I have lived with Quad ESL 63 for the last 15 years or so. They sound
great, when driven within specification. I would like to hear your
suggestions for a speaker that sounds like my QUADs but can do a little
more of realistic orchestra SPLs or a jazz trio at full tilt.
I have tried adding a subwoofer, but it does not work well in my
opinion. I have heard a pair of B&W 800 that does the job, but they are
out of my budget, I'm afraid.

My neighbours JBL L100 reproduces loud rock music better than my '63s!
On the other hand, I can't tolerate them playing string quartets, or
even a solo vocal.

So: a recommendation for a speaker than sounds like my QUAD 63, but
louder and with more, ehrm, slam, please! I don't know exactly what is
needed to give this sense of realism reproducing for example a
kick-drum, but I guess a conventional direct radiating woofer is the way
to go. Budget would be about the cost of the '63s.

Per.

The obvious suggestion is the Quad 989, an evolution of the 63 with an
additional bass panel for more power and extension in the bass.

Kal

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:51:37 GMT, Per Strömgren
wrote:

I have lived with Quad ESL 63 for the last 15 years or so. They sound
great, when driven within specification. I would like to hear your
suggestions for a speaker that sounds like my QUADs but can do a little
more of realistic orchestra SPLs or a jazz trio at full tilt.
I have tried adding a subwoofer, but it does not work well in my
opinion. I have heard a pair of B&W 800 that does the job, but they are
out of my budget, I'm afraid.

My neighbours JBL L100 reproduces loud rock music better than my '63s!
On the other hand, I can't tolerate them playing string quartets, or
even a solo vocal.

So: a recommendation for a speaker than sounds like my QUAD 63, but
louder and with more, ehrm, slam, please! I don't know exactly what is
needed to give this sense of realism reproducing for example a
kick-drum, but I guess a conventional direct radiating woofer is the way
to go. Budget would be about the cost of the '63s.

Per.

Check out the Orion and Phoenix designs at:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/index.htm

Terry

Per Strömgren wrote:

I have lived with Quad ESL 63 for the last 15 years or so. They sound
great, when driven within specification. I would like to hear your
suggestions for a speaker that sounds like my QUADs but can do a little
more of realistic orchestra SPLs or a jazz trio at full tilt.
I have tried adding a subwoofer, but it does not work well in my
opinion. I have heard a pair of B&W 800 that does the job, but they are
out of my budget, I'm afraid.

My neighbours JBL L100 reproduces loud rock music better than my '63s!
On the other hand, I can't tolerate them playing string quartets, or
even a solo vocal.

So: a recommendation for a speaker than sounds like my QUAD 63, but
louder and with more, ehrm, slam, please! I don't know exactly what is
needed to give this sense of realism reproducing for example a
kick-drum, but I guess a conventional direct radiating woofer is the way
to go. Budget would be about the cost of the '63s.

Per.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:18:46 GMT, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

The obvious suggestion is the Quad 989, an evolution of the 63 with an
additional bass panel for more power and extension in the bass.

Yes, I know, but it is not enough. The 989, however grand, will still
not do what a typical threeway with a 12 inch woofer can do when it
comes to reproduce a kick drum or an acoustc bass. The problem seems
to be to find the threeway that can do what my 63 (or the 989) does.

Per.

If you're interested I'll try to dig out the article.

I for one would love to see this article, please.

BR
Bo Holmqvist
www.jerNhesteN.dk

To contact me: Reply to this - correct the adress using this info:
"Keep the image, but turn off the sound"

In article ,
says...
If you're interested I'll try to dig out the article.

I for one would love to see this article, please.

BR
Bo Holmqvist
www.jerNhesteN.dk

To contact me: Reply to this - correct the adress using this info:
"Keep the image, but turn off the sound"


The article was in "Hi-Fi World" Supplement of April 1996. It's an
update using modern (then) components based on an article in the Dec.
1995 Supplement which described an older version using very expensive
drivers. Looking at the test for the older version, it was reportedly
within +/- 5dB between 12Hz & 20kHz.
I believe that there's a follow-up in the August '96 issue, but I
don't have a copy. (I'd like one, if anybody out there has one.)

They don't seem to have an archive, but a quick search found:-
http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/slai..._dipole_subwoo
fer_p1.jpg

Also pages _p2, _p3, _p4.
Watch out for the line wrap!

HTH, Dave

Some folks with your concerns have gravitated to Harbeths. The Monitor
40's, if they are on rock-solid stands, some 16 inches off the floor,
and away from room boundaries in a good-sized room, can sound like
Quads with more oomph. I had a pair for a year or so and a Quad owner
made that observation on first hearing them. Robert Greene would
concur, having gravitated from Quads to Harbeths. For those who find
the M40's a bit too reticent, the Monitor 30's should do the trick.
Way smaller with less bass extension but also Quad-like, punchy, and
more...forward than the M40's.