In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
On 30 Jul, wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf

Bit of a worry a mains transformer failing - and the maker putting
their finger on the problem immediately? If it is indeed just a
transformer and not a SMPS?

Transformer.

Finally got around to replacing the transformer this afternoon. The
speaker then powered up OK and would play music. Too soon as yet to know
if it will go wrong again or if my 'repair' has caused some other
problem. But so far so good. One nagging worry is that something else
*caused* the transformer to fail, so may do so again in the - perhaps
near - future! Fingers crossed...

Does the transformer sort of look marginal to your experienced eye, Jim?
Or does it vary from the average mains transformer in design - perhaps to
provide the HT? Just seems an unusual thing to fail - and for the factory
to put their finger on the fault instantly.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Finally got around to replacing the transformer this afternoon. The
speaker then powered up OK and would play music. Too soon as yet to
know if it will go wrong again or if my 'repair' has caused some other
problem. But so far so good. One nagging worry is that something else
*caused* the transformer to fail, so may do so again in the - perhaps
near - future! Fingers crossed...

Does the transformer sort of look marginal to your experienced eye, Jim?
Or does it vary from the average mains transformer in design - perhaps
to provide the HT? Just seems an unusual thing to fail - and for the
factory to put their finger on the fault instantly.

The mains transformer looks fairly substantial to me. The power required is
quite modest. (e.g. works with a 63mA mains fuse as standard.) and the HV
only takes a tiny trickle in normal use as implied by a couple of 220k
series resistors. So it actually is bigger and bulkier than I'd expected
and to me it looks like it should be fine for the job. The output for HV is
only about 700V rms. The 5kV dc comes from a multiplier stack.

FWIW It is a traditional frame transformer with an external scale size of 6
to 7 cm.

That said there are a few detailed differences in appearance between the
one I removed and the replacement. And there is a '2005.09' code on it that
looks like a manufacturing date. If so, it may have sat somewhere cold and
damp for a time. But no obvious visible sign of any problems.

At some point I may examine it in detail to see if I can detect what is
wrong. I guess it is a shorted set of turns somewhere. But at present I'm
too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening to the Honegger Pacific
231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this morning. Very good. :-))

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

Jim Lesurf wrote...

But at present I'm
too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening to the Honegger Pacific
231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this morning. Very good. :-))

Jim, what is it about the sound of ESL's that has led to you using them
for so long?
I've never heard a pair but have read many rave reviews, one of the
things that comes across is that they need room to breathe, how are
yours set up?

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

In article ,
UnsteadyKen
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote...

But at present I'm too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening
to the Honegger Pacific 231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this
morning. Very good. :-))

Jim, what is it about the sound of ESL's that has led to you using them
for so long? I've never heard a pair but have read many rave reviews,
one of the things that comes across is that they need room to breathe,
how are yours set up?

For me it is the superbly convincingly 'natural' stereo imaging for
excellent source material. e.g. for Proms and other good BBC R3 broadcasts.
The instruments are laid out in space beyond the speakers in the acoustic
of the hall in a way that sounds like the real thing. The speakers just
dissapear with no sense that any sounds are coming from them. I can't
really explain this to people. Once heard, you'd know. :-)

I suspect this is very much a personal perception thing and that some
people simply don't detect this, or care. And I do wonder about the extent
to which stereo is a 'trick' that some people aren't 'fooled' by so never
do hear it because their hearing is 'too good'.

But how do you explain what 'red' really looks like to someone with no
colour vision or someone who has never had a chance to see it?

They also give an excellent reproduction of human voice, and piano. Again
good for R3. But also a recent example is some Linn SACDs of piano music
played by Pizarro (Chopin, Ravel, etc). These aren't quite such good images
as they are like many CDs - the mics take you 'too close' for my taste. But
the clarity of the transients of the notes and the following 'thrum' simply
sounds to my ears far more like the real thing than I've heard from other
speakers. FWIW for test purposes I made some 96/24 versions from the SACD
to make them easier to play and examine.These sound excellent to me,
allowing for the over-wide, over-close imaging of the recording.

