Best Amps to use with Quad 989 Speakers
Derrick Fawsitt
the ultimate and definitive solution, at least for me. I currently use
entirely Quad units to drive them, i.e. Quad 909 with its pre-amp
together with a Quad 99 CD Player. However, I noticed one US reviewer of
the speakers stated that while the 909 Amp must have been designed with
the Speakers in mind he found that he got the best results with other
amps, is this true and what therefore do you consider the "best" setup
to drive and to use with the 989s.
--
Derrick Fawsitt
Serge Auckland
Firstly, it will have presumably been designed and tested to work with the
989 'speakers, (as well as being able to drive other loads).
The 989 'speakers will have been designed with a view of being driven by the
909, although of course other power amps could be used.
Then there is the specification of the 989 to consider: The maximum
programme input to the 989 is 40v. The permitted maximum is 55v. Now, the
909 is rated at 140 W rms into 8 ohms, thus generating 33v rms or 47 v peak.
It seems to me that therefore the 909provides the optimum power output for
the 989 'speakers. Any more power, and you would exceed the maximum ratings,
any less power, and you would be losing some potential peak loudness
capability.
But I think the main reason for not changing is that what improvement can
you expect? When the 909 already provides optimum power, vanishing low
distortion and noise, what possible audible improvement will you get?
S.
"Derrick Fawsitt" <derrick...@fitzwilliamonline.com> wrote in message
news:ql8EstAd...@fitzwilliamonline.com...
Dave xxxx
They are designed for the Quad II-forties and QC 24 pre amplifier
Jim Lesurf
<derrick...@fitzwilliamonline.com> wrote:
> I have just acquired Quad 989's Electrostatic Speakers and I find them
> the ultimate and definitive solution, at least for me. I currently use
> entirely Quad units to drive them, i.e. Quad 909 with its pre-amp
> together with a Quad 99 CD Player.
I would tend to regard the current/recent Quad amps like the 909 as a
perfectly reasonable choice. Quad will probably have had this in mind...
:-)
> However, I noticed one US reviewer of the speakers stated that while
> the 909 Amp must have been designed with the Speakers in mind he found
> that he got the best results with other amps, is this true and what
> therefore do you consider the "best" setup to drive and to use with the
> 989s.
Well, FWIW I use an Armstrong 732 to drive my 988's and ESL63's.. :-)
However I doubt you will find one of the above, and I have reasons to be
biassed in favour of that amp. But I'd say it was 'the best' so far as I
was concerned - although I suspect that many other amps would do just as
well.
In general, I'd be inclined to take comments by magazine reviewers with a
pinch of salt.
As Serge has said, the peak voltage which are acceptable with the
988/989/63 is around 40/55 volts, so an amp that can give much more than
this should only be used with caution.
The speakers are less demanding as loads than something like the ESL57's.
They dip below 4 Ohms in the 10kHz region, and below 20Hz, though. Hence if
you were to be cautious and assume a 3 Ohm min and 55V peaks, it implies
you will want an amp that is happy to provide peak currents of over 18 Amps
to ensure no current limiting when playing music.
In practice, though, I'd expect/hope you don't normally get near these
limits.
My reaction in your position would be to use the 909's and enjoy the music.
Ignore reviewers. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Derrick Fawsitt
<serge.a...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>My inclination would be to stick with the Quad amplifier.
>
>Firstly, it will have presumably been designed and tested to work with the
>989 'speakers, (as well as being able to drive other loads).
>The 989 'speakers will have been designed with a view of being driven by the
>909, although of course other power amps could be used.
>
>Then there is the specification of the 989 to consider: The maximum
>programme input to the 989 is 40v. The permitted maximum is 55v. Now, the
>909 is rated at 140 W rms into 8 ohms, thus generating 33v rms or 47 v peak.
>It seems to me that therefore the 909provides the optimum power output for
>the 989 'speakers. Any more power, and you would exceed the maximum ratings,
>any less power, and you would be losing some potential peak loudness
>capability.
>
>But I think the main reason for not changing is that what improvement can
>you expect? When the 909 already provides optimum power, vanishing low
>distortion and noise, what possible audible improvement will you get?
>
>S.
Thank you so much Serge, I am non technical but have printed out your
above reply for reference in the future.
