| Author |
Message |
Phil Allison
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:15 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Stewart Pinkerton"
The Turneroid
| Quote: |
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
|
** More absolute bullshit from Pinko the Pommy Prick.
The ESL 57 is quite easy to drive - it is a nominal 16 ohm load that stays
above 8 ohms from 22Hz to 8 kHz.
The Quad mk2 and 303 had no problems - nor do most bog standard amps of up
to 50 watts/8 ohm rating. The only proviso is that the amp not produce sub
sonics and/or has adequate short circuit protection.
The max SPL at 2 metres is *specified* by Quad as 100 dB from 70 Hz to 7
Hz - with a stereo pair operating in a typical lounge room the max SPL at
the listening position is 107 dB ( or 110 dB peak) or more.
This means that normal recorded programme can be reproduced with an average
SPL of 95 dB for as long as you like - or can tolerate the hearing damage.
The vast majority of 2 and 3 way box speakers cannot match the SPL achieved
by the of the ESL 57 without sounding distinctly muddy by comparison.
Use vertically stacked ESL57s and there is no comparison at all.
................ Phil
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:04 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:15:48 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | "Stewart Pinkerton"
Patrick Turner
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
** More absolute bullshit from Pinko the Pommy Prick.
|
Noted that you have no real answer, just the usual childish
name-calling. Too many tinnies again?
| Quote: | The ESL 57 is quite easy to drive - it is a nominal 16 ohm load that stays
above 8 ohms from 22Hz to 8 kHz.
|
It distorts horribly below 40Hz due to transformer saturation, its
phase angle is all over the place, and the impedance drops to 2 ohms
at 18kHz. It arcs with inputs above 20 volts rms.
| Quote: | The max SPL at 2 metres is *specified* by Quad as 100 dB from 70 Hz to 7
Hz - with a stereo pair operating in a typical lounge room the max SPL at
the listening position is 107 dB ( or 110 dB peak) or more.
|
You can't do sums either, can you? Never mind what the maker may or
may not claim, these speakers were *measured* to produce around
82dB/W/m and were *measured* to arc with more than 20 volts rms input,
i.e. at 99dB peak SPL.
That means that in a typical listening room, you'll peak at around
104dB, not bad, but not up to full orchestral tuttis. This revisionist
bullshit of yours is absolute crap, as the Quad 'stats have *always*
been known as super-clean speakers that simply will *not* play loud -
until the 989, at least.
| Quote: | This means that normal recorded programme can be reproduced with an average
SPL of 95 dB for as long as you like - or can tolerate the hearing damage.
|
Sure - but any decent modern hi-fi rig will run comfortably at 10dB
more than this, hence running at low distortion when the '57 is maxing
out.
| Quote: | The vast majority of 2 and 3 way box speakers cannot match the SPL achieved
by the of the ESL 57 without sounding distinctly muddy by comparison.
|
Utter bullshit, if you're talking about top-class modern speakers
costing about the same as Quad 'stats.
| Quote: | Use vertically stacked ESL57s and there is no comparison at all.
|
True, it's about the peakiest and most comb-filtered horror you could
imagine! As with SET amps, they have a cult following, but they're
horribly flawed. The 989 is a *vastly* superior speaker.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:04 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:30:43 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | "Stewart Pinkerton"
Phil Allison wrote:
- it's around 110-130 Hz
(varies quite a bit due to varying skin tension with humidity and
temperature), and it isn't above 8 ohms for more than an octave or so
either side, which is about as sharp as it gets for decent speakers.
** The 8 ohm points are at 50 Hz and 1 kHz - makes it over 4 octaves
wide.
It is certainly not "massive" or "sharp" .
|
Utter crap - the 8 ohm points I have from *measurements* made by Hi-Fi
Choice are at 95 and 500Hz, which is pretty sharp.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
The Turneroid
| Quote: |
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
** More absolute bullshit from Pinko the Pommy Prick.
Noted that you have no real answer,
|
** Noted - you have wanked yourself blind and cannot see what is on
your screen.
| Quote: | The ESL 57 is quite easy to drive - it is a nominal 16 ohm load that
stays
above 8 ohms from 22Hz to 8 kHz.
It distorts horribly below 40Hz due to transformer saturation, its
phase angle is all over the place, and the impedance drops to 2 ohms
at 18kHz.
|
** Full power at 40 Hz is *extremely* rare on a commercial recording -
plus the ESL57 has no output down that low anyhow. 2 ohms at 18 kHz is of
no consequence whatever.
