Quad 988

I am looking at buying new speakers. One candidate that comes to mind is the Quad 988. My living room is rather large and currently a bit lively and underdamped. The basic shape of the room is excellent, but most of the walls are still bare and highly reflective at the moment.

The Quad appeals because it is not bright and does not have a lot of off-axis energy, so would need less room treatment than, say, some ATCs. It is also said to work particularly well at low volume, which is important to me.

It will be driven by either an Accuphase E408, a Shindo Monbrison/Avondale 260Z, Naim 32.5/110 (hi Alex) or a Shindo/Shindo combo, the power amp on the latter still to be decided but probably the Montille, a small EL 84-based stereo amp.

Anybody on this forum using the Quads? Does the Quad prefer tubes or transistors? How much power does it like to see? Any hints on set-up and placing it in the room? The classic 1/3 or 2/5 out in the room position is impossible for me, I would probably have to place it only about 80-100 cm out from the rear wall.

 

Hi Markus,

This is almost certainly telling you something you already know but remember that the Quads put as much energy behind them as they do in front. If you don't take some care with the room this could cause problems. 1m could be too little ith out some trick absorbers. Also while I love what Quads do when I sit in the sweet spot losing most of the treble when I stand up is disconcerting to say the least. Also if the room is really big then bass and volume might become an issue even with the bigger Quads. That said there is nothing else that can sound so real when they are working properly.

Tubes or transistors? Either tbh. With Quads you hear right through to what the source and amps can and can't do imho.

The other thing to consider is a pair of omnis - you do get a decent range in Germany. Sounds daft if you are worried about the room but I tend to find omnis less room dependant than many speakers. Could be because they are designed to interact with the room whereas normal speakers want to be influenced as little as possible.


Cheers

Jason

 

That wouldn't be Alex S from Bermondsey, would it? If so, those amps are great I had them on loan last summer (thanks ) before upgrading my amp to 72/180

 

I used to have the Quad 988... fantastic speakers. Rsand bought them off me, I couldn't afford the space for them anymore as family takes over.
And they do take a lot of space.... I would suggest 120cm behind them minimum, get them as far apart as possible and a fair bit of toe in - so you can see outside edges from where you sit.
The spikes that come with them are poor, get better longer ones if you have carpet and make sure they are rigid to the floor.
Once setup correctly they have no sweetspot, stereo imaging is superb anywhere in front of them. I did not find much difference in tonal response depending on where you sit either.

They don't need a lot of power but haven't heard of people running them with low power valves.

I had them running with Lavardin IT - excellent.
PS Audio HCA-2 very good, even better imaging but a bit harsh until tamed by warmish preamp.
Best of all by long way was Graaf 5050 valves - 6550C push-pull delivering 50 watts.
With a passive pre-amp that was pure magic, reach out and touch sound.

 

I have a pair of Quad 989's. My room is 7mx3.5m - contrary to the quad rules, I fire across the room with about 1m of space behind the speakers. The inside edges of the speakers are the best part of 8ft apart - so around 11ft between centers.

A lot of highend gear seems to build up "urban legend" folklore - and the Quad ESL's seem to suffer from this especially with respect to positioning. I'd argue that they are in most respects no more fussy than any other full range speaker - they all sound better away from walls.

You should be OK - I would strongly suggest toeing them in toward the listening position.

Given the size of your room (that you quote on pfm) I doubt that you'd have problems with side wall reflections from ATC's. On the other hand, if you wanted to kill (just the hf of) the rear wave from a pair of quads you'd need some substantial amount of treatment behind the speaker...

They'll play pretty damn loud too - another one of those quad myth's I'm afraid... That said, my ATC's will give them a serious ass kicking on outright SPL

I use Bryston power pak 120's..

You'll get a whole spectrum of answers to those questions... My $0.02 worth is that a solid state amp capable of 100W is probably ideal, and that quads aren't nearly as fussy about placement as some would have you beleive.

Even with limited placement options, Quads are such a phenomenal speaker, that although you're not get the best out of them, they'll still be significantly better than anything else.

If you have the chance to acquire a pair of Quads at used or demo pricing, you should buy them, you'll won't lose very much if things don't work out and you need to sell them on..

 

you really ought to choose the speakers and then an amp that can drive them,
not the other way round. why treat your room ? get something that works
in the space you've got. from your comments on the hifiplus forum
on ATC's and mosfets I thought you had at least some idea

 

I have alanbeeb's pair and am over the moon with them. Playing with position is rewarding (still not sure theyre right yet) but sound fabulous pretty much wherever. I can confirm they do go loud, have good bass, tonal ballance prety even sat or stood and have the biggest sweet spot of any speker I have heared, I sit well off axis and image is the best I have had.
I am driving them with nuvista m3 (250wpc) which is overkill really quads own 40wpc valves are reccomended so any 40wpc valve amp shoud do the trick. Where do you live? If you fancy a trip to Yorkshire (leeds/bradford) you are more than welcome to bring your amp and listen, I'm also going to arrange a bake off and convince Lord summit to bring his valves accross.

 

Dear axe victim,

thank you for the vote of confidence. Now kindly shift your brain cells out of neutral and you'll come to the realisation that I've listed about as broad a spectrum of amps as possible: from 20 or so tube watts to 55, 80 and 180 transistor watts per channel, I think I've covered all bases. Any speaker which needs more than those 180 watts is not worthy of consideration anyway.

Treating a room is generally the most cost effective change one can make to the sound of one's system. For various reasons, I want to get away with as little of it as possible in my present abode. It is precisley for that reason that a dipole like the Quad appeals.

 

All, thanks for the comments.

rsand, thanks for the invite, but I live in Germany; a trip to Yorkshire is not on the cards in the near future.

I have arranged for a demo soon. I'll probably have a pair of 988s to play with over Easter. I'll post about the results.

 

OK lets be serious, I still say the same thing, if you like what the quads do
then find an amp that complements them, choose the pair as a whole.
You suggest a naim pre and power, and a valve amp in the same sentance,
you tell me who's got their brain cells in neutral?

 

I'm going to try the Quads, but I also very well may want to try other speakers. I think that the amps I mentioned should be sufficient to show me what the Quads are capable of.

I'd ask you to explain this, but I'm not sure I'll understand your explanation either, and to be honest I don't care. Thanks for your interest in this thread.

 

FWIW - the chap who bought the Graaf 5050 from me was running Quad 989s, and had originally been using a Naim pre/power combo.... and described it as horrible!

 

Oedipus/Andy,

I believe you own both Quads and ATCs. Could you explain why, and which differences you find between them?

 

My name is Oedipus/Andy and I'm a recovering Audioholic.

As part of the 12 step program, I've found God (in the guise of Floyd Toole).

I guess you've read some of my other posts about how futile upgrading electronics/equipment stands/wire etc is I think some part of the programme is apologizing to offending you all for my posts on those topics, but I haven't got there yet!

In my new "religion" the only things that matter are the speakers and the interaction with the room. To that end, I have a collection of room correction devices (Tact, Behringer, Symetrix) and a collection of speakers (989's, ATC 50's & 10's, Paradigm Active 20's, and another new arrival next week) and a couple of big subs (DD15, Paradigm servo15).

I own a range of speakers because I like swapping them around and hearing what they can do - I'm also experimenting with the sub/satellite combinations.

I'll compare the Active 50's and the 989's.

On overall fidelity both of these speakers are great.

In terms of spectral balance, I've found the quads to be somewhat lacking in the bass (lowest octave) department; although the ATC's do better in that area, I augment them with two 15" subs. I've read (on these forums) some misgiving about the "top end" of the quads - I can only assume that the source of this is the Stereophile review who quipped something about "music is in the midrange", I have not found anything wrong with the top end of the quads (quite the contrary in fact) I've commented on several occasions that the 50's have an outstanding tweeter.

In terms of loudness, the ATC's are the clear winner - not surprising given that it's supposed to be their forte. If you really need your speakers to generate large amounts of power to acheive high SPL (and that's a function of your room) you might find the Quads struggling. In my 20x14 ft room the Quads seem to work very well, 10ft back at the listening position they happily generate the 80dBA I like [The ATC's will keep going to 100dBA+... especially with the subs]

Now we come to the crunch... On clarity the Quads are staggeringly good. I've spent several minutes trying decide whether "imagine taking two small cotton wool balls out of your ears" is the right analogy

The ATC's appear to be free of coloration right up to the point at which you hear the quads and then you have that "oh my god" moment.. Quads are the clearest speakers I've heard - I should probably qualify that with at the right volume level.

What puzzles me about Quad owners is that they have speakers which are crystal clear and then join them to valve amps (which in some cases can generate significant 2nd harmonic distortion) - it's almost as though it's possible to have too much of a good thing (clarity); or alternatively that the euphonic effect of valves is clearly audible and (apparently) rather enjoyable....

The quads also do the "soundstage" thing somewhat differently (and IMHO) better than the ATC's - that said, it could be an artifact of the giant radiator in concert with the room position and might therefore be quite different for you...

Have fun with the Quads, I think you'll love them; whether you can live with them is another matter

 

Not me.

Paul

 

This legend continue to haunt me. I see myself in a bigger house with many rooms. A large living room for her, one for the future little Woofie and one big spare room for my own toys.


That was a very sweat dream.

 

Thanks for your comments, Andy. What you're writing about the Quads, especially the clarity and freedom from coloration you describe, sounds very attractive.

Let me just pick up on this little bit:

A good valve amp will have very low 2nd harmonic, and indeed other distortion and noise. These days, it's entirely possible to have better than 90 dB THD/N performance from a valve amp. IIRC the Linn amps Paul uses have about 80 dB ... But let's not get sidetracked.

As I'm sure you've seen me writing elsewhere, I listened to ATCs some 10 years ago and didn't like what I heard then. For one thing, they used to have a tweeter which generated higher distortion than many valve amps. I also had reservations about the electronics. The current ATCs have a much better tweeter and ATC are just introducing a ew set of electronics which will probably become available in the regular spakers sometime soon. One of the things I'm trying to find out is whether they have improved enough to worth a new listen. We'll see.

I will certainly listen to the Quads, but I have some (pre-conceived) reservations (from my experience with 63s) if they will play with enough grunt on rock. I do like to listen to noisy stuff, even if the majority of my preferred music is not testosterone-driven. Again, I'll have to wait and see.

One of these days, I'll discuss your religious beliefs with you, but that will take more time than I can spare currently.

 

I have the old ATC tweeter (Vifa), there is no audible distortion, and I would suggest that any distortion heard through ATCs is originating elsewhere.

I've heard Paul's ESL 63s briefly and liked them very much. I doubt whether they have anything like the dynamic range of the ATCs, however, which can 'do' a drumkit without breaking sweat.

 

Bub, you also prefer the CDS2 to the CDS3, and 52 to the 252. Your preferences both exhibit higher distortion than their successors. You seem to hear the absence of distortion as smoothness/blandness.

 

Markus, I know you are trolling... <sigh> ...there is no audible distortion with the CDS2 or 52, as you should know.