Amp matching for Quad ESLs
hshrader -- Wed, 05/28/2008 - 21:08
In the recent edition of TAS, Jim Hannon says that matching an amp to the Quad ELS is critical. In a past edition of TAS, Dick Osher touches on Amp matching to a Quad in a side bar --- he indicates that because of the unique load the ESL shows the amps, some amps are better suited at driving the speaker. Several years ago HP awarded a Golder Ear aware for the Innersound Amp that was effectively designed for electrostatic speakers saying it might have just slighted increased the dynamic range of his ESL. Jon Valin is reviewing the current ESLs now and no doubt is using different amps to better understand what works best with the speakers. I have also seen raves about 20watt amps and 400 watt amps working with the Quads. Despite these references, I feel that there has been little discussion about what is meant with Amp matching for Quad ESLs.
Are the writers suggesting that a family of amps that share a common topology are better suited for ESLs. Or, that the ESLs actually are so transparent that perhaps some amps actually do sound better with them despite how they might be designed to interact with a speaker (reactive load or other). Here I am suggesting that quality of design is distinct from philosophy of design. (Perhaps this is a leap of faith!)
I would be interested in better understanding what Jim, Dick and others mean when they suggest amp matching is especially important with Quad ESLs.
Hans
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
to use a self-limiting amp such as the Marantz 9 in triode mode.
Just about when the amp would get near the speaker's upper limits of power handling the amp would stop putting out watts.
I've heard 95 dB at listening position on full-range large orchestra works out of stock Quad ESL 57's coupled to a pair of Marantz 9's.
I personally had very good results from both a Citation II and Marantz 8B modified into a triode amps as well. Also Futterman OTLs worked nicely with Quad ESL 57s. That was Harvey Rosenberg's favorite combo.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Thank you Steve. I should clarify, my questions are fundamentally directed to later model Quads (e.g. 988) that have modern protection circutry.
Hans
Had the pleasure hearing them with Spectral electronics. The amps light up the speakers. Highly recommended.
It's interesting that Roy Pan used the term "light up" to describe what the Spectral electronics did to the Quads. I haven't had Quads in my home, but I did get some Spectral electronics recently for review (the DMC-30SS preamp, DMA-360 power amplifier, SDR-4000 Pro CD player) and "light up" is exactly what they did to the Magico V3. I'd been listening to the V3 for a couple of months, wrote the review, and then heard the V3 with the Spectral gear for just a weekend before taking them down to replace them with the Wilson X-2 Alexandria (Series 2). My opinion of the V3 went up another notch. I even used the term "light up" when I heard what the Spectral electronics did for the V3.
I'm working on a full review of the Spectral electronics.
One the subject of a good amplifier for the Quads, several of our editors own Quads or have extensive experience with them, and I expect that they will weigh-in on the question here.
Robert Harley
With Quad 57s, I've liked the Marantz 8B and the Lamm ML-2 (terrific combo).
I haven't had a great deal of experience (in home) with latter-generation Quads. Quad-owning friends of mine have greatly liked earlier-generation, low-powered ARC amps with Quads 63s, like the ARC D-40. I currently have the 2905s in for review. At the moment I am using Air Tight ATM-3 monoblocks (which sound lovely) with them, and going to try the Emotive Audio Vitas (which, I have a feeling, are going to be really, really good). I'll report back when I've heard the combo.
As for Spectral...no experience with same outside of shows, where their soundstaging has been phenomenal (among the best I've ever heard).
Dear Hans,
There's a lot to say on this subject.
The original Quad presents a highly reactive load to the amplifier ranging from 60 ohms (bass) to 1.8 ohms in the treble. Stacked Quads are even more difficult loads going down to 0.9 ohms. The Crosby Quads I owned for years (highly modified Quad 63s) also dipped below 1 ohm (measured), although an impedance curve I saw on the 2805s look like it runs from 3.2 ohms up to 12 ohms (perhaps somebody can verify this?)
Couple a pretty wild impedance curve with the low sensitivity of Quads and you can see the potential problem. With the originals, you really should add the clamping circuit on the treble panel (newer Quads already have this) to protect it from being overdriven and arching.
Many otherwise fine sounding solid state amplifiers will become unstable driving such loads or at a minimum, not sound their best. For example, the Edge G4 was just okay driving the original Quads, but sounded really great driving Quad's own dynamic loudspeakers. Some guys swear by using OTLs to drive original Quads, but as you can see from the impedance range, they will also have their problems. Some solid state designs can do very well whereas others are delivered a knock-out blow from the Quads. The Mark Levinsohn ML-2 monoblock 25 watt Class A amps were some of the best I've heard driving Quads and yes, the Spectral amps are also very stable.
Some tube amps do really well driving the Quads whereas others do not. I tried the PrimaLuna ProLogue II integrated on the 2805 and it started to distort (I immediately shut it down). The monoblock PrimaLuna ProLogue 6s did well but the DiaLogue II integrated, with its beefier transformers, was a great match with both the originals and the 2805s.
