Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Frustration

Expand Messages
  • mm
    The proof is in the listening.
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      The proof is in the listening.

      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "k3ox" <kolson@...> wrote:
      >
      > I enjoy reading the "Shock Jock" REG, I must say. But some of those statements...
      >
      > Quads 57 (generally considered one of the greatest speakers ever designed, still in demand and loved 50 + years later) not as good as PSB Alphas.
      >
      > Spendor SP1 better than IRS (BTW, there may be rattling Mylar or Kapton, but no "rattling tin").
      >
      > Thiel's take off in the treble like a rocket (see http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/thiel_cs16/ and http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/thiel_cs24/ )
      >
      > Being embarrased for liking the ESL 63 but not for liking the Cerwin-Vega CLS-215(Check out these measurements: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/cerwin_vega_cls-215/ )
      >
      > Good show! More please...
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I look back with some embarrassment on my
      > > enthusiasm for the 63s without EQ.
      > > As time passes, different things bother one,
      > > I suppose. But they can be made to sound
      > > quite good with some work on placement
      > > and some judicious EQ. Also to the extent
      > > I can tell from listening elsewhere ,
      > > the new ones(2805s I mean) are better.
      > > They seem smoother and less leaned
      > > out and altogether sound rather nice.
      > > Not to my mind really realistic, but nice.
      > > I think I could go back to living with the
      > > new ones, though I do not particularly want to.
      > > They always had strengths and weaknesses.
      > > But the strengths remain and the weaknesses
      > > reduced in the 2805s I think.
      > >
      > > One reason for my comparative lack of enthusiasm
      > > is that I think that other speakers have progressed.
      > > One has to remember--if I may make an excuse for myself--
      > > that at the time I bought the 63s to begin with,
      > > the High End was pushing early Magnepans(not my cup of
      > > tea at all), Infinity speakers(rattling tin, intolerable
      > > stuff), and so on. The Quads seemed to me way in front
      > > of that stuff(the comparison with the truly awful Dahlquist DQ10 does not even need to be made). I was acutely aware that the
      > > Spendor BC1s were in many respects a better speaker than the
      > > Quads, ditto and even more so the SPendor SP1 and SP1/2
      > > but those were not considered ritzy enough by HP for
      > > a TAS record reviewer. (Never mind that they were
      > > a lot more accurate than the IRS in its various incarnations,
      > > which was weird sounding --but it played loud)
      > >
      > > REG
      > >
      > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > The naked Quad 63 minus grille and dust cover was more "transparent" and yielded more details. Did you try using the 63 that way?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >________________________________
      > > > > From: HM <hmartinburm@>
      > > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >Sent: Friday, 2 November 2012, 23:02
      > > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Frustration
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > 
      > > > >Some good Quad ESL 57 measurements are linked from this page:
      > > > >http://quadesl.nl/en/tech-corner.html
      > > > >
      > > > >http://quadesl.nl/en/quad-esl-measurements/quad-esl-front-grill.html
      > > > >With absent grills the response is smoother, there appear dips at odd number multiples of 3500Hz and peaks at even number multiples, probably a typical combfilter effect due to grill distance from the panel.
      > > > >BR HM
      > > > >
      > > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "ddm261125" <ddm261125@> wrote:
      > > > >>
      > > > >> it is technically simpler (simpler electronics,2+1 esl panels,...)more rigid frame/grill and more reliable. Considering sound (I used to have 57/63/988/2805 and still own the 57s), i like better the 57s then 63s.
      > > > >> May be there is another reason i gave up the 63: 15 years ago i discovered the Revolutions which are in certain way more similar to the 63s then the 57s are! With every new generation of 63s (988 and 2805) i remained with the Revolutions.
      > > > >> BTW in the time i've bought the Revolutions and compared with Quads 63
      > > > >> REG reviewed and rated them very higly saying "if i have to gave up my quads the revolutions will be on the short list to replace them"
      > > > >> I agree with REG about the 63s shortcomings and took the revolutions!
      > > > >>
      > > > >> --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "mm" <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
      > > > >> >
      > > > >> > Which leads me to ask in what ways were the old Quad of 57 better than the Quad 63?
      > > > >> > Didn't PW know better?
      > > > >> >
      > > > >> > Yip
      > > > >> >
      > > > >> > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
      > > > >> > >
      > > > >> > > One of the frustrating thing about the audio
      > > > >> > > industry is that problems never seem to get
      > > > >> > > solved once and for all.
      > > > >> > > Way back in the 1950s, the original Quads
      > > > >> > > showed how one could join a tweeter line source
      > > > >> > > to a midrange panel in a quite seamless way--
      > > > >> > > you put the tweeter in the middle. Of course
      > > > >> > > the human species had known this since the
      > > > >> > > days of Young and Fresnel in the early 19th century,
      > > > >> > > but audio got it in 1956-57.
      > > > >> > > And here we are, fifty years and more later, and
      > > > >> > > still not everyone is doing it right. In fact,
      > > > >> > > hardly anyone is doing it right.
      > > > >> > > Computer measurements have made it obvious how
      > > > >> > > crazy it is to do it wrong, but still, wrong is
      > > > >> > > happening all the time.
      > > > >> > > Weird.
      > > > >> > >
      > > > >> > > REG
      > > > >> > >
      > > > >> >
      > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Robert
      Not all Thiels have had rising top end, but a lot do and most of the ones praised so highly by audiophiles in the time I was referring to did. You can look
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Not all Thiels have had rising top end, but a
        lot do and most of the ones praised so highly
        by audiophiles in the time I was referring to did.
        You can look this up on Sphiles archives(I find this
        topic too boring to bother to find them all but here is one
        http://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs72-loudspeaker-measurements
        (this is actually from later than the time I was
        discussing but the older one behaved similarly in many instances.
        Really bad speaker, really really bad, but praised by lots of people
        If you can look at these measurements without a rueful laugh
        you must lack a sense of humor. And it sounded excruciating--really unpleasant to listen to , eith a horrible bite to it).

        Cerwin Vega: Get real. Did you actually read what I wrote
        about it? Every word of it is true. I never said it was perfect
        just that it did some things really well and was a bargain
        for the money and sounded quite impressive if you EQed it--which indeed it does. If all you had was that much money, and if you
        were willing to EQ it, it would be a sensible thing to own
        if unconstrained dynamics and big music were what you mostly listen to. If you do not believe this, you have probably never heard it when it was EQed correctly.

        What I am embarrassed about re the Quad 63s is not that I liked them but that I did not make a big enough deal about what was wrong with them.
        I would mention say the irregulr treble but not make as big a deal
        about it as I should have and so on.

        And of course the Spendor SP1/2 IS a better speaker than the IRS
        if you do not play it too loudly and if you provide a sub for the deep bass.
        It is a LOT better in fact. The IRS was a "sophisticated public address system" in the words of Hegeman.
        It would play loudly, but it was rather wildly misbehaved in terms of tonal behavior. It sounded truly weird. Big space, loud as heck, but weird if one had any memory of what music actually sounds like.
        I think everyone kind of knows this now. It was just a fad of a certain period in audio, sort of "sins of my youth" for High End audio. And the IRS Beta sounded like rattling tin if ever was. A truly awful speaker. People were looking for new ways, but not all the routes tried ended up being a road one should travel.

        As to the old Quads versus PSB Alphas--well, the PSB Alphas are flatter and better behaved in off axis response. And comes to that, the PSB T2s are better in almost all directions. The moving finger writes and then moves on. Audio people often do not notice but it still happens.

        I admit that I have some nostaglia for the old Quads--it was a sound
        that was popular when I was young and just getting introduced to serious audio. But they are not really all that good --except as a midrange speaker(why Levinsion cooked up the HQD system )

        Many audio people live in a strange world in which they really do
        care much what things actually sound like in terms of accuracy, they just interest
        themselves in certain idiosyncratic types of sound and of course most of all in reputation above all else.

        But if you want to hear what is really there.....