One recent incident might interest you, before I acquired the 909's I
was considering buying a pair of second-hand 63's but on trying them
they appeared faulty as they produced distortion and in one case cut
out. They needed my 909 to run at its maximum level, (34), in order to
try to achieve a reasonable volume causing it to run extremely hot.
Needless to say I returned them to the dealer who sent them to Quad for
testing and servicing. I had a witness to their lacklustre performance,
a friend who has a pair of 63's for many years and knows his way around
Quad speakers. He confirmed the distortion etc., and it is therefore so
astonishing to hear today that Quad said they were perfect and is
charging the dealer £150.00 for testing them. I feel embarrassed in that
I said they were faulty, (which they definitely were and my
knowledgeable friend verified this), yet Quad now say there is nothing
wrong with them, how can this be?
Now I find the 909's an absolute revelation.
Thank you again Serge and also all who have helped to date.
--
Derrick Fawsitt
Serge Auckland
I'm glad you found my comments helpful. That's the beauty of these
newsgroups!
Regarding the ELS63, from what you say, it sounds as if something wasn't
right, however a few things come to mind:-
1) From your description, it isn't clear if the problem affected one or both
'speakers, and if the 'fault' was the same on both. As the 'speakers are
completely separate units, it is unlikely (but certainly possible) for both
to go wrong in the same way at the same time. In my experience, albeit not
as an ELS owner, the '63s do require service from time to time. A close
friend with a pair has had several panels replaced over the past 10 or so
years, and he certainly doesn't abuse his 'speakers. His amp is the QUAD
306.
2) The ELS63 has a "crowbar" protection system. This means that if the
'speakers are being seriously overloaded or the mains isn't on, then the
'speakers present essentially an intermittent short-circuit to the amp. This
will certainly sound horrible, and if persisted with, will cause the amp to
run hot, shut down or blow up depending on how well designed it is. If that
is what happened in your case, it shows how well engineered the 909 is that
it just got hot. The term "crowbar" protection is a fanciful term used to
describe the sort of protection that puts a quick-acting short-circuit
directly across the circuit being protected, thus limiting any damage. It's
as if you put a crowbar across the line.
What surprises me, and I don't really have an explanation, is why QUAD's
service department couldn't find anything wrong with the 'speakers if they
were as you described. One of life's mysteries!
S.
"Derrick Fawsitt" <derrick...@fitzwilliamonline.com> wrote in message
news:mnwnsWCs...@fitzwilliamonline.com...
tony sayer
<serge.a...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
Yes very much so. Wonder if you've been told the total truth here?,
something doesn't add up!.
I've used me 63's for years with an Audiolab 8000 power amp with no
problems at all, apart from an absolutely boring old sound coming from
them;))
--
Tony Sayer
Jim Lesurf
> Derrick, I'm glad you found my comments helpful. That's the beauty of
> these newsgroups!
> Regarding the ELS63, from what you say, it sounds as if something wasn't
> right,
I would agree. It did seem to me that the 909 was being asked to supply
high currents and perhaps this was due to the ESL63 protection coming inot
play when it should not.
> however a few things come to mind:-
> 1) From your description, it isn't clear if the problem affected one or
> both 'speakers, and if the 'fault' was the same on both. As the
> 'speakers are completely separate units, it is unlikely (but certainly
> possible) for both to go wrong in the same way at the same time. In my
> experience, albeit not as an ELS owner, the '63s do require service
> from time to time. A close friend with a pair has had several panels
> replaced over the past 10 or so years, and he certainly doesn't abuse
> his 'speakers. His amp is the QUAD 306.
FWIW though, I've had a pair of ESL63s since 1984. In that time they have
not required any service, and still sound fine. They have been used with a
power amp capable of over +/-80v peak and over +/-30a peak. However I have
used them with care, and most of the time at quite low levels. My
experience therefore is that if used with care they can last a long time.
> 2) The ELS63 has a "crowbar" protection system. This means that if the
> 'speakers are being seriously overloaded or the mains isn't on, then the
> 'speakers present essentially an intermittent short-circuit to the amp.
> This will certainly sound horrible, and if persisted with, will cause
> the amp to run hot, shut down or blow up depending on how well designed
> it is. If that is what happened in your case, it shows how well
> engineered the 909 is that it just got hot.
