Quad 2905
Jonathan Valin -- Thu, 06/05/2008 - 01:06
In nearly forty years of searching for the absolute sound, I can count the number of moments where I actually thought I’d heard it—reached a new plateau of stereophonic realism—on the fingers of both hands. The last such epiphany that I reported on in TAS was the Magico Mini/Mini II, driven by the Audio Research Corporation Reference 3 preamp, ARC Reference 610T power amps, ARC PH7 phonostage, and the Walker Black Diamond record player. One of the first was the Quad 57 electrostatic loudspeaker, driven by an ARC 6B preamp and ARC D40 amplifier and sourced from a Kenwood turntable with Grace arm and Grado cartridge.
I now have in house the latest descendant of the Quad 57, Quad’s 2905 electrostatic loudspeaker, and for all the many changes Quad has made since the ESL-57 was introduced in 1956-57, its newest entry is still one of those unmistakably magical products that transports you to that high plateau of stereophonic realism that few other loudspeakers in my experience have reached. Like the 57, it still opens a “window on the soundstage” with a clarity and purity and precision that only great electrostats seem to own fully.
I will report in detail on the 2905 as I get more experience with it. For the time being, it is enough to say that this is a truly wonderful transducer that—given the limitations of electrostatic technology (and, of course, there are limitations with any loudspeaker technology)—deserves the attention of even the most high-end of audiophiles.
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.
We're working on a special loudspeaker issue that will include reviews of the Quad 2905 and a few other extremely interesting speakers. That issue will also feature my review of the Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2.
Does this include speakers from Avalon, f. ex the new highly praised Indra? It`s been a while since Avalon appeared in TAS, in my book they are just as interesting as MBL, Magico etc.
I heard the Indra at CES and I must say it really sounded terrific. I was very impressed with how they filled a relatively large room with a very dynamic presentation. Since I have a soft spot for Avalon (I own a pair), I would be interested to see of a review of them as well.
I look forward to hearing more about the Quads. Hasn't Pual (or is it Neil) reviewed them past?
I, too, liked the Avalon Indra at the last CES. In fact, I named it one of my Best Sounds of Show. However, I'm pretty certain it won't be included in our speaker survey this time around, Changa.
Are you, perhaps, an Avalon Indra owner? If so, I'd be curious to hear more about it. Maybe you could start a separate thread.
Here are the specs of the Quad 2905:
Maximum Power Output: 2N/m2 at 2m on-axis
Sensitivity:1.5u Bar / Volt referred to 1m
Impedance: 8 Ohm nominal
Maximum continuous input voltage: 10V
Programme Peak (for undistorted output): 40V
Programme Peak (permitted): 55V
Distortion (100dB @1m): Above 1kHz 0.0015
Distortion (100dB @1m): Above 100Hz 0.005
Distortion (100dB @1m): Above 50Hz 0.01
Frequency Response: 32Hz - 21kHz (-6dB), 28Hz - 23kHz (usable)
Axis band limits: -6dB at 35Hz (3rd Order)
Axis band limits (low level): -6dB >25kHz
AC input 220-240V or 110-120V
Power fuse 100mA anti-surge (100-120V)
Dimensions (H x W x D): 1430 x 695 x 385mm (56.3" x 27.4" x 15.2"), add 25-55mm for feet (1"-2.2")
Weight: 34.8kg (76.72 lbs.) net
Hey Jon,
Any chance you will have the CLX along with the quad?
jvalin wrote: Are you, perhaps, an Avalon Indra owner? If so, I'd be curious to hear more about it. Maybe you could start a separate thread.
net
If you are referring to me, I own the Eidolons (original version). And btw, ditto on Elliot's question about the CLX's. That would be a very interesting comparison with the Quads, even if the CLX's end up being more than twice the price...
Jon; Yes, I own the Avalon Indra. I use them together with the Edge NL 12,1 and the C-J ACT 2 Series 2, a terrific (to my ears) combination.
They are truly great speakers and like all Avalons they disappear completely. Pinpoint soundstaging, a marvellous midrange and a glorious treble. In my listening room they are perfect, for my taste that is! Others may think differently of course.
Is there a reason for why Avalon seldom get reviewed in TAS? I think that the Isis f. ex. (I know them quite well) would be a great speaker for you or HP to have a go at. No, not as another "worlds best", but they are truly great. Your colleege Mr. Gregory was very exited about them, as he was with the Indras. BTW; With Hifi + you have a truly great "sister" publication. Fits perfect with TAS!
