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

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

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

In article , 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).]

You might look at the low end Magnepans. They are pretty inexpensive, and
while they don't have the solid low end that you can get from the ESLs, they
do surprisingly well given the small surface area.

Used Quad ESLs are available out there at reasonable prices, though, and
Sheldon Stokes (www.quadesl.com) does a fine job of rebuilding broken ones.

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

I have never heard them.

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

Where the Quads really shine is in small rooms... I think the real problem
with them is that they aren't able to produce good low end in a large room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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


I have a pair of Ruark Paladins and have seen them described as having 'a
sound not unlike electrostatics'. They are extremely nice and Weasel Breath
at The Emporium had a pair listed at £500 last time I scanned his ad. An
easy 89 dB and go down to 38 Hz (215 mm bass cones) - rendering a sub
*utterly* redundant....

(Beautiful 'furniture' if nothing else.... ;-)

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

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

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

**The old Duntech Crown Prince. Very ELS-like. With bass.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

"Oh no, man! Heavy!"


--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

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

Peace,
Paul

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

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

For a box speaker, Yamaha NS1000 perhaps??

**Nope.


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

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

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

Dunlavy that good?

Dodge McRodgered wrote:
"Fleetie" emitted :


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


Oops.. that should be "planar".


"Oh no, man! Heavy!"


Have you been munching on Camberwell carrots??

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

--
Eiron.

Paul Stamler wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunlavy that good?

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Dodge McRodgered wrote:
"Fleetie" emitted :


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


Oops.. that should be "planar".


"Oh no, man! Heavy!"


Have you been munching on Camberwell carrots??

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

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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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


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

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

For a box speaker, Yamaha NS1000 perhaps??

**Nope.

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

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

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

More importantly, it's a dipole.

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

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

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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , says...


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

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

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

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

"Alex"

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


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

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




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

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

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

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

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


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

Trevor Wilson wrote:

: : Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
: : systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the Crown
: Prince
: : (but not the Sovereign). I heard them in the same room (within minutes)
: as a
: : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close.
: Except
: : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy paid
: VERY
: : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects. The
: : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.
:
: Dunlavy that good?
:
: **I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with ESLs,
: in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything else,
: is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass.

I read the thread again and figured out what was bothering me. You
obviously mean Duntech, which you mentioned earlier? I am not familiar
with the Crown Prince (or Duntechs in general). Returning to the
originating post's spirit, how big/expensive is it?

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

: : Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
: : systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the
Crown
: Prince
: : (but not the Sovereign). I heard them in the same room (within
minutes)
: as a
: : pair of Martin Logan CLS and the comparison was surprisingly close.
: Except
: : for the bass, reliability, maximum SPL capacity, etc, etc. Dunlavy
paid
: VERY
: : careful attention to the crossover and cabinet diffraction effects.
The
: : result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.
:
: Dunlavy that good?
:
: **I don't know. I ONLY speak about what I have directly compared with
ESLs,
: in the same room, on the same day, with the same equipment. Anything
else,
: is guesswork. The Crown Price is very much like an ESL. With bass.

I read the thread again and figured out what was bothering me. You
obviously mean Duntech, which you mentioned earlier?

**Correct. Duntech was owned by Dunlavy, before he started the company which
bore his name.

I am not familiar
with the Crown Prince (or Duntechs in general). Returning to the
originating post's spirit, how big/expensive is it?

**It WAS a large (nearly 2 Metres tall, but with a miniscule footprint),
expensive (approx US$5,000.00, in Australia) speaker.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

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

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

The Dahlquist DQ-10 was intended by the designer to imitate the Quad sound.
It also imitated the looks. The crossover design even attempted to
time-align the drivers.

Imitation was also the goal of an earlier speaker Dahlquist was involved in,
the Rectilinear III. I've heard both and can vouch that he was at least
partially successful.

The characteristics that are most easily imitated are overdamped bass,
clarity, and a general impression of analytic sound.

It's not really possible to get the radiation pattern of a Quad point
resonator with a box speaker. However, any speaker which uses open back mid
drivers could conceivably come closer to the peculiarities of radiation
pattern of a Quad. So might a Spica TC-50 or TC-60, the front of which is
heavily adorned with felt. However, the bass quality of a small box speaker
is necessarily very different from an electrostat.

Spendors definitely do not have this sound. Any small box speaker that
attempts to produce a sound with a natural balance puts a little bump in the
upper bass. In other words, like virtually all box speakers, but to a
greater extent, it uses acoustic resonance to flatten the frequency
response, at the expense of phase delay. Electrostats don't do this.

Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a single
driver, the impulse response must necessarily be very different from a
multiple driver speaker with the common high order crossover. This latter
reproduces a single impulse as a train of separated impulses from each of
the constituent drivers. This characteristic would be best emulated by a
Lowther full range driver, or a multiple driver system with a first order
crossover and a slanted baffle: Spicas come to mind.

I have a set of Acoustat 2+2's, a very large, full range electrostat.
Because the ear-brain system is so easily fooled, I could not honestly say
that every characteristic of the speaker sounds markedly different to my
ears than every dynamic speaker I own. However, one thing is striking, and
this may be the most useful practical guide: intelligibility of vocals is so
much higher than any two way speaker I am familiar with that it sometimes
causes a recording to sound completely unfamiliar. It makes me check the
label.

