Quad 2805's OR 2905's

John Demos -- Mon, 01/25/2010 - 15:58

It is time to update my Quad 63's, which I use with the REL Stadium III.

It would be nice to have the expertise of the TAS folks, and the experience of audiofellows, as to whether to go for the replacement with the 2805, or the 2905s.

I have of course read Jonathan's past review and his enthusiasm for the larger Quads. And know Paul Seydor's preferance for the 2805's.
But my concern is what is best and most effective given the particular size of my listening room.

My dedicated listening room is 4.20 width x 6.60 length in meters (14 x 21 ft), which I would think is just large enough for the 2905's. The back wall behind the speakers is triple glazed glass with blinds and curtains. But the ceiling is only 2.30 m (7', 7") high.
So I am concerned that the base of the larger Quads would be overpowering in this room.
My collection is primarily classical and jazz with thousands of LP's which the Brinkmann two arm LaGrange does more than justice.

So what would be your recommendation for the Quad replacement?
Do I go for the 2805 and keep the REL, or will the 2905's work well and be the perfect choice?

Mind you Jonathan Valin, I also use the classic 80 watt Marantz model 9's ( which I assume from what you wrote they were the prototype for the Air Tights, that you mention have a great synergy with the 2905's). But the most phenomenal synergy of my Quads is with the Rowland Model 6's with BPS that I recently acquired in perfect condition.
Any thought from Paul or Jim Hannon?
Thanks for any help.....

Sam -- Mon, 01/25/2010 - 16:34

Your room seems ideal for the 2905's. If you don't like too much base which 2905 don't produce anyways then go with 2805. Both sound great. The smaller is better for smaller room. I would take this info to your dealer to help you. The best would be to let you audition both at home but that's difficult in most cases. Both speakers are quite a major improvement over the 63's

John Demos -- Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:17

thanks Sam
what is your specific experience with the 2905's ....in what size room?

ABF (not verified) -- Tue, 01/26/2010 - 14:53

Hi,
My room is 38 square meters, but the area dedicated to the ESL989 (older version of the 2905) is 4,2 x 5,0m , in transversal orientation. Directely over the listening position, the ceiling is not parallel to the flor, wich provides a very flat frequency response for the listener, down to 25Hz !.
Distance of speaker to the backwall is 1.2m and distance between inner edges is 1,80m (2,5m from center to center) . The distance of listener to backwall is approx 1,0m. In thoses conditions, the ESL989 reproduce a soundstage with an incredibal third dimension (espacially on well recorded ancien organ, every visitor is impressed) , perfect tonal response, and the magical 57’s like midrange clarity . The quality of the reproduce bass (doublebass, organ) is really the best I have heard today (fast, absolutely not boomy what the 2805/63 sometimes are). I cannot praise them enough, even in a small room. I listened to 2905 in much larger rooms, 50-70squre meters, with less soudstage deepness than in my conditions, so go the the big one !

narra2000 -- Fri, 09/09/2011 - 05:21

You should try to calculate the lowest fundamental frequency from the wavelength that the long side of your room will allow. Anything below this is an additional energy load on the room and may interfere with clarity. You may find that the smaller speakers may be better for your room. I had a listening room 16ft x 25ft with 9ft ceiling and the 63s without bass augmentation (subwoofer) sounded glorious after making sure to lessen the effects of standing waves from parallel side walls. You do need sufficiently reflective surfaces on the backside of the dipoles, as you probably discovered with your 63s.