In message , Dave
xxxx writes
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:


Ahem!! I am still here, sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread
but
unfortunately as a non "techie" I am lost by the abbreviations
(OPT's
etc., etc.), but can understand the "gist" of the arguments.
However,
as the originator of this thread, I would like to interject here to
ask a supplementary question while all you so knowledgeable people
are
assembled, simply assuming you choose the best possible option to
drive the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the
vast legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it
eventually boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about
to fork out £5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some
vindication of my choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a
pair
on demo and frankly I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I
imagining this or have I got possibly the best speakers around,
especially for classical music.


you have said all that matters

-------------------------------------------
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers
--------------------------------------------

nothing else matters

You also say

have I got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical
music ?




good chance


What a succinct reply, better than the way my question was presented,
thank you Dave. I suppose I am like just everyone else out there, I
only want someone to say I made the best choice. Also, in buying
Electrostatics surely its quite a break away from the usual purchase and
I do admit to going through some self-examination as to my reasons for
my choice, I then put on those Quads again and I am reassured.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

In message , Mike Coatham
writes

" Dave xxxx" wrote in message
.uk...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Anyone in possession of a functioning brain

got me there got lesions on my brain


is well aware that the

II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name,
which
would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker.

He was still alive and very happy with the match as he had heard them
together, he was not in a postion to sanction it as company belongs to
IAG.
It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
resistors.


He was a *real*
engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.

yes he was a real engineer and did always move forward with
designs............. but not long before he died I asked someone who
had just been to dinner with him

"What system he was using" ? I was shocked by the answer it was not
valve and not made by Quad it was a Sony type midi system lol

if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg

Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40 unless
of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as the
II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
muster compared to the original.
I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to all
intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and some
components.........



Dear God, surely a genuine Quad-II doesn't have anything quite as
'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
--
Chris Morriss

"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike Coatham
writes

" Dave xxxx" wrote in
message
if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg

Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40
unless
of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as
the
II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
muster compared to the original.
I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to
all
intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and
some
components.........



Dear God, surely a genuine Quad-II doesn't have anything quite as
'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
--
Chris Morriss

I've sent Chris a photo of the internals of a Quad II as he obviously hasn't
seen the innards before. There is a board - which carries the 2 x EF86's
and most (10 out of 11) of the resistors and 1 cap.

In message , Mike Coatham
writes

"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike Coatham
writes

" Dave xxxx" wrote in
message
if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg

Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40
unless
of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as
the
II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
muster compared to the original.
I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to
all
intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and
some
components.........



Dear God, surely a genuine Quad-II doesn't have anything quite as
'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
--
Chris Morriss

I've sent Chris a photo of the internals of a Quad II as he obviously hasn't
seen the innards before. There is a board - which carries the 2 x EF86's
and most (10 out of 11) of the resistors and 1 cap.



You're quite right, I've never seen the internals of a Quad II. I am
most surprised that it had components on a pcb though!
--
Chris Morriss

In article , Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:


...
the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
£5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.


There are various technical reasons for the 989/988/63 speakers being
excellent, and for giving a quality of sound that is judged distinctly
'better' than most (if not all) conventional speakers.

My experience is that the Quad electrostatic speakers give quite superb
results, and are a superb choice for classical music. I think that many
others would agree with this. I've never personally heard any conventional
speakers that can give such 'natural' clarity given a good recording or
broadcast as the source. I 'discovered' Quad ESLs decades ago, and they
were a revelation to me, too. First the ESL57s, then the ESL63s, now the
988/989.

FWIW my experience is also that the choice of amplifier matters far less
than the choice of speaker. Hence although there may be specific reasons
for choosing one amp rather than another, these will tend to minor in
effect in many cases. I say this as someone who spent some years working as
an amplifier designer. :-) You might expect me to play up the importance of
the amplifier. However my view is that once the amp meets some reasonable
requirements, it tends to have little effect on the results compared with
the choice of speaker.

Having worked in the 'the business' I had a chance to listen to many
speakers and many amplifiers. This was some years ago, but for me the ESLs
always stood out as delivering 'natural' results in a way other speakers
never quite matched for classical or small scale 'acoustic' music.

For the above reason I suspect you'd be just as happy with something like
the 909 as with anything more expensive. Spend any extra money on more
recordings of music, and sit back and enjoy how the 989s allow you to
really appreciate the music contained therein. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:41:46 GMT, " Dave xxxx"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Anyone in possession of a functioning brain

got me there got lesions on my brain


is well aware that the

II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name,
which
would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker.