Pinkie is a damn LIAR !!!!
| Quote: | It arcs with inputs above 20 volts rms.
|
** Then use an amp with no more.
| Quote: | The max SPL at 2 metres is *specified* by Quad as 100 dB from 70 Hz to 7
Hz - with a stereo pair operating in a typical lounge room the max SPL
at
the listening position is 107 dB ( or 110 dB peak) or more.
You can't do sums either, can you? Never mind what the maker may or
may not claim, these speakers were *measured* to produce around
82dB/W/m....
|
** Measured by whom ????
82 dB would be the SPL from 1 watt at *2 * meters - not 1.
| Quote: | and were *measured* to arc with more than 20 volts rms input,
i.e. at 99dB peak SPL.
|
** 20 volts rms is the safe limit and gives 100 dB at 2 meters
As claimed by Quad and measured.
Pinkie's factoids do not count.
| Quote: | That means that in a typical listening room, you'll peak at around
104dB, not bad, but not up to full orchestral tuttis.
|
** Audiophool crapology.
The sound is easily loud enough for most folk - even most pop fans.
| Quote: | This revisionist
bullshit of yours is absolute crap, as the Quad 'stats have *always*
been known as super-clean speakers that simply will *not* play loud -
|
** All my figures are factual ( straight from published data ) and measured
for confirmation with several different pairs.
Pinkie is a damn LIAR.
| Quote: | This means that normal recorded programme can be reproduced with an
average
SPL of 95 dB for as long as you like - or can tolerate the hearing
damage.
Sure - but any decent modern hi-fi rig will run comfortably at 10dB
more than this,
|
** Audiophool crapology.
The sound is easily loud enough for most folk - even most pop fans.
| Quote: |
The vast majority of 2 and 3 way box speakers cannot match the SPL
achieved
by the of the ESL 57 without sounding distinctly muddy by comparison.
Utter bullshit, if you're talking about top-class modern speakers
costing about the same as Quad 'stats.
|
** A pair of ESL 57s in good condition sells for about A$1500.
No new box speaker at that price comes within cooee.
| Quote: | Use vertically stacked ESL57s and there is no comparison at all.
True, it's about the peakiest and most comb-filtered horror you could
imagine!
|
** Pinkie's factoids do not count.
If most folk get Quad ESL57 stacking wrong - that is not my fault.
There is only one way to do it that works - and it is NOT the one where
the curve is simply extended.
............... Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Patrick Turner"
| Quote: | Nobody has a factual reference in black and white, so what's the use of a
discussion?
|
** You did **not** ask !!!!
You were INVENTING numbers willy nilly with such GAY abandon it would
have spoilt your fun to supply facts.
I posted a URL for the ESL 63 today - with results from James Moir and
Assoc.
There is a Louis Challis review in Electronics Today, Nov 1982 that has
similar results.
I have a hand drawn impedance curve for an ESL57 ( my own) that covers DC
to 50 kHz - never seen the like published anywhere.
.............. Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:03:05 +1100, Patrick Turner
info@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
Neither Pinky or Phil can quote the official Quad test figures and Quad's
official equivalant LCR models for the speakers being discussed.
That's because they don't exist.
Maybe neither man is aware of what Mr Walker did all those years ago.
I'm very well aware of what he did - do you actually have a point to
make?
|
Nobody has a factual reference in black and white, so what's the use of a
discussion?
| Quote: |
I suggest somebody provide them with a URL for the inspection of the
necessary info to avoid further stupid conflict.
There is no such URL, so why provoke an even more stupid conflict?
If I had the info, I would have posted it, but a search for
1/2 an hour at Google revealed nothing.
The origin of this thread was about whether speakers are resistive or not
for amps, and some are, and some ain't, and some are mainly
reactive, some are mainly resistive.
No Sher, shitlock!
|
Now I would have to say that " No Sher, shitlock! "
is gobbledegook.
| Quote: |
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
|
I can see Phil foaming at the mouth.......
| Quote: |
Where a speaker is mainly reactive at a given frequency then over 1/2 the amp
current
flows in the reactance, and contributes nothing to the sound.
It may follow that the greater the reactive current flow the less sensitive a
speaker is
at some F.
As I said before, its possible to equalise dynamic speakers
with RC zobels to make them look resistive at their upper region of bandwidths.
Then 3 drivers can together be made to look resistive over a wide portion of
bandwidth,
but never completely or purely resistive.
And it's utterly unnecessary with decent solid state amplifiers, which
provide a good voltage source.
|
Same goes for any "decent" tube amp.
A couple of customers of mine have deliberately purchased a tube amp from me
because they have ESL speakers.They are very well pleased.
| Quote: |
Its not always easy to do this, and many dynamic speakers have wild impedance
character,
but that doesn't mean they sound crook .
But it often does mean just that if they're driven from low-powered
valve amps with high Ro.
|
It depends.
One guy elsewhere on the net said his 2A3 SET amps do fine with ESL57.
Only 3 watts.
Maybe he has a small room, and doesn't like it too loud.
Quite a few folks have several systems used for different reasons,
and for different music.
Its a case of horses for courses.
Patrick Turner.
| Quote: |
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
| Quote: | - it's around 110-130 Hz
(varies quite a bit due to varying skin tension with humidity and
temperature), and it isn't above 8 ohms for more than an octave or so
either side, which is about as sharp as it gets for decent speakers.
** The 8 ohm points are at 50 Hz and 1 kHz - makes it over 4 octaves
wide.
It is certainly not "massive" or "sharp" .
Utter crap ...
|
** Fuck you - shithead.
- the 8 ohm points I have from *measurements* made by Hi-Fi
| Quote: | Choice are at 95 and 500Hz, which is pretty sharp.
|
** 3.5 octaves wide is not a " massive sharp peak" - you stinking
LIAR.
............ Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Phil Allison wrote:
| Quote: | "Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:
But then you have 1.6 ohms in series, so the reactance never
dominates
the impedance character at any F.
** Pure drivel.
Not pure drivel.
So I would agree, the Quad speaker would have a mainly C type load
above 5
kHz.
** Anyone see an arse about going on here ????????????????
The Turneroid has no idea which way his is facing.
Do I worry?
** The Turneroid autodidact moron is such a blatant fucking liar he worries
about nothing.
Not need to make sense nor avoid self contradictions a few lines apart
for him.
The thread was about whther speakers present an R load to the amp or not.
** Which there is simply no debate about - in general the answer is NO.
The issue is the definition of "resistive" in relation to a speaker load.
The Turneroid has invented his own asinine one which keeps changing to suit
whatever lie he is posting.
** You forgot about the parallel L of 55mH - bird brain.
55 mH is a high amount of impedance at all audio F.
Its 16 ohms of reactance at 46 Hz.
** And completely FUCKING inductive - you asinine shithead !!!
At 46 Hz, the load seen by the amp is **not** completely inductive.
** Fraid it is - where are your measurements ???
If the R component is 16 ohms...
** Pure fiction - not a measurement.
The Turneroid has no facts at all.
The inductive or capacitive nature of a load is defined by the phase
angle - which must be measured on areal loudspeaker.
For The ESL57, below 100 Hz the phase angle is 80 to 85 degrees and the
impedance falls to 1.3 ohms at 5 Hz.
That is VERY inductive.
Now, as an exercise for the mind, work out what a 55mH *saturable*
inductor ( R = 0.3 ) across the output of a direct coupled SS amp means
in
practice.
It means that if the inductance saturates, the 0.3 ohms of DCR is the load
for
that part of the wave where there is saturation.
Bad news for the amp if it can't handle the current peaks.
But i would think that an input CR filter with a pole at 20 Hz at the amp
input
would stop the LF which may embarass an amp.
** The Turneroid does not think at all.
The filter must be steeper than single pole and start higher.
What about switch on thumps ????
But then if the Quad ESL57 can only handle 15 watts before arcing,
** More invented Turneroid garbage.
The ESL57 is rated to take +/- 33 volts peak safely.
But its not likely 15 vrms of signal appears at the output at 35 Hz, ever,
with
music, so saturation wouldn't be a problem.
Then imagine a TT is in use.
** The Turneroid will never get near it.
What happens when a stylus is dropped onto a disk ??
Could there be a subsonic transient ?
Only pumps the cone of a woofer.
The ESL57s input tranny saturates at a few volts at a few Hz.
??????
............... Phil
|
There's not a lot more i wish to conribute to the discussion on Quad ESL
speakers because we don't have an LCR model to refer to.
But I did say the ESL speakers would be mainly inductive below some F
where the reactance of the Lp is equal to whatever resistance the speakers have,
so the 5 Hz of impedance you have calculated above must be about right.
There would be SS amps which would blow a fuse/shit themsleves/trip the
protection
circuits if one were to drop a stylus carelessly, or suffer a turn on thump from
preamp.
Such reactions don't occur in much gear, one just gets a
momenatry speaker wobble, and a bang, no worse than a large drum beat.
A solitary short lived transient through BJTs or tubes isn't usually enough
to kill them.
Nearly all transformer coupled amplifiers have saturation problems
at LF if we try to extend the mid-frequency maximum signal level
below 20 Hz.
Good audio trannies are often designed to saturate
at the maximum possible signal voltage possible at say 15 Hz.
Thus at 5 Hz one can only apply 1/3 of the voltage before saturation occurs.
But under normal use conditions, even in a tubed sub woofer amp,
saturation at 15 Hz is still permissable because there should not be huge signal
at 5 Hz.
The occasional bit of saturation won't hurt a tube amp, although it is audible
because of the severe intermodulation it causes.
Under normal useage though the bandwidth of most good audio trannies is utterly
sufficient for most music programmes.
Nobody I knows plays a tune called "Drop the Stylus Gladly",
composed by Troggo McWrecker, hi-fi system buster extraordinaire,
and played through a high power SS amp connected to ESL57.
Patrick Turner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:38 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Phil Allison wrote:
| Quote: | "Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:
** The ESL63/988 has a similar impedance curve to a nominal 6 ohm
cone
speaker mounted in a small sealed box - ie basically a 6 ohms
load with
a single, broad, impedance peak at 90 Hz.
Actually, the ESL63 has a massive sharp peak at about 120
** More of Pinko's smelly Bullshit.
The peak is just as I said - goes to 24 ohms max and is several
octaves
wide.
Bullshit (as usual for this ignorant twat) - it's around 110-130 Hz
(varies quite a bit due to varying skin tension with humidity and
temperature), and it isn't above 8 ohms for more than an octave or so
either side, which is about as sharp as it gets for decent speakers.
You really do know fuck all about audio, don't you?
--
Neither Pinky or Phil can quote the official Quad test figures and Quad's
official equivalant LCR models for the speakers being discussed.
** Non existent data is hard to produce.
But the impedance curves for both have been published.
Maybe neither man is aware of what Mr Walker did all those years ago.
** How asinine - the speakers are here, right now and are easily tested.
I suggest somebody provide them with a URL for the inspection of the
necessary info to avoid further stupid conflict.
If I had the info, I would have posted it, but a search for
1/2 an hour at Google revealed nothing.
http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/esl_review_2.htm
|
The link is to ESL63 info, not ESL57.
But the impedance of the '63 changes with level at bass F because
the inductance of the primary of the transformer changes with level,
since that is a property of iron cored wire wound items.
| Quote: |
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
** Define "mainly" properly and stick to one definition - arsehole !!!!
A *mainly resistive speaker* is one where the impedance does not vary much
( +/- 20%) over the audio band - and hence has a small phase angle ( +/- 15
degrees) across the same band.
|
But this indicates that the reactance is having little effect.
Where there is a phase shift of 45 degrees, ZL or ZC is equal to the
R involved....
The expectaion of less than 20d phase shift over the entire audio band is quite
unrealistic.
Rarely this is the case or achievable. But just because there is more than 20d
shift in parts of the
band doesn't make a speaker mainly reactive imho.
| Quote: |
All other speakers are reactive loads with varying impedance with
frequency.
Where a speaker is mainly reactive at a given frequency then over 1/2 the
amp
current
flows in the reactance, and contributes nothing to the sound.
** Not with the reactance in series with resistance as for all woofers.
|
The series DC R prevents the L from ever being a problem to an amp, unless
the amp is built to allow back emfs to push the VO above the level able to be
controlled
by the devices, and current flows backwards through the output bjts, nasty,
so diodes are needed to clamp it.
Patrick Turner.
| Quote: |
............... Phil |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:45 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Patrick Turner"
| Quote: | Phil Allison wrote:
Then imagine a TT is in use.
** The Turneroid will never get near it.
What happens when a stylus is dropped onto a disk ??
Could there be a subsonic transient ?
Only pumps the cone of a woofer.
The ESL57s input tranny saturates at a few volts at a few Hz.
??????
There's not a lot more i wish to conribute to the discussion on Quad ESL
speakers because we don't have an LCR model to refer to.
|
** All you need to know has been provided.
| Quote: | so the 5 Hz of impedance you have calculated above must be about right.
|
** You bet your sweet bippy ........
| Quote: | There would be SS amps which would blow a fuse/shit themsleves/trip the
protection circuits if one were to drop a stylus carelessly, or suffer a
turn on
thump from a preamp.
|
** Blow a fuse = annoying.
Trip the overcurrent crow bar = mildly annoying.
Sand bits shit themselves = very bloody annoying !!
( Unless you are a tech type and can swap a few devices quickly )
| Quote: | Such reactions don't occur in much gear, one just gets a
momenatry speaker wobble, and a bang, no worse than a large drum beat.
A solitary short lived transient through BJTs or tubes isn't usually
enough
to kill them.
|
** Think of 2N3055s driven by BD139/140s with say 33 volts and 9 amps for
about 100 mS, repeated a few times rapidly.
Sayonara baby.
| Quote: | Nobody I knows plays a tune called "Drop the Stylus Gladly",
composed by Troggo McWrecker, hi-fi system buster extraordinaire,
and played through a high power SS amp connected to ESL57.
|
** The advent of CD players has made it possible to use even fragile amps
with ESL57s.
With just ordinary care, sub sonic thuds are a thing of the past.
BTW
Nothing stops a simple RC combination ( say 2.2 ohms // 470 uF) being
installed in series.
Help heaps with any DC offsets and nasty sub sonics.
............... Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:40 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:15:48 +1100, "Phil Allison"
philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton"
Patrick Turner
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
** More absolute bullshit from Pinko the Pommy Prick.
Noted that you have no real answer, just the usual childish
name-calling. Too many tinnies again?
The ESL 57 is quite easy to drive - it is a nominal 16 ohm load that stays
above 8 ohms from 22Hz to 8 kHz.
It distorts horribly below 40Hz due to transformer saturation, its
phase angle is all over the place, and the impedance drops to 2 ohms
at 18kHz. It arcs with inputs above 20 volts rms.
|
Transformer distortion due to saturation is a threshold effect, with very low
distortion when one is operating the tranny
at low levels from a source of an ohm or less as is the case with any
of the Quad amps, tubed or SS.
Many ESLs have phase angles "all over the place"
but so what? they make good music compared to many other speakers.
20vrms is 25 watts into 16 ohms, just beyond the capability of the Quad II amps.
Back in 1953, 15 kHz, -3dB was considered fine for hi-fi, and the FM
radio standards were based on this bandwidth.
So if the response sagged a bit at 20 kHz with reducing speaker Z then so what?
The later SS amps would have maintained the voltage level mercilessly flat at 20
kHz.
| Quote: |
The max SPL at 2 metres is *specified* by Quad as 100 dB from 70 Hz to 7
Hz - with a stereo pair operating in a typical lounge room the max SPL at
the listening position is 107 dB ( or 110 dB peak) or more.
You can't do sums either, can you? Never mind what the maker may or
may not claim, these speakers were *measured* to produce around
82dB/W/m and were *measured* to arc with more than 20 volts rms input,
i.e. at 99dB peak SPL.
That means that in a typical listening room, you'll peak at around
104dB, not bad, but not up to full orchestral tuttis. This revisionist
bullshit of yours is absolute crap, as the Quad 'stats have *always*
been known as super-clean speakers that simply will *not* play loud -
until the 989, at least.
|
Stack em if you want ear crushing loudness.
| Quote: |
This means that normal recorded programme can be reproduced with an average
SPL of 95 dB for as long as you like - or can tolerate the hearing damage.
Sure - but any decent modern hi-fi rig will run comfortably at 10dB
more than this, hence running at low distortion when the '57 is maxing
out.
The vast majority of 2 and 3 way box speakers cannot match the SPL achieved
by the of the ESL 57 without sounding distinctly muddy by comparison.
Utter bullshit, if you're talking about top-class modern speakers
costing about the same as Quad 'stats.
|
We'd need an AB test to find out what the concensus would be, but expect
that exercize to not work out too well....
| Quote: |
Use vertically stacked ESL57s and there is no comparison at all.
