Derrick,
I'm glad you found my comments helpful. That's the beauty of these
newsgroups!

Regarding the ELS63, from what you say, it sounds as if something wasn't
right, however a few things come to mind:-

1) From your description, it isn't clear if the problem affected one or both
'speakers, and if the 'fault' was the same on both. As the 'speakers are
completely separate units, it is unlikely (but certainly possible) for both
to go wrong in the same way at the same time. In my experience, albeit not
as an ELS owner, the '63s do require service from time to time. A close
friend with a pair has had several panels replaced over the past 10 or so
years, and he certainly doesn't abuse his 'speakers. His amp is the QUAD
306.

2) The ELS63 has a "crowbar" protection system. This means that if the
'speakers are being seriously overloaded or the mains isn't on, then the
'speakers present essentially an intermittent short-circuit to the amp. This
will certainly sound horrible, and if persisted with, will cause the amp to
run hot, shut down or blow up depending on how well designed it is. If that
is what happened in your case, it shows how well engineered the 909 is that
it just got hot. The term "crowbar" protection is a fanciful term used to
describe the sort of protection that puts a quick-acting short-circuit
directly across the circuit being protected, thus limiting any damage. It's
as if you put a crowbar across the line.

What surprises me, and I don't really have an explanation, is why QUAD's
service department couldn't find anything wrong with the 'speakers if they
were as you described. One of life's mysteries!

S.


"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
In message , Serge Auckland
writes
My inclination would be to stick with the Quad amplifier.

Firstly, it will have presumably been designed and tested to work with the
989 'speakers, (as well as being able to drive other loads).
The 989 'speakers will have been designed with a view of being driven by
the
909, although of course other power amps could be used.

Then there is the specification of the 989 to consider: The maximum
programme input to the 989 is 40v. The permitted maximum is 55v. Now, the
909 is rated at 140 W rms into 8 ohms, thus generating 33v rms or 47 v
peak.
It seems to me that therefore the 909provides the optimum power output for
the 989 'speakers. Any more power, and you would exceed the maximum
ratings,
any less power, and you would be losing some potential peak loudness
capability.

But I think the main reason for not changing is that what improvement can
you expect? When the 909 already provides optimum power, vanishing low
distortion and noise, what possible audible improvement will you get?

S.

Thank you so much Serge, I am non technical but have printed out your
above reply for reference in the future.

One recent incident might interest you, before I acquired the 909's I was
considering buying a pair of second-hand 63's but on trying them they
appeared faulty as they produced distortion and in one case cut out. They
needed my 909 to run at its maximum level, (34), in order to try to
achieve a reasonable volume causing it to run extremely hot. Needless to
say I returned them to the dealer who sent them to Quad for testing and
servicing. I had a witness to their lacklustre performance, a friend who
has a pair of 63's for many years and knows his way around Quad speakers.
He confirmed the distortion etc., and it is therefore so astonishing to
hear today that Quad said they were perfect and is charging the dealer
£150.00 for testing them. I feel embarrassed in that I said they were
faulty, (which they definitely were and my knowledgeable friend verified
this), yet Quad now say there is nothing wrong with them, how can this be?

Now I find the 909's an absolute revelation.

Thank you again Serge and also all who have helped to date.
--
Derrick Fawsitt