[unit]

I just did a few measurements with a Radio Shack SPL meter using the Stereophile test cd2. I initially set the meter where I was sitting about 6' away from the speakers and played the pink noise track. There was an obvious band of high pitched hiss riding above the waterfall sound. I then took the following readings:

250hz: 68; 315hz: 66; 400hz: 62; 500hz: 61; 630hz: 62; 800hz: 64; 1k:63; 1.25k: 64; 1.6k: 68; 2k: 72
2.5k: 73; 3.15k: 70; 4k: 69; 5k: 71; 6.3k: 67; 8k: 67; 10k: 60; 12.5k: 51; 16k: 45; 20k: 30

There are definitely some peaks and valleys.A peak at 2-3k which is maybe what I notice in a brightness to some vocals and a lack of articulation.

I then measured 2.5' away simulating a near-field listening positioning and got these results:

250hz: 68; 315hz: 69; 400hz: 64; 500hz: 68; 630hz: 69; 800hz: 71; 1k:71; 1.25k: 70; 1.6k: 71; 2k: 67
2.5k: 64; 3.15k: 62; 4k: 68; 5k: 72; 6.3k: 69; 8k: 61; 10k: 58

Much smoother response and much more pleasing to listen to.

I sat on the floor and stretched my legs out with my toes even with the edges of the speakers and the sound was much more resolving. Interesting, but very uncomfortable. I wonder how I can get this to happen while sitting in a chair. The higher my ears went the more brightness I heard.

Bill

[James Tanner]

Hi Bill,

Yes because of the 'concentric ring radiation pattern' the high frequencies are concentrated at the center of the diaphragm.

But that's the whole point of the Quad in that it is replicating a spherical point source emanating from about 1 foot behind the diaphragm.

james

PS - maybe consider using a speaker stand in your particular setup or tilt them back quite a bit?

[Dardemm]

Nice tread folks - I've enjoyed reading all the comments and in particular the conscious effort to point out the merits of each design and it's time and place in history.  So often forums like this deteriorate into a 'this one blows that one away' debate.  This forum has much more insight, curiosity and appreciation.

My history with Quad dates back to the mid 90's, which were my early days of Hi-Fi.  Back then I've spent time with both the 63's and the 57's, but mostly with the 63's.  I ended up borrowing a friend's pair for about 6 months (with a CJ amp) and also spent 3 weeks working at a Philips recording studio in Baarn, Netherlands where i spent 3 weeks editing and mixing sound for a Canadian Documentary special on Shostakovitch.  I was blessed with working in a lovely editing room outfitted with 63's.

Now, I might not have the same depth of insight as some of the other posters in here, but since that time in the 90s I've also held an affinity for Quad speakers without being able to own a pair myself.  What I have liked most about some recent experiences with the 2905 is there ability to preserve the beautiful sense of presence and intimacy that I remember from the older models while at the same time offering a fully, richer overall sound.  They still sound like QUAD's, but with just a little bit more.

I must confess too, that I love the idea that all of these speakers still command attention.  As someone who uses an older designed speaker in the LS 3/5a, I appreciate the idea of supporting something that isn't new, and if i encountered a QUAD owner I would probably ask which model they listened too, then shake there hand rather than tell them they should switch to something else.

Regards,

David mcc

[unit]

I have found the best sound yet with my 2905's. I'm using the smaller room which is 12'X13' with the Quads on the 12' length of wall. They are about 4' from the rear wall which is now damped by Real Traps HF Minis. These traps clearly helped everything especially bass.
They are about 2' from each side wall.
I sit about 4' from the panels. I have the Quads toed in only about 18 degrees. If I aim the center of the speakers at my listening seat they become excessively bright. Unbearable and un-listenable.
What in terms of soundstaging and imaging am I giving up sitting this near-field, but listening off-axis?
I guess if I were to make an assessment of the soundstage, I'd say it may sound a bit broken up. Not real seamless.
However, it might be the best setup for my room
Do others notice the brightness when aimed at your ears?

[James Tanner]

I have found the best sound yet with my 2905's. I'm using the smaller room which is 12'X13' with the Quads on the 12' length of wall. They are about 4' from the rear wall which is now damped by Real Traps HF Minis. These traps clearly helped everything especially bass.
They are about 2' from each side wall.
I sit about 4' from the panels. I have the Quads toed in only about 18 degrees. If I aim the center of the speakers at my listening seat they become excessively bright. Unbearable and un-listenable.
What in terms of soundstaging and imaging am I giving up sitting this near-field, but listening off-axis?
I guess if I were to make an assessment of the soundstage, I'd say it may sound a bit broken up. Not real seamless.
However, it might be the best setup for my room
Do others notice the brightness when aimed at your ears?

Hi Bill,

Well that certainly is 'nearfield'. The Quad approximates a point sounce about 1 foot behind the speaker so close in sitting is OK - although 4 feet is a little close. The center of the speaker is where the high frequencies are concentrated so the toe-in is certainly critical when adjusting overall tonal balance.

As for the soundstage maybe try damping the wall directly behind the speaker and/or also at the first reflection points along EACH of the 13 foot side walls. It may be that early reflections (comb filtering) are causing the lack of specific placement of images in the soundstage.

james

[planaria]

I am running a high quality analogue source into Bryston 3B SST and 4B SST amplifiers. Speakers are Quad ESL57, Quad 2805, and Quad 2905, all unmodified. I am very satisfied with the quality of sound - it is not far off the best I have heard - and the amplifiers are indestructible.

I find the sound of the 3B and 4B to be the same with these speakers.

The 2805's are balanced a bit towards the high frequency, while the 2905's are more naturally balanced. Both are very precise, integrated, and musical, but I definitely prefer the 2905's. The ESL57's are missing an octave of highs and an octave of lows. They are a little less precise than the latest generation, almost a little muddy, but only by comparison.

The surprising thing is the sense of immediacy and musicality of the ESL57's, which is comparable to the 2905's.

When listening to CD's the situation is different. Using a Linn source, I find the 2805's to be unbearable without a 13KHz filter. The 2905's are bearable, but not pleasant for extended listening. I have not subjected the ESL57's to digititis, but I would expect them to be more forgiving.

I have found the best overall configuration to be 2905's for L and R, the pair of 2805's facing in at 80 degrees for centre channel, and the ESL57's for surround (using an old 3B). For stereo, I feed each of the two inputs into one side of each modern Bryston, running the 2905's and 2805's simultaneously, not using the ESL57's.

Hope this helps.

[James Tanner]

planaria,

Thanks for the input much appreciated.
How big is your listening room?

james

[planaria]

Room is irregular, about 2300 cubic feet. The wall behind the front speakers is 14 feet. Walls and ceiling are deadened with cement board or sand.

[Take2]

I just stumbled on this string and have read with great interest all the Quad posts.  I have not heard the newer 2905s but it sounds like I really need to audition a pair soon!   I own both 57s and 63 US monitors and find George's take on things fascinating, with his vast range of experience.  Also the review posted by James Tanner is nothing short of brilliant! 

I am a professional classical recording producer and I value qualities of 'organic realism' above all else, as my speakers need to tell me exactly what I've done in trying to capture a performance, both from a technical and especially a musical standpoint, and for these reasons I've found Quads to be among the most truthful transducers.  They are my 'all-day workhorses'; I use them for hours on end in the most critical process of editing as they are as detailed as headphones, but not nearly as fatiguing..

I've recently had a panel become defective..  there is a crackling distortion related to program level, but no visible arcing that I can see.  I assume I'll need to get a new panel and could probably do so from QS&D when I'm in the States.  But I was wondering where you folks get replacement parts for your Quads here in Canada (I'm near Toronto).  These babies have been so trouble free for so many years, I've never had to think about service, but this may not be the last time a part goes bad. Any help steering me in the right direction would be appreciated, as well as any recommendations for reliable repair people. 

N.K.

[James Tanner]

I just stumbled on this string and have read with great interest all the Quad posts.  I have not heard the newer 2905s but it sounds like I really need to audition a pair soon!   I own both 57s and 63 US monitors and find George's take on things fascinating, with his vast range of experience.  Also the review posted by James Tanner is nothing short of brilliant! 

I am a professional classical recording producer and I value qualities of 'organic realism' above all else, as my speakers need to tell me exactly what I've done in trying to capture a performance, both from a technical and especially a musical standpoint, and for these reasons I've found Quads to be among the most truthful transducers.  They are my 'all-day workhorses'; I use them for hours on end in the most critical process of editing as they are as detailed as headphones, but not nearly as fatiguing..

I've recently had a panel become defective..  there is a crackling distortion related to program level, but no visible arcing that I can see.  I assume I'll need to get a new panel and could probably do so from QS&D when I'm in the States.  But I was wondering where you folks get replacement parts for your Quads here in Canada (I'm near Toronto).  These babies have been so trouble free for so many years, I've never had to think about service, but this may not be the last time a part goes bad. Any help steering me in the right direction would be appreciated, as well as any recommendations for reliable repair people. 

N.K.

Hi N.K.

Contact Ken Simpson in the Toronto area:(905) 812-1300

james

[Take2]

Thanks James!!  BTW, I also use a number of Bryston products for exactly the same reasons ..  Keep up the good work.

n.k.

[James Tanner]

Hi All,

I have been playing around with my 2905 Quads recently and one thing I have noticed is that no matter what room I have them in there is a bit of a bump in the frequency response at about 50Hz. So I tried a 10B electronic crossover over the weekend and crossed over the Quads at 50Hz into a set of 'subs' as an experiment. Thought reducing the bump (resonance?) at 50 Hz and taking the load off the electrostatic panel may provide a more open sound.

Well so far the results are just excellent. The soundstage improves and the overall volume level of the system is much greater with less distortion. I am wondering if the 50Hz bump (resonance?) is part of the reason why some find the 2905's just a bit 'thick' and not quite as 'fast' or 'detailed' as the older Quads?

I will investigate further.

James

[James Tanner]

Hi werd,

You asked me to comment on using the 4B SST Squared on the Quad 2905's.

I was using the 2B SST because the Quads will not accept anymore power than 100 watts at 8 ohms because the protection circuits built into the speaker kicks in. It sounded really good with the 2B-SST but the bass seemed to have a bit of a bump around 50Hz that made things sound a little thick.

The 4B SST tightens that up and has a bit more authority through the complete bass range.

I am still experimenting at this point but you have to be cautious not to overpower the speaker.


james

[werd]

Hi werd,

You asked me to comment on using the 4B SST Squared on the Quad 2905's.

I was using the 2B SST because the Quads will not accept anymore power than 100 watts at 8 ohms because the protection circuits built into the speaker kicks in. It sounded really good with the 2B-SST but the bass seemed to have a bit of a bump around 50Hz that made things sound a little thick.

The 4B SST tightens that up and has a bit more authority through the complete bass range.

I am still experimenting at this point but you have to be cautious not to overpower the speaker.








james

Hi James

How often are u tripping the protection in the quads, do the transients trip it?

[James Tanner]

Hi werd,

You asked me to comment on using the 4B SST Squared on the Quad 2905's.

I was using the 2B SST because the Quads will not accept anymore power than 100 watts at 8 ohms because the protection circuits built into the speaker kicks in. It sounded really good with the 2B-SST but the bass seemed to have a bit of a bump around 50Hz that made things sound a little thick.

The 4B SST tightens that up and has a bit more authority through the complete bass range.

I am still experimenting at this point but you have to be cautious not to overpower the speaker.








james

Hi James

How often are u tripping the protection in the quads, do the transients trip it?

Hi werd,

I have never tripped the circuits but just warning people that it can be an issue.

james

[werd]

Hi werd,

You asked me to comment on using the 4B SST Squared on the Quad 2905's.

I was using the 2B SST because the Quads will not accept anymore power than 100 watts at 8 ohms because the protection circuits built into the speaker kicks in. It sounded really good with the 2B-SST but the bass seemed to have a bit of a bump around 50Hz that made things sound a little thick.

The 4B SST tightens that up and has a bit more authority through the complete bass range.

I am still experimenting at this point but you have to be cautious not to overpower the speaker.








james

Hi James

How often are u tripping the protection in the quads, do the transients trip it?

Hi werd,

I have never tripped the circuits but just warning people that it can be an issue.

james

O good i am glad to hear that protection circuit isnt an issue per se. The 4b sq. strikes again........woot!!!!

[planaria]

The Quads are out of warranty now, so naturally I opened them up. A caution: these speakers can KILL you several ways with LETHAL ENERGIES. It is better to get a knowledgeable technician to do any mods - it will cost less than even your basic funeral.

If you must open them up yourself, get an esl book and master it. Make sure that the power cord is out, AND the speaker wires are disconnected. Work with a buddy who knows CPR - I'm not kidding. Keep one hand in your pocket when working inside. An error kills here, so don't take short cuts.

It turns out that the 2805's and 2905's both use cheap wire wound resistors and a bipolar electrolytic capacitor in the signal path. I replaced the resistors with Mills ww, and replaced the cap with a Solen metallized polypropylene. Instant gratification. Sound was notably sweeter and cleaner.

Bypassed the Solen with an MIT film and foil 10mike. Even better. Then, because it was lying around, used a 70mike film and foil array with the remainder metallized.

Better yet, a qualitatively different sound. With the Brystons, these speakers rival the best system I have heard at any price. Clear, detailed, intricate, integrated, pleasing, musical. Every week the speakers seem to sound better - don't know if that's my imagination, but the effect is quite magical. Perhaps the best word is "real".

Have ordered Plitron step-up transformers, will see how they work, and report.

[James Tanner]

The Quads are out of warranty now, so naturally I opened them up. A caution: these speakers can KILL you several ways with LETHAL ENERGIES. It is better to get a knowledgeable technician to do any mods - it will cost less than even your basic funeral.

If you must open them up yourself, get an esl book and master it. Make sure that the power cord is out, AND the speaker wires are disconnected. Work with a buddy who knows CPR - I'm not kidding. Keep one hand in your pocket when working inside. An error kills here, so don't take short cuts.

It turns out that the 2805's and 2905's both use cheap wire wound resistors and a bipolar electrolytic capacitor in the signal path. I replaced the resistors with Mills ww, and replaced the cap with a Solen metallized polypropylene. Instant gratification. Sound was notably sweeter and cleaner.

Bypassed the Solen with an MIT film and foil 10mike. Even better. Then, because it was lying around, used a 70mike film and foil array with the remainder metallized.

Better yet, a qualitatively different sound. With the Brystons, these speakers rival the best system I have heard at any price. Clear, detailed, intricate, integrated, pleasing, musical. Every week the speakers seem to sound better - don't know if that's my imagination, but the effect is quite magical. Perhaps the best word is "real".

Have ordered Plitron step-up transformers, will see how they work, and report.

Hi planaria,

Can you send me a picture of the changes you made please.

james

[Hap]

It turns out that the 2805's and 2905's both use cheap wire wound resistors and a bipolar electrolytic capacitor in the signal path. I replaced the resistors with Mills ww, and replaced the cap with a Solen metallized polypropylene. Instant gratification. Sound was notably sweeter and cleaner.

Bypassed the Solen with an MIT film and foil 10mike. Even better. Then, because it was lying around, used a 70mike film and foil array with the remainder metallized.

Better yet, a qualitatively different sound. With the Brystons, these speakers rival the best system I have heard at any price. Clear, detailed, intricate, integrated, pleasing, musical. Every week the speakers seem to sound better - don't know if that's my imagination, but the effect is quite magical. Perhaps the best word is "real".

Hi planaria,
Thought to chime in here as have a bit of experience with working on the ESL63, 988, 2905's, which basically use the same ESL panel structure.

Your idea to upgrade the input cap and resistor is a good idea; make sure to keep the total capacitance close to stock; which should be around 220uf to 350uf, depending on the model.
Less capacitance will lighten the low end a bit and move the soundstage a bit forward; if you go too far, you will know as the soundstage will become thin and flat.
If you can afford it, using better metallized polypropylene caps than Solens will really open up the sound even more.
Some of the original guys that did mods to the original 63's used to totally bypass this R/C input circuit, which we now know was a big mistake.
Using a Mills MRA12 1R5 resistor will definitely improve the sound, better yet would be a Dueland 1.5ohm or similar non inductive model.

Structural mods to damp the frame and keep the panels rigid without compressing them together will yield good results.

As you know already, room placement is tricky; sound treatment in the right places will work wonders to broaden the soundstage.  Tilt angle to the listening position is also important.
The sweet spot with the Quads are pretty small, which is one of their downsides. If one is looking for a loudspeaker that can play at concert levels etc, these aint the ticket.
However what the Quads excel at, IMO no other dynamic loudspeaker in the same price category can come close if you are a transparency junkie like me.

Through the years, I've been down the dipole road; starting with the Magnapans, ML's, Soundlabs, but always came back to the Quads, starting with the 57's, a bunch of 63's, and a pair of 988's.
The best set up I had was a pair of 63's with some Maggie woofer panels placed in the outer back; the soundstage this combo produced were something I still dream about; that that was when I was still a single guy, with a bachelor pad; nothing in the living room but hi-fi gear and sound panels all over the place...

george3 mentioned he still has an MFA Luminescence preamp....man that also brings back memories.
The system above was powered with a pair of 150w mono amps that Bruce Moore made for that set up to power the ESL63's.
I also had a Luminescence preamp that was all tube regulated, and some local guy did mods to it that really opened up the top end....man I regret selling that stuff.
Apologize for the memory lane lapse.

You guys already know there is much information about Quad mods on the web, and a bunch of guys in the US, UK, and Australia that have many good mods that work.
As I noted, the mod guys have come along way since the days of Crosby and others back in the 80's.
If your panels are in good shape with no loose stators, diaphragms, mylar films, and are secure to the matrix, they should be able to play pretty loud and clear with decent bass.  A good pair of subs that can match the speed of the Quads does work.
The glue that Quad used on the latter 63's and subsequent models were not great, so panel failure rate is pretty high.

One last comment for now; they do need proper charge up time, and also proper discharge time, if you are going to tear into the speakers and start poking around.
You can put a resistor from the EHT charge wire to ground to help discharge the voltage to the panels to speed up this process, but use some insulated tools or gloves when you do this.
The voltage from the EHT supply board is around 5.25kv, and can jump quite a distance so be careful.

Cheers.

[planaria]

Hello James. Have admired your posts.

Sorry, no digital camera, but I can describe the modifications. Removed the original cabling from the binding posts and tied it back. Routed new cabling from binding posts directly to the downstream side of the (1R5 ?) resistor on the board. Interposed a new box between the amps and each 2x05, which contained the caps (total 220mikes) and the resistor. Best results with 70mike array of film and foil, 150mikes metallized. WBT Nextgen binding posts because I had them, but would use Eichmann's next time. Cabling 13 AWG Goertz copper.

Hope that helps.