Changa,
You (or Syd) should start a separate thread about the Indras! As you know, I liked them quite a bit when I heard them at CES. As for why we haven't reviewed more Avalon gear, I'm certainly open to reviewing the Indras, but I think Avalon may be a little tougher to coax into a review than some other loudspeaker manufacturers, as it is (perhaps justifiably) quite prescriptively persnickety about setup, ancillaries (such as cable and interconnect), and room treatment--or, at least, it used to be. In any event, I'll look into this and see what can be done.
Jon
Syd and Elliot,
Yes, I will be comparing the Quads to the CLXes! It is a "shoot-out" made in high-end heaven, and I can't imagine that either speaker will prove to be a loser. Man, I'll tell you, there is a reason why I've spent more time with 'stats (Quad 57s, Acoustat Xs, CLS I, CLS II, CLS IIz, Sound Lab M-1/A-1, etc.) than any other kinds of loudspeakers. All you have to do is listen to these new Quads to be reminded of just how cool really great 'stats are, in spite of any limitations.
Jon
Hello Fello Avalon Owner! Please start up a seperate thread on the Indra's as Jon suggested. I would love to hear more about your speakers, especially with respect to what else you compared them with before buying them.
Jon - can you get yourself, Robert and the rest of the TAS staff to move your butts down to South Florida please? :D
I think I should note that part of the reason the Quad 2905s sound so realistic, particularly on smaller-scale recordings, is probably the amplification, preamplification, and source I'm using with them, which are: Air Tight ATM-3 monoblock amplifiers (6CA7/EL34 based tube amps that can be switched between UL and triode), Air Tight ATC-2 preamplifer, and the ARC Reference CD7 CD player.
I will also be trying out Emotive Audio's superb electronics with both the Quads and the CLXes.
Good day!
I am your reader from Vietnam. First i want to say sorry for my english.
I have one question that want to ask you guys.
I knew the Airtight amplifiers long time ago since 2000 year.
They were matching with the great horn Odeon speakers from Germany.
I have heard many horn speakers including top of the line from Acapella but nothing compared to the Odeon.
Have you Jon and HP or RH ever had any experience with them?
I am now going to buy the combo ATM-3 and ACT-2 for my QUAD 2905. But since ODEON are great loudspeakers too i would like to buy another pair of them.
Thank you guys for great articles in your great magazine.
Duc
Did you purchase the ATM3 for the quads 2905? how is it coming along? pictures? what other associated equipment are you using?
Hello to you!
I'm sorry to say that I've had no experience with the Odeon horn speakers, although I've liked a lot of German horn systems; however, the Air Tight amp and preamp you're considering are genuinely terrific with the Quad 2905s. You won't be disappointed.
Jon
I'm planning to listen to a pair of Quad 2905's before auditioning the Sound Labs A1 px.
I'll know how they sound after the session. But does anyone know if the 2905's are designed to be more durable and hardy than previous Quads? Already there two instances described on-line of 2905's exhibiting problems like crackling etc. In the Lab report accompanying Ken Kessler's Hifinews review, a disturbingly big disparity in sensitivity was noted between left and right speakers.
Are the 2905's made in China or in the UK?
Did you ever get answers to your questions? I am interested in the new Quads but I have the same concerns. Thanks!
Paul
sacduser wrote:I'm planning to listen to a pair of Quad 2905's before auditioning the Sound Labs A1 px.
I'll know how they sound after the session. But does anyone know if the 2905's are designed to be more durable and hardy than previous Quads? Already there two instances described on-line of 2905's exhibiting problems like crackling etc. In the Lab report accompanying Ken Kessler's Hifinews review, a disturbingly big disparity in sensitivity was noted between left and right speakers.
>No dealer worth his/her salt will allow this to happen!
Are the 2905's made in China or in the UK?
Yes, made in China!
sacduser,
I had no reliability problems with the 2905s, but some early adopters (from three or more years ago) apparently did, including outright panel failures. I have been assured by the U.S. importer that these problems (which he freely admitted to, although he claims there were only a very small few problematical panels) have long since been solved. Of course, what's he going to tell me? That Quads fail right and left? All I know for sure is that Paul Seydor, who owns the 2805s, has reported no problems over the past couple years that he's used them as his reference, Kessler has reported no problems with the 2905s, which are his references, and, as noted, I had no quality-control problems with them during their three month sojourn chez Valin.
