Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In message , Eiron
writes
mick wrote:

Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms,

If you had an SACD player feeding a current-dumping amp into
a pair of Voigt pipes, all linked with Russ Andrews cables,
then every part of your system would be based on fallacies. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.
--
Chris Morriss

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Don Richardson wrote:

Here's one:

http://www.newformresearch.com/


Not even in their glossary. Is "orthodynamic" just another
name for "ribbon."?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Don Richardson" wrote in message
...
Here's one:

http://www.newformresearch.com/

Have you heard these?



Bob Cain wrote:


William Sommerwerck wrote:

Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:52:27 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:


William Sommerwerck wrote:


Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.

What!???

They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in Seattle.

Wierd that Googling "orthodynamic speaker" or "orthodynamic
loudspeaker" turns up nothing.


I get 37 hits - maybe you need a new ISP? :-)

Ah, I was searching on them as a phrase rather than as
either word appearing independantly. Looked at all 37 and
the word seems to be used a fair bit but not defined often.
Two sources indicated that orthodynamic and isodynamic are
a distinction based on how the force is applied. They both
say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a single
point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers.
They say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their
whole surface driven and would encompass, electrostatics,
magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning
surface driven.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Here's one:
http://www.newformresearch.com/

Not even in their glossary. Is "orthodynamic" just another
name for "ribbon."?

Only from their point of view. They're not the same thing. A ribbon is pure
metal -- it has no backing.

I've never heard the Newform speakers, but if they're properly engineered and
executed, they should be very good.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Eiron
writes

mick wrote:

Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms,


If you had an SACD player feeding a current-dumping amp into
a pair of Voigt pipes, all linked with Russ Andrews cables,
then every part of your system would be based on fallacies. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

--
Eiron.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:43:02 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Eiron
writes

mick wrote:

Any idea how well Voigt pipes would sound in smallish rooms,


If you had an SACD player feeding a current-dumping amp into
a pair of Voigt pipes, all linked with Russ Andrews cables,
then every part of your system would be based on fallacies. :-)


Nothing wrong with the maths behind the Quad current-dumping design. I
don't necessarily think that their implementation is the best, but the
concept is quite brilliant.

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

If you like.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"
"tony sayer"

** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated
reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must
produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

** None - when you include both the good square wave and close
frequency
/ phase matching.

Bull****.


** Kindly post evidence of another speaker that passes the *same* out of
phase matching test the ESL 63s do.

I will not hold my breath.


Although phase-coherent dynamic speakers went out of fashion
in the '70s, there are still quite a few around.



** The phrase back then was "time aligned" - ie drivers mounted on
stepped baffles.

None came even close to the ESL63's synthesised point source




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

According to Quad, all parts are designed "in-house".

** Yep - "in house" means in Shenzhen, China - where the Chang
brothers factory is located.

The Changs own IAG ( International Audio Group ) which also owns the
Wharfedale brand - guess where they are made now.

Try not to be such a **** here as you are in RAT.

** Go to *straight into hell* you vile lump of pommy excrement.

Argued with your usual wit and brilliance.............



** There is no point in wasting pearls on pathological, pommy swine like
you.



Shame all the components are made in the Chinese factory.

No shame at all, lots of good stuff is made in China these days.


** Shame speakers are not among them.



Yes, they are *manufactured* in China, but to a UK design suited to UK
ears and rooms.

** It is a Chinese made speaker - badged "Quad" to dramatically
increased
the price and fleece the gullible.

Xenophobic ****.


** Argued with your usual wit and brilliance........

The wit of a ****wit and the brilliance of a dead torch bulb.


Stewart Pinkerton | Bull**** Artist - Public Masturbator.




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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Ian Molton"
Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your claim
a bit? where is his math faulty?



** Don't waste your time on this Eiron fruitcake - the Quad 405 et alia
work as advertised.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.


I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

--
Eiron.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.


Proffer me 'err profuse apologies guv, but U must admit sometimes a bit
of snipping isn't soo bad;(

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.
--
Tony Sayer

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Ian Molton"

Eiron wrote:


We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your claim
a bit? where is his math faulty?

** Don't waste your time on this Eiron fruitcake - the Quad 405 et alia
work as advertised.

Well, mine doesnt since I broke it but I intend to rebuild it... :-)

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


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).]

Magnepan.


Dumb ass!

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Alex" wrote in message ...
Arny Krueger 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?
:
: IOW, a wannabe speaker?
:
: Rule of thumb - you get better results when you seek things that are
: true to their own identity.

Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

Genelec S30D. Amp included.

Cheers,

Margaret

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In rec.audio.tech Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:08:20 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Phil Allison
writes

"Dave Plowman

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


** The ESL 63 / 988 is highly phase ( time ) coherent and uses 8
independent panels.

Production units are tested in the factory against a calibrated reference
unit using 1 kHz square wave drive. The signal from a measurement mic 2
metres on axis of the unit under test is viewed on a scope and must produce
a good square wave there.

Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.

Over a very limited angle, especially vertically. A square wave through the
ESL-63 still retains its integrity over virtually any angle.

But you already knew that.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Also anything in your size/price range from Avalon Acoustics. The Eidolon
Diamond is arguably the most transparent dynamic speaker in existence.

Margaret



"Alex" wrote in message ...
Arny Krueger 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?
:
: IOW, a wannabe speaker?
:
: Rule of thumb - you get better results when you seek things that are
: true to their own identity.

Well, I love the sound of Quads but they just won't fit into my small
living room. They are simply too wide. I need a conventional "tower"
speaker. Which one(s) would you recommend?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message
...
Also anything in your size/price range from Avalon Acoustics. The Eidolon
Diamond is arguably the most transparent dynamic speaker in existence.

Margaret

However, the upper crust Avalons feature instrument placement that is
pinpoint accurate in a way that cannot be replicated with any ES (or other
speaker) that I know of. Some people like it more than others. And as far as
the soundstage is concerned, the Avalons can match the width but not the
height of really good stats. OTOH, no stat (or other speaker) that I know of
can match the soundstage depth of the better Avalons.

Cheers,

Margaret

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Dumb ass! - "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"

This is the first post I've seen that is 3.7 times shorter than the poster's
name.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Orthodynamic speakers -- ie, a conductor on a flat plastic substrate.

What!???

They're fairly common. Several companies sell them, including one in
Seattle.

Basically, they're ribbons backed with Kapton, Mylar, etc. (A true ribbon
is a
pure metal strip, with no backing.) The backing eliminates the ribbon's
fragility and adds mass that lowers the driver's fundamental resonance.

The classic Infinity EMIT and EMIM drivers are orthodynamic. The drivers
in
Apogee speakers are orthodynamic, not ribbon (except for the tweeter used
in the
Diva and one or two others). There have been orthodynamic headphones, such
as
the Yamaha YP-1 [sic] of a few years back.

Orthodynamic drivers have much of the "speed" and low coloration of
electrostatics. Having owned Acoustat Sixes and Apogee Divas, I actually
find
the latter to be (subjectively) more accurate -- and the Sixes were hardly
chopped liver.


Hi William,

Do you still have the Divas? If not, I'm curious to know what speaker
bettered them...

Cheers,

Margaret

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Bob Cain wrote:


Ah, I was searching on them as a phrase rather than as either word
appearing independantly. Looked at all 37 and the word seems to be used
a fair bit but not defined often. Two sources indicated that
orthodynamic and isodynamic are a distinction based on how the force is
applied. They both say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a
single point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers. They
say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their whole surface
driven and would encompass, electrostatics, magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning surface driven.

Too, the dictionary defines "isodynamic" as meaning "equal
force" which would seem to imply a fully driven surface.

Orthodynamic isn't a dictionary type of word.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Robert Morein wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.


Some do, some don't.
My Acoustat 2+2's have a single driver.

Err... no they don't. They have 4 panels per speaker. 2 on top of 2
(2+2). I had the 1+1's medallion mod for close to 20 years. Loved the
way they sounded and the sound stage they presented. Just recently sold
them. They were replaced with Von Schweikert V4's.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:06:49 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

Two sources indicated that orthodynamic and isodynamic are
a distinction based on how the force is applied. They both
say that orthodynamic is when it is applied to a single
point (or ring) and would encompass cone and dome speakers.
They say that isodynamic drivers are those that have their
whole surface driven and would encompass, electrostatics,
magnaplaner and ribbons.

The audiophile use is vice versa with orthodynamic meaning
surface driven.

Aside from the Wharfedale Isodynamic headphones, which were correctly
described.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:37:00 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton"
tony sayer



Yes that is very impressive;) How many moving coil designs could do
that....

All Dunlavys, for a start.


** Mr Sayer did a very bad thing - he snipped the second half of my post
re the ESL 63 factory test prior to adding his remark.

Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.

So, you *are* going to be as big a **** here as you are on RAT.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:54:28 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

What is there to discuss? It works as claimed, the only bar to
perfection being a theoretical requirement for a zero impedance at one
point in the circuit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:54:28 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

Eiron wrote:

We haven't had a good argument about current dumping for a long time.
Peter Walker's maths stinks. The 405 is just a non-linear amp
with lots of negative feedback and no adjustments to be made.

I happen to find my 405 to work rather well. can you expound on your
claim a bit? where is his math faulty?

I didn't say the 405 doesn't work.

The article from Wireless World, Dec 1975 by P.J. Walker is at
http://www.quadesl.org/Family_Album/...elessW1975.doc

When you understand fig. 1. you may be qualified to discuss the subject.

