This weekend i was finally able to listen to Quad 989
The setup included Quad2-40 mono blocks and Quad99CDP - basic cd+preamp from Quad. The speakers were just few days old, so those are definitely "first" impressions.
First of all - the look. I did like the look of those.
Read a lot of negative feedbacks, in my opinion they are surely not the prettiest speakers around, but i had no problem with their looks. The white-blue finish is pretty nice overall. They are pretty solid-standing too, although i felt this aspect still could be improved. (ESL2905 :-)
As for the sound...
Here i have some mixed feelings compared to ESL63.
First, i have to say again:
a) These speakers were just few days old
b) There was no critical placement done for the speakers and during the listening session i felt it is a must with those. They were "generally placed as suggested", but without critical fine tuning.
c) I don't like the Quad 99CDP. I have had several opportunities to listen to this preamp-cd and i think it is not very musical, somewhat harsh, not too revealing - in one word very basic and not a match for 989 (even the 63).
Having said that i was depressed not to hear the magic of ESL63 mid-range - their unmatched musicality, acoustic sound being slowly decayed etc. It exhibit little magic i remember from ESL63. On the positive side, i somehow felt it might be improved, since my feeling was those speakers ARE MUCH MORE SENSITIVE to a-b-c above (break in, placement, source/pre amp and the recordings).
Other impressions: bass was much better, still not very deep or dynamic-like bass (no "wooo", no air movement), but significantly improves the contra-bass and organ pieces.
Much more presence and substance then ESL63 - they were almost "flat" and had zero bass.
Also the slam and general presence/substance - MUCH better then ESL63.
Certainly less compressed than ESL63.
More sonically neutral than already neutral ESL63
More precise (better resolution), less directional in treble.
It seems like 989 bass has some hole. The transition from mid-bass to a deeper bass in not always flat.
Generally, my impression was: Those speakers while being more neutral, more precise (still not greatest precision around), having better frequency response and dispersion, being better dynamically had become closer to "traditional" speakers sound wise and have lost much of old ESLs magic.
Again, my feeling is that at least some of this magic may be gained back, by breaking-in, positioning and matching the equipment. Those are much more revealing and sensitive speakers than ESL63. Less forgiving. Up to a complete dissatisfaction !
Music types.
Bottom line, they were better with rock than 63.
Rock became listenable on some minimalistic level, but
still far from being good enough or even satisfying.
By rock i mean Led Zeppelin, Queen, King Crimson.
Not the heavy rock.
On other types of music - classic (easy classic, organ music, Beethoven's 9 symphony) - much better result than 63. Image, presence, absolutely listenable and enjoyable.
Acoustic rock - Also, better presence, more substance.
Jazz/Vocals - good.
So, this speakers are still not good for rock. Not even try.
Additional bass panels do improve presence, substance and make low octaves listenable.
Could the magic of ESL63 be regained ?
That's the question....
If yes, clearly an improvement over ESL63.
Otherwise... you have a more traditional like, magic-less sound from the electrostatic speaker...
What is other people's impression of 989 ?
How it compares to 2905 ?
