Quad 2905

James Tanner · « **on:** 12 May 2007, 01:18 pm »

Hi All,

Playing around with the Quad 2905 speakers this week.

Anyone have any thoughts about using or not using the "weight" at the rear of the speaker. I have heard differing opinions as to their use. Some say it is simply a British safety issue (harder to knock over) others say it adds rigidity to the frame?

james

niels · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 May 2007, 07:15 pm »

Never had Quad unfortunately, but I take the opportunity to give this to you, works also for electrostats, if you have the room that matches that is :
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring=Room+Setup

Just checked the speakers, I would think its important to have the speaker as rigid as possible, the more weight the better.
I had Audiostatic ES 100 DCI full range electrostatics and these stood on a little wooden base, but stood 6 feet high thus they were not very steady.

Phil A · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 May 2007, 08:19 pm »

I've not seen the Quads nor followed Electrostatics closely over the last few years but from what I've seen I'd have to agree with the above post. Even Maggie MMGs greatly benefit from upgraded stands. When my friend worked at the high end shop I helped someone put together a system and he ended up with the MMGs. I guess the amount of the benefit might differ a bit on how rigid your subfloor (and room too) is and how heavy the speakers are and if you are not pumping really low freuquencies thru them via use of a crossover and sub.

pennello · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 May 2007, 09:57 am »

First let me say hallo to every body!

This is my first post, therefore let me introduce myself a little bit
I am Angelo from Italy and at the moment I am leaving in Bruxelles.

I am looking for a new HiFi set (cd + amp + loudspeakers) and I find the Quad 2905 "fantastic"!
Now the problem is that I heard them only with Accuphase amp (I don't remember the number

)
But I would like to know if the match with Bryston equipment could work.

Does anybody have this experiences???

Regarding the subject of the 3D, I have read that Quad is improving the structure of the electrostatic loudspeaker in order to eliminate (or to reduce) vibrations caused by the membrane.
In fact the previous model (989) are a little bit less rigid

I haven't had a direct experience, so please take my statement as it is......

Thank you in advance

angelo

James Tanner · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 May 2007, 11:24 am »

Hi Angelo,

Welcome to your 'first time'.

I have the 2905 at the moment in my soundroom and the structure (rigidity) is very much improved over the previous versions of the Quad (all of which I have owned at one time or another). Anyway I can verify that the structure is certainly 'dead' and they even supply a optional special weight to stabilize the cabinet even further.

Obviously my opinion does not count for much as I am obviously biased but the Bryston 4B (300 watts 8 ohms) and the 7B (600 watts 8 ohms) is what I have been using for my listening tests so far. Quad claims all you need is 100 watts at 8 ohms so I am going to experiment with our 3B (150 watts at 8 ohms) as well. Preamp is the BP26 and our new Bryston CD Player.

I have only had the speakers for less than a week so I am still 'breaking them in". So far so good.

james

niels · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 May 2007, 10:22 pm »

Oh, I think your opinion counts plenty James. Bryston is one of the the most neutral and revealing amps in the world and they will match well with just about any speaker. Regarding the Quad, Peter Walker believes there is only one playback level thats the right one, but depending on the amps headroom you might get different results.
In the test of Martin Logan SL3 in Stereophile they had so-so results with a 70 watt Conrad Johnson, going up to 140 watts from the same manufacturer ( The Premier Line both ) really made the speakers sing.
So, 300 watts with the Quad may seem like overkill since they have a natural limit in loudness, but in reality this is maybe what it takes to energize the room and make the music come alive.

pennello · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 May 2007, 07:42 am »

Hi mates

Thanks for your answers.
I know that the Quad wants to have many watts and talking with one seller, he told me that a MacIntosh wasn't able to drive them properly, even if the quality of the equipment is pretty high (I don't like Mac but this is another story

)

I also heard that the Quad (maybe also all the electrostatic loudspeakers) prefers being driven by tube amplifier, so it isn't only a problem of power.
(honestly I tested them with Accuphase ampli, and I appreciated the sound)
Otherwise I could buy (or built myself) i.e. an amplifier with Hypex modules (around 700 w/ch)
but, unfortunately there is something else.....
the quality of the power is essential!!!!!
especially with loudspeakers so "clear" (I don't know the right translation of "radiografanti" but comes from X-ray picture....