He was still alive and very happy with the match as he had heard them
together, he was not in a postion to sanction it as company belongs to
IAG.
It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
resistors.


He was a *real*
engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.

yes he was a real engineer and did always move forward with
designs............. but not long before he died I asked someone who
had just been to dinner with him

"What system he was using" ? I was shocked by the answer it was not
valve and not made by Quad it was a Sony type midi system lol

Exactly - modern technology, not relying on nostalgia or brand name
for its sound quality.

if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg

Quite so - it's a dinosaur. Basically, it *is* a Quad II fitted with
KT88 instead of KT66. Quad also sells the KT66 version.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:40:58 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Dave xxxx wrote:

It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
resistors.

That is dedication! Why didn't they copy a later model Quad II?
What were the problems?

People here have criticised Chinese transformers.
They (maybe not the same ones) have said that original Quad OPTs were
amongst the best.
So can we get Chinese transformers from the same factory that Quad does?

That would involve a major assumption - that the modern OPTs are of
the same quality as those used in the original Quad amps.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:32:40 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

In message , Mike Coatham
writes

"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike Coatham
writes

" Dave xxxx" wrote in
message
if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg

Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40
unless
of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as
the
II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
muster compared to the original.
I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to
all
intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and
some
components.........



Dear God, surely a genuine Quad-II doesn't have anything quite as
'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
--
Chris Morriss

I've sent Chris a photo of the internals of a Quad II as he obviously hasn't
seen the innards before. There is a board - which carries the 2 x EF86's
and most (10 out of 11) of the resistors and 1 cap.

You're quite right, I've never seen the internals of a Quad II. I am
most surprised that it had components on a pcb though!

You shouldn't be. A printed circuit board ensures good consistency of
performance in production, and reduces parisitic inductance. Not a
matter of 'mass production', but of better engineering.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:47:30 +0000, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Ahem!! I am still here, sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread but
unfortunately as a non "techie" I am lost by the abbreviations (OPT's
etc., etc.), but can understand the "gist" of the arguments. However, as
the originator of this thread, I would like to interject here to ask a
supplementary question while all you so knowledgeable people are
assembled, simply assuming you choose the best possible option to drive
the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
£5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.

Having been around hi-fi for more than forty years, I'd say that there
are still *very* few speakers that get close to the quality of the
classic Quad design, and the 989 is a fine development of the '63,
building on the many strengths and addressing the few weaknesses
(frame rigidity and bass power). Yes, it's one of the best classical
music speakers around, and it's even good value when you look at
anything capable of competing, such as the B&W 800 and JMLab Utopia.

Regarding amplifiers, all you need is a good clean modern design
capable of providing adequate drive to this fairly current-hungry
speaker. Contrary to what the 'tubies' suggest, this does *not* mean
the Quad II-40, the 909 is a superior amplifier in every way, costs
less and will be significantly more reliable in the long term. Could
very well be the last hi-fi system you'll ever buy..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Totally agree! The only reason I don't have 989s is that being a doublet,
they need a fair amount of space behind the 'speaker to bring out their
best, and my domestic arrangements don't allow that much clear space.

S.



"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:


...
the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
£5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.


There are various technical reasons for the 989/988/63 speakers being
excellent, and for giving a quality of sound that is judged distinctly
'better' than most (if not all) conventional speakers.

My experience is that the Quad electrostatic speakers give quite superb
results, and are a superb choice for classical music. I think that many
others would agree with this. I've never personally heard any conventional
speakers that can give such 'natural' clarity given a good recording or
broadcast as the source. I 'discovered' Quad ESLs decades ago, and they
were a revelation to me, too. First the ESL57s, then the ESL63s, now the
988/989.

FWIW my experience is also that the choice of amplifier matters far less
than the choice of speaker. Hence although there may be specific reasons
for choosing one amp rather than another, these will tend to minor in
effect in many cases. I say this as someone who spent some years working
as
an amplifier designer. :-) You might expect me to play up the importance
of
the amplifier. However my view is that once the amp meets some reasonable
requirements, it tends to have little effect on the results compared with
the choice of speaker.

Having worked in the 'the business' I had a chance to listen to many
speakers and many amplifiers. This was some years ago, but for me the ESLs
always stood out as delivering 'natural' results in a way other speakers
never quite matched for classical or small scale 'acoustic' music.

For the above reason I suspect you'd be just as happy with something like
the 909 as with anything more expensive. Spend any extra money on more
recordings of music, and sit back and enjoy how the 989s allow you to
really appreciate the music contained therein. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html