For obvious reasons, Quad design their amps with current limiters so as to
be able to endure working into the 63 crowbar for extended periods. However
other designers do not always do this, and may have good reasons for
avoiding using current limiters. So this is a point worth bearing in mind
if considering a non-Quad amp.
The above should not matter if used with care, though. FWIW The amp I use
would have evaporated the crowbar device in the original ESL64's as the
current rating of the triac was well below what the amp will sustain. Yet I
have never had a problem as I simply use the speakers well within their
design limits.
> What surprises me, and I don't really have an explanation, is why QUAD's
> service department couldn't find anything wrong with the 'speakers if
> they were as you described. One of life's mysteries!
I have been wondering about two possibilities, but they both seem 'long
shots'...
1) That when Derrick was using the 909 + ESL63's there was some 'RF' for
some reason and this was triggering the protection.
2) That for some reason the speakers were not getting the mains power to
polarise properly. This would reduce sensitivity and prompt the owner to
turn up the volume, thus leading to problems.
However apart from the above, dubious, guesses, I also find this strange.
Jim Lesurf
> Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
> > I have just acquired Quad 989's Electrostatic Speakers
[snip]
> They are designed for the Quad II-forties and QC 24 pre amplifier
I am not sure that was the case. Although the combination might sound fine
I'd note a few points:
1) The II-40 has a nominal power of 40wpc. This nominally translates into
17.8 Vrms and 25 Vpk for an assumed 8 Ohm tap. This is well below the
maximum which the 989 can accept. This means the combination will be
'safe', but not be able to reach the same peak sound levels as a more
powerful amp.
2) The II-40 has an output impedance of 0.4 Ohms. Given that the 989 has an
impedance that drops to just below 4 Ohms at some frequencies this may
cause a change in the response of the order of 1dB in the region around
10kHz and below 30Hz.
3) I don't have a value for the peak currents the II-40 can provide.
However unless it is significantly higher than implied by (1) the actual
levels may be further restricted when the signals have components in the
regions where the impedance of the 989 dips down well below 8 Ohms.
Hence although the combination may sound fine, the above factors can be
expected to have some impact on the results. If you only ever play music at
low levels, the above may not matter.
Stewart Pinkerton
<jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <0Q8vf.20582$iz3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dave
>xxxx <davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>> Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
>> > I have just acquired Quad 989's Electrostatic Speakers
>
>[snip]
>
>> They are designed for the Quad II-forties and QC 24 pre amplifier
Absolute garbage! That combination is nowhere near capable of
extracting everything that the 989 is capable of delivering -
especially as it's valved.......................
>I am not sure that was the case. Although the combination might sound fine
>I'd note a few points:
>
>1) The II-40 has a nominal power of 40wpc. This nominally translates into
>17.8 Vrms and 25 Vpk for an assumed 8 Ohm tap. This is well below the
>maximum which the 989 can accept. This means the combination will be
>'safe', but not be able to reach the same peak sound levels as a more
>powerful amp.
Quite so - and one of the basic tenets of the 989 is that it has
significantly more dynamic range than the '63.
>2) The II-40 has an output impedance of 0.4 Ohms. Given that the 989 has an
>impedance that drops to just below 4 Ohms at some frequencies this may
>cause a change in the response of the order of 1dB in the region around
>10kHz and below 30Hz.
Indeed so - although to be fair, I doubt that this will be of audible
significance for most listeners in most rooms. Still, it *is* a flaw
in a supposedly high-fidelity system, from one of the premium
engineering-led brands.
>3) I don't have a value for the peak currents the II-40 can provide.
>However unless it is significantly higher than implied by (1) the actual
>levels may be further restricted when the signals have components in the
>regions where the impedance of the 989 dips down well below 8 Ohms.
Indeed, current delivery is the Achilles heel of almost all valve
amps.
>Hence although the combination may sound fine, the above factors can be
>expected to have some impact on the results. If you only ever play music at
>low levels, the above may not matter.
But you'll still get better results from any half-decent 60-watt SS
amplifier, of which there are dozens of excellent examples around, for
a fraction of the cost of the nostalgia-driven II-40.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Dave xxxx
Well everyone at Quad I have spoke with and I know them in service and
sales
say they are a good match and are shown as such in much of the sales
blurb
now why should the people at quad (oh and andy who designed them) not
know what they are talking about
sure on paper a few problems but I go for what they sound like and
have used 57 63 and 988 with Quad II-forties
and they sound great
Dave xxxx
> Absolute garbage! That combination is nowhere near capable of
> extracting everything that the 989 is capable of delivering -
> especially as it's valved.......................