I have liked some of the older tube designs with the Quads, including Quads own Quad II (I liked the Quad II on both the originals and the 2805 better than Quads more powerful QII Forty). Many classic tube amps were reportedly designed using the Quads.
The original Quicksilver 8417 monos work very well (they reportedly can drive a load down to 0.5 ohms) and I'm on my third pair. Many of the Audio Research tube amps also do quite well, as do all of the MFA amps I have tried (I used the M-140 monoblocks with the Crosbies and was in heaven).
A problem with using some tube amps is their low dampening factor which can result in "soggy bass." I'm driving the original Quads with a Pathos Inpower2 (hybrid) integrated and am amazed at the bass I'm able to draw out of them (okay midbass).
There's lots more to say, but hopefully this is a start.
Jim
jvalin wrote:With Quad 57s, I've liked the Marantz 8B and the Lamm ML-2 (terrific combo).
At the moment I am using Air Tight ATM-3 monoblocks (which sound lovely) with them, and going to try the Emotive Audio Vitas (which, I have a feeling, are going to be really, really good). I'll report back when I've heard the combo.
I have heard a few different Air Tight amps with the newer Quads and they sound really good. I haven't tried them with the originals, but should think they would also be wonderful.
Jim
jimhannon1 wrote:
A problem with using some tube amps is their low dampening factor which can result in "soggy bass."
Correction: I meant to say damping factor. and Pathos Inpol2.
As I get older, my brain gets more soggy, too.
Jim
The Quad ESL-57, Peter Walker’s original electrostatic loudspeaker and often called, not without justification, “Peter’s little wonder,” has an impedance curve that can present difficulties to certain amplifiers, but it is unlikely that any good contemporary design will come to distress driving a pair. Contemporary tube designs are a different matter, because so many of them have dispensed with the 16-ohm tap, which the impedance curve of the 57 requires.
As a longtime 57 enthusiast and owner, the biggest worry I have with amplifiers is not any difficulties in driving the speaker but rather destroying the speaker. The 57 is extremely intolerant of levels exceeding its maximum peak input (which I believe is 33 volts). If you exceed it by much, you will arc a panel. Once you’ve done so, the speaker will continue to play, assuming you haven’t arced it much, but its power-intake threshold has been reduced, which means that it will now arc at a lower level; arc it again, the level gets lower still, until the panel will not play without manifest distortion.
For this reason, and considering the expense of panel replacement (I am not a do-it-yourselfer—it can be done by yourself, but it is extremely difficult), my amplifier of choice for driving my ESLs is none other than another of Peter’s little wonders, his first transistor amplifier, the 303, because it is incapable of producing a voltage that will exceed the maximum limit of the 57. 303s are no longer available new, but you can pick them up on eBay very reasonably, they seem to work forever with no diminution in any aspect of their performance, and they sound absolutely wonderful! The 303 is unquestionably the first really great sounding solid-state amplifier and it remains the only one of the early solid-state amplifiers that has stood the test of time. It also sounds great, by the way, driving many other speakers, including recent Quads and virtually all British loudspeakers designed in the BBC tradition, especially Harbeths and Spenders.
Another better-safe-than-sorry choice is Quad’s own tube amplifiers, the Quad II, which are now available in an updated version. (I’ve reviewed a pair in TAS). They sound very nice—warm, romantic, musical—though frankly I prefer the 303 with the 57.
If you want to use other amplifiers with 57s, I would have Wayne Piquet—the master Quad restorer from Florida—install the protection circuit from the later Quad ESLs. This can be retrofitted to the 57s without compromising their sonic characteristics in any way, and will provide considerable peace of mind. That said, I’d still be mindful about levels. Quad 57s top every list I’ve ever seen of the ten or twelve greatest audio components ever made, and they will play to surprisingly satisfying levels, but they are made for natural, refined reproduction, not for roof raising and headbanging.
One last note: none of the strictures about amplifiers applies to the later Quad ESLs, the 63, the 988 and 989, and the 2805 and 2905. There are a great many modern amplifiers that perform excellently with these speakers. The only real stricture is that as the speakers are extremely revealing of what’s upstream, amplifier selection nust be made with great care, preferably by audition. I’ve had results ranging from superior to excellent with amplifiers by McIntosh, Quad, Luxman, Pathos, Carver, Innersound, Rotel, and Outlaw. Even the modest little NAD CD/receiver proved satisfying. Though inefficient, these later Quad ESLs are not particularly difficult to drive, at least not with any decently designed amplifier from a reputable manufacturer.
One of my favorite amps to drive any Quad ESL with remains the 909, a superb amplifier, able to withstand comparison with the best, and my nomination for the greatest amplifier bargain available right now. Several friends and TAS readers have purchased this amplifier on my recommendation and not a single one to my knowledge has been less than completely satisfied. Indeed, this the 2805/909 is one of my two longstanding reference combinations, the other being the 2805/McIntosh MC402, which is just glorious.
