New Quad ESLs

Oedipus we've been here before -many times.

All competent amplification, used within it's specified operational limits, will sound the same as any other.

Competent amplifiers cost hundreds not thousands.

My ears and eyes say differently. Have you changed yet again?

 

[You misinterpreted what I said, but it opens an interesting line of discussion..]

Where is the "majority" on this forum? I just see a lot of people disagreeing with each other on what sounds good - even folks who are notionally "in the same camp" can't reach agreement (to form a majority..)

When there is any concensus, it's largely along partisan lines.. (although this is one of less polarized fora..]

 

Why on earth would you be using your eyes?

 

So you're using the NHT Xd.

 

Primarily because I listen with both - always a problem I know.

I guess I could put the amps in another room and have my memory erased.

 

No no no, not my lovely little thread! Start your own thread!

Dunc

P.S. - For the record, it may well be that valve and "hifi" amps have inherent distortions and that this is what we like about them, but there's no way in hell those distortions boil down simply to differences in frequency response to be EQed out (or in, for that matter) as oedipus suggests.

 

I thought it was going to be something interesting like NXT.
Good or otherwise 'The first major advancement in LS tech since the 50's' is a claim and a half considering what they are actually doing.

 

You've heard the Quads, and you've liked them. What they have going for them is lack of colouration - and perhaps (and I'm just speculating) this is what you liked when you heard them. A change is as good as a rest etc..

This is why it seems reasonable to question your choice of amplification...

...given that there can be predictable linear distortions when using certain amplifiers, and moreover it is possible to decide whether there is a "way in hell" that the change to the frequency response can be heard

 

Most valve amps cannot drive post 1980 Quad electrostatics properly, they don't have enough power. That seems a pretty good reason to look elsewhere. If you're still commited then (IMLE) at least some valve amps cannot drive Quads at all. So definitely try before you buy.

Paul

 

IIRC the 988 and 989 cut out if they get more than 80W input. Well within the capabilities of a lot of valve amps nowadays.

They are not speakers for playing stupidly loud anyway.

 

Simply not true Paul, you need to gen up on valves. Most of the best subjective matches for the 57's and '63's are push pull tube designs. Not just my view. Check out the unofficial Quad pages.

We all know you have an irrational dislike of valve amps. A shame as I suspect you'd love some of them if you didn't know.

 

I drive my 989's with an Emille integrated 6550 that puts out 70wpc. It will drive the quads to a level beyond which it is comfortable to listen with barely a turn on the loud pedal. The room is fairly large at 4.5 x 9m with 2.4m ceilings. They may not have the capacity to make your ears bleed but apart from bass slam they give little away in other areas.

Rod

 

70W is reaching near enough. You need nominally 100W into 8 Ohm to drive later ESLs to the limit, so you might as well have something in the range otherwise you are going to be listening to clipping. Which many valve lovers appear to like, but it does rather defeat the object of a speaker like the Quad.

Paul

 

I have an entirely rational dislike of valve amps.

OTOH I'm very fond of classic hifi. I've owned a pair of Quad IIs for 15 years.

The fact remains that many modern valve amps will be underpowered into ESLs and the only one I heard with mine was audibly distorting at modest outputs. So try before you buy and you probably have to spend quite a lot. Or you could follow the advice of the designer and simply use a Quad 909 or equivalent.

Paul

 

Well, I did try some - namely, the Quad II-Forties. And they sounded fecking brilliant. No distortion that I could identify, even at rather loud levels, just sweet, sweet music and wonderful realism. Not surprising at 4 grand! I'll be going back on Saturday and I should get a chance to compare them to the humble 909. Must say, I'm curious.

Dunc

 

with a not so whopping 40w per channel.

well, there's one myth blown wide open then.

 

It appears you equate, or at least have some expectation that, price is related to (sound) quality.

The Quad II-classic are (in terms of measured performance) $200 worth of amplifer, combined with $2500 worth of nostalgia.

[Editted to reflect Markus's observation below..]

 

It's not a myth, it's simple fact.

FWIW the speakers are the good bit, not the amp which is a competent device at a £3000 premium. And which cannot drive the speakers to their full potential. This may not matter, but at least be aware of it.

The actual myth is that valve watts are somehow different from any other.

Paul

 

The measurements you link are for the Quad II Classic, which is not the same animal as the II-Forty.

 

The 909's are very similar in sound to the II-40's; Quad even pushed a 909 on me instead of the valves although their own demo room runs II-40 driven ESL's. In terms of pure sound quality it's probably not worth the extra premium.
Quad have a stereo transistor power amp in the pipeline that is being labeled as 'word class' for very sensible money - given that most people who want all Quad systems may want to use something more capable than 909 or 909 monoblocks.