Mating Quad 2905's with crossover and subs?

I goofed - I was referring to smaller Quads. Sorry 'bout that.

Thanks for the responses. I have tried the ML's (Summit X's). They played LOUD, clean and deep, but I didn't hear the magic that I hear with the Quads.
I used to own Maggie 3.6's, with a REL Storm III (no xover, I ran the Maggies full range) I didn't have a problem integrating the sub with the panels, so I think I can integrate a REL with the Quads.
What I'm trying to accomplish, is being able to play music (with that Quad magic) at Spl's higher than 90db. I'm not a headbanger, but I do like my music at realistic levels. I was hoping that if I could relieve the Quads from the bass frequencies, that I could get more volume.

I'm in the same boat as you, owning 2905's and loving their clarity, delicacy, speed and timbrel purity - yet missing the visceral physical impact put out by dynamic speakers during orchestral and operatic peaks. Like you, I'm considering a sub, knowing that believable integration with Quads may be impossible.

The REL Gibraltor series is a candidate, as their published specs look great in terms of speed. Problem is, they are designed to let the main speakers run full-range, while integration apparently is achieved only through tweaking the sub's volume and low-pass level. The connection is via Speak-on units.

This arrangement seems to me a big trade-off: one the one hand, by omitting a Xover, the sub's presence in the system will not degrade the signal received by the Quads; on the other, because there is no Xover to attenuate the high-pass signal to the Quads, their panels will not be relieved of any mid-to-low bass duties that, in theory, might be restricting their overall dynamics.

However, I'm not convinced such "relief" will allow the Quad panels to play louder, because what restricts their ability to do so is simply the limitation of their membranes' excursions before smacking into the stators - the source of distortion, arcing, and shutdown. Which, by the way, I've not witnessed.

There are two expensive solutions to our dilemma: (1) set up a separate listening room with big Rockport, TAD, Evolution or Magico speakers for rock and opera, or (2) add another set of Quads to move more air, thus fulfilling their namesake's suggestion. OK, back to reality:

Larry Greenhill reviewed a JL Audio Fathom f212, mating it to Quad ESl 989's through a Bryston 10B SUB Xover, using a complex setup to calibrate the sub:

http://www.stereophile.com/subwoofers/jl_audio_fathom_f212_powered_subwoofer/index.html

Keep us posted on your experiments.

I have had a pair of 2905s for 5+ years with a steady progression of REL subs, starting with the 305s, tried a single B1, and then a pair of 505s. I recently added a G1 with a second one on its way. IMHO 2905s with a pair of REL G1s is a pretty awesome combo and a match made in heaven. You get a holographic midrange and the transparency only a ESL can provide with a visceral bottom end. Don't believe all the theoretical nonsense about the problems integrating ESLs and subs. Been there, done it and its magic.
I set the X cross over at 30 hz on the RELs. Be careful regd phase setting: 0 or 180 makes a big difference. The G1 has a remote so its a breeze to set up.
Whether its a Bach organ piece, Dire Straits or Patricia Barber, opening the window below 30hz all the way down to 20hz or lower is something to be heard to believe.
I prefer not to mess with an X crossover and have moved up the REL chain. Am really excited about the arrival of the 2nd G1.
Be happy to share more info by mail.
2905s plus REL HUGELY recommended.
Cheers
Pradeep

Sunnyboy -

Your REL G1 is very encouraging news. I will soon be auditioning a couple of box speakers as possible replacements for my 2905's, but will also ask for a G1/2905 setup for comparison.

My dealer warns me about the impossibility of finding Quad magic in box speakers under astro sums of money, so I'm inclined to keep 'em.

Still, I do wish the Quads were more, ah, visually inspiring...