Paul Stamler wrote:

: When it first came out, the LS3/5a (mfg. by Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth, KEF
: and several others) was compared to the original Quad ESL by Stereophile.
: I'm not sure the comparison was really valid -- the spatial qualities are
: very different -- but there's a certain tonal commonality to them.

Many moons ago I was in the situation summarized by OP: I would have
loved to buy the Quads but there was no room for them. I listened to a
large number of "box" speakers, including the LS3/5a's, and ended up
buying Spendors BC1's. My target was great affordable sound, not
British speakers or BBC inspired designs per se, which is why I was
quite impressed when precisely such speakers ended up dominating my
short list. Still, good as LS3/5a's and my BC1s were, I could never
mistake the sound for Quad ESL...

"Alex" wrote in message ...
I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect them to
produce the family sound, but do they? How do they do against Proacs,
Dynaudios, Spendors? (I don't have a Quad dealer near me to check them
out myself.)

I recently auditioned the Quad 22L, the top of Quad's box-speaker lineup.
They're a decent box speaker, but they don't even approach the sound of a
full-range electrostatic in terms of soundstaging and imaging. No box
speaker really does.

"AKT" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

: Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
: systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the Crown
Prince
: (but not the Sovereign). I heard them in the same room (within minutes)
as a
: pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close.
Except
: for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid
VERY
: careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The
: result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.

Dunlavy that good?

**I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with ESLs,
in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything else,
is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:30:45 +0000, Alex wrote:

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the budget, or
the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come closest to that
magical electrostatic sound? [Answers from friends have ranged from well
known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't know about
(DCM Time Window).]


I have only ever heard the Quad "radiators" in demo, but I was
very impressed at the time. Many years later I built some tube-loaded
speakers from a Babani book - the Kapelmeisters (by Vivian Capel). They
used a cheap eliptical driver with a parasitic cone tweeter, arranged
vertically (for max midrange dispersion) and loaded with a folded, damped
tube on the rear. The sound was pretty close in some ways to what I
remembered of the Quads! They had pretty good imaging in the "sweet spot"
(probably because of the single point driver and narrow baffle). Bass was
weak, but I don't remember the Quads being impressive in that region when
I heard them. They did have that lovely "clarity" that I remembered
though. I would recommend a design using a single full-range
paper-coned driver if you can find one. The Quads use concentric
conductive rings on the fixed electrode IIRC (unlikely for me...), giving
an effect similar to one of those.

I found a couple of old paper-coned "full range" speakers (i.e. with
parasitic tweeter cones) on a car boot sale some years ago. I might just
measure them & stick them in ported boxes to see what they sound like!

Follow-ups set to this group only.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:32:06 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Dodge McRodgered wrote:
"Fleetie" emitted :


IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a
Planer sounds quite like a Planer.


Oops.. that should be "planar".


"Oh no, man! Heavy!"


Have you been munching on Camberwell carrots??

Some of the young ones on uk.rec.audio will appreciate the joke.
Don't know about the rest of you though.

Probably only Nige will really empathise..................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:29:28 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

When it first came out, the LS3/5a (mfg. by Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth, KEF
and several others) was compared to the original Quad ESL by Stereophile.
I'm not sure the comparison was really valid -- the spatial qualities are
very different -- but there's a certain tonal commonality to them.

Not really - the Quad didn't have lumpy fake bass..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:54:59 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dodge McRodgered" wrote in message
.. .
"Alex" emitted :

For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the budget,
or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come closest to that
magical electrostatic sound? [Answers from friends have ranged from
well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't
know about (DCM Time Window).]

For a box speaker, Yamaha NS1000 perhaps??

**Nope.

Agreed. A classic in its own right, but absolutely *nothing* like a
Quad! Almost diametrically opposite in strengths and weaknesses, in
fact.

IME a big part of the ESL sound is in the soundstaging. Nothing but a
planer sounds quite like a planer.

**Not IMO. The big reason why ESLs sound like ESLs, IMO, is the coherent
nature of a single, full range driver and the lack of cabinet diffraction
problems.

More importantly, it's a dipole.

Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the Crown Prince
(but not the Sovereign). I heard them in the same room (within minutes) as a
pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close. Except
for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid VERY
careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The
result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.

Whilst I have not done direct ESL comparisons, I reckon the B&W 802 Nautilus
probably comes mighty close too.

Nope, just about as far from a good planar as it gets. Great speaker,
but *totally* different sound.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , says...


For those audiophiles who'd like to own a Quad 988 but lack the budget,
or the room, or both, which of the non-ES speakers come closest to that
magical electrostatic sound? [Answers from friends have ranged from
well known current brands (Dynaudio) to discontinued models I didn't
know about (DCM Time Window).]

I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect them to
produce the family sound, but do they? How do they do against Proacs,
Dynaudios, Spendors? (I don't have a Quad dealer near me to check them
out myself.)

Please nominate your candidates for a poor man's 988, poor in money but
more importantlly poor in square feet.

Appogees are really nice. Too bad the company that bought them let them
die.
---------------
Alex

"Alex"

I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect them to
produce the family sound, but do they?


** The box speakers branded "Quad" are *not* products of the famous
Acoustical Manufacturing Company. Quad's founder and chief designer Peter
Walker (RIP) had nothing to do with them.

They are manufactured entirely in China then budged "Quad" in order to
market them at a very nice profit.




.............. Phil

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:29:28 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

When it first came out, the LS3/5a (mfg. by Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth, KEF
and several others) was compared to the original Quad ESL by Stereophile.
I'm not sure the comparison was really valid -- the spatial qualities are
very different -- but there's a certain tonal commonality to them.

Not really - the Quad didn't have lumpy fake bass..........

Lumpy fake bass?
The LS 3/5a has no bass at all, fake or not.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."