I love that man, Ray! One of the coolest guys I have ever worked with or known. Ray was the original RoomTune Rep. I flew back from meeting with TAS for the first time, and when I got home I had orders for over 100 stores. Ray, out of the blue, put on the first RoomTune dealers. I didn't even have a factory yet. I had no idea how to start a production run. I can still remember that thick fedex envelope full of computer print out order forms. I looked at my friends and said "looks like I won't be doing any recordings for a while". What a classy Classy MAN!
Is It Possible?
Help!!!
Is it possible for a pair of Quad63 sounds better than a pair of Focal Utopia Scala I? I am was using the Scala in my system and was very happy with the overall result, except for an occasionally bright sound on certain recordings. I recently bought a pair of non-working Quad63 at a garage sale for $250, had them serviced for about $650. I was going to use the quad in my office for background music, but I decided to have a A/B test against my beloved Scala. I almost fell of my chair when heard what came out of the Quad. The vocals and the instruments just came alive, especially the female's voice. The only advantage I gave to the Scala was the soundstage, which is wider and a little deeper than the Quad. How can this be? What am I doing wrong with the Scala? How can a pair of $900 speakers sounds much better, in my opinion, than a pair of speakers that cost me almost $25,000?
- ...
- 47 posts total
Quads have/had their place in audio history. I mean, no other than Mark Levinson hisself (sorry, Honest Charlie) chose them to be in his famous HQD system back in the day. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-hqd-loudspeaker-system https://www.google.com/search?q=levinson+hqd+system&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS563US563&tbm=isch&so...: Full Disclosure: We made a few pair of stands for this system (the ones in this picture, I think), and it was not bad when not driven by Levinson hardware. They were one of the first to realize that imaging size was important, and electrostatics have their aficionados. Even the great Bob Fulton used a pair of RTR electrostatics in his Modular J system back in the day. (His 80 and 100 boxes are about the best I ever heard from a box back in the day...) https://www.stereophile.com/content/fulton-musical-industries-model-80-j-modular-loudspeakers-fmi-cu... http://fultonmusicalindustries.com/ Unfortunately, they are not as accurate as some other designs (Magneplaners) that provide better imaging and more accurate reproduction. BUT, they were and are pretty cool speakers. Enjoy them! Cheers! |
Great thread that brought back many memories of when I used to own Crosby modded quad 63's. I did love those speakers but got sick of replacing panels. Many years later I have the pleasure of owning TAD CR1'S. It was remarkable that they seemed to sound a bit like the quads, though with dynamics and bass. I then learned that Andrew Jones loves quads and still own a pair, and informed his design choices for the TAD'S. |
I do think part of the "shock" of hearing electrostatics like the Quads comes from the utterly boxless quality of the sound. It does help electrostatics sound very detailed, but I do think that even the perception of transparency detail is somewhat still tied to that boxless quality. I had been auditioning a number of very resolving dynamic speakers and recently listened to my friend's Martin Logan eletrostatics. That sense of transparency was great, but I also noted that a number of dynamic speakers seemed at least as revealing of information if not more. |
- 47 posts total