Comments on Quad ESL 988?

Just wonder what peoples' experience has been. I owned a pair of 989s for about 2 years. Now I'm thinking of trying the 988, which some people say is more musical, more like a perfected ESL 63, which I loved. The 989, despite startling transparency and detail, seemed to be lacking the "sweetness" well known to Quad lovers since the beginning.

C34388e9 3684 4b94 a963 6a27b19beba5jeffreyfranz
You should probably ask Detlof for a full account. My spontaneous impressions were iffy: the 988's had the voicing of the 989 without the extension and, vs. the 63, the reproduced spectrum was a bit lower -- a bit pronounced in the mid-bass if you will.

However, this was not @ home & the set-up was less than ideal: speakers were driven by the (new) Quad tubes & the quad cdp. In THIS set-up, I preferred the 989 and a pair of 63. Last, I listened to classical and one Grusin cd... hardly an extensive audition.
I remember Duke at Audiokinisis prefered the 63 to either of the new ones. You may try to contact him.
The lack of "sweetness" of your Quad ESL speakers could be contributed by the type of amp you are using. I have tried many amps with ESL 63. The sweetest of the ones I have tired are the Marantz 8B and the Jadis JA30. The OTL's are also very good with Quad, very accurate, clean and lots of bass but not as sweet and musical. The Quads need the right amp to realize their potential and distinct characters. They are full of details and information with the right amps. They don't need a lot of power, 35-80 watts is all you need. All the Quads have the same personalities. I wouldn't just change to 988. I would try to get the right amp for them. With the right amps, they are one of the very best ever made. I don't listen to CD, just records because I find records so much more musical than CD. Hope this helps.