That From the guy with shit for brains
The guy who built the Quad amps the design team of the speakers the
service department all say they work ok, and I think there point of
view is going to hold more sway. than your rantings
now I have used 57 63 988 speakers
with Quad 405 405-2 606 606 mark2 909 Quad II-forties
Various low powered Croft valve amplifiers pre and power
now you can sit there and do all the sums you want but when it gets
down to the proper testing
which for the stupid is using mark one ears
the 988 with Quad II-forties sound very nice
Stewart Pinkerton
<davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> Absolute garbage! That combination is nowhere near capable of
>> extracting everything that the 989 is capable of delivering -
>> especially as it's valved.......................
>
>That From the guy with shit for brains
>
>The guy who built the Quad amps the design team of the speakers the
>service department all say they work ok, and I think there point of
>view is going to hold more sway. than your rantings
Working 'OK' is not the same as driving to their full potential, you
twit. You think Quad people are going to say that their most expensive
amplfier does *not* work 'OK' with their most expensive speaker?
>now I have used 57 63 988 speakers
>with Quad 405 405-2 606 606 mark2 909 Quad II-forties
>Various low powered Croft valve amplifiers pre and power
>now you can sit there and do all the sums you want but when it gets
>down to the proper testing
>
>which for the stupid is using mark one ears
>
>the 988 with Quad II-forties sound very nice
I'm sure they do - which has nothing to do with getting the *best* out
of the 989. For that, you need a good SS amp, such as the 909.
989 - 909, hmm, you think they might be designed to work together?
Anyone in possession of a functioning brain is well aware that the
II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name, which
would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker. He was a *real*
engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.
Dave xxxx
> > Anyone in possession of a functioning brain
got me there got lesions on my brain
is well aware that the
> II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name,
> which
> would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker.
He was still alive and very happy with the match as he had heard them
together, he was not in a postion to sanction it as company belongs to
IAG.
It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
resistors.
He was a *real*
> engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.
yes he was a real engineer and did always move forward with
designs............. but not long before he died I asked someone who
had just been to dinner with him
"What system he was using" ? I was shocked by the answer it was not
valve and not made by Quad it was a Sony type midi system lol
if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
picture of inside
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg
--
Dave
www.davewhitter.myby.co.uk
Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Steam is Fun
Eiron
> It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
> close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
> to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
> resistors.
That is dedication! Why didn't they copy a later model Quad II?
What were the problems?
People here have criticised Chinese transformers.
They (maybe not the same ones) have said that original Quad OPTs were
amongst the best.
So can we get Chinese transformers from the same factory that Quad does?
--
Eiron
I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.
Derrick Fawsitt
writes
> Dave xxxx wrote:
>
>> It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
>>close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
>>to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with resistors.
>
>That is dedication! Why didn't they copy a later model Quad II?
>What were the problems?
>
>People here have criticised Chinese transformers.
>They (maybe not the same ones) have said that original Quad OPTs were
>amongst the best.
>So can we get Chinese transformers from the same factory that Quad does?
>
Ahem!! I am still here, sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread but
unfortunately as a non "techie" I am lost by the abbreviations (OPT's
etc., etc.), but can understand the "gist" of the arguments. However, as
the originator of this thread, I would like to interject here to ask a
supplementary question while all you so knowledgeable people are
assembled, simply assuming you choose the best possible option to drive
the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
£5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.
--
Derrick Fawsitt
Dave xxxx
> >
> That is dedication! Why didn't they copy a later model Quad II?
> What were the problems?
The problems was the resisitors where not flame proof and on short
legs, if you look at the picture on my web site you can see the two
flame proof resistors on long legs. (big white ones)
Dave xxxx
> >>
>
> Ahem!! I am still here, sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread
> but
> unfortunately as a non "techie" I am lost by the abbreviations
> (OPT's
> etc., etc.), but can understand the "gist" of the arguments.
> However,
> as the originator of this thread, I would like to interject here to
> ask a supplementary question while all you so knowledgeable people
> are
> assembled, simply assuming you choose the best possible option to
> drive the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the
> vast legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it
> eventually boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about
> to fork out £5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some
> vindication of my choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a
> pair
> on demo and frankly I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I
> imagining this or have I got possibly the best speakers around,
> especially for classical music.
you have said all that matters
-------------------------------------------
I am stunned by the sound of the speakers
--------------------------------------------
nothing else matters
You also say
have I got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical
music ?
good chance
Mike Coatham
" Dave xxxx" <davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGOvf.21824$iz3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40 unless
of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as the
II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
muster compared to the original.
I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to all
intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and some
components.........
Derrick Fawsitt
xxxx <davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> writes
thank you Dave. I suppose I am like just everyone else out there, I
only want someone to say I made the best choice. Also, in buying
Electrostatics surely its quite a break away from the usual purchase and
I do admit to going through some self-examination as to my reasons for
my choice, I then put on those Quads again and I am reassured.
--
Derrick Fawsitt
Chris Morriss
<coa...@es.co.nz> writes
'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
--
Chris Morriss
Mike Coatham
"Chris Morriss" <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EwUwn8A6...@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> In message <dpp6ga$hrs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Mike Coatham
> <coa...@es.co.nz> writes
> >
> >" Dave xxxx" <davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> wrote in
message
> >> picture of inside
> >> http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg
> >
> >Well I beg to differ. The Quad II innards look nothing like the II-40
unless
> >of course you've butchered your Quad II's to make them look the same as
the
> >II-40. For a start the wiring loom (a.k.a. dogs breakfast) would not pass
> >muster compared to the original.
> > I guess if you were Tony Blair's spin doctor you could say they were to
all
> >intents & purposes the same as they both have wire, a circuit board and
some
> >components.........
> >
> >
> >
> Dear God, surely a genuine Quad-II doesn't have anything quite as
> 'mass-produced' as a circuit board? Tag strips perhaps?
> --
> Chris Morriss
I've sent Chris a photo of the internals of a Quad II as he obviously hasn't
seen the innards before. There is a board - which carries the 2 x EF86's
and most (10 out of 11) of the resistors and 1 cap.
Jim Lesurf
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > Absolute garbage! That combination is nowhere near capable of
> > extracting everything that the 989 is capable of delivering -
> > especially as it's valved.......................
> That From the guy with shit for brains
> The guy who built the Quad amps the design team of the speakers the
> service department all say they work ok, and I think there point of
> view is going to hold more sway. than your rantings
However there is a distinction to be made between "they all work OK" and
the OP's asking about what might be the "best setup"...
I have no doubt that many amplifiers "work OK" with the 63/988/989
speakers. However if "best" includes getting the desgned frequency response
and the full dynamic range up to the limits of the speakers, then some amps
might not allow the speakers to perform as well as others.
> now I have used 57 63 988 speakers
> with Quad 405 405-2 606 606 mark2 909 Quad II-forties
> Various low powered Croft valve amplifiers pre and power
> now you can sit there and do all the sums you want but when it gets
> down to the proper testing
> which for the stupid is using mark one ears
> the 988 with Quad II-forties sound very nice
I am sure you are correct. I've also heard the ESL63's producing very nice
results when powered by an old Armstrong 626. However I doubt this is a
combination many people would say is a candidate for the "best setup"...
:-)
I think it may be for the OP/others to decide what their definition of
"best" might require. And they may not all share the same requirements.
If they only play the speakers at modest/low levels, and have no need to
drive them anywhere near the peak levels, then a 40wpc amp like the II-40
may well be OK on that score. (Although the same might then be true of a
303 in good condition.)
If they are also quite happy with the moderate alteration in response
caused by the output impedance of the II-40, then it may also be OK on that
score. (But, again, they might find the 303 did something similar.)
BTW Bear in mind that PJW/Quad wanted the 303 to serve as a replacement for
the Quad II. (And then the 405 for the 303.) Indeed, PJW insisted they
produced indistingushable results provided they were used as he advocated.
[1] I suspect that a secondhand 303 or 405-2 would be cheaper than a II-40.
However I don't know if this would meet the OP's requirement of "best
setup" or not... :-)
OTOH if the OP wants a power amp that can provide up to the peak levels the
989 can use, including at frequencies where the speaker impedance drops
well below 8 Ohms, then he might decide to avoid the 303 and the II-40.