But if you have 57s, I’d make two recommendations: get in touch with Wayne Piquet and have him do a restoration (if your 57s are over twenty years old and never been serviced, they no doubt sound good but they’re almost certainly not performing optimally) and do pick up a 303 amp on the web. It’s a combination made in heaven.
—Paul Seydor
Hi Paul, I read your comments with great interest. After buing a pair of QUAD 2805's, I recently swapped out mt VTL 225 triode monoblocks for a pair of Quad II's. (Then swapped/rolled out the new tubes with vintage Mullards Az4(?)'s rectefier , grey GEC KT66's, and Telefunkfin vs. Mullard driver tubes). Using Nordost Heimdal speaker wire. My question is, What Pre-Amp and Phono stage's do you think may work best with this setup?
I have a VTL 5.5 w/phono- (and recently swapped out the stock to Telefunken for their improved clarity. )Yes, big mismatch on how high the volume knob needs to be due to the Quad II's high input sensitivity. I'd like even more 3D presence and soundstage. Wondering if the preamp is now the weak link? Other eq. includes a mid 80's vintage Linn LP12, Etco arm(?) and Simiko Blackbird cartridge, Ayre CX 7 E CD player. Also, a Janis 15" Sub woffer with Janis amp/crossover .Believe the Interconnects are a 9m run of Tara Ref Master General's(?), a PS Quintensse power trotector in the front end, Shunyata PC's. Thanks, Steve
Hi Paul
I fully agree about 909 although I do not own Quad ESLs. I have 2 909s biamping the Neat Motive 1 speakers with amazing results ! I also have in my HT Quad 12L Actives which sound amazing too - they have 2 mono 'current dumpers' built into each speaker - 1 for driving the tweeter (40w) and another one (60w) for driving kevlar woofer.
That's another bargain - you can pick it up on the internet for less than a grand.
- Lungo
With respect to Jim Hannon's concerns about soggy bass, damping factor, and so forth. One of the problems I have with the combination of the Quad II amp and the 57s is not soggy bass, but excessive warmth and a touch of looseness (which disappears when you substitute a 303 or 909). In fact, I rather preferred the Quad II amps (I'm referring to the current version) with the 988, a combination that sounds really lovely, albeit somewhat volume restricted.
Does anybody know which contemporary tube units continue to offer a 16 ohm tap?
I must respectfully disagree with my friend Jim Hannon as regards the Quad II versus the II/forties: the latter are far, far more neutral top to bottom, yet they still possess the dimensionality, life, sweetness, continuousness, etc. that tube lovers love. The former are very, very pretty sounding--I do not mean this as a putdown--but they can be excessively warm and otherwise are not uncolored. Peter Walker being Peter Walker, I doubt he could design a bad sounding amplifier, but he himself preferred his 303, and I agree: it's the better design, nostalgia notwithstanding.
As my friend Paul correctly points out, the original Quad ESL-57 comes with far more amplifier "cautions" than the 63/988/2805, the full Crosby Quad 63 being the lone exception. (I lived with them for over a decade and selling them was perhaps my biggest audio regret---believe me, with an impedance dip below 1 ohm, my Crosbies brought several well-respected amps to their knees).
While both Paul and I have had great success with the Wayne Picquet restorations of the original Quads (including the installation of the highly recommended clamping protection board), there are several other folks who are reported to also do very fine jobs, too, both here and abroad, including Sheldon Stokes, Stewart Penketh (Montreal), and One Thing Audio in England. You can also purchase new panels and new/refurbished parts from Quad Germany, and there are a bunch of other folks selling parts.
A wonderful resource on original Quads is Dr. Quad's ESL Hotline site //www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/#RECENT%20ITEMS" title="http://www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/#RECENT%20ITEMS">http://www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/#RECENT%20ITEMS
(I purchased a set of ESL-57s from Sandy decades ago).
There are links to several of the aforementioned restorers.
As for amps, there is a link to an extensive list of amplifiers that Christian Steingruber recommends with the original Quads. //www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/csramps.html" title="http://www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/csramps.html">http://www [dot] geocities [dot] com/drquad [at] pacbell [dot] net/csramps.html
Although we may have some different personal preferences of favorite amps for the Quads, both Paul and I agree that the Quads (of all ilks) can be made to sound glorious by a variety of amps.
Hope this helps,
Jim
I have been reading this thread with great interest, as I have the 2905's and am in the market for a new amp, having my Jadis just die on me. I am currently running them on my Lyngdorf TDA 2200 theatre amp. Its nice but the "life" factor (harmonic accuracy and dynamics) arent quite there. Those were 2 qualities I really liked from my Jadis Defy7. I am thinking about the following amps, but have a hard time listening to all, so recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Here's what I'm thinking:
- Quad II 40 - heard them on the quads for a short time -nice timbral accuracy but not sure about dynamics and bass and headroom
- Primaluna Prologue 7 - Worried based on the comment that the Prologue 6 was just OK or did I misunderstand? The Primaluna autobias is very attractive having lived with the Jadis
- Arc VS115. Havent heard this at all, just through the grapevine that this is a nice amp
- Atmasphere M-60 OTL - read that these need a high impedance load, so I gave up on it.
