2. speakers
  3. 1120341280

Quad ESL 989 and Maggie 3.6s

I'm thinking of moving from the world of monitors and floorstanders to planers/electrostats -- this is partly due to my new amps, a set of McIntosh MC-501s, which finally give me more than ample power to get into this world.

So, I'm wondering if anyone has listened closely to both of these speakers, or has strong opinions toward one or the other? I've heard both described as near-ultimates of the type and certainly as "giant killers." Unfortunately, I have not heard the Quads (and it's been a long time since I have heard Quads).

One possible consideration against the Quads is that we do have small children in the house and they could be dangerous.

Ideas?
highdudgeon

Showing 2 responses by newbee

newbee
4,751 posts
 
FWIW, from my experience in auditioning Maggies, and owning Quads (63's) the differences I heard are significant and which you prefer will depend on your expectations. The Quads are much more of a point source speaker where as the Maggies are more like typical line stages in providing an image inhanced in height and width which can be great on orchestral stuff but which can be distracting on recordings of voice and solo instruments.

Also, before you plunge forward with planers or electrostats, research thoroughly the set up issues. They are more demanding of placement and room treatment than the typical dynamic speaker. If you're not going to do this set up properly you lose the benefit of the transparency that they can bring to your music.

I prefer the sound of point source speakers and I've always liked the Quads driven by a good medium powered tube amp. I've never heard them with a Mac, but other than a Levinson ML2, I've never heard them with SS that I've really enjoyed.

The problem with the Quads in comparison to a good dynamic (box) speaker is you do lose the ability to play loud and you lose some of the dynamics (think compression) of live music. I've lived thru panels and electrostats and I'm back to good dynamic's all because I went off half cocked. Hope your experience is different. :-)

newbee
4,751 posts
 
FWIW, I always find it interesting when people complain about the lack of bass (32hz+) in the 63's and 988's. Most often these are the same folks who say the speakers sound best when they are elevated 8 to 12 inches off the floor (which would reduce the bass in any speaker, box or stat due to a change in the floor reflections which reinforced the bass when they were on the floor.)

Peter Walker designed the Quad 63's to be on the floor (he later changed is mind but I think this change was more about sales than sonics.

A well set up 63 or 988, on the floor, will produce a very tight and flat bass down to the mid 30's and it does not screw up the mid-range, it just fleshes it out. I had full range boxes and 63's in my room which measured exactly the same when the Quads were on the floor and the imaging was not effected either. Off the floor (I have stands for the Quads) they sound brightish and enemic.

Just some more stuff to think about..........
More to discover