2. speakers
  3. 1111355071

After Quad ESL's?

I am enjoying listening to Quad esl-63's and to the 57's (which I prefer). And though my wife has enjoyed them also, she informs me that her heretofore acceptance of the visual impact on our living room has been "only out of love." Her valiant endurance of my Quad-love has come to an end, period.

It has been six years.

So, now the time has come:
Speak, Quad owners (and former Quad owners), about what else has worked for you.

I would like a smaller, (than the quad) used speaker that images better than the Quad's. These are some of the directions I am thinking about:
The Vandersteen 2c Signatures are on the large side.
Perhaps a Dynaudio monitor, B&W 802 Matrix Series III, Proac (are there any that aren't excessively bright?). Are Lowthers a possibility, or too hopelessly colored?

I am attracted to ATC and Merlin, My taste runs expensive, but my pocket book (I work as a concert piano technician) runs shallow.

$1500 a pair or less would work best.

I also welcome your synergistic amplification suggestions. So far, I have prefered the sound of tubed equipmnet in the under $1500 per component range. I have recently been captivated by the idea of TVC (transformer volume control) Bent Audio NOH, etc. with a SET. But, the TacT M2150 (integrated without room correction) also intrigues me. Does anyone know how it sounds?

Acutal experience prefered to conjecture. Let it rip, and I thank you in advance for your thoughts and replies.
earthpulse
jeffreyds
115 posts
 
I had my Quad ESL-63's for 7 years. I enjoyed every minute with them.

I recently upgraded to a pair of Gallo Reference 3's. If you can stretch your budget, they are worth an audition. They compete with the best of the best in the imaging category. Martin Logan Aeon's are also very nice.

I have found that the Gallo Reference 3's match well with Cary tube amplification. You might find a nice used integrated in your price range.

Jeff
newbee
4,767 posts
 
FWIW, I have passed thru Acoustats, Quad 63's (5 years of use, they are still in my closet), Paragon Jubilee Jems (think Dynaudio Contour 3.3 with better bass and resolution), and most recently Tyler Acoustics Linbrook Signature systems. The reason I parted with my Quads was due to dynamic range limitations. The Paragons were as smooth and detailed (in my invironment)as the Quads but were more dynamic. The only downside was they needed to be played are medium to high levels to shine, unlike the Quads.

I got the Tylers as much out of boredom and esthetics as anything else (I still have the JJ's in the closet). What I discovered was they produce a very large soundstage at lower volume, they are very smooth and while not "bright" in any way, they are very revealing and its easy to distinguish equipment changes and tweaks. The bass is actually tighter than the JJ's. Based on these observations I suggest you look at their Linbrook monitors which get considerable praise, or the new Linbrook System II. You could always get a sub for the monitors later if you thought you needed the extra octave. A bit abouve your price range used but probably worth it.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,274 posts
 
That volume thing is important. I listen a lot at low volume and Quads may be the all-time champ for that application. The Harbeths don't seem to be so good until you turn it up a bit, alas (but not too much).
tmallin
6 posts
 
I think the Harbeths are the ones you should listen to. I have not heard the SHL5s, but the C7s, M30s, and M40s all play superbly well at low volumes for dynamic speakers. The Quads are still king at that, and the 63s and 988s have that "of a piece" quality which no multi-driver speaker can match, but these Harbeths are not too far behind.

The Harbeths have equal or better bass, better and cleaner highs, and the midrange actually beats the Quads. What really swings it for me, however, is the fact that the Harbeths, while they won't play disco loud, play demanding material at naturally high levels and a bit above--levels which will either fry or shut down the Quads.

Robert E. Greene of TAS owned Quad 63s for more than 10 years before moving to Harbeth M40s as his reference. He has now used the M40s as his reference for more than five years. He likes the Harbeths better and finds them to be yet more accurate reproducers of music. I agree and now own M40s. Check out the Harbeth user group (HUG) archives.
earthpulse OP
58 posts
 
Thanks to all who have responded so far. Thank you for considering the transparency/low listening level/imaging puzzle.

Based on your recommendations I would like to hear the Harbeth 5... has anyone compared the harbeth to the Spendors?

To me, the Gradients look a little large, and sound like they would be harder to drive, though they're advantage would be that they would not need a sub.

Something about the look of the Tyler suggests to me that this is not a forgiving speaker, and the price (with stands) is closer to $2000 used.

The most intriguing suggestion is the Omega 3R, but then the issue of bass... looks like a subwoofer in my future. I suppose I could find a sub for $500, or so, which would bring me in at my buget.

Truth be told, I have been single-driver curious, but after all these years without real bass, I was hoping to find a speaker with response into the low 40's without resorting to a sub.

Sounds like we may soon be seeing lots of used Gallo Ref III's as they lose their "flavor of the month" status, I expect they will be available for $1700 within a year. The Gallo has low efficientcy, and goes lower in the bass. It also seems to have few detractors. How would you decribe the top end and low level resolution of that speaker?

Thanks again to all.
Michael in S.F.
More to discover