I am the proud and recent possessor of a pair of Quad 989 Electrostatic
Speakers and I have never, I repeat, never heard anything as musically
satisfying, especially for classical music. I am sure I will need no
further change of speaker in my lifetime so "awesome" are these
speakers. I had better say too that I am aware of the nature of the
design of them and that they are not suitable as open air rock concerts,
so I am led to believe, i.e. thumping rock music.
However, I had found no weakness in them until I put on one CD, namely
the Mercury Living Presence recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
conducted by Antal Dorati, that is the famous recording with real cannon
and muskets. I was a bit nervous about playing it in the first place as
the sound produced by the Quads is so "realistic" that I approached the
playing with some trepidation.
The result was simply wonderful and suitably terrifying so there was
really no need to play it too loudly in any case. However, human nature
being what it is, I could not resist turning in up a bit louder, level
24 on my Quad system. I did this just as the first very loud Cannon shot
rang out and it promptly cut out the right-hand speaker for a few
moments.
I must admit for a while I was disappointed until I realised how big the
sound had been up to then and there had been no need to wind it up a
further notch or two.
To sum up, considering the great sound of these speakers, could my
fellow contributors to this newsgroup live with this or would they feel
they had in effect a "governor" on their enjoyment.
It has not happened with other recordings where, for example, I was able
for example to enjoy the end of Mahler's Second Symphony, i.e. the
depiction of the Resurrection at the end without any cut outs.
Can I ask for some information, views and advice as to how I should
treat my new Quads and does any harm occur to them at these peaks in
music. Can I use some kind of rule of thumb to avoid this happening so I
can enjoy climaxes. I certainly don't want to change them so any
comments would be appreciated, after all, it is only just one recording
I have to be careful about and even in that case they gave the best
sound I have ever heard.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

On 2006-01-14, Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
I am the proud and recent possessor of a pair of Quad 989 Electrostatic
Speakers and I have never, I repeat, never heard anything as musically
satisfying, especially for classical music. I am sure I will need no
further change of speaker in my lifetime so "awesome" are these
speakers. I had better say too that I am aware of the nature of the
design of them and that they are not suitable as open air rock concerts,
so I am led to believe, i.e. thumping rock music.
However, I had found no weakness in them until I put on one CD, namely
the Mercury Living Presence recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
conducted by Antal Dorati, that is the famous recording with real cannon
and muskets. I was a bit nervous about playing it in the first place as
the sound produced by the Quads is so "realistic" that I approached the
playing with some trepidation.
The result was simply wonderful and suitably terrifying so there was
really no need to play it too loudly in any case. However, human nature
being what it is, I could not resist turning in up a bit louder, level
24 on my Quad system. I did this just as the first very loud Cannon shot
rang out and it promptly cut out the right-hand speaker for a few
moments.
I must admit for a while I was disappointed until I realised how big the
sound had been up to then and there had been no need to wind it up a
further notch or two.
To sum up, considering the great sound of these speakers, could my
fellow contributors to this newsgroup live with this or would they feel
they had in effect a "governor" on their enjoyment.
It has not happened with other recordings where, for example, I was able
for example to enjoy the end of Mahler's Second Symphony, i.e. the
depiction of the Resurrection at the end without any cut outs.
Can I ask for some information, views and advice as to how I should
treat my new Quads and does any harm occur to them at these peaks in
music. Can I use some kind of rule of thumb to avoid this happening so I
can enjoy climaxes. I certainly don't want to change them so any
comments would be appreciated, after all, it is only just one recording
I have to be careful about and even in that case they gave the best
sound I have ever heard.

I recently read on Stereophile website that the 939 had a shutdown at the
94 or 96 spl (db?) level. You can doublecheck via the article link on
the report/article for the CES.

As you said, these speakers are not suitable for thumping bass. You
have discovered a piece of classical music that contains a passage of
thumping bass. The speakers very sensibly went into protection mode.
Only you can say if this is acceptable to you.

There were a few vinyl recordings that were renowned as obstacle
courses for making a stylus mistrack. You could see this as a
challenge and look for a system that WOULD track it. Or you could
decide that record was outside reasonable specification and live with
the issue. Your choice.

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

The result was simply wonderful and suitably terrifying so there was
really no need to play it too loudly in any case. However, human nature
being what it is, I could not resist turning in up a bit louder, level
24 on my Quad system. I did this just as the first very loud Cannon shot
rang out and it promptly cut out the right-hand speaker for a few moments.
I must admit for a while I was disappointed until I realised how big the
sound had been up to then and there had been no need to wind it up a
further notch or two.

Does anything else played at '24' trip the protection?
Your cannon shot was no louder than a modern compressed pop record which
is at 0dB all the time.
Perhaps you should get a test cd and measure (with the speakers
disconnected)
the output voltage at '24' for a 0dB signal and compare it with the QUAD
specs.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

In message , Eiron
writes
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

The result was simply wonderful and suitably terrifying so there was
really no need to play it too loudly in any case. However, human
nature being what it is, I could not resist turning in up a bit
louder, level 24 on my Quad system. I did this just as the first very
loud Cannon shot rang out and it promptly cut out the right-hand
speaker for a few moments.
I must admit for a while I was disappointed until I realised how big
the sound had been up to then and there had been no need to wind it
up a further notch or two.

Does anything else played at '24' trip the protection?

No, I can go up to 34 (the max), without any problem with any music I
have played so far and that includes Jazz and the end of the Mahler 2nd
Symphony. I think it was the sheer "velocity" (?) of the sound, which
the Quads reproduced magnificently at say, 22/23, which triggered the
cut out.
(I must correct the level of 24 I used in the original post as an
estimate as unfortunately I cannot remember the exact level I was using
at the time, all I know I had "turned it up" from a perfectly effective
and acceptable level which I would guess was 22/24 just to see what
level of dynamics I could achieve.
I must state that I have been totally happy with any "thumping bass" I
have played so far which, unlike the Quad 63's, was reproduced very
acceptably indeed so what is my problem I ask myself. I suppose its was
just that, having enjoyed all varieties of musical genre without any
problem at various levels of volume, I found this one recording that
cannot be played too loudly without triggering the cut off. I realised
also that the "moving coil" speakers I had previously, (B and W's),
would not have cut off at that level.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

Does anything else played at '24' trip the protection?

No, I can go up to 34 (the max), without any problem with
any music I have played so far and that includes Jazz and
the end of the Mahler 2nd Symphony. I think it was the sheer
"velocity" (?) of the sound, which the Quads reproduced
magnificently at say, 22/23, which triggered the
cut out.

No, it was the (v)lf amplitude, to play stuff like that louder you need
a suitable dynamic subwoofer and - strongly recommendable - an
electronic cross-over, partly because a 115 Hzx cross-over that is at
least 18 dB per octave is costly in terms of required amount of copper
and partly because it is not fun to design something that actually does
exactly what theory says when loaded by the electrostats somewhat
varying impedance. Something like

http://www.marchandelec.com/xm26.html

comes to mind, it is obviously NOT their cheapest model, but might go
well with 4 II-40 amps, assumed also to be quite costly. I would want
all valve or all solid state, at least for the amps, it is not always
easy to get a smooth perceptual transition between (too) dissimilar
amplifiers. All solid state is likely to be possible at lower cost, or -
if you really try - higher cost.

Doing nothing is possibly wisest. ESL loudspeakers are for the less is
more crowd.

Derrick Fawsitt


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:44:37 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Does anything else played at '24' trip the protection?
Your cannon shot was no louder than a modern compressed pop record which
is at 0dB all the time.
Perhaps you should get a test cd and measure (with the speakers
disconnected)
the output voltage at '24' for a 0dB signal and compare it with the QUAD
specs.

How would a radiating surface need to physically move in order to
reproduce a maximum-level input at 1Khz, at 20Hz ? How would you
define "maximum level"

In message , Peter Larsen
writes
Doing nothing is possibly wisest. ESL loudspeakers are for the less is
more crowd.
Thank you Peter, as a non-techie daring to pose a question in this so
erudite group I am struggling to understand your answer and am committed
to printing it out so I can keep it, (with the other posts), for future
reference.
However, can you just explain that last sentence of yours as its giving
me advice that I sorely need and I fear there may be a miss-type in it,
or its probably me. You are wisely no doubt telling me to "do nothing"
but then you say that "ESL loudspeakers are for the less is more crowd",
that's the bit I need explaining.
All my thanks,

--
Derrick

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:44:37 +0000, Eiron wrote:


Does anything else played at '24' trip the protection?
Your cannon shot was no louder than a modern compressed pop record which
is at 0dB all the time.
Perhaps you should get a test cd and measure (with the speakers
disconnected)
the output voltage at '24' for a 0dB signal and compare it with the QUAD
specs.


How would a radiating surface need to physically move in order to
reproduce a maximum-level input at 1Khz, at 20Hz ? How would you
define "maximum level"

The acceleration would be the same at the two frequencies so the velocity
is inversely proportional to the frequency, and the displacement is
inversely proportional to the square of the frequency.
The diaphragm would have to move 2500 times as far at 20Hz for the same spl.

Why should I define 'maximum level' - you brought it up?
I presume you mean a signal that peaks at 7FFF and 8000 (signed 16-bit).

I was surprised to find that my Telarc 1812 CD is severely clipped
at every cannon shot. Still, what do you expect with these modern
heavy metal recordings?

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message

problem at various levels of volume, I found this one recording that
cannot be played too loudly without triggering the cut off. I realised
also that the "moving coil" speakers I had previously, (B and W's), would
not have cut off at that level.


Maybe something to do witht he B+Ws not having (or needing) protction
ciruitry to avoid arching electrostatic panels ....?

geoff

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

In message , Peter Larsen
writes

Doing nothing is possibly wisest. ESL loudspeakers are
for the less is more crowd.

However, can you just explain that last sentence of yours as its
giving me advice that I sorely need and I fear there may be a
miss-type in it, or its probably me.

There is no typing error in it.

You are wisely no doubt telling me to "do nothing"
but then you say that "ESL loudspeakers are for the
less is more crowd", that's the bit I need explaining.

Less is more is originally doublespeak from "1984", but it is also the
battle cry of the audio tribe of minimalists, the people that try to
remove everything that is not strictly required from the signal path.

It is absolutely certain that a "suitable" subwoofer setup will be of
benefit if you like to listen to reproduced artillery on your quads.
"Suitable" is however not easy to obtain. One of the issues is that the
required active cross-over also will be an additional amplifier stage in
line with the signal you send to the Quads.

All my thanks,

To say it differently: via considerable expense and time and effort you
can add better capability at playing the sound of artillery to your
current setup, but at the cost that violin reproduction gets sligthly
less good due to the added audio stage that will be required. Which is
why you are probably best off doing nothing. If you are into more
contemporary music then the weighing of the best choice might be
different. One should however also be aware that smooth reproduction of
low frequencies is for the advanced afficionado.

On a more general note, subwoofers are more about midrange cleanness of
reproduction due to less membrane excursion than about bass SPL, it
could be a very unsimple choice to make with a lot of parameters
weighing it in either direction. That too makes the simplest choice, do
nothing, an attractive one.

Derrick


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

In message , Peter Larsen
writes
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

In message , Peter Larsen
writes

Doing nothing is possibly wisest. ESL loudspeakers are
for the less is more crowd.

However, can you just explain that last sentence of yours as its
giving me advice that I sorely need and I fear there may be a
miss-type in it, or its probably me.

There is no typing error in it.

You are wisely no doubt telling me to "do nothing"
but then you say that "ESL loudspeakers are for the
less is more crowd", that's the bit I need explaining.

Less is more is originally doublespeak from "1984", but it is also the
battle cry of the audio tribe of minimalists, the people that try to
remove everything that is not strictly required from the signal path.

It is absolutely certain that a "suitable" subwoofer setup will be of
benefit if you like to listen to reproduced artillery on your quads.
"Suitable" is however not easy to obtain. One of the issues is that the
required active cross-over also will be an additional amplifier stage in
line with the signal you send to the Quads.

All my thanks,

To say it differently: via considerable expense and time and effort you
can add better capability at playing the sound of artillery to your
current setup, but at the cost that violin reproduction gets sligthly
less good due to the added audio stage that will be required. Which is
why you are probably best off doing nothing. If you are into more
contemporary music then the weighing of the best choice might be
different. One should however also be aware that smooth reproduction of
low frequencies is for the advanced afficionado.

On a more general note, subwoofers are more about midrange cleanness of
reproduction due to less membrane excursion than about bass SPL, it
could be a very unsimple choice to make with a lot of parameters
weighing it in either direction. That too makes the simplest choice, do
nothing, an attractive one.

Derrick


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

All I can say to the above, (apart from thanks for your trouble), is
what a wonderful explanation and my regrets at not seeing the meaning of
that sentence or knowing the origins.
Your have had a profound influence on my decisions for the future,
namely, I shall be busy doing nothing but simply enjoying a pair of
great speakers the like of which I have not heard before,
I rest content.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:57:55 +0000, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

I am the proud and recent possessor of a pair of Quad 989 Electrostatic
Speakers and I have never, I repeat, never heard anything as musically
satisfying, especially for classical music.

May I take the chance of asking about the difference between the 989
and the 63's, as you seem to have upgraded?

I can sometimes feel that my 63's does not play jazz trio to my
satisfaction, mainly because I can't reproduce the acoustic bass at
its original in-room level. I have had an upright bass i my living
room rather often, and know what it should sound like. Can the 989
pull this trick in your room, Derrick? I can deduct from your article
that the large romantic symphonies replay are OK, which also is a
no-no at full tilt in my ESL-63.

Did you keep the 63's for the surround channels? :-)

Cheers,
Per.

PS. I would forget about the cannons if I were you, nothing can
reproduce them at anything near their original level.

In message , Per Stromgren
writes
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:57:55 +0000, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

I am the proud and recent possessor of a pair of Quad 989 Electrostatic
Speakers and I have never, I repeat, never heard anything as musically
satisfying, especially for classical music.

May I take the chance of asking about the difference between the 989
and the 63's, as you seem to have upgraded?
An immense difference in that you have the full spectrum now right down
to a very satisfying and "musical" base.

I can sometimes feel that my 63's does not play jazz trio to my
satisfaction, mainly because I can't reproduce the acoustic bass at
its original in-room level. I have had an upright bass i my living
room rather often, and know what it should sound like. Can the 989
pull this trick in your room, Derrick?
I have a particular CD by "Garry Smart and friends" with a Beetles solo,
acoustic double bass and piano and I actually play that to demonstrate
the 989's because you can feel the "finger nails" plucking the strings,
you can almost "smell" the rosin on the bow and feel it reacting with
the strings. Does that answer your question?
I can deduct from your article
that the large romantic symphonies replay are OK, which also is a
no-no at full tilt in my ESL-63.
No, no, no, I am sorry if I gave that impression from my posts. Simon
Rattles recording of Mahler 2 is hair raising, (if you have hair), and
for example, the BBC Music magazine for February has a sampler of the
best recordings of 2005 and therefore includes all kinds of music and in
each and every case the sound is fantastic. I will never hear better
speakers.

Did you keep the 63's for the surround channels? :-)
No, I may include a surround system in my music room eventually but it
is not a priority, however, can you imagine the 989's being the "front
end"!!

Cheers,
Per.

PS. I would forget about the cannons if I were you, nothing can
reproduce them at anything near their original level.

Yes, but I can play them and get more than adequate volume to frighten
the neighbours but I have learned not to turn them up to unreasonable
levels, but that's just the cannon, once that's over, well!.............
--
Derrick Fawsitt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derrick Fawsitt"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:27 AM
Subject: Quad 989's versus 1812


I am the proud and recent possessor of a pair of Quad 989
Electrostatic
Speakers

Congratulations. Their distortion is nice and low within their limited
range of application

and I have never, I repeat, never heard anything as musically
satisfying, especially for classical music. I am sure I will need no
further change of speaker in my lifetime

at least, until you write 2 more paragraphs

so "awesome" are these
speakers. I had better say too that I am aware of the nature of the
design of them and that they are not suitable as open air rock
concerts,
so I am led to believe, i.e. thumping rock music.

or for accurately loud reproduction of any music with high energy

However, I had found no weakness in them until I put on one CD,
namely
the Mercury Living Presence recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
conducted by Antal Dorati, that is the famous recording with real
cannon
and muskets. I was a bit nervous about playing it in the first place
as
the sound produced by the Quads is so "realistic" that I approached
the
playing with some trepidation.
The result was simply wonderful and suitably terrifying so there was
really no need to play it too loudly in any case. However, human
nature
being what it is, I could not resist turning in up a bit louder,
level
24 on my Quad system. I did this just as the first very loud Cannon
shot
rang out and it promptly cut out the right-hand speaker for a few
moments.
I must admit for a while I was disappointed until I realised how big
the
sound had been up to then and there had been no need to wind it up a
further notch or two.

I would be *bitterly* disappointed to discover my ultra-high-end
speaker wears a condom, and will not reproduce music at a volume I
choose and enjoy

To sum up, considering the great sound of these speakers, could my
fellow contributors to this newsgroup live with this or would they
feel
they had in effect a "governor" on their enjoyment.

To me, that is not a good reproducer

It has not happened with other recordings where, for example, I was
able
for example to enjoy the end of Mahler's Second Symphony, i.e. the
depiction of the Resurrection at the end without any cut outs.
Can I ask for some information, views and advice as to how I should
treat my new Quads and does any harm occur to them at these peaks in
music. Can I use some kind of rule of thumb to avoid this happening
so I
can enjoy climaxes.

It is harder to enjoy climaxes when one's speaker wears a condom. You
will simply have to listen to your speakers at low to mid volumes, and
live with their limited realism of reproduction.

Do not remove the condom. A puffing Quad is better than a blown-up
Quad

I certainly don't want to change them so any
comments would be appreciated, after all, it is only just one
recording
I have to be careful about and even in that case they gave the best
sound I have ever heard.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

As I understand it, the Quads are immensely impressive as long as they
are not compared side-by-side with a quality dynamic speaker. Their
owners are usually very satisfied within their limitations and, when
they play music within the (latex) envelope, feel no need to upgrade.

In message , nowater
writes

I would be *bitterly* disappointed to discover my ultra-high-end
speaker wears a condom, and will not reproduce music at a volume I
choose and enjoy

No, no, I have given the wrong impression and that is my fault. I can
have extremely loud reproduction of classical and non-classical music,
enough to satisfy any normal musical ear. I agree with a review I read
where the reviewer said words to the effect that the only person who
would not be satisfied with the 989's was someone who wanted to listen
to music so loud that it would damage their ears. My point was that the
cannon shot in that particular recording of 1812 was reproduced so
realistically by the Quads that you needed to be careful the volume you
chose or it would be so effective it would cut in the safety circuit on
the speakers. My question was meant to be, (and I am sorry if I did not
put it effectively), was this acceptable to posters here. Clearly in
your case its not.
To me, that is not a good reproducer
Its exactly the opposite, the best and most realistic I have ever heard.

It is harder to enjoy climaxes when one's speaker wears a condom. You
will simply have to listen to your speakers at low to mid volumes, and
live with their limited realism of reproduction.
Sorry again, I have to turn down the Quads in most cases as they are too
loud, and that's coming from someone who likes my music loud, as for
realism, you can't be serious. One piano expert who hear them said he
felt his 9ft keyboard Steinway was in front of him.
As I understand it, the Quads are immensely impressive as long as they
are not compared side-by-side with a quality dynamic speaker.
Prior to this I had a pair of floor standing B and W's and although they
were very good indeed I would not go back to them.

However, although we disagree, thank you so much for your comments, much
appreciated.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

... My point was that the
cannon shot in that particular recording of 1812 was reproduced so
realistically by the Quads ...

Which recording was that?
Take a look at the waveform during the cannon shots, using GoldWave or
some other free audio editor, and let us know if it is severely clipped.

I suspect that the Quads will reproduce the orchestra realistically in a
medium sized room but the only way you will get the cannons accurately
is to have a few cannons on the front lawn.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

In message , Eiron
writes
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

... My point was that the cannon shot in that particular recording
of 1812 was reproduced so realistically by the Quads ...

Which recording was that?
Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra conducted by Antal Dorati. A Mercury
Living Presence recording no. 434 360-2.
Take a look at the waveform during the cannon shots, using GoldWave or
some other free audio editor, and let us know if it is severely clipped.
? Remember, although I am a professional musician and very interested in
Audio I am not a qualified technician like most in the NG so I will have
to look up "clipped" recordings. I have however heard of GoldWave but I
will get an audio friend of mine to do it for me next time I see him and
will report back.

I suspect that the Quads will reproduce the orchestra realistically in a
medium sized room but the only way you will get the cannons accurately
is to have a few cannons on the front lawn.
Boy! Do they reproduce them realistically!! Its that very quality that
when turned up too much causes the safety cut out to kick in.

Surely you can play Dynamic speakers too loud also?

Having got these speakers at this late stage in my life, (although not
dead yet), I cannot understand why I never heard of them before and no,
I am not connected with the manufacturers of Quad Speakers. I would
regard them as totally superior to any I have heard, and I have
auditioned many others.


--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
No, no, I have given the wrong impression and that is my fault. I can
have extremely loud reproduction of classical and non-classical music,
enough to satisfy any normal musical ear.


Funny, a quick listen to Bach's Toccata and Fuge on a pair of older Quad
63's didn't impress me much at all. Nor a hard rock number I no longer
recall.

Within their limitations though, they are very good, excellent for chamber
music. A reasonable solution IMO, is to simply add a decent sub woofer (or
two), like a Whise Profunder 319A. The Bass is then well covered, and the
Quads should go loud enough for most purposes, when relieved of the need to
*try* to cover the lower octaves.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
No, no, I have given the wrong impression and that is my fault. I can
have extremely loud reproduction of classical and non-classical music,
enough to satisfy any normal musical ear.


Funny, a quick listen to Bach's Toccata and Fuge on a pair of older Quad
63's didn't impress me much at all.


Yes, they lack the midrange colouration we are all accustomed to.

geoff

In message , "Geoff@home"
writes

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
. au...

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
No, no, I have given the wrong impression and that is my fault. I can
have extremely loud reproduction of classical and non-classical music,
enough to satisfy any normal musical ear.


Funny, a quick listen to Bach's Toccata and Fuge on a pair of older Quad
63's didn't impress me much at all.


Yes, they lack the midrange colouration we are all accustomed to.

geoff


Yes, but forget the Quad 63's, have you heard the 989's? They do cover
the Bass register.
See http://www.hificorner.co.uk/reviews/quadesl989.htm

and http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/720/

Thanks for your views and help so far.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Geoff@home" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in
message
...
No, no, I have given the wrong impression and that is my fault. I can
have extremely loud reproduction of classical and non-classical music,
enough to satisfy any normal musical ear.


Funny, a quick listen to Bach's Toccata and Fuge on a pair of older Quad
63's didn't impress me much at all.


Yes, they lack the midrange colouration we are all accustomed to.

I would hardly call those low organ notes mid range!
I guess you just don't listen to anything with real bass.

MrT.

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
Yes, but forget the Quad 63's, have you heard the 989's? They do cover
the Bass register.
See http://www.hificorner.co.uk/reviews/quadesl989.htm
and http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/720/

I see no figures for maximum SPL or distortion at 30Hz, but that frequency
response graph sure doesn't impress me at all!
And *everyone* mentions they trip the protection when turning up the
volume.....
"They also activated the triacs of both '989s when I gave in to temptation
and increased the volume, *WHICH HAPPENED OFTEN*."
"Both Quad designs were less efficient than speakers I've tested recently,
and neither could play dynamic music crazy-loud."
"However, the '989 did not play much louder than the '63, and you've got to
determine the maximum volume for the electronics and the room if you want to
avoid triggering the protection circuit."


Anyhow it's all relative. Have you heard a real pipe organ?
Have you heard a Whise Profunder 319A?
Have you compared either to the 989's bass performance?
If you can afford Quad 989's I suggest you can probably afford a 319A, and
see what you are missing.
Bass is *NOT* the Quad's forte'.

