Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Thanks for the reply Pegasus. I enjoy reading your posts.
My previous post was a generic example, and specific for only one type of SS situation. Although the specs I mentioned for the amps and speakers in the previous post are common in today's audiophile market place.
Something stood out to me in what you said and if I may make one more point here.

And which design optimisation has to take places with which compromises to reach the intended goal.

It has been my personal experience over the years, that in talking with about 1/2 dozen or so amplifier manufacturers and doing research on them; I discovered that they each had a target speaker design (brand and/or model) that their amplifier was based around. They have to after all hook up their amps to something right ? Amplifier makers are forthcoming usually on what speakers they are using for current testing. Likewise for speaker makers on the amps they use. Those looking for answers should give them a call directly. With this method business partner relationships are also discovered.

There are a few rules (guidelines) in audio. The rules that revolve around the speakers themselves, have a big effect on the amplifier design.
For example if we put our experiences aside and, come into this as if we were new to the hobby. Consider these three questions.
Consider each as a separate consideration onto itself. A sort of silo.

1) What if a person wants to reproduce full range music. What majority would not want this ? To hear all that was recorded.
2) What if a person wants good efficiency - again who doesn't really want this...no different than installing a furnace/air conditioner ? We check off the high efficiency box if we can. This also leads to lower utility bills, saving the planet, just make sense...
3) What if the person wants the reproducers "speakers" to take up a small area - un-obtrusive. Bookshelf size - Again if you could why not ? Who really wants 8 foot towers in their living room? Or those huge speakers that need to be disguised as huge sculptures in the dwelling to work - really ?

Well you can only have two of the three above. If someone doesn't believe it; run through the math and the scenarios of the 3 options.
If a friend asks me today for an opinion, and I know he has not already been made biased by reviews, dealers, forums, etc... I will say take your pick of the two that most appeal to you. Then look at the one that got left out. Whichever one it is - go the opposite to it in design - and if you can accept that, you're done. Your path is clear. Go find that speaker ! All choices in between are a compromise - Leading back to Pegasus' quote above.

To me the speaker is the Alpha over the amplifier. This also explains my speaker problem (multiple pairs). I see an amplifier/s as nothing more than a mechanical device that needs to gets the job done and does not break down over time. The amplifier needs to serve the speaker and allow it to make music. The order of my points above do happen to show my personal order choice. My full range speakers are 93db, and can make nice music with a small tube amp. But they are also kinda big.

Pegasus - It's BTW a question too, how desirable a wide bandwidth is for a power transformer, which is an inherent property of the general winding technique of toroidals.

@Pegasus - my personal midrange reference speakers are unique for 2015. This is because they have a design from 1957 - which is older than me. They do not follow the above rules I posted. They are fairly large, not full range, and their efficiency ? The speakers need 30 + ohms from an amp

....in order to do the proper bass and as you can see from the graph, 2-3-4 ohms for proper high frequencies.

How is that for bandwidth requirement ?

Through research and empirical means I have already found a perfect tube amp for them, for my room.

Pegasus et al

I don't think a SS amp exists that can serve them properly ? Again through empirical means the SS ones I have tried seem to choke - become so pooped out on the 30+ ohm load reqt for bass - that they seem to have nothing left to give at the requirement needed to reproduce the high frequencies. This leads to the band-aid - external tweeter.

************************************************

Audio Hangman - The Big Rocks

-----------------------Room------------------------------
---------------------/--------------------------------------
-------------------/----------------------------------------
---------------Speakers ---Source---------------------
----------------/------------------\------------------------
---------------/--------------------\-----------------------
---------Amplifier--<<<-----Pre-Amp/Phono------
-------------------------------------------------------------

I sure hope this neat doodling feature is not taken away away when the new Audiogon forums go live in two weeks. An editing feature once post goes in would help though. Sorry for any mistakes.
My previous post that said Impressive thought process !
(Should have read - Impressive thought process Frogman!)

- Ct 0517: The funny thing with ESLs, Quad etc. is that they do much better with something closer to a current source, this means they deliver much more voltage on high impedance than a low one. Doubling the power in each halving of impedance is the definition of a perfect voltage source. A voltage source gets tricked out on the voltage increase needed for the bass impedances (except if one uses insanely powerful amps). And it delivers the current in the highs (doubling, doubling, doubling the power) like a preussian soldier by executing it's order - but there is an intrinsic stress in that, of which thermal stress is not the least.
There were some highly regarded german SS amps that worked as a current source. It's a pity I never heard one or could try one.
So you listen on Quad ESL 57?

So you listen on Quad ESL 57?

Yes.
in Room B

Room A is using Matrix 800 speakers. Room A is my main room since '94 with my main turntable.
The pic is from recent discussions on my system thread of successfully integrating the sub nearfield with the Quad 57. I am very excited about this :^)
The arrows point to sub locations I have tried. More pictures of both rooms with equipment lists can be seen if you click on my system link.

My wife does not share my audio passion but she recognizes the audio problem, so she lets me use the basement. :^)
Dedicated space (The Room) is very important for optimizing music. But what is more important long term, and what can not be see by pictures is how the dedicated space can keep your marriage together in a case like this. Well so far...lol...How do you put a value on that ? I guess it depends o the marriage.
Word on the street....married guys are in general a happier lot......they are just more willing to die :^)

There were some highly regarded german SS amps that worked as a current source.

This is interesting. I would of been very interested to hear them if they were available here. After SS amps - American, Canadian, Japanese, plus also Quad's own SS plus a couple tube amps; I am using an American tube amplifier - Music Reference RM10. The designer Roger Modjeski designed and built the RM10 for his own Quad 57 speakers. A total new world of listening opened up with this amp/57 combo.

For those more interested in this ESL /Amp requirements world, Roger Modjeski does IMO a very good short one page summary

here

See the first post.

A couple good points from the link. Recognize he is pushing his own direct drive amps in the 3rd paragraph.

Roger Modjeski
2. This second class of ESL speakers is multi way using panels of different dimensions and often different voltages to obtain line source dispersion. By adjusting the panel size and shape flat response can be obtained without the need for EQ. All the QUAD speakers do this having much larger area for the bass than the treble. The 57 is a 3 way line source where the 63 is a two way point source. I prefer the 57.

The Quad 57s are only 200 pF and the 63's are low also. In general the ESLs that use full range panels have the highest capacitance and are therefore least efficient. The multi-way ESLs (that means mulit-way in the electrostatics themselves) tend to be low capacitance and much more efficient. The extremes are the QUAD 57 needing 15 watts of drive and the Beveridge needing 1,500. Trumpet music is most demanding. Being a little in disbelief about the 1500 watt number I measured a half amp at 3000 volts. No wonder these speakers can't be driven any other way. The QUAD on the other hand needs the voltage of a 15 watt amplifier (at 16 ohms) but from a 4 ohm tap. In my experience that although the QUAD 22 amp was made to drive the 57 speaker, it was rather rolled off at the top due to the fact that the speaker impedance did fall to about 4 ohms. Not everything QUAD did was exactly as they said, contrary to the rather perfectionist philosophy proposed in the QUAD book.

One nice thing about my direct drive system is that by changing just 2 capacitors in my crossover one can set the brightness of the speaker to his desires either more or less than the standard by as much as 12 dB in either direction. Far more than one would need.

I am using the 8 ohm tap on my RM10. The room is made with the heavy right curtain in the pic, into an irregular 20 x 22 feet (6 x 7 meters). Speakers are 7 feet from the front wall. I am able to do an easy 90 db at the chair + peaks with the RM10 and nearfield sub. I listen around a 80 - 85 average db average.

-
So what is a brand new "Old Stock" base ET2 from 1985 worth ?

Here is an original from 1985

New Old Stock

Seeing the year 1985 in the ad I got curious. So using an online inflation calculator.
It's original new price of $850 in 1985; is just under $1900 US dollars today. He is taking offers :^)

If anyone here is one of the ad watchers - good luck

Not affiliated with the ad.

Probably a better deal: here

Sold as a 2.0 but there's reason to believe it's a 2.5.

How many of these are out there languishing on shelves?