I havent considered solid state, basically because I hear timbrally they arent great, but here are two that I am also considering
Pass X250.5 - they seem to work well with dynamic speakers like magnepans, not sure about electrostatic
Sanders new electrostatic amp - heard they are powerhouses, but worried about the timbral accuracy and details.
Suggestions and rankings would be greatly appreciated!
Warren
Hi Warren,
The 2905 has an easier impedance curve than the original Quads and also comes with a clamping circuit to protect the speakers. This gives you more choices for amps, as Paul suggests.
Too bad about the Jadis. I would think that would have made a great match with the 2905.
As for the PimaLuna Prologue series, I would not suggest the integrated amps (the Dialogue I and II are a completely different story) with the 2905s, but I used the Prologue 6 monos with the 2805s without any problems. If you can wait a few months, the PrimaLuna Dialogue 6 and 7 monoblocks should be an even better match and yield higher performance.
Also, Jonathan Valin (see his earlier post) has the 2905 in-house and will undoubtedly include some amplifier suggestions in his review. I have been impressed by the Air Tight monos, as well as the new Quad 80 watt amp designed by Tim DeParavicini
I, too, am curious about the Atma-sphere M-60 OTLs with the 2905. You could use the Paul Speltz anti-cables to raise the impedance, but I don't know whether they introduce other compromises.
Let us know what amps you try out with the 2905.
Jim
After a long story, not to be described here, I ended up with a repaired Jadis Defy-7 and a Primaluna Dialogue 5 to A/B with the Quad 2905s. That gave me a chance to spend some time and compare with my beloved CLS and ponder a while. My tentative conclusions: first with the speakers, then the amps. I have found a sonic difference between resolution and noise. resolution I would define as the ability to hear tiny low level details in a recording. A system has to have quite good linearity between low and high levels. Noise is the background level which would allow hearing low level details at low volume levels. When are they different? Suppose you have a recording that you are listening at moderate volume levels and there are small nuances or fluctuations from that moderate volume level. You would need high resolution to hear that. (think of a warble tone.) you would not need low noise. Now on the same recording, there was a very faint instrument. You would need low noise to hear that. If you wanted to hear that faint instrument clearly, you would need both low noise and low resolution. So what I have found is that the CLS was near unbeatable for midrange resolution against all transducers, but wasnt that great in terms of noise compared to modern speakers like the 2905s. the 2905s have a very low noise floor, but doesnt have nearly as good resolution as the CLS. the 2905s have midbass, coherence and a rolloff in the highs. The low noise floor, excellent but not world beating resolution and rolled off highs result in the forgiving nature of the speaker, as it masks the irritations of bad recordings. The low distortion, midbass, coherence make music sound great. I can hear stuff with my CLS that I cant with the 2905s. But again, the 2905s have the midbass energy that the CLS lacked. That midbass provides a lot of the energy rhythm in music as well as the spatial imaging properties that we perceive, which is a big deal. (read Kloss's articles about that.) Now onto the amps. Having 2 amps was very illuminating because it allowed me to separate at least 2 and possible all three of the three characteristics of tube amplifiers: tube type, transformer, and the rest of the amp. i was lucky in that these 2 amps can have the same tubes - 12au7, 12ax7, 6550s. (The primaluna comes with KT88s.) So what I did was listen to the 2 amps as they were, then listen to them with the same tubes in each and then swap tubes to identify the characteristics of the sounds of the tubes. Then with my TACT 2.2X, I did frequency equalization so both amps were flat into the speakers to remove the interaction of the amps with teh speakers in terms of frequency response so the impedance mismatch is less of a factor. So heres the first pass with the stock tubes. (I'll follow up with the report later on the other parts.). Out of the box, the Primaluna bass was extraordinary, perhaps even a little overwhelming. It was very well defined, musical, dynamic, but not highly resolving as I remembered the Jadis with the CLS. Next the Jadis Defy 7 with the 2905s. I was surprised as it sounded worse with the 2905s than the CLS in the midrange. the midbass was ok, but not nearly as strong as the primaluna. It was more dynamic probably because of the greater power of the Jadis but it was a mixed bag in that there was less midbass to begin with. There was higher resolution, but a bit of a screechy quality. Overall it made the sound more exciting but also more tiring to listen to, a lot like the CLS until the midrange got tamed. What I wanted was the bass from the primaluna, the resolution and dynamics from the Jadis and the removal of the screech quality. What part was the tubes (which can be corrected), the transformer (which can be partially corrected) and the rest of the amp (which cant be corrected save changing amps.? More to come.... BTW, I have never had the luxury of being able to do this detailed comparison (probably like most other people) and it is really illuminating and hopefully useful to other readers...