MrT.

In message , Mr.T
writes

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
Yes, but forget the Quad 63's, have you heard the 989's? They do cover
the Bass register.
See http://www.hificorner.co.uk/reviews/quadesl989.htm
and http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/720/

I see no figures for maximum SPL or distortion at 30Hz, but that frequency
response graph sure doesn't impress me at all!
And *everyone* mentions they trip the protection when turning up the
volume.....
"They also activated the triacs of both '989s when I gave in to temptation
and increased the volume, *WHICH HAPPENED OFTEN*."
"Both Quad designs were less efficient than speakers I've tested recently,
and neither could play dynamic music crazy-loud."
"However, the '989 did not play much louder than the '63, and you've got to
determine the maximum volume for the electronics and the room if you want to
avoid triggering the protection circuit."


Anyhow it's all relative. Have you heard a real pipe organ?
Have you heard a Whise Profunder 319A?
Have you compared either to the 989's bass performance?
If you can afford Quad 989's I suggest you can probably afford a 319A, and
see what you are missing.
Bass is *NOT* the Quad's forte'.

MrT.


Thank you Mr. T. no doubt you did read the two links to the reviews I
posted here and I note you did not really comment on their opinions and
tests.
As to Bass, Bass to me is the sound of the "Rosin on the Bow", not just
the pitch of the note. By that I mean a thumping bass note from a getto
blaster or from a Rock concert loudspeaker in the open air is not bass
as I understand it, its just noise. When you hear the Quad reproduce the
sound of a choir inside a cathedral you are made to believe you are
really present with all the tiny rustlings of the congregation etc., are
you then telling me that when the organ starts up, with that quality of
reproduction I am not hearing its bass notes. You bet I am and is felt
through the floor in my room. Once I feel that I don't need to turn it
up any further.
Its the quality that impresses, not the quantity.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
As to Bass, Bass to me is the sound of the "Rosin on the Bow", not just
the pitch of the note.

OK, but I prefer the normal definitions which are widely accepted. Reduces
confusion IMO.

By that I mean a thumping bass note from a getto
blaster or from a Rock concert loudspeaker in the open air is not bass
as I understand it, its just noise.

The average ghetto blaster can't reproduce bass at all, so hardly relevant.
You obviously have not heard a large pipe organ live. You are lucky you only
listen to music that has no real bass.

When you hear the Quad reproduce the
sound of a choir inside a cathedral you are made to believe you are
really present with all the tiny rustlings of the congregation etc.,

Not sure what that has to do with anything presently under discussion?

are you then telling me that when the organ starts up, with that quality
of
reproduction I am not hearing its bass notes.

Probably not, but you don't seem to mind so it doesn't matter.

You bet I am and is felt
through the floor in my room. Once I feel that I don't need to turn it
up any further.

And as long as you are happy, that's all that matters...for you.

Its the quality that impresses, not the quantity.

Keep telling yourself that. Both are necessary at the level required.

MrT.

In message , Mr.T
writes

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
As to Bass, Bass to me is the sound of the "Rosin on the Bow", not just
the pitch of the note.

OK, but I prefer the normal definitions which are widely accepted.
Sorry Geo, don't mean to be rude I assure you, but I must say, not by
me, but never mind.

The average ghetto blaster can't reproduce bass at all, so hardly relevant.
You obviously have not heard a large pipe organ live. You are lucky you only
listen to music that has no real bass.
I am a professional musician, a Bass Trombone player who can reproduce a
real bass sound and also a Royal Albert Hall Promenader who has heard
the organ of the Royal Albert Hall, (amongst others), many times, will
that do?
Also, my best friend is an organist who I will agree, would not use the
Quad 63's for his organ listening but has remarked on hearing my 989's
that he was now able to hear the bass register on an organ realistically
produced for the first time and felt he did not need a sum-woofer. Bye
the way, he has listened to and played on some of the most famous organs
in the world, will that do?

When you hear the Quad reproduce the
sound of a choir inside a cathedral you are made to believe you are
really present with all the tiny rustlings of the congregation etc.,

Not sure what that has to do with anything presently under discussion?
And that's where the problem is.

are you then telling me that when the organ starts up, with that quality
of
reproduction I am not hearing its bass notes.

Probably not, but you don't seem to mind so it doesn't matter.
But I do.

You bet I am and is felt
through the floor in my room. Once I feel that I don't need to turn it
up any further.

And as long as you are happy, that's all that matters...for you.
Correct this time.

Its the quality that impresses, not the quantity.

Keep telling yourself that. Both are necessary at the level required.
Again true, but I don't think you and I interpret your last sentence in
the same way ;-)))

For me, a very enjoyable discussion and I hope you don't think me rude
in the way I have responded, not intended I assure you.

I beg to differ.

Kind regards,
--
Derrick

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
I am a professional musician, a Bass Trombone player who can reproduce a
real bass sound and also a Royal Albert Hall Promenader who has heard
the organ of the Royal Albert Hall, (amongst others), many times, will
that do?

Are you seriously comparing the bass requirements of a trombone to that of a
concert pipe organ then?
What is the lowest note on your trombone, and what SPL does it produce at
that frequency when played loudly?
Tell us what you think the figures are for a pipe organ, and what the
figures are for the Quad's?

Also, my best friend is an organist who I will agree, would not use the
Quad 63's for his organ listening but has remarked on hearing my 989's
that he was now able to hear the bass register on an organ realistically
produced for the first time

He has never heard a real live pipe organ either then?
You could only use a 64 foot pipe recording (or even 32 or 16 foot) on the
Quads for testing the protection circuits.
The Quad's have their good points, but bass reproduction isn't one of them!


and felt he did not need a sum-woofer. Bye
the way, he has listened to and played on some of the most famous organs
in the world, will that do?

Wurlitzers maybe?

Its the quality that impresses, not the quantity.

Keep telling yourself that. Both are necessary at the level required.
Again true, but I don't think you and I interpret your last sentence in
the same way ;-)))

Probably not.

For me, a very enjoyable discussion

Really?

and I hope you don't think me rude
in the way I have responded, not intended I assure you.

Ditto.

I beg to differ.

Ditto.

MrT.

In message , Mr.T
writes

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
I am a professional musician, a Bass Trombone player who can reproduce a
real bass sound and also a Royal Albert Hall Promenader who has heard
the organ of the Royal Albert Hall, (amongst others), many times, will
that do?

Are you seriously comparing the bass requirements of a trombone to that of a
concert pipe organ then?
What is the lowest note on your trombone, and what SPL does it produce at
that frequency when played loudly?
Tell us what you think the figures are for a pipe organ, and what the
figures are for the Quad's?

Also, my best friend is an organist who I will agree, would not use the
Quad 63's for his organ listening but has remarked on hearing my 989's
that he was now able to hear the bass register on an organ realistically
produced for the first time

He has never heard a real live pipe organ either then?
You could only use a 64 foot pipe recording (or even 32 or 16 foot) on the
Quads for testing the protection circuits.
The Quad's have their good points, but bass reproduction isn't one of them!


and felt he did not need a sum-woofer. Bye
the way, he has listened to and played on some of the most famous organs
in the world, will that do?

Wurlitzers maybe?

Its the quality that impresses, not the quantity.

Keep telling yourself that. Both are necessary at the level required.
Again true, but I don't think you and I interpret your last sentence in
the same way ;-)))

Probably not.

For me, a very enjoyable discussion

Really?

and I hope you don't think me rude
in the way I have responded, not intended I assure you.

Ditto.

I beg to differ.

Ditto.

MrT.


I am taking advice from my solicitor before I continue this thread any
further ;-))))


Seriously, you win, as I said before, we beg to differ but I will pass
on the thread to my technical "advisors" and let them tackle the
electronics, that is beyond my remit.

Me, I will just go and enjoy some real music on my Quad 989's and I envy
none.
Kind regards,
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
Me, I will just go and enjoy some real music on my Quad 989's and I envy
none.

Which is what I said all along, and as it should be.
If you are happy (even if you don't know what you are missing) then what
others think is irrelevant to your listening enjoyment.

MrT.

In message , Mr.T
writes

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
Me, I will just go and enjoy some real music on my Quad 989's and I envy
none.

Which is what I said all along, and as it should be.
If you are happy (even if you don't know what you are missing) then what
others think is irrelevant to your listening enjoyment.

MrT.


One final word Mr. T, (if I may), I have just finished listening to Jean
Guillou organist playing "Pictures at an Exhibition" and all I can say I
was able to turn my Quad amp up to 24 which produced a stunning range of
sound that filled a room 17ft by 11ft. Although a relatively small room
it was not the noise or range of pitch that was amazing but the quality
of the sound of the pipes. I repeat, not just the volume, or the pitch,
both of which were as good as any dynamic speaker but it was the
"character" of the pipe sound. It showed up everything including the
clicks of the mechanisms.

And there rests my case, thank you for your time and trouble replying to
me, much appreciated.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
One final word Mr. T, (if I may), I have just finished listening to Jean
Guillou organist playing "Pictures at an Exhibition" and all I can say I
was able to turn my Quad amp up to 24 which produced a stunning range of
sound that filled a room 17ft by 11ft. Although a relatively small room
it was not the noise or range of pitch that was amazing but the quality
of the sound of the pipes.
I repeat, not just the volume, or the pitch,

That's for sure, the Quads have NO hope of going down to the lowest pitch of
a pipe organ at ANY volume.
VERY few speakers can.

both of which were as good as any dynamic speaker

And you would know this for a fact how exactly?
As I said, ignorance is bliss for some, and it certainly saves you spending
more money.

but it was the
"character" of the pipe sound. It showed up everything including the
clicks of the mechanisms.

Which of course is FAR easier for any system to reproduce.


MrT.

"Derrick Fawsitt" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
One final word Mr. T, (if I may), I have just finished listening to
Jean Guillou organist playing "Pictures at an Exhibition" and all I
can say I was able to turn my Quad amp up to 24 which produced a
stunning range of sound that filled a room 17ft by 11ft. Although a
relatively small room it was not the noise or range of pitch that was
amazing but the quality of the sound of the pipes. I repeat, not just
the volume, or the pitch, both of which were as good as any dynamic
speaker but it was the "character" of the pipe sound. It showed up
everything including the clicks of the mechanisms.

And there rests my case, thank you for your time and trouble replying
to me, much appreciated.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Your patiency is wonderful, in opposite to somebody who have no idea
about the undistorted sound comes from an open loudpeaker. If he has no
more argument, then he will attack your amplifier, then CD-player, then
your ears, your family and so on.

The Quad 989 is actually the first electrostatic with very very good
bass response. This was a privilege of the bigger Magneplanars until
now. What some people missing is an agressive punch wich comes only from
boxes because the membran will be pushed from the back again, it must
fight against this pressure and this is distortion. It looks like
loudness in a fashion, like the loudness of a pocket radio or even a
Bose satellite set. This unbearable forced sound is not to expect from a
Quad 989. Be ensured: You own one of the best loudspeakers of the world.
Just enjoy the music with them and do not care about others.

Kind regards

--
Johann Spischak

SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH
+49-911-965-7319
http://sdg-master.com

"Johann Spischak" wrote in message
...
The Quad 989 is actually the first electrostatic with very very good
bass response. This was a privilege of the bigger Magneplanars until
now.

Damned with faint praise :-)

What some people missing is an agressive punch wich comes only from
boxes because the membran will be pushed from the back again, it must
fight against this pressure and this is distortion. It looks like
loudness in a fashion, like the loudness of a pocket radio or even a
Bose satellite set. This unbearable forced sound is not to expect from a
Quad 989.

What a lot of suedo technical gobbledygook!

Distortion is easily measured. Please provide us with details of the total
distortion level for a pair of Quad 989's at 30Hz & 50 Hz, at 100dB SPL @ 1
metre.
A not unreasonable expectation for hi-fi. Now compare this with a *good*
dynamic speaker, actually designed for bass performance.


Just enjoy the music with them and do not care about others.

Isn't that what I said already?

MrT.

In message , Johann Spischak
writes
"Derrick Fawsitt" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
One final word Mr. T, (if I may), I have just finished listening to
Jean Guillou organist playing "Pictures at an Exhibition" and all I
can say I was able to turn my Quad amp up to 24 which produced a
stunning range of sound that filled a room 17ft by 11ft. Although a
relatively small room it was not the noise or range of pitch that was
amazing but the quality of the sound of the pipes. I repeat, not just
the volume, or the pitch, both of which were as good as any dynamic
speaker but it was the "character" of the pipe sound. It showed up
everything including the clicks of the mechanisms.

And there rests my case, thank you for your time and trouble replying
to me, much appreciated.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Your patiency is wonderful, in opposite to somebody who have no idea
about the undistorted sound comes from an open loudpeaker. If he has no
more argument, then he will attack your amplifier, then CD-player, then
your ears, your family and so on.

The Quad 989 is actually the first electrostatic with very very good
bass response. This was a privilege of the bigger Magneplanars until
now. What some people missing is an agressive punch wich comes only from
boxes because the membran will be pushed from the back again, it must
fight against this pressure and this is distortion. It looks like
loudness in a fashion, like the loudness of a pocket radio or even a
Bose satellite set. This unbearable forced sound is not to expect from a
Quad 989. Be ensured: You own one of the best loudspeakers of the world.
Just enjoy the music with them and do not care about others.

Kind regards

At last, someone to my defence, thank you Johann and also for the kind
words, much appreciated I assure you.

However, I am enjoying the debate but perplexed as a non-tech who cannot
answer Mr. T, (wonder does that stand for tech), on technical matters,
why he does not address the fabulous reviews for which I sent him two
links. I noticed he did not even mention them.
I repeat them here :-

See http://www.hificorner.co.uk/reviews/quadesl989.htm

and http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/720/

Even if these reviewers are expressing personal opinions at times, they
also deal with the technical specifications of the Quads and they must
surely have some technical credibility writing as they do for well known
journals.
However, I am going to contact the technical person I deal with in Quad
to see if he will take up answering Mr. T's technical questions. If so I
will revert to this NG with the answers. Perhaps also the technical
people who use this erudite NG will break their silence to give me some
back up. I know I have a case but as a non tech person I cannot make
measurements or other audio data so perhaps I should not be in this NG,
except that I do know something about music.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

However, I am going to contact the technical person I deal with in
Quad to see if he will take up answering Mr. T's technical questions.
If so I will revert to this NG with the answers. Perhaps also the
technical people who use this erudite NG will break their silence to
give me some back up. I know I have a case but as a non tech person I
cannot make measurements or other audio data so perhaps I should not
be in this NG, except that I do know something about music.

It is not necessary to bother Yourself with measurements, since they can
be a trap for You. When he provocates to make a measurement from 1 metre
is tricky because of the different spreading of output sound wave from a
small boxed conus and a big flat free surface. You can recognise the
difference between loudspeaker technologies if You think on the
different drums in an orchestra. Boxes, like closed and small(er) drums
are invented to be loud, to achieve high sound pressure without to use
bigger membrane surface. The tuning variations of a closed drum are
endless. Similarly the development of loudspeaker boxes: The shrinking
of boxes and the balancing between compromises, trying to handle
distortions, the damages caused by interaction between membrane and box,
phase and amplitude unlinearity and so on, is an endless and hopeless
history. There was for more than 20 years ago the self-misleading
discussion about impulse response, high sound pressure and the 1812. The
naivity of people shows, that the main "avdantage" of a big box was,
that the membrane was not jumped from the box. Until today is this the
main ground to use boxes in studios. This has nothing to do with music.
The polyphony of a solo cello, a piano deep left hand accord with its
whistling transients will never come out so clearly from a box. You will
see, that after several weeks the sound of _any_ boxes will be less and
less bearable for You. Simply because it is distorted. People who
reading many prospects of box factories but have no own scientific
background and obviously no experiences with opened sound are not the
right discussion partner for You. As You see the lacking of scientific
arguments leads often to growing agressivity.

best regards
--
Johann Spischak

SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH
+49-911-965-7319
http://sdg-master.com

In message , Johann Spischak
writes
However, I am going to contact the technical person I deal with in
Quad to see if he will take up answering Mr. T's technical questions.
If so I will revert to this NG with the answers. Perhaps also the
technical people who use this erudite NG will break their silence to
give me some back up. I know I have a case but as a non tech person I
cannot make measurements or other audio data so perhaps I should not
be in this NG, except that I do know something about music.

It is not necessary to bother Yourself with measurements, since they can
be a trap for You. When he provocates to make a measurement from 1 metre
is tricky because of the different spreading of output sound wave from a
small boxed conus and a big flat free surface. You can recognise the
difference between loudspeaker technologies if You think on the
different drums in an orchestra. Boxes, like closed and small(er) drums
are invented to be loud, to achieve high sound pressure without to use
bigger membrane surface. The tuning variations of a closed drum are
endless. Similarly the development of loudspeaker boxes: The shrinking
of boxes and the balancing between compromises, trying to handle
distortions, the damages caused by interaction between membrane and box,
phase and amplitude unlinearity and so on, is an endless and hopeless
history. There was for more than 20 years ago the self-misleading
discussion about impulse response, high sound pressure and the 1812. The
naivity of people shows, that the main "avdantage" of a big box was,
that the membrane was not jumped from the box. Until today is this the
main ground to use boxes in studios. This has nothing to do with music.
The polyphony of a solo cello, a piano deep left hand accord with its
whistling transients will never come out so clearly from a box. You will
see, that after several weeks the sound of _any_ boxes will be less and
less bearable for You. Simply because it is distorted. People who
reading many prospects of box factories but have no own scientific
background and obviously no experiences with opened sound are not the
right discussion partner for You. As You see the lacking of scientific
arguments leads often to growing agressivity.

best regards

Johann, your answers get more and more interesting, thank you. In fact I
am printing out your reply for future reference, especially because of
your excellent idea to use drums as an analogy. It certainly helped me
to understand my speakers qualities and their system of reproduction of
sound. I have also looked at your website but unfortunately I could not
translate it.
So far I have not heard back from our Mr. T in response to my challenge
to comment on the articles to which I sent him links.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
However, I am enjoying the debate but perplexed as a non-tech who cannot
answer Mr. T, (wonder does that stand for tech), on technical matters,
why he does not address the fabulous reviews for which I sent him two
links. I noticed he did not even mention them.