Up to him, I assume. :-)
FWIW Personally I'd be quite happy with a II-40 driving 988s or 989s. But
then I tend to only use low power levels, and the change in response would
not concern me much. However I have no idea if the OP would be like myself
in these respects. And I'd personally be inclined to use something cheaper
than the II-40 as I suspect it would do just as well to my ears. But again,
I have no idea if the OP would agree. Given that he has chosen 989s as
distinct from the 988s I chose, he may want higher power levels to be
available than myself - e.g. he may have a larger room.
Slainte
Jim
[1] And a listening test run by HFN indicated he was correct. None of those
involved could tell the Quad II from SS amps. This surprised/shocked some
audio journalists. However I don't really know why. Did it not occur to
them that PJW *did* actually listen to what he designed and Quad produced,
so might have some idea what he was talking about? :-)
Chris Morriss
You're quite right, I've never seen the internals of a Quad II. I am
most surprised that it had components on a pcb though!
--
Chris Morriss
Stewart Pinkerton
<davew...@removethistoemailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> > Anyone in possession of a functioning brain
>
>got me there got lesions on my brain
>
>
>is well aware that the
>
>> II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name,
>> which
>> would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker.
>
>He was still alive and very happy with the match as he had heard them
>together, he was not in a postion to sanction it as company belongs to
>IAG.
>It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
>close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
>to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
>resistors.
>
>
>He was a *real*
>> engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.
>
>yes he was a real engineer and did always move forward with
>designs............. but not long before he died I asked someone who
>had just been to dinner with him
>
>"What system he was using" ? I was shocked by the answer it was not
>valve and not made by Quad it was a Sony type midi system lol
Exactly - modern technology, not relying on nostalgia or brand name
for its sound quality.
>if you look at a Quad II-forty looks just like a Quad II (inside)
>picture of inside
>http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/quadc.jpg
Quite so - it's a dinosaur. Basically, it *is* a Quad II fitted with
KT88 instead of KT66. Quad also sells the KT66 version.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
> Dave xxxx wrote:
>
>> It was made by Andy Grove and is really just a big Quad II in fact so
>> close a copy early ones built in Bradford before production was moved
>> to China had the same problems early original Quad II had with
>> resistors.
>
>That is dedication! Why didn't they copy a later model Quad II?
>What were the problems?
>
>People here have criticised Chinese transformers.
>They (maybe not the same ones) have said that original Quad OPTs were
>amongst the best.
>So can we get Chinese transformers from the same factory that Quad does?
That would involve a major assumption - that the modern OPTs are of
the same quality as those used in the original Quad amps.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
<derrick...@fitzwilliamonline.com> wrote:
>Ahem!! I am still here, sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread but
>unfortunately as a non "techie" I am lost by the abbreviations (OPT's
>etc., etc.), but can understand the "gist" of the arguments. However, as
>the originator of this thread, I would like to interject here to ask a
>supplementary question while all you so knowledgeable people are
>assembled, simply assuming you choose the best possible option to drive
>the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
>legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
>boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
>£5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
>choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
>I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
>got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.
Having been around hi-fi for more than forty years, I'd say that there
are still *very* few speakers that get close to the quality of the
classic Quad design, and the 989 is a fine development of the '63,
building on the many strengths and addressing the few weaknesses
(frame rigidity and bass power). Yes, it's one of the best classical
music speakers around, and it's even good value when you look at
anything capable of competing, such as the B&W 800 and JMLab Utopia.
Regarding amplifiers, all you need is a good clean modern design
capable of providing adequate drive to this fairly current-hungry
speaker. Contrary to what the 'tubies' suggest, this does *not* mean
the Quad II-40, the 909 is a superior amplifier in every way, costs
less and will be significantly more reliable in the long term. Could
very well be the last hi-fi system you'll ever buy..............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
You shouldn't be. A printed circuit board ensures good consistency of
performance in production, and reduces parisitic inductance. Not a
matter of 'mass production', but of better engineering.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Jim Lesurf
<derrick...@fitzwilliamonline.com> wrote:
> ...
> the Quad 989's, what do you think of them in relation to the vast
> legions of "moving coil" speakers out there. Yes I know it eventually
> boils down to personal choice but as someone who is about to fork out
> £5000 (sterling) for a pair I would appreciate some vindication of my
> choice before I sign the dotted line. I have a pair on demo and frankly
> I am stunned by the sound of the speakers, am I imagining this or have I
> got possibly the best speakers around, especially for classical music.