What is there to discuss? It works as claimed, the only bar to
perfection being a theoretical requirement for a zero impedance at one
point in the circuit.

Also that to keep the bridge balanced, the class-A (correction)
amplifier must never get into slew-rate limiting. Hence the use of a
low-pass filter on the input to the amp.


--
Chris Morriss

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton"
"Phil Allison"


Then that Pinkerton ****wit replied, half cocked, to the sniped post -
which is typical for someone with half a brain.

So, you *are* going to be as big a **** here as you are on RAT.....


** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.



Stewart Pinkerton | Masturbation is his game - Audio is is crippled
victim.





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

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Phil Allison" wrote


** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.


Hmmm.... does one detect the merest hint of racism here?

Is phil still annoyed that his forebears were transported by the evil
pommies to the colonies for (presumably) incest or sheep-shagging?

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

"Dave H."
"Phil Allison" wrote


** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.


Hmmm.... does one detect the merest hint of racism here?

racism != xenophobia

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Phil Allison wrote:

** Yep - as before, I will fearlessly expose excremental pommy ****s
like Pinkerton to the condemnation of all decent persons as he so richly
deserves.

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

Ian Molton said:

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

If foreigners bother you so much, maybe you shouldn't keep cross-posting.
Perhaps you're mentally handicapped, though, and you have difficulty
understanding cause and effect.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:48:41 -0500, George M. Middius wrote:



Ian Molton said:

Something tells me you arent from the UK. could you kindly **** off out
of uk.rec.audio ?

If foreigners bother you so much, maybe you shouldn't keep cross-posting.
Perhaps you're mentally handicapped, though, and you have difficulty
understanding cause and effect.

grin
I don't think Ian is particularly anti-foreigner, just anti-Phil (who is
a clued up bloke, but has the attitude of a belligerent kangeroo at
times!). Have you read rec.audio.tubes? It can be "enlightening". ;-)

Follow ups trimmed to this group only.
--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:32:47 GMT, alex wrote:

Price for 988 but space as well. Otherwise I could afford a used
ESL-63. The Quads are too wide for my room. A narrower speaker (could
be taller) is what I need.

Oh dear, then.

Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3 of the
very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers (small in floor
area, as tall as need be)?

I do beg your pardon. I misread your post. I thought you were asking
how Quad's ESLs compared to Proac, Dynaudio and Spendor. I like all
four brands' dynamic offerings, but couldn't live with any of them. I
just don't get on with dynamic speakers for very long, no matter how
charming they are at first.

There was at least one post that put them
down as "Chinese" speakers having nothing to do with Quad.

They're made in China, but were designed in the UK. In the case of the
988s, it's just a refinement of the 63, using better quality
transformers (designed by Andy Grove), better stators (higher copper
quotient) and a much-improved frame for holding it all together. The
989s are identical to the 988s except for two extra radiators on the
last delay line.

: Make room and get some used 63s. :-)

I have thought of that and not quite given up yet. However, it does run
into hard limitations, like my wife's opinion, room size, why we must
live in an urban situation, etc.

Divorce, knock down walls and combine rooms, etc. Always ways around
these problems. :-)

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

--
td

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

The Devil wrote:

: Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3
: of the very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers
: (small in floor area, as tall as need be)?
:
: I do beg your pardon. I misread your post. I thought you were asking
: how Quad's ESLs compared to Proac, Dynaudio and Spendor.

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : 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?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

The Devil said:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

Schizophrenia! You two are the same person!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:35:22 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

Where did I go? Hailing from the political sewer that is RAO at the
moment.

Ah! Darned cross-posting! I dragged myself out of that slough of
despond years ago............

Do those UKRA chaps know you secretly use SETs and horns? :-)

No they don't, we try to stick to facts on UKRA.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Non-ES speakers closest to electrostatic sound?
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:00:20 GMT, alex wrote:

The Devil wrote:

: Interesting. Considering that Proac, Dynaudio, and Spendor are 3
: of the very best. Are the Quads your favorite "tower" speakers
: (small in floor area, as tall as need be)?
:
: I do beg your pardon. I misread your post. I thought you were asking
: how Quad's ESLs compared to Proac, Dynaudio and Spendor.

More accurately, which if any of the dynamic speakers come closest
to the esl sound.

None, because none of them are large planar dipoles.

However, then we had this exchnage:

: : 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?
: :
: : Much better.

I took this to mean that in your opinion not just ESL's but Quad's
dymanic speakers were also much better than "Proacs, Dynaudios,
Spendors".

Sorry if I contributed to any misunderstanding. My search is simple, to
explain at least. Quad ESL's are too wide for my room. I am looking for
tower speakers that come closest in the sound quality.

Sorry, you won't find any, although there are certainly some good
towers around. Try Spendors for a good natural sound, or the excellent
B&W N804.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering