Advertisement


  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Oppressively large speakers

Discussion in 'audio' started by Brian S, Jul 30, 2020.

  1. Brian S

    Brian S pfm Member

    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.
     
    eastone and PhilofCas like this.
  2. iansr

    iansr pfm Member

    Nah, I used to have 989s, then I bought some Apogee Divas. I have to concede that those are big
     
  3. iansr

    iansr pfm Member

    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.
     
    Darren likes this.
  4. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed pfm Member

    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?
     
  5. iansr

    iansr pfm Member

    The tall ESLs you’ve seen were probably Accustats.
     
  6. misterdog

    misterdog Not the canine kind

    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.

    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:.

    [​IMG]

    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. :)
     
    Mike Reed and Darren like this.
  7. camverton

    camverton pfm Member

    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!
     
  8. Darren

    Darren All Business

    Aha! My own version of that set up would be cheaper as I cannot here past 15kHz nowadays.
     
  9. misterdog

    misterdog Not the canine kind

    I was of the opinion that it was only a time delay, but I'll try and check.
     
  10. George J

    George J Herefordshire member

    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: Aug 4, 2020
    JTC and piccadilly like this.
  11. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    ...or maybe Acoustats
     
  12. iansr

    iansr pfm Member

    I was “close enough for rock n roll” ;) Nazareth were a great live band.
     
  13. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed pfm Member

    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?
     
  14. camverton

    camverton pfm Member

    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.
     
  15. Nero

    Nero Wiped Clean

    There's a thread on here that says they need to be 225mm long
     
  16. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

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

Share This Page


Advertisement

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice