[katamapah]

Hi,

I would like to ask how newer versions of QUAD ESL with additional
bass panels perform in other styles of music rather traditional QUAD ESL
ultimate - jazz, classic, vocals and acoustic in general. Are they a way better then ESL63 let's say in progressive rock, pop of 80's psychedelic, fusion, or modern free jazz with some touch of electronic ?
I am not talking about hard rock, trance/house/excessive electronic or dynamic music.

Unfortunately, I can't listen to the new QUADS ESL in my area, so all i can do is trust some reviews and ask for people opinions.

I liked a lot ESL63 for what they do, but they were almost unlistenable while I was feeding them with LED ZEPPELIN or BoneyM for example.
So how are the new ones ?
Are they really better in what they are "not supposed" to do ?
Thank you.

[katamapah]

Some additional question...
Would you say an MG1.6 is a better "all around" speaker than Quad ESL989/2905
if not only ESL's "sweet spot" styles are considered ?

[richidoo]

I had 2905 for a short while. It was easy to get lost in the music, and forget about the system. If you can give them enough room behind them, then they will work great acoustically, bass modes are minimal. The soundstaging is awesome. Bass is full enough for satisfying, normal volume listening, say up to 90dB average. They need a lot of current for the low impedance. Tubes must not be allowed to clip, even too old tubes at upper volumes can arc in the load and that will burn holes in the mylar.

My biggest gripe was that they compress music and have limited ultimate loudness. I was using one of the most lively and dynamic amps, Manley Snapper and it still sounded flat. It couldn't handle loud symphony passages, or any kind of dance music with authority. I think this is why Ken Kessler calls them speakers for grown-ups. I hope I'm never that grown up. I did enjoy them playing chamber music and compressed popular music. But for serious chamber recordings the tone is colored in the treble by the plastic sound of the mylar membrane, most noticeable on brass and violins.

[Rclark]

Given all that, why would anyone want a pair? Seems like an inadequate technology.

[katamapah]

Indeed, ESL63 are sounding something flat on "big" and "dynamic" music, but for ESL "sweet-spot" styles i am very happy with the results.
Jazz, Classic, Vocals, Acoustic (Spanish guitars for example) are amazing. Very emotional ! And that's what important to me most.
It is not flawless. speaker. Far from it actually. It doesn't have the bass. As simple as that.
Sometimes on high "dynamic" or "big" passages the sound is compressed during the peaks, at certain moment trebles are suddenly a bit harsh.
Sometimes (specially for symphonic music) you need to find an appropriate(read lower than normal) volume levels to listen to without having a compression...
But overall ESL 63 preserves very well the emotions within the music.
All those points i have mentioned here are some points of discomfort happening here and there... but at 95 percent of the time ESL63 are almost perfect while requested to play "their" type of music. And even those 5% of failures... they are a sonical failures, rather than emotional failures...

BUT... once i feed them with more dynamic and modern style of music, not a hard rock or trance,  just something more dynamically, with more bass - they are very difficult to listen to. As i said simple and well known Led Zeppelin/Hendrix, or even Modern Talking/Abba/BoneyM - they are suddenly missing the whole puzzle. And on emotional level !
Here i am not talking about just "they are lacking the low bass " (low bass is also not sufficient for Bach Organ Suites, but the emotion are there) or
dynamical capabilities (they are also not always sufficient for orchestral music, but again the emotions are there).
I am talking of "missing the music" failure !
So, again, the question is whenever the newest QUADs 2905/989 are better at that aspect ?
Are they significantly better as "all around" (or at least 75% around) speakers than ESL63 ?
ESL63 are "50% around" speakers but a very good ones !

Does MG1.6(7)/3.6(7) better as old around speaker ?
I have listened to 1.6 and at the first moment the presentation of 1.6 and my ESL63 seems to be more similar than the presentation of dynamic or horn speakers i heard. But as long as i listened the quality differences between 1.6 and ESL63 became more apparent to me... They are of totally different sonic (and emotional) qualities. Quad are much better. Quads are almost perfect sonically while feeding with "their" type of music.
Very emotional, totally fatigue-free. MG1.6 was nice, but not as balanced sonically, the presentation was a bit artificially "too live", emphasized.
There was a better bass in 1.6 then in Quads and they were more dynamically, but quality of all this wasn't as top notch as in Quads...
I don't know how 3.6(7) differs from 1.6(7).

[SteveFord]

The new ones (.7 series) differ in coherency or balance - from 40 Hz to 20K Hz it sounds like it's all coming from one big panel all at the same time. 
Earlier Maggies also sounded pretty much dead at low listening levels whereas the new ones sound good from low to way too loud.

You can modify the earlier ones but it's simply not possible to reproduce what the new models do and that's about all that I'm at liberty to say.

As for how they compare to the current Quads, I can't say.  I do know that the latest Quads have recieved rave reviews but I believe that they're around twice the 3.7 price.

[Ed_Zachary]

Earlier Maggies also sounded pretty much dead at low listening levels

This is abject and total nonsense.

[jmserre]

Hi,

I would like to ask how newer versions of QUAD ESL with additional
bass panels perform in other styles of music rather traditional QUAD ESL
ultimate - jazz, classic, vocals and acoustic in general. Are they a way better then ESL63 let's say in progressive rock, pop of 80's psychedelic, fusion, or modern free jazz with some touch of electronic ?
I am not talking about hard rock, trance/house/excessive electronic or dynamic music.

Unfortunately, I can't listen to the new QUADS ESL in my area, so all i can do is trust some reviews and ask for people opinions.

I liked a lot ESL63 for what they do, but they were almost unlistenable while I was feeding them with LED ZEPPELIN or BoneyM for example.
So how are the new ones ?
Are they really better in what they are "not supposed" to do ?
Thank you.

my soundsystem is at

http://www.musiqueenmulticanaux.com/soundSystem.html

I think I am qualified to judge 2905 compared to 63 since I still have my 63, 988 and my 2905 in my soundsystem which is geared toward multichannel music. So yes the 2905 do 'slam' better than the 4 pannels models and although they are supposed have the same dynamic ceiling to me it sounds like they can play louder (maybe simply because of the larger surface area of the 2 additional pannels). So for me the 2905 are worth the extra price,  it is hard to know if it would be worth it to you.

Now I am going off topic, but with 6 of them in my 27ft*15ft*7ft*  I can listen to big orchestral pieces (Mahler 8th, Berlioz Requiem) at loud levels which my wife would qualify as totally insane levels...

Cheers

P.S. I need to update my info I purchased a classé SSP-800 two weeks ago, my quads never sounded better.

[Rocket_Ronny]

Quote from: SteveFord on Yesterday at 11:53 PM

Earlier Maggies also sounded pretty much dead at low listening levels

I would agree with that regarding the pre ribbon Maggies. At least to say they are veiled. Now crank up some Timpany 1Ds and the place is a Shaken. 

Rocket_Ronny

[katamapah]

Hi,

my soundsystem is at

http://www.musiqueenmulticanaux.com/soundSystem.html

I think I am qualified to judge 2905 compared to 63 since I still have my 63, 988 and my 2905 in my soundsystem which is geared toward multichannel music.

Qualified indeed ! 

So for me the 2905 are worth the extra price,  it is hard to know if it would be worth it to you.

Yes, it is "unfair" question. I know. I would prefer just listen to them once,
make some opinion and share it with other people, but at the moment i do not have such possibility.

My question here is not just if they "worth" the extra money (it is another "unfair" question) , the question is more how do you feel when you listen to more dynamic-like, slam-like type of music through you 2905 ?
Now, you have a big system with a lot of QUADs, but for example, if you were listening to just a pair of QUADs 2905 playing King Crimson or Hendrix.
How does it sound and feel ? Is it OK, or something important is missing...
Does it sound like rock to you ?
It is important for me to get some "listen through" impressions and not just the final judgement... if possible...

Yesterday i heard again the MG1.6 and while they were more dynamic and had a better bass, i just can't compare them to my QUAD ESL63. ESL63s strong and weak sides are almost the same as of 1.6, with MG1.6 being a bit more suitable for "modern" music, but still not great for rock or pop. Still, for the strong sides, i would choose ESL63 any day.

I will try to listen to MG3.7 (some people suggest it might suit me as all around speaker).

There is another option of course. The one that seems to me the most logical to some extent. Have 2 pair of speakers   I always thought of it as a non-adequate solution, because i don't have a big room space, hence 2 pair of speakers is not very convenient, but as far as i see buying good all around dynamic speaker (SF, Audio Physics, Dynaudio etc) might be pretty expensive and even then, i'm not sure, they could be compared to ESL63 in what it does well. So buying a moderately good dynamic speaker (even 2nd handed) for all the dynamic music and keeping the ESL63 might be a better (and cheaper) overall solution than going for a very expensive new ESL2905 (given it is still not that good for dynamic music) or going for very expensive dynamic speakers...

Any opinions ?
Thanks.

[katamapah]

Hi,

As for how they compare to the current Quads, I can't say.  I do know that the latest Quads have recieved rave reviews but I believe that they're around twice the 3.7 price.

Steve, did you hear the 2905 with the rock-like, slam-like dynamic-like music ?
Can you comment on that experience ? (even with no relation to MG or any other speaker for that matter).

Thanks.

[SteveFord]

If by Steve you mean me, no, I have not had the pleasure of hearing the Quads so won't can't give any opinion whatsoever.
I only chimed in as you asked about the .6 vs .7s and those I know quite well.
As for low listening levels, I've owned Magnepans for over 20 years (getting old, ugh) so am pretty familiar with the sound quality.  If you could talk easily over them they were flat sounding.  Give them the juice and they'd perk right up, though, and that was irregardless of model. 
That's my take on them, others may feel differently. 
I've never owned the Tympanis so will take Rocket Ronny's word for it.  The Tympanis still have a lot of fans and they came out a long time ago.  They certainly have enough surface area to do the job!
Enjoy your evening, gentlemen, time to get ready for the alarm clock at the crack of dawn. Having to go into work on Saturday is getting old but the paycheck helps with the bills so I shouldn't complain.

[katamapah]

Enjoy your evening, gentlemen, time to get ready for the alarm clock at the crack of dawn. Having to go into work on Saturday is getting old but the paycheck helps with the bills so I shouldn't complain.

working on saturdays is a bad habbit

I will have to listen to 3.7 (and may be 1.7).
Ppl say it is more refine and generally better than MG1.6

[SteveFord]

I am in complete agreement on both counts.
To help alleviate my pain and suffering I just bought a Sherwood S3000-V tuner - whoo hoo!  They're tremendous sounding tuners which our own Doug S. turned me onto but I'm hijacking this thread so my apologies.

[jmserre]

Hi,
Qualified indeed ! 

Yes, it is "unfair" question. I know. I would prefer just listen to them once,
make some opinion and share it with other people, but at the moment i do not have such possibility.

My question here is not just if they "worth" the extra money (it is another "unfair" question) , the question is more how do you feel when you listen to more dynamic-like, slam-like type of music through you 2905 ?
Now, you have a big system with a lot of QUADs, but for example, if you were listening to just a pair of QUADs 2905 playing King Crimson or Hendrix.
How does it sound and feel ? Is it OK, or something important is missing...
Does it sound like rock to you ?
It is important for me to get some "listen through" impressions and not just the final judgement... if possible...

Yesterday i heard again the MG1.6 and while they were more dynamic and had a better bass, i just can't compare them to my QUAD ESL63. ESL63s strong and weak sides are almost the same as of 1.6, with MG1.6 being a bit more suitable for "modern" music, but still not great for rock or pop. Still, for the strong sides, i would choose ESL63 any day.

I will try to listen to MG3.7 (some people suggest it might suit me as all around speaker).

There is another option of course. The one that seems to me the most logical to some extent. Have 2 pair of speakers   I always thought of it as a non-adequate solution, because i don't have a big room space, hence 2 pair of speakers is not very convenient, but as far as i see buying good all around dynamic speaker (SF, Audio Physics, Dynaudio etc) might be pretty expensive and even then, i'm not sure, they could be compared to ESL63 in what it does well. So buying a moderately good dynamic speaker (even 2nd handed) for all the dynamic music and keeping the ESL63 might be a better (and cheaper) overall solution than going for a very expensive new ESL2905 (given it is still not that good for dynamic music) or going for very expensive dynamic speakers...

Any opinions ?
Thanks.

It is sad that you cannot listen to them directly (2905).  Many years ago I was a music student (clarinet) and did not give a hoot about a sound system, then I heard the 63.  2 years later I bought the 63 (at the time I did not even had my own car!). Never regretted it. But listening to them was what cause the 'certitude' for me.

(And for other people on thread yes I did listen to Maggies, Martin Logan, etc.  I do not think people are dumb to buy these, they are excellent speakers, but for me, QUAD ESLs are it, I love them.  I am member of a sound system club and like to listen to a lot of other systems, the perfect speaker does not exists.)

Back to the question at hand.... the 2905 do 'slam' a lot better but (and here this is totally subjective) they are not the best speakers for rock for sure. So for you maybe dual speakers would make sense.

[katamapah]

Hi, haven't been here for a while...
Busy at work...

I read some reviews and i will try to listen to Magnepan 3.7 and Martin Logans.
They presented here by the same dealer.
That's for a moment. Also trying to negotiate with Quad dealer a 2905/989 presentation. It's a pitty they don't have one on display, but they said not many ppl buying this speakers today, so it is not economically wise for them to have one on display. From time to time there are certain trade-ins and then its the time they can offer a presentation. Should call me back with info as for whenever there is one now... I guess most of all he wants to be sure i am seriously about buying one. But i can't really tell till i listen...
Anyway, i will continue and update here from time to time as for my findings.
It is very helpful to share an opinion with other people. It is difficult to buy something, based solely on other ppl opinions though...
Thanks.

[katamapah]

So here is the bottom line - I am still in search for a speaker after this weekend.
I auditioned some ML, Magnepan 1.7/3.6 and SF Grand Piano

SF Grand Piano - I couldn't really "evaluate" this speaker despite of all good reviews and opinions it got.
The room was very small (about 7-8 sq m) the speakers were about 50cm, they were driving by some digital Akai amplifier, so it was not a set and a room to enjoy them. Tonally and temporally they were OK, but the bass wasn't punchy and they were not revealing. I suppose the setup has a major role in all this, but since i didn't hear this speaker before i couldn't really form any impression.
It also failed the most important "emotional test", that is much more important for me than an "audiophile" test.
May be i did a mistake and should rely solely on all those reviews. After all, it shouldn't be very hard to sell a SF speaker.

Magnepan 1.7/3.6 - I couldn't hear the 3.7, but i heard the 1.7 and 3.6;
The 1.7 is tonally better than 1.6, i think it is more balanced.
Of course 3.6 is much a better speaker. It is more refined etc, but it still fails with the rock and everything alike.
So, it is still very similar to Quad in its problematic areas while i strongly prefer Quad in what both of them do well. Quad is amaizingly musical speaker with tons of emotions. Never knew how good is it in what it does...
The only better points for Magnepan 3.6 are: reliability and a better slam/big orchestral music.

Martin Logan - I heard the more simple Vantage model.
Despite it is also an electrostatic (hybrid) speaker its sound is very different to Quads. Even the electrostatic panels sound differently. Much more colored and sound-oriented IMHO. For what Quad does, it does much better, BUT Martin Logan is definitely better as all around speaker.
Actually better then Magnepan 1.6/1.7/3.6 as well (if you like its tonal coloration). The dynamic woofer gives a lot of slam. It is not just a bass, it is the whole slam that is missing in those planar speakers. Suddenly the rock is solid, electronic music sounds better etc.
Still... i feel this model is to "colored" for me and not as musical and emotional as Quad. As i said, never realized how REALLY GOOD QUAD IS in what it does... Unfortunately it still limited to some specific sort of music.
Then, i heard a Martin Logan Ethos. It was a big improvement over Vantage. Less colored, better punch, stage, everything... Probably a candidate...
Still want to listen to Summit X... Probably ML highest series are less colored for a sound and more true like.
Everything IMHO of course...

[jjay]

Actually better then Magnepan 1.6/1.7/3.6 as well (if you like its tonal coloration). The dynamic woofer gives a lot of slam. It is not just a bass, it is the whole slam that is missing in those planar speakers.

I have both the 1.7's and ML Vantages in two separate systems. I never notice any coloration with the Vantages, sounds like a room issue. With Magnepan's, if you want more slam, like many Magnepan owners, I use a good sub which blends well. I use a JL Audio F110 & a JL F112. Problem solved. JMHO

[TF1216]

Hi katamapah,

Have you heard of Acoustat or Sound Lab speakers? 

[katamapah]

I never notice any coloration with the Vantages, sounds like a room issue.

Yes, it might be the room issue or some mismatch in electronic. As for subs, i also heard people using them with QUADs, at least turning them on for certain, more dynamic type of music.

Hi katamapah,

Have you heard of Acoustat or Sound Lab speakers? 

Hi, i heard about them, but never heard them...
Also i heard good things about Apogee speakers rebuild by Rich Murry, but never actually heard them.

P.S. I still trying to arrange an audition to Quad ESLs 989/2905 (with additional bass panels).