        REG



        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "k3ox" <kolson@...> wrote:
        >
        > I enjoy reading the "Shock Jock" REG, I must say. But some of those statements...
        >
        > Quads 57 (generally considered one of the greatest speakers ever designed, still in demand and loved 50 + years later) not as good as PSB Alphas.
        >
        > Spendor SP1 better than IRS (BTW, there may be rattling Mylar or Kapton, but no "rattling tin").
        >
        > Thiel's take off in the treble like a rocket (see http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/thiel_cs16/ and http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/thiel_cs24/ )
        >
        > Being embarrased for liking the ESL 63 but not for liking the Cerwin-Vega CLS-215(Check out these measurements: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/cerwin_vega_cls-215/ )
        >
        > Good show! More please...
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I look back with some embarrassment on my
        > > enthusiasm for the 63s without EQ.
        > > As time passes, different things bother one,
        > > I suppose. But they can be made to sound
        > > quite good with some work on placement
        > > and some judicious EQ. Also to the extent
        > > I can tell from listening elsewhere ,
        > > the new ones(2805s I mean) are better.
        > > They seem smoother and less leaned
        > > out and altogether sound rather nice.
        > > Not to my mind really realistic, but nice.
        > > I think I could go back to living with the
        > > new ones, though I do not particularly want to.
        > > They always had strengths and weaknesses.
        > > But the strengths remain and the weaknesses
        > > reduced in the 2805s I think.
        > >
        > > One reason for my comparative lack of enthusiasm
        > > is that I think that other speakers have progressed.
        > > One has to remember--if I may make an excuse for myself--
        > > that at the time I bought the 63s to begin with,
        > > the High End was pushing early Magnepans(not my cup of
        > > tea at all), Infinity speakers(rattling tin, intolerable
        > > stuff), and so on. The Quads seemed to me way in front
        > > of that stuff(the comparison with the truly awful Dahlquist DQ10 does not even need to be made). I was acutely aware that the
        > > Spendor BC1s were in many respects a better speaker than the
        > > Quads, ditto and even more so the SPendor SP1 and SP1/2
        > > but those were not considered ritzy enough by HP for
        > > a TAS record reviewer. (Never mind that they were
        > > a lot more accurate than the IRS in its various incarnations,
        > > which was weird sounding --but it played loud)
        > >
        > > REG
        > >
        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, yipmangmeng@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > The naked Quad 63 minus grille and dust cover was more "transparent" and yielded more details. Did you try using the 63 that way?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > >________________________________
        > > > > From: HM <hmartinburm@>
        > > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        > > > >Sent: Friday, 2 November 2012, 23:02
        > > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Frustration
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > 
        > > > >Some good Quad ESL 57 measurements are linked from this page:
        > > > >http://quadesl.nl/en/tech-corner.html
        > > > >
        > > > >http://quadesl.nl/en/quad-esl-measurements/quad-esl-front-grill.html
        > > > >With absent grills the response is smoother, there appear dips at odd number multiples of 3500Hz and peaks at even number multiples, probably a typical combfilter effect due to grill distance from the panel.
        > > > >BR HM
        > > > >
        > > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "ddm261125" <ddm261125@> wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >> it is technically simpler (simpler electronics,2+1 esl panels,...)more rigid frame/grill and more reliable. Considering sound (I used to have 57/63/988/2805 and still own the 57s), i like better the 57s then 63s.
        > > > >> May be there is another reason i gave up the 63: 15 years ago i discovered the Revolutions which are in certain way more similar to the 63s then the 57s are! With every new generation of 63s (988 and 2805) i remained with the Revolutions.
        > > > >> BTW in the time i've bought the Revolutions and compared with Quads 63
        > > > >> REG reviewed and rated them very higly saying "if i have to gave up my quads the revolutions will be on the short list to replace them"
        > > > >> I agree with REG about the 63s shortcomings and took the revolutions!
        > > > >>
        > > > >> --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "mm" <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > Which leads me to ask in what ways were the old Quad of 57 better than the Quad 63?
        > > > >> > Didn't PW know better?
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > Yip
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > One of the frustrating thing about the audio
        > > > >> > > industry is that problems never seem to get
        > > > >> > > solved once and for all.
        > > > >> > > Way back in the 1950s, the original Quads
        > > > >> > > showed how one could join a tweeter line source
        > > > >> > > to a midrange panel in a quite seamless way--
        > > > >> > > you put the tweeter in the middle. Of course
        > > > >> > > the human species had known this since the
        > > > >> > > days of Young and Fresnel in the early 19th century,
        > > > >> > > but audio got it in 1956-57.
        > > > >> > > And here we are, fifty years and more later, and
        > > > >> > > still not everyone is doing it right. In fact,
        > > > >> > > hardly anyone is doing it right.
        > > > >> > > Computer measurements have made it obvious how
        > > > >> > > crazy it is to do it wrong, but still, wrong is
        > > > >> > > happening all the time.
        > > > >> > > Weird.
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > REG
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >>
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.