Quad 989/2905 all around qualities

I felt that ESL63 doesn't have enough bass and not enough slam/dynamic range to play the rock to my satisfaction. And i am not talking about crazy SPLs or hard metal rock. That is the reason i am prompting to bigger (hopefully more dynamically and more bass oriented) 989/2905; The difference in price tag between 2905 and 989 is huge. It seems a common ground that 2905 is a better speaker than 989 (more refine, yet better slam and better bass), but it is difficult to measure whenever it worth the additional 3-4K$
That's why i want to start from auditioning the 989 and see if this direction will lead me somewhere. Probably i will found out that even with additional bass panels the results with rock are less to my test and that the difference with ESL63 is not that huge...

QUAD reliability problem is indeed an important point...

And I agree, the Quads squash (compress) dynamic range, and most of the music sounds like its at the same level all the time. I know exactly what you mean, not loudness, but rather the CONTRAST between dynamic crescendo and low level passages. SO many people mistake dynamic range with "loudness spl level". Anyhow, on another topic if you feel the urge to crank them and arc a panel by accident (it happens), be prepared to hand over up to $250-$450 to a Quad shilling tech for a repair- that's for one for one panel. And they are light in the deep bass department like many panels, and those that do go deep typically have moderate high distortion, with Sound Labs being the primary exception. There's no replacement for cubic displacement, as they say. But they cost alot.

There has been little advancement in speaker technology in over 30 years, be it dynamic speakers or panels. That's obviously reflected in the measurements and the subsequent sound. What has changed (when there actually is a change) is better average cabinet design, lower cost speakers that perform better than medium high priced speakers of the past, better average balance, and more uniform dispersion which is important in a reflective room. But, the good speakers and the Quad 57 and 63 that were good back then are still up on top today, with obvious normal maintenance. If the 2905 can be auditioned in the future and its doing it for you, it might be worth the freedom of re-paneling headache and questionable re-workmanship. If you find a good 989 that has been serviced and is packaged properly on a pallet for shipping (accept them no other way than on a pallet!) then this may offer perfect value.

You can add additional bass panels to virtually any stat and simply (well, its not that simple to do) extend the stators and charge the diaphragm off the same EHT output, size and panel number matters not to the hipot DC-DC converter. There are numerous routes here to take to get what you want, but let it be your ears that make the final decision.

I have heard 2905 and 2805...i prefer 2905 for its fuller sound and bass...perhaps not as seamless as 2805, but very good. I actually preferred Guarneri Homage to both...in a direct several hour session. Some old hands in audio were there and supported the conclusion given my taste in music.

As for subs...buy a really, really good one...if you are buying a quad...whose incredible alacrity is one of its key attractions...make sure the sub can be adjusted as well as possible and keep up.

I have only ever used Velodyne...the DD series is good and very easy to adjust in many, many ways. I have heard JL Audios are even better. Good luck and pls keep us posted.

As for Apogees...the Apogee mini-grands stand out as one of the all-time greats in my book going back 25 years.

Hi, ppl
I am going to listen to SF Guarneri (i think it is an older homage) speaker this week.
Yesterday i was listening to the very basic Vandersteen Model 1 and some DIY horn based on full range Fostex FE206E driver.
In Vandersteen i could clearly see a potential of this Model 1/2/3 line, but i should certainly look into 2 or even 3. Model 1 is simply too basic. Nice, excellent VFM specially at 2nd hand, but at more objective level simply not good enough. You definitely need to invest more money into the speaker.

Considering the horn... it is really difficult to form an impression...
It certainly has its own magic with some type of music. A "big box" gives some volume, substance to the sound. Jazz sounds very sweet and even classic rock is good. Some pieces were a true magic... But on more instrumental and heavy music it becomes a mess... and there are certain "parts" of the spectrum that are simply not presented well... Some voices were heavily distorted.

At the moment i am mostly waiting for the Quads and trying to listen to some interesting "pivots" in terms of alternatives in the design or some well-regarded dynamic speakers like SF. With the Guarneri my only concern a priori is its lack of bass... It seems to match the Quad ESL63 and it is not enough... but may be it is a bit punchier because SF is a dynamic speaker... Let's wait and see...

I still would like to listen to
Viena Acoustic Beethoven Grand
Audio Physics Scorpio
Wilson Audio Sofia.
SF

What else would you recommend ?
Did someone knows the Duevel ?