advertisement


Oppressively large speakers

Worth having a search for Snell Ks, same design and can usually be had for less than £300.
Thanks for input. As thing go l have pretty much, from a sound point of view, all I could expect. This via a some what eccentric arrangement of space. This made possible thanks to the lockdown and receiving no visitors. Thus a 2mtr triangle utilising a pair of Spendor 3/5s, D1 version driven by a Chord Toby looks out onto my garden/wilderness, and to my ears sounds superb. And, my AN Js located in the stair alcove and playing across the room gives a 2x3 triangle and sound very good indeed. Visually, it would look to a non listener, that I am halfway through moving. An armchair located near the centre of the room is somewhat reminiscent of the chair at the end of death row.
 
BTW Apogees are a lesson in acceptability of grotesque levels of 2nd & higher even-order HD%, inevitable result of the asymmetric (single-ended, if you like) mag field ... also, criminal inefficiency...
Lots of mythology abounds about Apogees. The Scintillas are the amp killers because they drop down to less than I ohm impedance which demands a lot of current capability from your amp. However the Duettas and Divas are nowhere near as demanding and there are lots of amps that will drive them without difficulty including higher power valve amps.
 
I wish they made bigger ESLs.
They did, exhibited some ESL's at Munich 2 years ago with 8 panels (extra 2) though nothing seems to have come of them, maybe the transformers were an issue.

Yes, I did hear/read about those; presumably prototypes. Assuming those 2 extra panels are bass, it would make a world of difference; even a few decibels lower would equate with a lot of larger coil speakers. Not that I miss the bass response of my ProAc R4s as my 2095s are seamless, and there's not that much reproduced music which goes subterranean.

You may be right about the trannies, but I also think it might be about whether they'd sell enough, considering their size. I have seen pic's of much bigger(i.e. taller) ESLs (Sanders?) in the past.

You said, with your pic., ' with monoblocks underneath'. The 989s are raised on metal plinths (and not sure why) but surely the monoblocks are between the speakers. Is there a fundamental difference in the base design between 989s and 2905s, as I can't see that raising mine would be remotely advantageous, let alone viable?
 
Assuming those 2 extra panels are bass

All the panels of the 63 models and later are full range, one of the benefits being there is no crossover. Additional panels as per the 989 do add 'some' additional bass output and SPL though due to the additional panel area.

You said, with your pic., ' with monoblocks underneath'. The 989s are raised on metal plinths (and not sure why) but surely the monoblocks are between the speakers. Is there a fundamental difference in the base design between 989s and 2905s, as I can't see that raising mine would be remotely advantageous, let alone viable?

All the 63 on models have a 3 degree tilt back to effectively allow for the centre delay ring to be facing ear level. I have removed this and raised the speaker so that the centre of the speaker is at ear level, allowing for monoblock amps underneath. This allows me to not fixate over speaker cables as they are only 200mm long :cool:.

ACtC-3frvatizlqK4lyQpti5tO0lAZM3RH0fz5FuYQie9VL_JMXNrF6V2nW48hC9OEx_vzDeXp3JeIfUpa-rHblQ94uTJ5bFkME_pvWsQHI1LOGrHWpfAoEAW1EP2Zyma1T_1PERu7ZgPo4p1lzNeMVd64CD=w373-h663-no


I have just added some socks as Tony was concerned about the flies becoming zapped by the 5.25 KV on the panel membranes.:eek:

All the Quads are roll off after 16 KHz and below around 35Hz so I have added DSP 12 " subs and Air motion supertweeters, both dipole. :)
 
IIRC on Quad 63s and later there is not just a delay from the concentric circles, but the centre is of a higher frequency, descending to Lower frequencies at the outer and circle and upper and lower panels. A very clever design!
 
All the Quads are roll off after 16 KHz and below around 35Hz so I have added DSP 12 " subs and Air motion supertweeters, both dipole. :)
Aha! My own version of that set up would be cheaper as I cannot here past 15kHz nowadays.
 
The treble extension on ESL 57s does not worry me in the least. If you consider that the Decca FFRR recording system claims to ascend to 14 kHz, then there is little to roll off in the first place!

EMI were working with a similar standard at the time, and I suppose most of my favourite. recordings come from the period between 1926 [10 kHz limit on early electric recordings] and 1960s. Otherwise I enjoy VHF/FM radio for relays of concerts, and sometimes they play complete commercial recordings of a newer vintage as well. I believe VHF/FM has a high frequency limit to cut out the pilot tone ... 19 kHz if I remember correctly.

As for the lower frequencies, certainly the ESL details the difference between the 16 foot pipe octave on the organ nicely compared to the 8 foot rank. The lowest 16 foot "C" is nominally at about 33 Hz, and comes out nicely without shaking the floor, or worrying my neighbours.

One the advantages of mono is that just one ESL [57] is considerably easier to arrange without it being oppressively large in the room, though it is still un-missable!

So my ESL does all I want.

Best wishes from George
 
Last edited:
All the panels of the 63 models and later are full range,
I have removed this and raised the speaker so that the centre of the speaker is at ear level, allowing for monoblock amps underneath. This allows me to not fixate over speaker cables as they are only 200mm long :cool:.

Thanks for that. I thought that the panels were designed for different frequency transmission, but thinking about it, having no X-overs knocks that on the head a bit!. Guess there's a reason for multiple panels rather than just one; rigidity and excursion?

My 2905s are conventionally positioned and wired (2 x 11 metre NAC A5). I like your arrangement with long I/C from your pre. but there's no place for my valved monoblocks anywhere around my speakers. As I'm toying with speaker cable experimentation and upgrade your arrangement would make life simpler and a heck of a lot cheaper !!!! What amps (and pre.) d'you use?
 
I was of the opinion that it was only a time delay, but I'll try and check.
It’s a while since I played with an old pair of 63s and memory isn’t what it was, but a look at the circuit diagram shows that the signal to each ring is in effect filtered. Whilst experimenting with a different layout of panels a visiting physicist looked at it and remarked on how cleverly each ring had a progressively different frequency response.
 
Guess there's a reason for multiple panels rather than just one; rigidity and excursion?

There's a progressive time delay to the concentric rings, relative to the center. The idea is to approximate a pulsating hemisphere.
 


advertisement


Back
Top