The main drawback people mention is the lack of bass and loudness. I'd say
this depends on the room, what you listen to, and how loud you want your
music. So again, may or may not affect someone depending on the case. The
bass seems fine to me. Indeed, on R3, it seems more 'natural' to me.

I'd say the main drawback is that they show up the poor practice of many
commercial recordings - issues like mics too close that pick up too much
'presence' range and treble that doesn't actually carry into a hall, or
multimic with panpot and echo faked stereo.

The other drawback is that if you try them and like them, other speakers
won't really 'hit the spot' for you after that. You are hooked. 8-]

Positioning in the room (for the listening seat as well as the speakers) is
quite fussy. I can understand that in some places the user may never find a
satisfactory sound. It initially took many weeks of adjustments until I got
what I felt was optimum results. This is with the following geometry:

Speaker centers about 180 cm apart and each about 95 cm from the side
walls. (Note that the room isn't particularly big!) The speaker centers are
about 140 cm from the wall behind them. The paths from each speaker center
to my listening position are about 230cm long. My head is actually close to
the nominal plane of the wall behind me *but* there is a window bay behind
me that means the actual surfaces are a bit further away than the plane of
the wall would be if there were no bay.

There is also a large 'rug' on the wall behind the speakers. This looks
good and helps damp longitundinal modes a bit.

The speakers are angled so that the axies perpendicular to their array
centers pass in front of me at about chest height when I'm sitting in the
chair.

However in another room (and for another listeners, etc!) the optimum might
be very different.

FWIW It is many years since I made much attempt to try out alternative
'new' speakers, simply because what I get from the Quads (inc the new ones
which so far sound to me like the 63s on top form) seems ideal to me. But
in past days when I tried 'cone and box' I found two things put me off.

One was that the bass tended to 'boom' to me. Like a less obvious version
of ye olde 'radiogram boom'. The other was imaging that seemed to string
things on a washing line *in front* of the speakers unless they were well
tilted so their tweeter axis was well away from pointing towards me.

For all I know I'd find the best modern 'cone and box' speakers excellent.
But don't really care if happy with what I am using.

I'd used 57s for many years. (FWIW I also use LS3/5As in another room.) But
on a trip to Graham's HiFi one day I was subjected to having to listen to a
pair of Isobariks for an hour until I complained that there was no image
and that the speakers weren't matched. (When they checked at my insistence
they found one had a popped tweeter.) They then very reluctantly brought in
a pair of 63s and we used them. They started dismissing them as rubbish
compared with the Linns. But for me the sound was the audible equivalent of
switching the lights on so I could hear what was where, and identify it
clearly! My first hearing of the 63s. Stunning!

I got a pair as soon as I had the money and a room big enough. Kept them
for 25 years. Only changed now because they clearly needed a refurb or
service and on balance I decided to try the 2805s instead. FWIW I did think
of the 2905s but decided the room was just too small for them.

To me the 2805s do have all the natural charm of the 63s. I'm not yet
certain if they sound any 'better' if I ignore why I decided to let go the
63s. Maybe all the extra mass an rigidity helps, maybe not. My jury is out
on that, and I can't do any quick AB comparisions. So I just enjoy the
results. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

On 03/08/2011 15:36, UnsteadyKen wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote...

But at present I'm
too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening to the Honegger Pacific
231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this morning. Very good. :-))

Jim, what is it about the sound of ESL's that has led to you using them
for so long?
I've never heard a pair but have read many rave reviews, one of the
things that comes across is that they need room to breathe, how are
yours set up?


I had a pair of 988s for a year or two and did find them pretty
astonishing. It's difficult for me to explain, but 'uncoloured',
'unresonant', 'precise', pin sharp' perhaps. Bass more in the 'tuneful'
than 'deep' camp, and I could never pair them with a REL sub I had
successfully.

In the main, two things led to selling them. I did find that I had to
sit still, pretty much on an axis, or else the tone/image would shift to
a much greater extent than I've found with box speakers. The sound
remained consistently good, I just found the effect tiresome.

The main reason was house room. I tried them in my main listening room,
about 14'x11', and that was really too small. They worked a lot better
in the study - 18'x11'. They pretty much swamped that room, needing a
good 3' from panel to back wall, but now I've moved to a smaller home so
they had to go.