What crap, I even quoted extensively from them!!!!!!!
If your memory is so poor I suggest you try Google nesgroups.


I repeat them here :-

See http://www.hificorner.co.uk/reviews/quadesl989.htm

and http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/720/

Even if these reviewers are expressing personal opinions at times, they
also deal with the technical specifications of the Quads and they must
surely have some technical credibility writing as they do for well known
journals.

Well have a look at their published frequency response graph for a start. No
personal bias there, it is very poor!!!!!!!


However, I am going to contact the technical person I deal with in Quad
to see if he will take up answering Mr. T's technical questions. If so I
will revert to this NG with the answers.

Ask him for some distortion figures at 25Hz and 50 Hz, at 90 dB SPL and 100
dB SPL. I can't find them published anywhere.

Perhaps also the technical
people who use this erudite NG will break their silence to give me some
back up. I know I have a case but as a non tech person I cannot make
measurements or other audio data so perhaps I should not be in this NG,


You should not expound technical theories you obviously know nothing about
at least.

except that I do know something about music.

Better for you to debate music then.

MrT.

"Johann Spischak" wrote in message
...
It is not necessary to bother Yourself with measurements, since they can
be a trap for You.

Obviously since he has no idea about measurements.

When he provocates to make a measurement from 1 metre
is tricky because of the different spreading of output sound wave from a
small boxed conus and a big flat free surface.


Pick your own distance then, it doesn't really matter as long as you tell us
what it is.


You can recognise the
difference between loudspeaker technologies if You think on the
different drums in an orchestra. Boxes, like closed and small(er) drums
are invented to be loud, to achieve high sound pressure without to use
bigger membrane surface. The tuning variations of a closed drum are
endless. Similarly the development of loudspeaker boxes: The shrinking
of boxes and the balancing between compromises, trying to handle
distortions, the damages caused by interaction between membrane and box,
phase and amplitude unlinearity and so on, is an endless and hopeless
history. There was for more than 20 years ago the self-misleading
discussion about impulse response, high sound pressure and the 1812. The
naivity of people shows, that the main "avdantage" of a big box was,
that the membrane was not jumped from the box. Until today is this the
main ground to use boxes in studios. This has nothing to do with music.
The polyphony of a solo cello, a piano deep left hand accord with its
whistling transients will never come out so clearly from a box. You will
see, that after several weeks the sound of _any_ boxes will be less and
less bearable for You. Simply because it is distorted. People who
reading many prospects of box factories but have no own scientific
background and obviously no experiences with opened sound are not the
right discussion partner for You. As You see the lacking of scientific
arguments leads often to growing agressivity.

No it's all the pseudo technical crap that doesn't correlate with scientific
reality in the known universe that really annoys me.

Tell us what the maximum travel is for that big membrane, then let us know
if the volume of air is more than a 15" woofer with an Xmax of over 1/2"?
Better yet tell us what the distortion figures are at say 25Hz and 50Hz at
90dB SPL and 100 dB SPL.

Until you give us some data to work with, you best go back to listening to
them and not trying to *prove* they are the greatest speaker ever made.

MrT.

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
Johann, your answers get more and more interesting, thank you. In fact I
am printing out your reply for future reference, especially because of
your excellent idea to use drums as an analogy. It certainly helped me
to understand my speakers qualities and their system of reproduction of
sound.

The blind leading the blind is a better analogy.


So far I have not heard back from our Mr. T in response to my challenge
to comment on the articles to which I sent him links.

Try Google groups if you missed the first one. The last one should be on
your server now.
I will wait for the data I requested in my challenge before arguing any
further.
This IS rec.audio.TECH after all, and you provide no technical information
to support your biases whatsoever.

MrT.

"Derrick Fawsitt" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ...

Johann, your answers get more and more interesting, thank you. In fact
I am printing out your reply for future reference, especially because
of your excellent idea to use drums as an analogy. It certainly helped
me to understand my speakers qualities and their system of
reproduction of sound. I have also looked at your website but
unfortunately I could not translate it.
So far I have not heard back from our Mr. T in response to my
challenge to comment on the articles to which I sent him links.

In a discussion like this You need only some general knowledges which
can make clear for You what the difference makes. If You hear some loud
music, now You can put Your ears directly to the loudspeaker, nothing
happens. Just do not try the same with a box. To move the same amount of
air the boxed conus must move several times more. Additionly it must
work against the air suspension of the box. The result is a very loud
small drum. A tipical distortion is caused by the conus form too. You
need only to form a conus with Your hands at the mouth and speak with,
then without it. The difference is clear. The better is Your choice.
Now take a look on the distortion with a bit math: The average tics on
an LP are caused by smaller scratches than a human hair. Now You need
only to take the shortest perception time of the human hearing by single
impulse. Then compare it with the time length what the stylus needs for
a shorter way than a hair on a 30cm diameter LP. The result is, that the
real scratch is several hundred times shorter as first to be hearable at
all. Conclusion: if it is hearable, then the electromechanical parts are
too slow, have a bad impulse response. Now You can compare the Quad 989
with a box. How many tics will You hear by one and by the other. The
more is the worse. This is a bit more realistic test for impulse
response, than 1812. What is the problem with it?
Well this was a tipical bombastic Telarc trick to impress and betray the
customers. Firing a real cannon in a concert hall is nonsense. On a free
field it is possible to record it, however then there will be nothing to
hear from the symphony itself anymore, because of the too low level of
the orchestra.
Some words about the press articles: They are made from and to people
who are interested only on a short summary and to say only so much
positives what really unavoidable is. Otherwise there is the end of the
tide of advertising from box manufacturers. Poor Mr.T is one of the
victims of these glossy prospects, that is his ground to force technical
datas, without to know their real meanings.

Best regards
--
Johann Spischak

SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH
+49-911-965-7319
http://sdg-master.com