Looking For a Digital Coaxial and have ££ ?

It's not completely analagous, but I'm happy to stipulate that some JBL components have very low distortion. Does Murray use them too? FWIW at 400Hz your JBL plot shows roughly 0.4% third harmonic alone whereas the Quad is below 0.1%THD.

Who are this 'most Quad owners'? Can you help Murray out?

I think it's to do (in this case) with 20-60Hz response. If it were cancellation then the effect would be more variable, especially given the use of two speakers in an asymmetric room.

Paul

 

Your continual raising of strawmen is getting rather boring.

Paul

 

No idea Paul but it shows that the Quad is good but not exceptional in that area doesn't it?

Bad choice of words. Maybe I should say it is a widely held view that the 57 has never been beaten - just made to go slighly louder and cover a wider area.

I could ask what 20-60hz response? The '63's drop like a stone through that octave and a half at 12db per octave even in room. Are you saying yours were not equidistant from the rear wall?

 

As there are perhaps somewhere between 5000 and 50000 pairs of Quads ESL's in use in the UK it suggests that somewhere between one in a thousand or one in ten thousand people like them enough to use them. I'd say that was a 'minority taste'. However, you obviously have a serious problem with the concept of minorities and majorities Paul so I'll leave it there. I wouldn't want to force you to resort to more name calling.

 

Well, we'll not quibble about the actual numbers but that is sort of the point.

My rear wall is not planar.

Paul

 

Murray, do you work for the Labour party?

Paul

 

I'd agree that speakers with no real bass tend to sound transparent and open. I'd argue that losing the bottom octave and a half means you have zero chance of true realism.

IMO the overall measurements, lack of bass, and severely limited headroom all point to Quads being an amusing eccentricity rather than a true sonic reference regardless of how many people enjoy them. Subjectively they are enjoyable on some material, so I'm not knocking those that enjoy them - just as I wouldn't knock someone using a Wavac SET which probably distorts reality to the same degree.

 

Hi Paul,

No.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

 

Bugger me! now they're insulting each other in Latin
Just kidding chaps, carry on.....er no actually how about getting back on topic...something about a digital interconnect wasn't it? oh I forget now....cup of tea anyone?

 

I wouldn't agree with that in general, I have an example in my living room right now. Much less real bass than the Quads, they're only a foot tall, but they fake it and fool the ear into hearing something like the right pitch (another well known thing...). Not 'transparent and open' at all.

The discussion was about the midrange, not the totality of the experience or the generality of their application.

Paul

 

Murray, you can cut and paste definitions of 'ad hominem' but you don't appear to understand it. In practice if you resort to 'argumentum ad verecundiam' then you must expect 'ad hominem' in response.

Anyway are you going to make any attempt to support your stated opinion that the Quad midrange is 'wrong'?

Paul

 

i want to stand for the quad users - I fully agree that quad speakers (BTW I much prefer 57's to 63's) are far from perfect but I think under careful conditions they can produce a level realism not easily available elsewhere at a similar price. MC describes Quads as "amusingly eccentric" with respect I could say exactly the same about big old Tannoys, ATC's, big fat horns, vinyl etc.

Amusing eccentric also comes to my mind when I think of some of the individuals who post on ZG some seem lost in science and semantics and prefer the internet handbags at dawn method of communication. I cite this thread as an example of that.

Does anybody want to get back on track? the thread topic "looking for a Digital Coaxial" seems to have got lost.



Andy

 

You got the Crankies in your living room?

 

Paul, my recent Quad experiences have been listening to an old friends 2905's which replaced a pair of ESL63's. Although the 2905's are a more plausible speaker than the 63's I still find their midrange performance unconvincing.

Supporting the contention? Yawn.

Perhaps Keith Howard's technical panel in the Oct 2006 HiFi News review of this speaker.

"Frequency response flatness is not a 2905 strong point either. the +/- 6dB error from 200Hz to 20 KHz of one sample being over double that recently measured for the B&W 802D Pair matching over the same frequency range was also poor at +/- 5.9 dB but most of the large disparities were at high frequencies. over the range 200Hz to 4KHz the matching error was a much more impressive +/- 0.78 dB. The 2905 does not even excel itself on non linear distortion posting THD figures that were bettered by the 802D.

THD at 100Hz 0.22%, at 1KHz 0.25% and at 10KHz 1.36%"

But to be honest I'm not really concerned with quoting from an appraisal such as that one. I hear the speakers regularly as I used to hear the ESL63's regularly. They aren't right. Listening to the timbre of simple piano music highlights it very well. My friend likes them but does accept their shortcomings.

Now, you said I had a minority view and that I was eccentric. Care to prove it?

 

But

a) I don't just listen to the midrange

and

b) the midrange sounds wrong without correctly balanced frequency extremes IME.

You can say the same about many speakers that don't measure well - you cannot say some ATC's and many horns measure poorly though - they don't. The Quads do though, so I would hesitate to use them as a reference.

 

What I have in my living room makes me cranky.

Paul

 

I may steal this to baffle my boss next time he has a rant( not normally directed at me) - I might have to to write it down and rehearse it though.
thanks

Andy

 

If you don't care to debate, why enter into it?

I've no experience at all of the 28/905 so I've no comment. I find KH's measurements surprising though. Perhaps Quad have forgotten how to make the speakers? There's no excuse for a pair not to match.

FWIW you haven't supported 'wrong midrange' yet...

Paul

 

That's your opinion Paul. It really is worthless to me.

I'd say that Keith Howard's measurements do support the view that the 2905's have some weaknesses in that area. I'd also agree with most of the reviews I've seen that the 2905's are a step forward from the 63's. You might not agree with it but as you haven't listened to them you aren't really in a position to comment on that.

FWIW you still haven't produced a shred of evidence to support your assertion that mine is a 'minority' view. A minority of what? I'm still waiting.

 

Quads only measure very poorly outside the midband
so for the purpose of a reasonably priced speaker surely they are a fair midband reference?

ATC's may measure well, I will take yor word for this but they always sound very clinical to me. I dont think I could ever live with them even as a free gift. But anyway Spending £5000 or £10000 on speakers is a little eccentric to me.

regards
Andy