My ears are bleeding

'Compression of dynamic range'? What does that mean?

Obviously levels are limited, but not in a meaningful way in a normal sized room. IME. There is a health issue here.

I accept that some sub-woofer fans like big rumbling noises, but in real terms the ESL63s shake the coffee table and wobble the sofa. Getting good bass extension is going to be down to installation, but I think the speakers go down well below 50Hz in a way that a stand mounted conventional job simply cannot emulate.

I hope the speakers work well at Julian's, perhaps we can cause confusion... I think he has quite a narrow room, so if we can get them away from the rear and close to the sides we should be OK. Piling the contents of his airing cupboard behind may also help.

Paul

 

Paul,

It means that every pair I have heard, although being very nice, clean and uncoloured, have a rather undynamic lifeless quality to the sound which make me want to go out and get a pipe and a pair of slippers.

Dont get me wrong, they are superb speakers, but I find them rather boring to listen to. Of course, you can always show me otherwise at Julians....


Regarding the GrahamN comment, you obviously havent had the Mahler at 110 db experience!

 

I refer you to my comment regarding health...

OTOH I'm game for pretty much anything once.

There's a hifi conundrum here. If electrostatics sound 'pipe and slippers' to you I suggest it's because your system is 'added excitement' rather than 'accurate'. OTOH I only have significant experience of the Quad 63s I bought to repair and play with last summer. I can quite believe that other types are a bit 'close miked accoustic guitar' oriented.

(As well as the Oasis track and its amazingly limited dynamics I subjected myself to the Prodigy's 'Breathe', the Chemical Brothers 'Dig Your Own Hole' and some Fila Brasilia track with a very very low bass line. And of course some good music.)

Paul

 

Oi you guys :shame:

Just to let you know I had something close to that this evening - Zander and the Phil did a pretty good job of the Mahler 1 finale (despite some pretty scrappy playing in parts) - shame I never got to hear Bernstein though. Metzmacher and the LPO did a much better job of Shostakovich 8 last night.

I was right up the back of the RFH so it was probably only 100 :cry:

 

Graham, I'm disappointed sir, only 100 :newbie: thats pretty poor even for one of your 'off days', the walls have only just recovered from your last visit, you letting your standards slip sir

 

Re-read the post and you'll see that I was at the RFH (that's Royal Festival Hall), and this was for real - but frankly I have no ideas what it was in dB - just quite loud - even from the middle of the balcony. I really must get a dB meter one of these days, just to be a bit more authoritative in these silly threads. Earlier on in the week the Janacek Sinfonietta also loosened the earwax quite nicely (a full completement of 12 brass in the orchestra, augmented with another 13 for the opening and closing fanfares - and a timpanist on extra-spinach: a goodly noise).

 

If you want Graham, I can lend you mine?

I'd be quite interested in taking one into the concert hall one of these days too, if one could get away with it that is! :shame:

I was sat in the front row myself last week for Shostakovich 5 with Allsop/Bournemouth at Exeter Uni's Great Hall. It's Funny how live totally acoustic music never seems (unplesantly) loud even when in reality it probably is. About the only time my ears were telling it was loud was during the finale with the cymbal crashes where I could fell the pressure wave moving the contents of my outer and middle ear. :JOEL:

 

What stats have you heard Roboo, and what amp and sources were they being driven with.

IMO, if you heard Quad ESLs being driven by Quad amps, then I'm not surprised you felt the way you did. If you feed them with a decent lively amp (and source) then you'll get an alive sound.

 

Is it me, or is Paul beginning to sound more and more like a round eather?

 

Henry,

Yes, its mostly more recent 989s and the smaller ones with Quad amps, but I have heard them with big EAR amps as well. They do not move me unfortunataly, although I do appreciate how good they are.

 

How did they handle that low rumbling line in "Breathe" then? I bet the transients on "Block rockin' beats" were good as well...

I just wish that dem Henryt and I went to was better - the panels showed promise but the Sugden 21a couldn't hack the load properly. I think I can see where Robbo's coming from with the "pipe and slippers" thing, but they didn't do a bad job on the Red Hot Chilli Peppers

BTW - the first two Oasis albums don't sound that bad on either of my systems. I've heard "What's the story" on vinyl as well - but only on an ancient early 80s turntable/amp combo at a student's gaff - it sounded OK but not very revealing...

 

There's a low rumbling line in 'Breathe'?

One of the problems with the Quads is that they are intended to use the floor to reinforce their bass, but this is a bit like using a port, it's not really there. So they can seem a bit confused in the bottom end, rumbly would be the word. OTOH you can hear the pitch. I generally prefer them tilted back or lifted slightly.

'Accuracy' is the corollary of 'flat earth'...

Paul

 

:ffrc: :ffrc: does that include All flat earth kit then Paul

 

Hmmm. Not quite.

Quads respond more quickly to signal changes than any other speaker. Period. This is sufficient for world class dynamics, but not necessarily the range. The Quads may not have the ability to swing absolutely huge spl levels but I'll wager that their range at lower spls is superior to any dynamic speakers because they're so good at the quieter end of the spectrum. Any speaker will compress at spls beyond its design limit. And how many times have you seen someone comment that a dynamic speaker needs a bit of power to 'wake it up'? I'd call that dynamic compression.

And as for the lack of bass extension, my 989s go below 35hz which would be a more than respectable on any full range box speaker spec sheet. The 'impact' that's missing is just the colouration from the box, it's associated room interactions and the distortion from the driver...

But hey, if accurate=dull and boring then I'll get me slippers out

:Quad:

(If you find 989s boring, look elsewhere in the reproduction chain for the culprit because it certainly won't be the speakers at fault).

reg


(P.S. Wolfgang, if you're interested in Quad ESLs, do a search on '989' on this site and you'll find plenty of info including a few neophyte experiences with the things...)

 

Mr Ranson,

Please desist from this pointless buggering about with museum curiosities such as Linn Isobariks or Quad electrostatics and go and get hold of some active ATCs. You know you want to.

Regards..

 

Yep, almost all the way through the song. Can cause lesser systems to break up and lose the plot.

 

Hmm, I'll need to have a listen to this track myself. Usually when Dom talks about bass, he's usually IME talking about "mid" bass i.e. no lower than about 50Hz.

 

Right, I'm going to ask something that may well sound dumb, but maybe someone can explain it to me. The comments at the start of this thread seemed to be saying the early Oasis CDs were badly recorded on the basis of being loud? I'm probably missing something, but surely that is just a question of recording level, which you can just sort out by turning the volume down? I mean, unless you always listen at the same volume setting on the amp surely such figures are meaningless. And if some people DO always leave the amp volume setting at the same point can someone explain why?

BTW, I'm not arguing the first two Oasis albums are well recorded, they're terrible, and I only listen to mine in the car. FWIW their latest, "Heathen Chemistry" is significantly better recorded, although still not great.

 

I have the first two Oasis albums on vinyl, and they sound terrific. Very well recorded indeed.

 

Kit isn't flat or round, it's simply good or bad, accurate or inaccurate. Round Earthers tend to like bad kit...

Paul