True, it's about the peakiest and most comb-filtered horror you could
imagine! As with SET amps, they have a cult following, but they're
horribly flawed. The 989 is a *vastly* superior speaker.
|
I am amoungst the thousands of folks who'd like a pair of ESLs,
just to see if there is any magic there.
The few times I have heard Quad ESL57, they didn't seem too breathtaking,
but then the amps were all SS, and rooms pretty dreadful.
I doubt I will get time to build a pair of my own, but a friend in Sydney
has mucked about trying to make something better than a pair of Quad '57,
and really he hasn't got a lot to show for years of effort.
I also know a guy who repairs the Quad ESLs and his pair he demoed seemed to
"bark" at me when the volume was cranked, indicating a sudden stop
in fidelity when overload was reached. Dynamic speakers seem to have a much more
gradual
over load character.
But unless I own and live with a pair of Quad ESL before I get old and deaf, I
may never
experience what they are about, and I keep a watch out for a cheap pair in good
condition.
There isn't the space of time into which I can fit every conceivable experience.
Patrick Turner.
| Quote: |
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:06 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Phil Allison wrote:
| Quote: | "Patrick Turner"
Nobody has a factual reference in black and white, so what's the use of a
discussion?
** You did **not** ask !!!!
You were INVENTING numbers willy nilly with such GAY abandon it would
have spoilt your fun to supply facts.
I posted a URL for the ESL 63 today - with results from James Moir and
Assoc.
There is a Louis Challis review in Electronics Today, Nov 1982 that has
similar results.
|
I don't beg for info from anyone.
You didn't volunteer any info.
I haver the '63 info, but its the '57 we also need.
| Quote: |
I have a hand drawn impedance curve for an ESL57 ( my own) that covers DC
to 50 kHz - never seen the like published anywhere.
............. Phil
|
I had a graph of the impedance also of the '57 and it gave the following
figures,
which I posted last week, which nobody objected to.
They could be BS.
20Hz, 20ohms,
80Hz, 33,
200Hz, 16,
500Hz, 11,
2kHz, 10,
5 kHz, 9,
16kHz, 2,
30 kHz, 4.
Patrick Turner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:20 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
Phil Allison wrote:
| Quote: | "Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
The Turneroid
It appears at least that Quad ESL57 are mainly reactive.
And has a horrifying impedance curve, well known as a bitch to drive,
both for this and for its very low sensitivity, around 82dB/w/m,
combined with low power handling.
** More absolute bullshit from Pinko the Pommy Prick.
Noted that you have no real answer,
** Noted - you have wanked yourself blind and cannot see what is on
your screen.
The ESL 57 is quite easy to drive - it is a nominal 16 ohm load that
stays
above 8 ohms from 22Hz to 8 kHz.
It distorts horribly below 40Hz due to transformer saturation, its
phase angle is all over the place, and the impedance drops to 2 ohms
at 18kHz.
** Full power at 40 Hz is *extremely* rare on a commercial recording -
plus the ESL57 has no output down that low anyhow. 2 ohms at 18 kHz is of
no consequence whatever.
Pinkie is a damn LIAR !!!!
|
Full power is rarely seen on any recording at 40 Hz or below.
Certainly not in 1955.
But some techno music with a preponderance of deep bass would be
compromised in '57 speakers, but then sensible chappies would have constructed
a decent sub woofer...
| Quote: |
It arcs with inputs above 20 volts rms.
** Then use an amp with no more.
|
But you said 33 vrms was possible with '57.....
Maybe it varies with F...
| Quote: |
The max SPL at 2 metres is *specified* by Quad as 100 dB from 70 Hz to 7
Hz - with a stereo pair operating in a typical lounge room the max SPL
at
the listening position is 107 dB ( or 110 dB peak) or more.
You can't do sums either, can you? Never mind what the maker may or
may not claim, these speakers were *measured* to produce around
82dB/W/m....
** Measured by whom ????
82 dB would be the SPL from 1 watt at *2 * meters - not 1.
and were *measured* to arc with more than 20 volts rms input,
i.e. at 99dB peak SPL.
** 20 volts rms is the safe limit and gives 100 dB at 2 meters
As claimed by Quad and measured.
Pinkie's factoids do not count.
That means that in a typical listening room, you'll peak at around
104dB, not bad, but not up to full orchestral tuttis.
** Audiophool crapology.
The sound is easily loud enough for most folk - even most pop fans.