There are various technical reasons for the 989/988/63 speakers being
excellent, and for giving a quality of sound that is judged distinctly
'better' than most (if not all) conventional speakers.
My experience is that the Quad electrostatic speakers give quite superb
results, and are a superb choice for classical music. I think that many
others would agree with this. I've never personally heard any conventional
speakers that can give such 'natural' clarity given a good recording or
broadcast as the source. I 'discovered' Quad ESLs decades ago, and they
were a revelation to me, too. First the ESL57s, then the ESL63s, now the
988/989.
FWIW my experience is also that the choice of amplifier matters far less
than the choice of speaker. Hence although there may be specific reasons
for choosing one amp rather than another, these will tend to minor in
effect in many cases. I say this as someone who spent some years working as
an amplifier designer. :-) You might expect me to play up the importance of
the amplifier. However my view is that once the amp meets some reasonable
requirements, it tends to have little effect on the results compared with
the choice of speaker.
Having worked in the 'the business' I had a chance to listen to many
speakers and many amplifiers. This was some years ago, but for me the ESLs
always stood out as delivering 'natural' results in a way other speakers
never quite matched for classical or small scale 'acoustic' music.
For the above reason I suspect you'd be just as happy with something like
the 909 as with anything more expensive. Spend any extra money on more
recordings of music, and sit back and enjoy how the 989s allow you to
really appreciate the music contained therein. :-)
Serge Auckland
they need a fair amount of space behind the 'speaker to bring out their
best, and my domestic arrangements don't allow that much clear space.
S.
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4de5f19...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
tony sayer
and.demon.co.uk> writes
No! No Stop This!!!!.. you can't go around writhing such stuff as that
above, its far too sensible and not silly enough!..
Everyone knows that the Ross Kimber power cables are the MOST IMPORTANT
thing in the chain.
Now just stop being so bl**dy logical and sensible will you PLEASE
remember this is uk.rec.audio!!!!!!!!!
--
Tony Sayer
Eiron
> No! No Stop This!!!!.. you can't go around writhing such stuff as that
> above, its far too sensible and not silly enough!..
>
> Everyone knows that the Ross Kimber power cables are the MOST IMPORTANT
> thing in the chain.
Does Russ Andrews sell a cable with a round Bulgin style connector for
my 57's?
Will it make a 'chalk and cheese' difference?
Did the OP remember to plug his 63's into the mains?
Chris Morriss
Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> writes
All the stuff I design for work is on nice 4-layer FR4 glass-fibre pcbs
(and nearly all the parts are SM), but they are a far cry from the
single-sided SRBP boards that I imagine are in the old Quads.
The problem with pcbs with so few components on them, when they are
connected to so many large wire-ended devices, such as the
chassis-mounted valve sockets and the transformers and electrolytic
smoothing caps is that they tend to increase the amount of wiring
required and certainly doesn't reduce the parasitics compared with a
'Radford-like' construction on high quality ceramic tag-strips.
Perhaps on the old Quad, the valve sockets are on the pcb. In which
case then the parasitics are reduced, but in my experience, valve bases
on an SRBP pcb are very bad news for long term reliability.
--
Chris Morriss
Chris Isbell
<pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Anyone in possession of a functioning brain is well aware that the
>II-40 is simply a cynical cashing in on the famous Quad II name, which
>would never have been sanctioned by Peter Walker. He was a *real*
>engineer, and always moved forward with his designs, never backward.
You might be interested in the following quotes from the Quad L Series
Owner's Manual.
"Most of the audio signal going to the speaker drives the bass units.
When one cable feeds both bass and treble units, this heavy bass
current can modulate the high frequencies. Using separate cables for
treble and bass units reduces intermodulation effects and improves
headroom and clarity."
"Loudspeakers are electro-mechanical and, like all mechanical systems,
the need a 'running in' period. For the first 50 hours or so exercise
care and play your system at reasonable volume levels. After running
in, you will notice a significant sonic improvement."
--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK
Stewart Pinkerton
As I have often stated, Ross Walker was a prime example of the
founder's idiot son ruining the company.................
The above crap is just further degradation into the lala land of
marketing-speak, now that it's no longer really Quad, but just another
badge-engineered product from the land of the Dragon.