Quad 2905

togil · « **Reply #20 on:** 11 Jul 2007, 08:43 pm »

Wait for the new Quad II Eighty monoblocks coming out later this year.

James Tanner · « **Reply #21 on:** 11 Jul 2007, 09:33 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 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.

Hi George,

This is interesting - what did you find the 63's did better than the 2905's?

I have a Vulcan amp as well if it is the Vulcan tube amp produced by a small Toronto company many moons ago by a designer named Franco?

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #22 on:** 12 Jul 2007, 12:36 am »

Hi James,

Yes, the Vulcan that was designed by Franco, the self biasing one with 6 x EL34s per side. He was working on some speakers called ARS Acoustica (Irving's Speaker) at the time. He sent me out to various shops around town to procure various caps and minor upgrades. I truly think it is a wonderful product when used in the right environment. And unlike it's reputation I have had zero problems, other than to replace a couple of 5965s.

With the 63s it is pure magic, the transient attack almost perfect. The clarity and ability to see into the soundstage was fantastic. I'm not a huge cable juggler but I replace my XLO speaker cables with Vovox (a little known product distributed by Tosh from Divergent) and I was a very happy camper. The other components in my system are the MFA Luminescence, Versa 1.2 with Grasshopper, Modwright SACD/CD player, Magnum MD-108 or Marantz 10B.

So why upgrade if the 63s were magic. Well it's the old quest for the holy grail, if 4 panels sound great then 6 would be even better. I'm not convinced I may not be able to achieve this but I think I may have to rethink the location, partnering equipment, et al. My major problem now is that I like the scale, but my objections are similar to those when I had stacked 57s; more of everything but a loss of focus and some of the magic. I know I'm being premature in making my judgements but these are my initial impressions.

Now that you have lived with the 2905s maybe you can enlighten me on your progress. Any tips, pointers would be appreciated. Have yours changed significantly now that they have broken in further?

georgev3 · « **Reply #23 on:** 12 Jul 2007, 02:49 am »

Further to my previous email, the 63 seems to have all the ingredients in the right proportions.

James Tanner · « **Reply #24 on:** 12 Jul 2007, 02:55 am »

Quote from: georgev3 on 12 Jul 2007, 02:49 am

Further to my previous email, the 63 seems to have all the ingredients in the right proportions.

Seems to be different than all the rest of the reviews I have read on the 2905 being superior to the 63 in every way - strange.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #25 on:** 12 Jul 2007, 03:49 am »

Tomorrow Night I've got a couple of audiophile friends coming over to have a listen. Will post their opinions. May move them to a larger room and try various combinations. I'm sure in time my persistance will be rewarded. I can hear their potential I just haven't dialed it in yet!

James Tanner · « **Reply #26 on:** 12 Jul 2007, 10:26 am »

Yes please let me know. I have not had 63's in years so I can not do the comparison.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #27 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 03:21 pm »

Hello Again,

I'm making some progress. I've moved the 2905s to my basement where my Home Theater normally resides. I have a pair of US Monitors (63s) in one corner of that room that sound quite good. It is a relatively large room and replacing the 63s with the 2905s didn't really work out in that location.

I then replaced the front pair of my HT system ( a dynamic speaker) with the 2905s and things started to come together. This particular location gives a huge sound stage and the 2905s seem to excel in this area. As you stated in a previous post every item upstream seems to have a huge influence, it sure did!

The bass is taught and amazing as is the increase in dynamics. I'm still noticing a bit of loosening up (for a lack of a better term) as the speakers break in. Room size, cables, associated equipment all seem more critical with this speaker than the 63. I think with the proper combination (I'm not quite there yet) then can be pretty amazing, when everything is aligned properly.

I believe Ross Walker once said, placing a Quad ESL in the room is simple, there is only one correct location.

James Tanner · « **Reply #28 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 03:40 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 on 16 Jul 2007, 03:21 pm

Hello Again,

I'm making some progress. I've moved the 2905s to my basement where my Home Theater normally resides. I have a pair of US Monitors (63s) in one corner of that room that sound quite good. It is a relatively large room and replacing the 63s with the 2905s didn't really work out in that location.

I then replaced the front pair of my HT system ( a dynamic speaker) with the 2905s and things started to come together. This particular location gives a huge sound stage and the 2905s seem to excel in this area. As you stated in a previous post every item upstream seems to have a huge influence, it sure did!

The bass is taught and amazing as is the increase in dynamics. I'm still noticing a bit of loosening up (for a lack of a better term) as the speakers break in. Room size, cables, associated equipment all seem more critical with this speaker than the 63. I think with the proper combination (I'm not quite there yet) then can be pretty amazing, when everything is aligned properly.

I believe Ross Walker once said, placing a Quad ESL in the room is simple, there is only one correct location.

Hi George,

Thanks for the feedback. Another interesting comparison may be the 2805 vs the 2905. I wonder if having the extra bass panel influences the 'transient' of the speaker in any way? Am I correct in assuming that the 2805 is the direct replacement for the 63's?

james

togil · « **Reply #29 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:16 pm »

Yes it is. And the 2805 is better in every respect ( I used to own 63s )

James Tanner · « **Reply #30 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:34 pm »

Quote from: togil on 16 Jul 2007, 05:16 pm

Yes it is. And the 2805 is better in every respect ( I used to own 63s )

Have you heard the 2905?

james

togil · « **Reply #31 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:54 pm »

No , I haven't, under good domestic conditions; only at the Munich show last year where it was overdriven in the poor showroom conditions.

georgev3 · « **Reply #32 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 06:04 pm »

Hi James,

How have the Quad 2905s fared in your comparisons with the Maggies and other speakers on test.

One of the audiophiles over the other night was Paul K. who worked for AKG at one time. I'm not sure if you remember him but he was at your home when you had Snell Speakers. I think this is going back a year or two.

Thanks
George

James Tanner · « **Reply #33 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 06:18 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 on 18 Jul 2007, 06:04 pm

Hi James,

How have the Quad 2905s fared in your comparisons with the Maggies and other speakers on test.

One of the audiophiles over the other night was Paul K. who worked for AKG at one time. I'm not sure if you remember him but he was at your home when you had Snell Speakers. I think this is going back a year or two.

Thanks
George

Hi George,

Never had Snell speakers - maybe Paul has me confused with another good looking audiophile.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #34 on:** 23 Jul 2007, 07:34 pm »

A good friend and very tweak orientated audiophile came over last night to hear the 2905s. We moved the speakers around a fair bit and toed them in so that the inside edge is 46 inches from the back wall and the outside edge of the speaker 50 inches. The listening position was about 10 feet from the speakers. Then I replaced the feet intended for hardwood floors with the supplied cones (like tiptoes) and wow, what a difference. The change was incredible.

I've never been a tweaker or worried about positioning to this degree. The 63s I could place in roughly the right position and they sounded great. With the 2905s positioning, tip toes, etc. all seem to produce great results but are definitely a must.

James Tanner · « **Reply #35 on:** 27 Jul 2007, 12:42 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 on 23 Jul 2007, 07:34 pm

A good friend and very tweak orientated audiophile came over last night to hear the 2905s. We moved the speakers around a fair bit and toed them in so that the inside edge is 46 inches from the back wall and the outside edge of the speaker 50 inches. The listening position was about 10 feet from the speakers. Then I replaced the feet intended for hardwood floors with the supplied cones (like tiptoes) and wow, what a difference. The change was incredible.

I've never been a tweaker or worried about positioning to this degree. The 63s I could place in roughly the right position and they sounded great. With the 2905s positioning, tip toes, etc. all seem to produce great results but are definitely a must.

HI George,

Yes I agree, the angle is critical because as I said in my earlier comments when I looked at the hi-frequencies they roll off quite rapidly as you move off axis (center). So the overall frequency balance at the listening position is very dependent on the speaker angle, the distance from the rear wall and the listener position.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #36 on:** 2 Aug 2007, 05:50 pm »

How is your on going experience with the 2905 progressing. Have they continued to break in and has the sound quality changed significantly at the 200+ hour mark.

I'm noticing a slight edge (especially with female voice) that is disappearing as the speakers continue to breaking in. The bass is quite tight now and I don't really require that aspect to change or improve.

James Tanner · « **Reply #37 on:** 2 Aug 2007, 06:24 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 on 2 Aug 2007, 05:50 pm

How is your on going experience with the 2905 progressing. Have they continued to break in and has the sound quality changed significantly at the 200+ hour mark.

I'm noticing a slight edge (especially with female voice) that is disappearing as the speakers continue to breaking in. The bass is quite tight now and I don't really require that aspect to change or improve.

Hi George,

Yes I found the break in did allow for a more balanced output on the Quads. In my room the best match so far has been the 2B SST.

james

georgev3 · « **Reply #38 on:** 3 Aug 2007, 01:43 pm »

Would love to hear that combination some time! I'm currently letting them break in long term using an OCM 200 which does an adequate job.

James Tanner · « **Reply #39 on:** 3 Aug 2007, 02:42 pm »

Quote from: georgev3 on 3 Aug 2007, 01:43 pm

Would love to hear that combination some time! I'm currently letting them break in long term using an OCM 200 which does an adequate job.

George,

What I find interesting is that as you increase the power to the Quad (using more powerful amplifiers up to 200-600 watts) it can take on a more ponderous or one note bass aspect to the sound. Which in turn tends to make the Quad sound less open and spacial and seems to lack transient attack.

So I am finding that the right balance of power to room size is much more important than I originally had thought given my experiences with older model Quads.

james