Jim,
Odd you should mention Air Tight, as I am using the Air Tight ATM-3 monoblocks and they sound extraordinary with the Quad 2905s (which are themselves extraordinary). I highly recommend the combination, with the understanding that my experience with the 2905s is limited.
Jon
Warren: unless you're champing at the bit to buy new amplifiers, I would certainly wait, if I could, until Quad's newest tube amplfiers are introduced stateside later this year. 80 watt mono blocks designed by Tim de Paravacini, and they made very sweet sounds at this past CES with 2905s.
Paul, thanks for all of the information you have provided on the 2905s. I, like many others, continue to look for the right amp for the 2905s. I have a chance to get a bat vk-55se tube amp that puts out a robust 60 watts per channel. Do you think this is enough power? It is my understanding that the 2905s need a relative high voltage output from the amp which many solid state amps don't provide (I had trouble with the Mac 402 in this regard--long story).
I would appreciate your comments.
Wbk
The new Quad amps did sound sweet with the 2905s at last year's CES, and the Air Tight ATM-3 monoblocks I just recommended, which make such exceptionally realistic sounds with the 2905, are $17,000 the pair! (The companion Air Tight preamp, the ATC-2, which I also highly recommend in combo with the ATM-3s, is $8500 without phonostage, and the ARC Reference CD7 is $9k.) In other words, this is a very pricey front and back end, so Paul's advice has double import.
I should also note that in a break with recent JV tradition, I've been using a new speaker cable and interconnect with the Quad/Air Tight/CD7, called "Music Reference" from a Texas-based company called Silence Source. This stuff is real, real, real good and, while expensive, considerably less dough than my longtime reference Tara Labs Zero Black and Omega Black (about a third of the price). Silent Source's power cords are also excellent, plus everything it markets is simply beautifully made, with parts, construction, and fit and finish (perhaps the best I've seen in any cable) that are second-to-none and will, I promise, impress you.
I had tried Silent Source about a decade ago and liked it but not enough to use it regularly in my reference system. The "Music Reference" is a different kettle of cable. Though it isn't going to push Tara Labs' top-of-the-line out, it sounds a bit like Tara, Jr. for a lot less money.
The ATMs sound great, but pricey. Paul's advice about the Dialogue amps sound intrigiuging. That and the new Quad amps sound about where I should hone in on. I am curious that neither mentioned the new ARC VS115 which is in the same ballpark in terms of price.
I havent quite gotten into cables yet. Maybe I just havent had the opportunity to try as many as you obviously have. Having a technical background, my bias is that cables function as tone controls more often than otherwise. Since I use a TACT room correction processor, I figure that I can "tune" the frequency response to my liking and thus obviate the need for expensive cables. The TACT as far as I can tell doesnt correct phase, so the other thing that cables do is change phase. However, since phase is usually not carefully done from the recording end, I am not sure it matters. Also, if I recall the measurements of the 2905 werent great in terms of an impulse response anyway.
THX for your insights. I will continue to pursue this.
I am a huge fan of Audio Research amplifiers and preamps, but have had no experience with the 115 (I do use the 610T as my reference).
Whatever amplifier/preamplifier you end up with, you've picked a wonderful speaker, whodini.
The 2905s are the first speaker that has compelled me to give up my Martin Logan CLS. It adds the coherence of the bass to that of the treble, which the CLS had. Over the years, the combination of 2 subwoofers, the TACT to clean up the uneven response of the CLS had kept me from upgrading, but when I heard the 2905s, it had it all pretty much across the audio spectrum, and that was it, and the CLS was gone. I agree it is a special speaker. Nothing spectacular, its just all there. Thanks again.
Warren
Could someone explain what is meant when people refer to the Quad as a "capacitive load"?
I currently use a BAT VK-300SE with my Quad 988, but am exploring separates. I keep seeing references to Quads looking like "one big capacitor" to an amplifier, but I'm not sure what to make of that. Same as "reactive"?
And do those descriptions apply to the 988?
I enjoy very much reading the debate about the choice of right amplifier for Quad electrostatic speakers.
I can confirm that the 909 is a superb amp for both the ESLs (57s) and 63s including their Mk II (988) and Mk III (2805) versions. It will outperform many of several times costlier amplifiers and it does sound remarkably natural even with ordinary wooden boxes. It is interesting to note that its tiny ancestor, the Quad 306, brings much of its magic and is a real giant killer in every way.
As I now own both the 909 and the Classic II mono blocks, I have to disagree, however, with the opinion that the later sounds inferior. What I hear with my ESLs driven with the old tube design is even more realistic sound, neither sweet nor warm, and with better resolution and improved micro and macro dynamics. The 909 sounds almost edgy in comparison.
Now, we have two rather opposite opinions on the same thing. How can this be? I do not think it is the matter of subjective perception only. Perhaps, it has something to do with the preamplifier being used and how it matches with the amp. I use both the Quad QC 24 (excelent) and the Pass Aleph L (extraordinary). I always use the BV Audio "Sound Refiner" between the preamp and the amp. In the case of the QC 24 and the 909 it is really mandatory.
As to the old 303 amp, I have only shortly used it with my 63s but the sound wasn't anything special. The 57 is a different story but I have yet to listen to that combination in my home.
Dragan
I guess part of the fun of audio is differences of opinion. I'll simply reiterate my experiences with at least three generations of Quad ESLs (57, 988/63, 2805) over at least three different listening environments: the old Quad II tubes (as heard in their current reincarnation) are very warm and pretty, but excessively warm, in my experience, and rather too full in the midbass, regardless of preamp that is used with them. The 909 is better in every way--and one thing I would vigorously take issue with is any imputation of coldness or edginess from this amplifier. I've heard this amplifer in well over a dozen systems--if something is edgy when the 909 is in a system, you can make book that it's coming from something else.
Like Paul Seydor, I am a great admirer of the 909 amp. As soon as I took it in my system (Quad 63 and now and forever 57) I stopped thinking about other solid states. I have also heard it driving Eminent technology, Gradient and Magneplanar speakers plus Quad boxes and Quad 988 and 2805. The Classic II was the first tube amp or any amp at all that to my ears sounded even better with all generations of Quad statics. I think it is better than the Quad II forty too. Okay, someome here is less sensitive to higher temperatures, probably me. But even if the sound is warm, it is still obviously more detailed.
As some people have mentioned speaker cables here, I would like to strongly recommend Innersound coaxial cables for Quad ESLs. If they are still being produced, the name has been changed to Sanders.
Dragan
To briefly answer flohmann’s question about what a capacitive load is, it is indeed the same as a “reactive” load. Capacitance is called reactive because it reacts to the AC signal (specifically, to the frequency of the AC). A purely resistive load isn’t reactive because it doesn’t change its characteristics as a function of frequency. The other reactive component in a loudspeaker’s impedance is inductance. The loudspeaker’s impedance is a combination of resistance, inductive reactance, and capacitive reactance.
Loudspeaker loads vary in this mix of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. The combination of low impedance and high reactance presents a very difficult load for an amplifier. The Quad is indeed a capacative load. It isn't a problem so long as you choose an amplifier that remains stable when driving a capacitive load.
Has anyone any experience with the Quad ESL (specifically 2805) with the Mcintosh MC275 or Cary 120S amplifiers.
I previously had the model 989 but changed them for the 2805 - purely for aesthetic reasons.
yes, I reviewed the new MC275s using my Quad 988s and the combination is glorious--a match made in heaven I could close up shop and live with. It should be essentially identical with the 2805s.
Try them with Futterman OTL mono-blocks!
I have a MF KW500. Awesome soundstage and dynamics, but unforgiving. I am considering Quad 2905. I know is overkill, but nevertheless I am not a headbanger. My question is - will it work well? or will it be fatiguing?
I guess it can drive most anything! :D
It should be fine, no overkill at all, especially if, as you say, you're no headbanger. I drive my 2805s with 400 watts of the Mac MC402 and I've only ever tripped the protection circuits once. And the protection circuitry really does work, provided you give cut back on the level and let it breathe for a moment or two. What you don't want to do is keep blasting away as the protection circuit trips again and again and again. This will eventually destroy it and leave the speakers unprotected.
After Auditioning the Quad ESL 2905, it is on top of my short list. Has Anyone tried or would you know of an Amplifier-Preamplifier combo and possibly a CD player as well that Matched well with the 2905's and NOT Cost $10K per unit. I am shooting for a system around $20-25K If someone could recommend components averaging about $5K each it would be of great help and I can read up on it more. Otherwise it gets beyond my reach for now. The experts who review these speakers use very very expensive stuff. Thanks
to SAM:
I use the Quad 2805's and have used the 2905's. I drive them with AirTight ATM-3's. some other reviewer's have gone into lots of detail, but if you lurk around on the internet, you can sometimes find the ATM-3's at a good price used. They are virtually bombproof, so if from a legitimate seller, these are GREAT amps with the newer Quads.
Invest in used monoblocks, good speaker cables, and upgrade the ATM-3's with some vintage Mullard or Holland Phillips EL34's and the amp / quad speaker combo will truly open your eyes... hmmm.... ears!
I use a Shindo Monbrison Pre that you can often find online for between 5500 and 8k used.... a truly amazing pre for the money.. especially used.
use as a digital source a Mac Mini or iMac. put all your digital music there and invest in a good tube based DAC. You should be able to get close to your goal of 25k for source components if you are patient and search online. pair with your quad 2905 or 2805 speaker.... and get ready to waste a LOT of time, forgetting how many hours you sit listening....
The review in TAS using the Quads with the ATM-3 that came out late last year or early this year tells the story better than I. But I assure you, a truly amazing combo.. expensive, but if you buy used, you can get into your budget window, or very close.
music lover in california.