)

angelo

niels · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 May 2007, 12:26 pm »

Here http://www.bryston.ca/pdfs/07/BrystonCX.pdf you will find that Stereophile used Bryston B100-DA with Quad ESL-989 speakers, seemed to work very well.....
Anyway, I used both a Coda 10.5 class A/AB and an old Nad 3020 with my electrostatics, work well both of them, but of course the Nad could not really play loud.
We are waiting for feedback from James, but I cannot imagine Bryston would be a bad match with electrostatics, hey, I use it myself....

Jim Hamley · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 May 2007, 07:10 pm »

James,
Any impressions you would care to share comparing the Quads to the Maggies would be appreciated. In particular, female vocals are of interest (e.g., Holly Cole "I Can See Clearly Now" and "Alison", Evanescence (Amy Lee) "My Immortal" or Patricia Barber "Let It Rain".)
Much thanks,
...Jim

pennello · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 May 2007, 07:31 pm »

Hi again.

Thanks a bunch for the link.
Here is quite difficult to find Bryston, so any other possibility to know something about the brand is wellcome!

Unfortunately I haven't had the occasion to hear the Magneplanar, but it is one of the loudspeakers that I want to check
I hope to read other commets from you

bye

angelo

ps. unfortunately (for you) luna rossa won oracle!!!!

Forza Luna Rossa!!!!!!!!!!

James Tanner · « **Reply #10 on:** 22 May 2007, 10:46 am »

Quote from: Jim Hamley on 21 May 2007, 07:10 pm

James,
Any impressions you would care to share comparing the Quads to the Maggies would be appreciated. In particular, female vocals are of interest (e.g., Holly Cole "I Can See Clearly Now" and "Alison", Evanescence (Amy Lee) "My Immortal" or Patricia Barber "Let It Rain".)
Much thanks,
...Jim

Hi Jim,

Funny you should mention Holly Cole and Patricia Barber - I have been using both of those disc's - small world.

Anyway, so far I have set all the speakers under test (Magnepan 3.6 and 20.1- Quad 2905 and PMC Active) up in two different rooms (one speaker setup at a time). The rooms are 16 x 23 and 12 x 15 ( with another 12x 15 room directly behind). I have used PP60, 2B SST, 3B SST, 7B SST, 2 Class D amplifiers and one Tube amp.

Comments on sound performance will follow once I collect all my thoughts. I have had some people over as well to get some outside opinions.

james

James Tanner · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 May 2007, 05:25 pm »

Hi All,

OK here are my thoughts on the Quad 2905’s. Remember the listening room acoustics and the set-up is as critical as the system chosen. The Quad’s are dipoles so room issues are important. Sidewalls are not an issue but being able to manoeuvre the speakers some reasonable distance from the back wall is important to get the right mix of reflected to direct sound. In my setup the speakers were 8 feet apart – edge to edge – and I sat 8 feet away with the speakers angled at about 20 degrees and the speakers where 4 feet from the back wall.

First off do not just plug them in and listen – I was so excited about getting them set-up and working I started listening immediately and they sounded awful. Then I realized, after reading the instructions, that a minimum charge time is involved – lesson learned – I should know better. In fact, I have since learned that they recommend 200 hours of normal playtime before they are totally ready for prime time.

Anyway, the Quad in a word is an INTIMATE speaker. By intimate I mean it works best when you sit close and play at reasonable volume levels. The near-field listening position is possible because of the “Point Source Array” of the panel – most large dipoles need you to be 10-12 feet away for the drivers to integrate. The Quad being one large point source driver allows for this excellent close proximity listening.

I made measurement with my ETF system – which is the one I use when setting up studio systems. Directly on axis at 1/2 meter the Quad measures very flat – in fact what is nice is that the Bass response is very linear up close – a lot of speakers need room to develop bass energy. As you move away from the center position the hi-frequency response falls off quickly so the angle of the speakers relative to the listener is important depending on the tonal balance you want to achieve in your room.

The soundstage appears to start about 1 foot behind the panel and move backwards and outwards.

I found as you increased the power to the panel the sound changed a bit in terms of the tonal balance. Smaller amplifiers sounded more ‘mid-rangy’ bigger amps sounded more ‘bass-weighted’. There is a point with the bigger amplifiers where the speaker starts to sound dynamically restricted or compressed regardless of how hard you push it. I was never able to shut the speaker down (Quad has a built in protection circuit) but the speaker definitely has a limit to the dynamic range it can deal with. I think room size and the type of music you listen to will be the determining factor on the size of the amplifier you choose.

