Crossover-less Speakers

i don't own the original quads because the panels are subject to nedding replacement. i own a pair of quad 63s with two blown panels. as much as i like the quads, they are too fragile and not worth the maintainance.

so i comprimise and own another panel speaker. i am waiting for the new martin logan clx. hopefully its cost is within my budget and is balanced in frequency response.

we can agree to disagree when a stereo system sounds balanced, and/or natural sounding with respect to timbre.

all this back and forth does not substitute for an opportunity to jointly listen to a stereo system and compare perceptions.

i would welcome the opportunity to get together with some one at ces 2008 for an hour, and visit some rooms together.

then, we can have a meaningful exchange of opinion.right now, all of this is just talk, but it is entertaining.

Audiokinesis I am not affiliated with Zu in any manner what so ever. I just happen to love the sound of their speakers.

However, I didn't realize Macrojack had an affiliation either and I do agree that full discolsure is a must on this forum.

Audiokinesis I am not affiliated with Zu in any manner what so ever. I just happen to love the sound of their speakers.

However, I didn't realize Macrojack had an affiliation either and I do agree that full discolsure is a must on this forum.

Mrtennis, I couldn't belive your description of the Zu's. Bright? My one pick with the Zu's is that I think they lack just a bit in the high frequency extension; even with my Onix tube amp. The one thing they're not is bright.

BTW, I can't even get Zu to cut me a deal on a pair of cables. Tried and was told to bid on them when they come up for auction. No discount what so ever for a return customer or even a small discount.

Even one who loves and always speaks well of their product. Sean/Adam, are you listening. ;0)

Serioulsy though, there is no pyrmid scheme IMO. Just plenty of happy customers.

Mrtennis, Trust me were friends.. I have no issue.. Only point was I did not get the outright statement that had ZERO to do with the issue about this guy being a dealer or not,you just decided to attack for whatever reason something that just added to a topic not even part of it, not sure what the agenda is, but its cool we all move on :

"10-01-07: Mrtennis
hi macrojack:

the quad esl stomps on the zu speakers. no cone design ever has or ever will be timbrally less inaccurate.

if you want to attain a very realistic presentation of an instrument, there is no better way than the original quads, especially 4 of them."

Tbj, let us know how like like the Feastrex thanks.

"Different parts of the cone respond at different frequency,"
Assuming the cone is not behaving like a piston. But you don't know that. Even multi-way speakers, 1st order x-over included, can exhibit this. If you cannot hear the improvements in dimensionality and PRAT with a time and phase coherent speaker then stay with multi-way.
Perhaps this is one reason people like tubes. Put some dimensionality back in what the non-time and phase coherent speakers take out.
Further, Tannoy has a white paper on this, when you have 2 or more non-coincident drivers dispersion is compromised. In some areas the drivers cancel each other out. Read any of JA's analysis of speakers and you will see you have to listen below the tweeter's axis or a large suckout develops. A single driver or coincident drivers like Tannoy give the most even dispersion patterns.