I don't know how many times I have to mention Quad's own 909 amp and 99 series preamp. Is it simply not expensive or sexy enough, despite performance suggestive of units several times their price? Let me say again: these belong in the small category of reference electronics for me. If I had to close up reviewer's shop tomorrow, I could easily and happily live with them for the remainder of my days. And the 909 has more than adequate power for any Quad ESL--will indeed trip their protection circuits.
If for some reason you don't like these units, there is Parasound, equally good, some may feel better. On the used market pick up one of the Croft-designed Carver amps (fabulous on Quads or any speakers), and then there are a lot of the old reliables among the modestly priced: NAD, Rotel, lower priced models by Marantz and Arcam. These are all fine choices for driving Quad 63, 988, 989, 2805, and 2905). By the way, none of these Quads presents a particularly difficult load for any modern amplifier. There may be an occasional weird one out there, but I wouldn't consider that a serious unit anyhow.
The reality is that contemporary electronics are for the most part so good, you should spend the lion's share of your budget on the best speakers you can afford. If I had, say, around $12k to spend on a CD based system, I would buy Quad 2805s, a Benchmark DAC-1, any reputable CD player as transport that fit the price, and an inexpensive NAD integrated. So help me. And if I had, say, $14K to spend, I would buy exactly the components I just named except I would substitute a Quad 99/909 combination for the cheap NAD.
More about amps or amp/preamps for under $10k for new Quad ESLs. Keeping in mind that you don't necessarily have to spend that much, I forgot to mention that there are McIntosh integrateds, including a couple of new ones, that sell for under $7k that would be superb (I used the older Mac integrated for awhile and loved it). In the past year I reviewed the new Luxman integrated, a 30/channel pure class A that performed superlatively with the Quads (don't let the apparently small power rating fool you--the combination gave me plenty of volume). I'd also look at the Pathos products. I've not reviewed the separates, but the Pathos One is splendid on the Quads, as is the Pathos Logos.
The Quads are very revealing, but there are also a great many really good solid state amplifiers out there.
Thankyou! both the posts are very helpful and you answered/put it nicely. As, I was asking for specific models as recommendations with the 2905's, not what can simply drive it. Eventhough driving it is the first step. And yes I have used NAD, Rotel etc in the past they are decent products. Anyhow, I have been reading stuff recommended by people for the Quads like: Prima Luna Dialogue II integrated tube amp; McIntosh MC275 Tube Amp; Quad 909 solid state Amp; Quad II-Forty tube mono amp; Parasound Halo JC2 Preamp; Any ideas on these? I know its a lot of stuff, and in no way will I be able to audtion all thise with Quads, Neither am I an expert in this, therefore if you have some input it would help. I also spoke to a dealer and he said "stay away from chinese tubes".... Then why is TAS going crazy over Prima Lunas? I like tubes, so I would like to have either the amp or the preamp as a tube? Any thoughts on that? Some say better to have a tube amp, others say better to have a tube preamp since its closer to signal source. What about both tube amp/preamp? or one tube and the other solidstate? Is a solid state amp better with 2905's to produce better bass?(mid bass I guess thats what it can do). Would it not be able to play loud enough with both amp/preamp as tubes? Thanks.
it was impression--don't ask me why--you were principally in solid state units. I don't have much experience with Prima Luna, but the McIntosh gear is fantastic. As I said in my review, the MC275 Mk IV would be on my shortest of short lists for amplifiers, adn the Quad II/forties work splendidly too. Owing to their impedance characteristics, Quad ESLs all work very well with tubes. The only problem with tubes is that owing to their characteristically high output impedance, their exact sound, their degree of neutrality as it were, is unpredictable from speaker to speaker. I'll be addressing this issue in greater detail in a forthcoming review of some tube mono blocks. In the meantime, one thing that is outstanding about Mac's MC 275 is that its output impedance is quite low for a tube unit, and it tends to sound more neutral than most tubed units. And if you want to go tube all the way, Mac has out a new, moderately priced tube preamp. This with the a pair of MC275s would yield superlative performance with Quad 2905s, 2805s, 989s, or 988s (or 63s too). Jon Valin reviewed the Parasound JC2 preamp very enthusiastically, and in the current issue he's quite high on the 2905s. You can hardly do better than that for a recommendation. Happy shopping. All your choices put you in the right ballpark (though I can't speak to the Prima Luna). For myself, if I wanted right now to run my Quads off tubes, I would go for the McIntosh MC275s and that moderately priced tube preamp (I can't recall the name). I quite love the sound of the Quad tube preamp, but it lacks remote control, which I absolutely require. Oh, almost forgot, Mike Sanders Quicksilvers, which I reviewed a few years ago: fabulous with Quads--a bit forgiving and romantic, compared to the Macs, but wonderful to come home to! And like McIntosh, Quicksilver gear WORKS!
What is the model number/name of the Quicksilvers that you are talking about? ironicly, Next week I am auditioning the 2905's with Hovland HP200 Preamp and Quicksilver monoblocks. The dealer also didn't mention a model number but this is the setup he has he told me. I went to the Quicksilvers website, but they have quite a few different ones. I'd like to read up on the one you are talking about. Thanks.