I was also unconvinced about their durability. One developed a very
quiet 'fizz', but that didn't seem to put off the guy who bought them -
he drove from Germany and paid more or less what I'd bought them for.

If I had the money and room, I'd get another pair. For now I find ATC
and Dynaudio speakers just fine. Tonally, the Quads were very similar to
some Dynaudio Contour stand mount speakers I have.

Rob

In article m, Rob
scribeth thus
On 03/08/2011 15:36, UnsteadyKen wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote...

But at present I'm
too busy enjoying music to bother. Tried listening to the Honegger Pacific
231 and Pastorale from a recent Prom this morning. Very good. :-))

Jim, what is it about the sound of ESL's that has led to you using them
for so long?
I've never heard a pair but have read many rave reviews, one of the
things that comes across is that they need room to breathe, how are
yours set up?


I had a pair of 988s for a year or two and did find them pretty
astonishing. It's difficult for me to explain, but 'uncoloured',
'unresonant', 'precise', pin sharp' perhaps. Bass more in the 'tuneful'
than 'deep' camp, and I could never pair them with a REL sub I had
successfully.

In the main, two things led to selling them. I did find that I had to
sit still, pretty much on an axis, or else the tone/image would shift to
a much greater extent than I've found with box speakers. The sound
remained consistently good, I just found the effect tiresome.

The main reason was house room. I tried them in my main listening room,
about 14'x11', and that was really too small. They worked a lot better
in the study - 18'x11'. They pretty much swamped that room, needing a
good 3' from panel to back wall, but now I've moved to a smaller home so
they had to go.

I was also unconvinced about their durability. One developed a very
quiet 'fizz', but that didn't seem to put off the guy who bought them -
he drove from Germany and paid more or less what I'd bought them for.

Owing the 6 kV odd HT there is sometimes a bit of static discharge which
is sometimes due to the humidity or damp but usually nothing to worry
about.

What is are loud cracking noises! Not good and expensive;!...

If I had the money and room, I'd get another pair. For now I find ATC
and Dynaudio speakers just fine. Tonally, the Quads were very similar to
some Dynaudio Contour stand mount speakers I have.

Rob


--
Tony Sayer

Snip

I got a pair as soon as I had the money and a room big enough. Kept them
for 25 years. Only changed now because they clearly needed a refurb or
service and on balance I decided to try the 2805s instead. FWIW I did think
of the 2905s but decided the room was just too small for them.

To me the 2805s do have all the natural charm of the 63s. I'm not yet
certain if they sound any 'better' if I ignore why I decided to let go the
63s. Maybe all the extra mass an rigidity helps, maybe not. My jury is out
on that, and I can't do any quick AB comparisions. So I just enjoy the
results. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Sums them up very well. They are sometimes too neutral, accurate and
flat for some. If you like a nice "tone" then you should be looking
elsewhere;!....

--
Tony Sayer

In article m, Rob
wrote:


I had a pair of 988s for a year or two and did find them pretty
astonishing. It's difficult for me to explain, but 'uncoloured',
'unresonant', 'precise', pin sharp' perhaps. Bass more in the 'tuneful'
than 'deep' camp, and I could never pair them with a REL sub I had
successfully.

I've managed to get a sub working OK with the 988s I use in the living room
'AV' system (just stereo, of course). But never found any happy combination
of a sub with the old 63s in the hifi room. I guess this is partly a matter
of different room acoustics, and partly a matter of different source
material.

In the main, two things led to selling them. I did find that I had to
sit still, pretty much on an axis, or else the tone/image would shift to
a much greater extent than I've found with box speakers. The sound
remained consistently good, I just found the effect tiresome.

I recognise what you mean. Even optimally set up I experience something
similar. I tend to regard them as the 'biggest pair of virtual headphones
in the world' in some ways. The best result means having your head in about
the right location to get your ears in the right places wrt the invisible
large headphones floating in space. So then a matter of getting this
spatial volume wide enough and conveniently placed. The details of the
effect as you move depend in details like the angling of the speakers. But
again I guess in some rooms this all may be totally impractical. Bit like
the challenge of using an internal antenna for radio. In some rooms, easy,
in others it requires the antenna to float in space somewhere impractical.