I found the 2B SST (B100 SST) was an excellent match in my room but I also tried the PP60, the 3B SST and the 14B SST as well as a tube amp and 2 Class D amps. The other thing I found surprising was that the Quad’s appear very easy to drive. I did not expect that given that Electrostatics are huge capacitors and generally not an easy load for an amplifier. Anyway, even the PP60 was singing along with no sense of strain.

The thing I have always felt about quality audio systems is that their ability to provide “low-level resolution” and excellent “transient response” is crucial to creating a ‘you are there’ emotional experience. The Quad does an excellent job of both. Voices are superb as are string instruments.

In conclusion, I can see why reviewers like this speaker. It is an excellent magnifying glass. The ability to resolve the differences between equipment placed upstream is excellent. I used many different amplifiers and CD Players and the resultant changes were immediately apparent. If you are comfortable with limited volume levels (relatively speaking) and a close up listening position you will certainly enjoy the Quad’s.

James

Jim Hamley · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 May 2007, 06:37 pm »

James,
Thanks very much for taking the time to provide such a thorough analysis!
Can you comment on how the Quads compare to the Maggies? Martin Logan's?
...Jim

James Tanner · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 May 2007, 07:05 pm »

Maggies I am working on now - my budget is blown so it may be a while before I can get the Martin Logans.

james

niels · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 May 2007, 10:24 pm »

Get the new Martin Logan Purity, then you dont need amplifiers because they are built-in....James, I laugh my evil laugh......
Anyway, there is a saying about the "Stax Omega headphones, its like strapping a pair of Quads on your ears".....once electrostatic its hard to go back.

James Tanner · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 May 2007, 11:40 pm »

Quote from: niels on 23 May 2007, 10:24 pm

Get the new Martin Logan Purity, then you dont need amplifiers because they are built-in....James, I laugh my evil laugh......
Anyway, there is a saying about the "Stax Omega headphones, its like strapping a pair of Quads on your ears".....once electrostatic its hard to go back.

Which Martin Logan would be the one to test?

james

Sasha · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 May 2007, 03:29 am »

James,

How do Quads compare to PMC speakers, let’s say IB2, I believe you are familiar with those?

Sasha

niels · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 May 2007, 10:11 am »

Quote from: James Tanner on 23 May 2007, 11:40 pm

Quote from: niels on 23 May 2007, 10:24 pm

Which Martin Logan would be the one to test?

james

Oh, I think it depends on the room really, but since you had Quad, then the new CLX model should be fairly interesting for you. Dont know any price yet though.
http://67.19.167.226/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=4316
Vista, Vantage and Summits are very popular also but these are hybrids.

James Tanner · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 May 2007, 11:12 am »

Quote from: Sasha on 24 May 2007, 03:29 am

James,

How do Quads compare to PMC speakers, let’s say IB2, I believe you are familiar with those?

Sasha

HI Sasha,

Short question - long answer.
I will get back to you on this one.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #19 on:** 11 Jul 2007, 08:19 pm »

Hello Everyone,

This thread has gone dormant, especially frustrating while my Quads were in transit.

I have received and played with my new 2905's. Amplifiers that worked with my 63s (and sounded wonderful) are not working with my 2905s. I've tried, Radford monoblocks, Vulcan (a highly regarded 80watt per side triode amplifier, 150 Ultralinear, EL 34 based), modified Dynaco Mark IIIs and more. All worked well, especially the Vulcan with the ESL 63s, but not with the 2905s.

Then I tried the solid state route, Stax Class A DA 80, OCM 200 and once again no success. I dusted off an old war horse a Harmon Kardon Citation Twelve; there was a synergy and magic there that belies the cost and vintage of the HK. A little bit bass shy but tamed, a livelyness and see thru quality that had been lacking. Even tiny graduations in volume became apparent (when a singer trails off or sings slightly louder for affect). I'm sure that I can do better than the HK but I'm going to have to borrow amplifiers to audition to avoid making a big mistake.

What should work hasn't and what shouldn't has. Ah, it's what keeps the hobby so interesing. Although I'm a tube afficianato I'm willing to stay open minded enough to use a solid state solution, if superior. Anyone else with experience with the 2905 and/or suggestions would be welcomed.