Quicksilver QV 4, review is in TAS 138. wonderful sounding amps.
Thanks. I'll read up on that too before I go for the Audition. Is The preamp matching just as tricky as with the amp? i.e. should one just go for the best like Audio Research Reference 3 or is that overkill? is preamp selection also as dependent on what speakers or amps are running with it? I was thinking of Hovland HP-100 preamp but its gotten mixed reviews? Any brand and model names that you have come across? I read Robert Harley's book on High performance Audio systems (Great book!!!). In the preamp chapter he talks about choosing a preamp carefully based on ergonomics and ease of use since its something you will contact and use most often in the system; but he doesn't really talk about on how much the preamp will make a difference on overall sound of the system and therefore the selection process/criteria of choosing. I know everything is based on ones budget etc, and every year in recommendations in TAS and Stereophile there are lots to choose, but what exactly in order of importance are things to look for with preamp matching/selection? If you could shed some light on it, it would be nice. How would you go about it? what kinda combos you would choose and why? Any names and model numbers? It would give me a feel on how to approach this.
If you've read any of my reviews with any regularity you'll know that I agree one hundred percent with Robert Harley that ergonomics are perhaps the most important thing you have to consider when choosing a preamplifier. It is the component you will be operating more than any other in your system, and I can guarantee you that if there's something you don't like about its operation at the outset it'll only get worse as time goes along. I have found several units, but two in particular, that suit my needs perfectly and are joys to use: McIntosh C46 (also the C2200 I think it is, tubed unit) and the Quad Series 99.
Sound is important to be sure, but operational characteristics are paramount.
you didn't write what exactly are these "needs or features" that you look at in a preamp. I know you mentioned a remote control. Any other things that you look for that you consider crucial? There are highly rated pre-amps out there that hardly have any controls on them(claiming that it gives superior quality/no distortion), and yet there are others that have many functions/buttons. A small list of things that you would look for in a preamp would be a good starting guide for me. Thanks for all the previous info. Very Helpful!
Can anyone comment on matching this amp with the 2905's ?
Thanks.
Anwar: is there something that prevents you from calling up old TAS reviews and actually READING them? volume control, balance control, preferably tone controls, all available remotely if possible.
Thanks psayder for all the wisdom. I have always admired/loved "MUSIC", and yes I am interested in purchasing a good system. I am new at this so recenworries, my wife thinks its too much money also. I'll see if I can get online access to archives, didn't know of that. regarding how I came up with 20k figure. I had auditioned several speakers first, the 5-6K range was just not cutting it for me. a few around 10k were great. Add the expense of other components (cd based system) and I came up with a rough estimate of 20k. The room: we are looking for a home, the stereo room will be dependent on the system size. over the years Ive heard some great sounding systems but never paid attention to the component details only the music. But the info you provided is plenty for the basics. Good place for me to start. Anyhow thanks.
Anwar: pardon the testy reply (fortunes of answering emails after an exhausting day). If I'm not mistaken, a subscription to TAS gets you access to all past reviews on line. I assumed you were a subscriber and the reviews thus available to you. I have written several reviews of preamps and other control units over the years and summarizing them in a forum-style response would be difficult and time-consuming, to say the least. Suffice it to say, I like a control unit that is actually capable of controlling the system and to some extent the music (which is why I like well-designed tone controls). For this reason, I tend to prefer preamps such as those by Quad and McIntosh or integrated amps like McIntosh's or the new Luxman I reviewed last year: these sound superb and have features which I use all the time, such as balance controls, mode (that is, mono/stereo) switches, tape and/or EPL loops, tone controls or small equalizers, a reasonable number of inputs, sometimes more than one output, etc..
I agree that dealers are often deficient in providing good advice beyond the "we sell it, it's the best, buy if from us" type. Again, I apologize for my peremptory response. But I do think it would be a good idea before you go out and spend a lot money that you subscribe to TAS or some other publication of your choice, and read up on some reviews in the archives. This will provide you with some valuable information and also familiarize yourself with what is out there.
If you're talking about spending $20k on a system, my first questions would be: how did you arrive at that figure? Are you sure you need to spend that much. What kind of source components are you looking for (CD only, CD and vinyl, multichannel, home-theatre also)? What are your listening habits? What is your room size? Are you prepared to accomodate such a system in your current living situation (if not, you will almost certainly be wasting your money)? In the final analysis, however, Anwar, I'm afraid that once you do all the research it will be your own judgment that you will have to rely on. Would you want it to be any other way?
I know that when it comes to medical opinion, I've sometimes found a number of equally qualified and respected physicians who disagree radically on what should be done. When experts disagree, the amateur must make up his own mind. It is no different in audio.
addendum to previous: apology again for my impolite reply. Rule of thumb: never answer emails, let alone post public replies, after a day of travelling seven hours, only to return home and find someone has lost the keys to your other car!