This revisionist
bullshit of yours is absolute crap, as the Quad 'stats have *always*
been known as super-clean speakers that simply will *not* play loud -
** All my figures are factual ( straight from published data ) and measured
for confirmation with several different pairs.
Pinkie is a damn LIAR.
This means that normal recorded programme can be reproduced with an
average
SPL of 95 dB for as long as you like - or can tolerate the hearing
damage.
Sure - but any decent modern hi-fi rig will run comfortably at 10dB
more than this,
** Audiophool crapology.
The sound is easily loud enough for most folk - even most pop fans.
The vast majority of 2 and 3 way box speakers cannot match the SPL
achieved
by the of the ESL 57 without sounding distinctly muddy by comparison.
Utter bullshit, if you're talking about top-class modern speakers
costing about the same as Quad 'stats.
** A pair of ESL 57s in good condition sells for about A$1500.
No new box speaker at that price comes within cooee.
|
Wait a minute, if the ESL were selling now, brand new, at the real price they
sold for
in 1957, then they would be be very expensive, and only affordable by the well
heeled
or audiophile desparates.
It is remarkable that such old speakers do command such a price second hand.
Nothing else from 1957 would.
One would have to spend more than $1,500 to get near the '57 though.
$1,500 doesn't buy much these days, usually something crappy made from asia
and remember, the shops, importers, taxes account for 70% of the price for
new speakers in the shops.
I have my eye on a pair of '57 which I just might be able to get for $800.
To me one would wouldn't want to pay more because if something was wrong with
such
ancient speakers, one has the hassle of fixing them.
| Quote: |
Use vertically stacked ESL57s and there is no comparison at all.
True, it's about the peakiest and most comb-filtered horror you could
imagine!
** Pinkie's factoids do not count.
If most folk get Quad ESL57 stacking wrong - that is not my fault.
There is only one way to do it that works - and it is NOT the one where
the curve is simply extended.
|
So what does work?
Patrick Turner.
| Quote: |
.............. Phil |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:24 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Patrick Turner"
| Quote: | Phil Allison wrote:
Nobody has a factual reference in black and white, so what's the use of
a
discussion?
** You did **not** ask !!!!
You were INVENTING numbers willy nilly with such GAY abandon it would
have spoilt your fun to supply facts.
I posted a URL for the ESL 63 today - with results from James Moir and
Assoc.
There is a Louis Challis review in Electronics Today, Nov 1982 that has
similar results.
I don't beg for info from anyone.
|
** More Turneroid paranoia posturing as an excuse.
| Quote: | You didn't volunteer any info.
|
** The Turneroid was never a party to the conversation.
| Quote: | I haver the '63 info, but its the '57 we also need.
|
** You posted an impedance table here yourself.
WTF else did you want ????
| Quote: |
I have a hand drawn impedance curve for an ESL57 ( my own) that covers
DC
to 50 kHz - never seen the like published anywhere.
I had a graph of the impedance also of the '57 and it gave the following
figures,
which I posted last week, which nobody objected to.
They could be BS.
20Hz, 20ohms,
|
** Should be 6 ohms
The impedance doubles with each octave from 3 Hz up to 80 Hz - as expected
for a 55mH, 0.3 R inductor.
| Quote: | 80Hz, 33,
200Hz, 16,
500Hz, 11,
2kHz, 10,
5 kHz, 9,
16kHz, 2,
30 kHz, 4.
|
** The rest are near enough.
Saturation is at 10 volts rms at 20 Hz.
Go weave your asinine, Quad hating, autistic bricklayer's swill around
that.
.............. Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:31 pm Post subject:
Re: More Turneroid Bull |
|
|
"Patrick Turner"
Phil Allison wrote:
| Quote: |
** Full power at 40 Hz is *extremely* rare on a commercial recording -
plus the ESL57 has no output down that low anyhow. 2 ohms at 18 kHz is
of
no consequence whatever.
Pinkie is a damn LIAR !!!!
Full power is rarely seen on any recording at 40 Hz or below.
Certainly not in 1955.
It arcs with inputs above 20 volts rms.
** Then use an amp with no more.
But you said 33 vrms was possible with '57.....
|
** Where was that ????
The Turneroid moron is a misquoting fucking arsehole !!
| Quote: | There is only one way to do it that works - and it is NOT the one where
the curve is simply extended.
So what does work?
|
** Go figure it out yourself - arsehole.
.............. Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in