Quad 989/2905 all around qualities


Hi,

I would like to ask how newer versions of QUAD ESL with additional
bass panels perform in other styles of music rather traditional QUAD ESL
ultimate - jazz, classic, vocals and acoustic in general. Are they a way better then ESL63 let's say in progressive rock, pop of 80's psychedelic, fusion, or modern free jazz with some touch of electronic ?
I am not talking about hard rock, trance/house/excessive electronic or dynamic music.

Unfortunately, I can't listen to the new QUADS ESL in my area, so all i can do is trust some reviews and ask for people opinions.

I liked a lot ESL63 for what they do, but they were almost unlistenable while I was feeding them with LED ZEPPELIN or BoneyM for example.
So how are the new ones ?
Thank you.
katamapah
Hi Katamapah,

I have not heard Klipsch in a long time...i have heard good things about horns, but the sound is quite a different character from electrostatics. i prefer 'stats myself. The sense of enveloping you in sound is quite something. Your observations about the Zingali horn is probably about where i came out when i heard horns properly set up.

Vandersteens are very, very good and (like the Quad) good value for money...will also probably play louder and possibly lower depending on which one you consider. They do have some characteristics that are similar to Quads in the 'feel' of the music.

Zingalis i have not heard, but understand from the dealer that they consider themselves competitors with Sonus Faber, so perhaps that might tell you something. Since you have heard them, the choice is obviously yours.

You may wish to consider SFs, btw. The Homage series have much of the mellifluous character of a 2905...but are slightly more precise in some cases.

good luck and pls keep posting!
Hi,
tomorrow i am going to listen to SF Grand Piano.
I have a chance to buy them second hand and it could be an "addition" to ESL63 to solve the issues of more dynamical music.
Otherwise, on Friday i am going to meet the Magnepan and Martin Logan dealer.
I plan to listen to Magnepan 1.7/3.7(mostly) and some Martin Logan (i was recomended to listen to Summit X).
Will keep you posted. :-)
Thanks.
Ah!!!! Nice day of listening today and tomorrow! Enjoy! Talk to Myles Astor (who is a reviewer and posts here)...he owns the Summits as his references and is very helpful.

My suggestions: SF GRands sound amazing with really powerful Krells...i would not say Homages Series SF sounds particularly great with big Krell...but i was stunned to hear how well the SF Grands sounded with krell. Not the only amp...just in case you have the options at the audition. Plus your tastes may well vary.

I think given your focus on esl, the Magnepan and ML auditions will be interesting. they are panels...a good thing...but they are also different. Will be very interesting to hear your views...please post!!! Enjoy.
So here is the bottom line - I am still in search for a speaker after this weekend.

SF Grand Piano - I couldn't really "evaluate" this speaker despite of all good reviews and opinions it got.
The room was very small (about 7-8 sq m) the speakers were about 50cm, they were driving by some digital Akai amplifier, so it was not a set and a room to enjoy them. Tonally and temporally they were OK, but the bass wasn't punchy and they were not revealing. I suppose the setup has a major role in all this, but since i didn't hear this speaker before i couldn't really form any impression.
It also failed the most important "emotional test", that is much more important for me than an "audiophile" test.
May be i did a mistake and should rely solely on all those reviews. After all, it shouldn't be very hard to sell a SF speaker.

Magnepan 1.7/3.6 - I couldn't hear the 3.7, but i heard the 1.7 and 3.6;
The 1.7 is tonally better than 1.6, i think it is more balanced.
Of course 3.6 is much a better speaker. It is more refined etc, but it still fails with the rock and everything alike.
So, it is still very similar to Quad in its problematic areas while i strongly prefer Quad in what both of them do well. Quad is amaizingly musical speaker with tons of emotions. Never knew how good is it in what it does...
The only better points for Magnepan 3.6 are: reliability and a better slam/big orchestral music.

Martin Logan - I heard the more simple Vantage model.
Despite it is also an electrostatic (hybrid) speaker its sound is very different to Quads. Even the electrostatic panels sound differently. Much more colored and sound-oriented IMHO. For what Quad does, it does much better, BUT Martin Logan is definitely better as all around speaker.
Actually better then Magnepan 1.6/1.7/3.6 as well (if you like its tonal coloration). The dynamic woofer gives a lot of slam. It is not just a bass, it is the whole slam that is missing in those planar speakers. Suddenly the rock is solid, electronic music sounds better etc.
Still... i feel this model is to "colored" for me and not as musical and emotional as Quad. As i said, never realized how REALLY GOOD QUAD IS in what it does... Unfortunately it still limited to some specific sort of music.
Then, i heard a Martin Logan Ethos. It was a big improvement over Vantage. Less colored, better punch, stage, everything... Probably a candidate...
Still want to listen to Summit X... Probably ML highest series are less colored for a sound and more true like.
Everything IMHO of course...
Hi Katamapah,

You've done your homework. Quads really are special. As you already know, they just dont play super loud and their bass could be stronger.

The new 2805s/2905s will play louder and lower from what i am told. will be interesting to hear what you think of them.