Of my collection of dynamic speakers, the Polk LS-15 and the Spica TC-50
seem to do the best at emulating these, inspite of the fact that the design
philosophy of these speakers is completely different.

"Alex" wrote in message ...
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?

My Duntechs come the closest I've heard however they are more expensive. The
Quads are actually quite a bargain.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

On 4 Nov 2004 21:04:39 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sure it does, all the way 'down' to about 70Hz........ :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:33:05 -0500, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article , says...


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

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

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

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

However, if he's looking for something *smaller* than Quads, then most
Apogees ain't it! In fact, of the real Apogees, i.e. the pure planars,
only the Stage is even close to the Quad in size. Agreed however that
you can't get the ELS sound from a box, howevr good the box. In terms
of overall quality and bang for the buck in a reasonably compact
enclosure, I'd be looking at something like the B&W 703, which is a
slim and elegant speaker at half the price of the 988. Equivalents
from Dynaudio, Spendor and JMLab will also be worth a listen.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

What!???


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

AKT wrote in message ...
Paul Stamler wrote:

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

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

Celestion SL600s for wonderful soundstaging.
Dave

"Alex" wrote in message

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.

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.

If you look in audio eXpress, you'll see ads for companies selling hybrid
systems comprising a long orthodynamic "stick" on top of a dynamic woofer. If
they're well-designed and executed, they should be very good speakers -- no
cabinet, excellent loading by the air mass, etc.

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

IMHO ESLs sound like ESLs because of their radiation pattern.

Where driver directivity is low enough for the front and back waves to meet,
dipoles have a cosine alpha radiation pattern: -3dB 45 degrees off axis,
-6dB at 60 degrees, -12dB @ 75 degrees. Side wall reflections are therefore
weaker than a monopole. Off-axis response anomalies have a lower magnitude.
Power response at low frequencies is closer to that at high frequencies where
the drivers have more directivity. The ratio of on-axis sound to total power
response is 3X (4.8dB) that of a monopole. These are _huge_ differences.

Open baffle dynamic driver dipole midrange sounds a lot like ESLs.

The wide panels also become substantially more directive at high
frequencies compared to a thin ribbon or small dome tweeter.

A monopole dome tweeter on an otherwise dipolar speaker sounds different from
an ESL as one expects.

Very few manufacturers have managed to get moving coil driver
systems to deliver a coherent wave-front. Dunlavy did, with the Crown Prince
(but not the Sovereign).

The result was a very ESL-like speaker system. With bass.

Corelation != causality. Dunlavy also paid close attention to
off-axis response and stored energy...

--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

The Devil wrote:

: If the asking price of Quads is your main concern and you are able to work
: around the space requirements, look into second-hand 63s.

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.

: I heard the DCM Time Window speaker many years ago. Aside from looking
: a bit like a Quad, that was it really.

Thanks. No experience myself. I understand it is no longer made. It was
recommended and I remebered the catchy name. That's about it.

: I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: them to produce the family sound, but do they?
:
: No--if by 'family sound' you mean do they sound like Quad electrostats.

Yes that's what I had meant/hoped. :-(
:
: How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
:
: Much better.

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

: 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.

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?

In article , alex wrote:

The Devil wrote:

: If the asking price of Quads is your main concern and you are able to work
: around the space requirements, look into second-hand 63s.

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.

Did we say Magnaplanar 1.6 already?

: I heard the DCM Time Window speaker many years ago. Aside from looking
: a bit like a Quad, that was it really.

Thanks. No experience myself. I understand it is no longer made. It was
recommended and I remebered the catchy name. That's about it.

Old Dahlquists look like Quads, too.

: I understand Quad have their own box speakers now. You'd expect
: them to produce the family sound, but do they?
:
: No--if by 'family sound' you mean do they sound like Quad electrostats.

Yes that's what I had meant/hoped. :-(
:
: How do they do against Proacs, Dynaudios, Spendors?
:
: Much better.

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)? 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". Other than that,
they seem up to audiophile standards for build quality and nice wood and
all that stuff if pictures and reviews are any indication. Even if they
were rebadged, like Music Hall, would that be so bad?

Plus, you can get deals for them on Audiogon, etc.

I wish I could tell you more about them, but that would require an
hour's drive each way to the nearest dealer!

: 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.

I do okay with 63s in a room approximately 12 by 20. Fortunately, my
girlfriend likes vocal-friendly speakers.

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

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.

Did we say Magnaplanar 1.6 already?

No comparison other than that both are dipoles.

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

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:55:53 +0000, The Devil wrote:

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

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

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

Hey Graham, welcome back! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

MINe 109 said:

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.

Did we say Magnaplanar 1.6 already?

No comparison other than that both are dipoles.

They have 'taller' and 'narrower' in their favor but, no, they won't
sound the same as Quads.

Stephen

"MINe 109"

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.





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

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Electrostats may not be completely time coherent, but as they have a
single driver,

But they don't.

They can have.

Just cos Quad ESL57s don't and the ESL63 has like rings and delay
lines and whatnot.

Certainly Stax' "EarSpeakers" (AFAIK) all have just one transducer
for all frequencies.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk