk IIs (horns)

Computer - Denon SS/Cyburg 'Needles' (horns)

Garage - Roberts radio

Bathroom - Roberts radio

Car - Pioneer CD/radio

Almost dominated by single, 'fullrange' drivers aren't I...??

:-)







--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:18:15 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

None of the Quad designs are suitable for pro monitoring use. Only place
I know that tried was the ABC studios at Teddington, many many years ago.
Under the control of a 'musician' rather than professional.

"Professionals" consistently do terrible things to my music. In fact,
when amplification is involved, *I* frequently do terrible things to
my music - it's all to easy to let levels run away with themselves.

My constant plea to sound professionals is "turn it down" whether it's
overall level at a live gig or monitor levels at a recording.

In article 49fc823e.1124263953@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:07:25 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Alas, the kind of imaging I'm referring to tends in my experience to
require very carefully symmetry in the listening layout, and speakers
like the Quads with a defined directional behaviour. Hence the need to
have a small sweet spot in a small room.

My finding on this is that the sweet spot can be enlarged usefully if
you stop worrying about symmetry, but instead concentrate on creating
diffuse reflections rather than specular ones, particularly from the
walls beside the speakers. With that taken care of, pointing the
speakers a little straighter into the room rather than crossing exactly
at the seating position can make them cover three seats with solid
imaging.

My experience with that is that it also 'blurs out' the images for specific
instruments/voices. So you end up moving towards the old 'Sonab' experience
where you got etherial noises from around you wherever you went. They
regarded that as 'stereo', but I don't.

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:

I recall breaking out in a sweat hearing the 63s straining at a big-band
in full flight (Ted Heath, or Mike Westbrook, can't remember) And that
certainly could not be described as abuse. One has to be able to
reproduce the recording at the same level as the band played it in the
studio:-)

You may have to do so if in a studio or hall, or wish to check the results.
But in many UK domestic rooms a lower level is likely to make better sense.
Due to the way 'close' reflections tend to enhance the perceived sound
level.

However 63s should survive this with no damage - unless your power amp
could drive enough to blow the triacs in them, and you were determined.
Assuming, or course, a natural peak/mean value for the signals. I'd be more
worried with heavily processed pop that seems to have a peak/mean ratio of
about 0dB and a similar dynamic range. But they you don't need ESLs to
listen to that... although maybe if studios did, they'd learn to make
better pop recordings. :-)

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 , tony sayer

wrote:

I remember seeing some being tested at the factory once and they were
fed with a square wave and the output on the scope from the B&K Mic was
.. well .. very square..

I've also seen that. Also that they would drive two ESLs in antiphase to
check they could null the two outputs at the mic to confirm the two
speakers were near identical in performance. Never seen that with any other
speaker outside an anechoic chamber. They did it in the open factory when I
was there.

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 , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


I do have form in this as I did once set fire to a 57. 8-]


:-)

The impressive thing was that Led Zep sounded the same with a couple of
feet of flames emerging from the center of the speaker - for a while...
:-)

TBH I've long come to regard the Quads as "the world's largest pair
of headphones" because of the critical sweetspot, placing, etc.
Fortunately, the results when right are excellent, and the sound
can be enjoyed by others sitting elsewhere - if they are less fussy
about imaging.


Ever tried Stax 'Earspeakers'? Only about 400 quid a pair, I believe!!

I've tried earlier models from them, and did like them. But I tend to find
headphones don't give me the same 'out there' image, and tend to become
uncomfortable after a while.

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:
None of the Quad designs are suitable for pro monitoring use. Only
place I know that tried was the ABC studios at Teddington, many many
years ago. Under the control of a 'musician' rather than professional.


LOL. So a musician is not a professional? Normally pieces of
equipment such as speakers are chosen by a panel of both
engineering and production/artistic staff. I know that at ABC
(Thames studios after 1968), the opinion of the musical
director, Ronnie Aldrich, who was a good friend of mine, was
often sought, and his view highly regarded. Was he the musician
to whom you refer?

I don't know for certain since it was before my time there - but was
sometimes discussed round the coffee table. The other strange speakers
used were Tannoy Autographs as tracking foldback speakers - fed via 100
volt line. But those had gone too by the time I worked there. But lived on
in legend...

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

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

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I wasn't talking about a 'lead' guitar' I assumed you were talking about
bass guitars. Was I wrong?

The idea is to hear the sound of the instrument, straight from the pickup
as I stated previously.

Using a DI doesn't give the sound of the instrument, though, Iain.

It's all pretty academic really, as you almost
certainly will not bother to make the comparison I described:-)

It is indeed. Do you use contact mics on a decent piano to get 'the sound
of the instrument' too?

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

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