Bottom line for me, though, is that I never heard any other speakers give
such imaging as you get once your head is in about the right place. So
other speakers 'get it wrong everywhere' from my POV, whereas the Quads
'get it superbly right' but only in a limited range of listening positions.

I was also unconvinced about their durability. One developed a very
quiet 'fizz', but that didn't seem to put off the guy who bought them -
he drove from Germany and paid more or less what I'd bought them for.

I've found that various faint 'fizz' or 'tick' sounds can appear, but then
evaporate again a few hours or days later. I'm afraid this is par for the
course with an ESL. However with the 63s and 988s these problems have
seemed rare and fleeting. My fingers are crossed that the 2805s do as well.
If so, I'll be happy.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

On 04/08/2011 16:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:


I had a pair of 988s for a year or two and did find them pretty
astonishing. It's difficult for me to explain, but 'uncoloured',
'unresonant', 'precise', pin sharp' perhaps. Bass more in the 'tuneful'
than 'deep' camp, and I could never pair them with a REL sub I had
successfully.

I've managed to get a sub working OK with the 988s I use in the living room
'AV' system (just stereo, of course). But never found any happy combination
of a sub with the old 63s in the hifi room. I guess this is partly a matter
of different room acoustics, and partly a matter of different source
material.

In the main, two things led to selling them. I did find that I had to
sit still, pretty much on an axis, or else the tone/image would shift to
a much greater extent than I've found with box speakers. The sound
remained consistently good, I just found the effect tiresome.

I recognise what you mean. Even optimally set up I experience something
similar. I tend to regard them as the 'biggest pair of virtual headphones
in the world' in some ways. The best result means having your head in about
the right location to get your ears in the right places wrt the invisible
large headphones floating in space.

So the 'virtual point source' doesn't really work?

Who was it who claimed to use four stacked ESL63s either side of his desk
as the world's biggest pair of headphones?

--
Eiron.

In article , Eiron
wrote:
On 04/08/2011 16:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:


I recognise what you mean. Even optimally set up I experience
something similar. I tend to regard them as the 'biggest pair of
virtual headphones in the world' in some ways. The best result means
having your head in about the right location to get your ears in the
right places wrt the invisible large headphones floating in space.

So the 'virtual point source' doesn't really work?

You'd have to be more specific in the definition of words like 'virtual' to
decide. :-)

It clearly cannot act as a true point source because the array beams field
patterns to front and rear, and does so in antiphase between fore and aft.
Whereas a true 'point source' can only generate a spherically symmetric
wave pattern.

However the phased array does synthesise an approximation to point source
*like* behaviour in the far field of the array in directions near to the
normal though the center of the array. In the near field and/or well away
from this axis the behaviour will vary.

Also note that *in a room* you also get the room reflections and will be
affected by any difference in flight time delays along the paths from
speakers to ears. So unless you sit symmetrically wrt the speaker pair and
have a reasonably symmetric room acoustic the stereo image will be affected
in various ways. Quite a lot of the fiddling about with location, angles,
etc, in a room will, I guess, be to try an optimise the effects of these
influences.

In terms of imaging it may be more significant that the effective size of
the radiating source roughly scales with wavelength over a reasonable range
of frequencies, and the speakers do 'beam' in a controlled way. Thus the
details of how they may excite room modes will be different to conventional
speakers. You may therefore get a higher ratio of 'direct' to 'sidewall
reflected' and 'ceiling and floor reflected' sound than with other
speakers, and the ratio doesn't change abruptly at the region where a
normal speaker has its crossover from woofer to tweeter.

Have you encountered Floyd Toole's papers or his book on the speakers and
room effects? So far as I recall he didn't deal with the 'Quad array' but I
think what he says about conventional speakers and rooms is very
interesting.

Who was it who claimed to use four stacked ESL63s either side of his
desk as the world's biggest pair of headphones?

Pass. ...No, I don't mean 'Nelson Pass'. I mean 'Mastermind Pass'. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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