I, too, noted the rather large speaker-to-speaker efficiency difference that Hi-Fi News remarked on (as well as the much lower overall sensitivity of the 2905s than what Quad has claimed). I can tell you that I heard no imbalance in my listening room, and that I drove them quite spectacularly well with Air Tight's modestly powerful (100W in ultralinear, 50W in triode mode), beautifully built, downright gorgeous-sounding ATM-3 monoblocks. So...who knows?
This said, the Quad 2905s (and all electrostats) do have a substantial downside, over and above any reliability issues (and let's face it--with speakers that use voltages as high as stats do for biasing, failures can and do occur). I would advise you to read my review upcoming in Issue 186 for the areas where the Quad 2905s are not going to compete with cones, omnis, and certain very big planars. (BTW, the issue of "crackling" may not be a quality-control problem per se but a dynamic-range issue, for which, once again, see my review in Issue 186.)
I can tell you this, word of honor, if you listen at the levels that I typically listen at (which is to say, low-to-moderate) and you listen to classical music or acoustic rock or folk or small-combo jazz, you will find the 2905s (properly driven) very, very hard to beat in certain critical respects.
Jon
jvalin wrote: if you listen at the levels that I typically listen at (which is to say, low-to-moderate) and you listen to classical music or acoustic rock or folk or small-combo jazz, you will find the 2905s (properly driven) very, very hard to beat in certain critical respects.
Jon
Jvalin, thanks for those very pertinent and helpful details. I look forward to TAS issue 186.
Without giving anything away from that article, would you care to share what you hear to be the major differences between the Sound Labs PX series and the latest Quads? A Sound Labs A1PX will cost double a Quad 2905 where I am.
I'll share my comparison notes here after listening to the 2905 and the A1PX
sacduser,
For the record, Sound Lab makes great speakers, too, but let's wait for specific comparisons until after the 2905 review is published. As I think I already said, I don't want to scoop myself (anymore than I already have).
JV
jvalin wrote:sacduser,
For the record, Sound Lab makes great speakers, too, but let's wait for specific comparisons until after the 2905 review is published. As I think I already said, I don't want to scoop myself (anymore than I already have).
JV
I'll be first in line at the news stand for issue 186.
It was very honest of an official Quad rep to tell me candidly that, just like previous Quads, the 2905 diaphragms need to be replaced every 5 years or less when used in humid environments. Cost is slightly more than USD1000 for four panels.
I'm sure Quad worshippers will find this ritual a breeze, but I don't have the stomach for this sort of maintenance, regardless of how good they sound. This has somewhat dampened my enthusiasm for 2905. A 5-year service interval is even shorter than that for regluing Maggie panels.
I hear Sound Labs puts a great deal of effort into making their diaphragms withstand humidity and wide excursions. I'm hoping they will offer high performance as well as low maintenance; 2 qualities that are often mutually exclusive.
This is a great thread and very informative since I have the 2905's. I'm powering them with the Quad II-40's and the Quad QC-24P.
I don't really like the II-40's (I find them tipped up in the treble region) or the 24P (closed in especially compared to Tempo Electric's phono pre) and am wondering what other amps would be a good match for the 2905's besides the Air Tight ATM-3 mono blocks that jvalin suggusts- a bit out of my price range at the moment.
I did get a chance to listen to a phenomenal phono section made by Arthur Loesch and sold by Joe Levy at Tempo Electric that blew the doors off my 24P, as well as his 300B Triode mono blocks that produce a beautiful 16 watts. This audition was done with Tempo's own 91db speakers however.
Is 16 watts enough for the 2905's?
sacduser wrote:
I'll be first in line at the news stand for issue 186.
Newstand?! Us real followers of TAS are long-term subscribers! :-)
Now back to our regular programming...
unit wrote:This is a great thread and very informative since I have the 2905's. I'm powering them with the Quad II-40's and the Quad QC-24P.
I don't really like the II-40's (I find them tipped up in the treble region) or the 24P (closed in especially compared to Tempo Electric's phono pre) and am wondering what other amps would be a good match for the 2905's besides the Air Tight ATM-3 mono blocks that jvalin suggusts- a bit out of my price range at the moment.
I did get a chance to listen to a phenomenal phono section made by Arthur Loesch and sold by Joe Levy at Tempo Electric that blew the doors off my 24P, as well as his 300B Triode mono blocks that produce a beautiful 16 watts. This audition was done with Tempo's own 91db speakers however.
Is 16 watts enough for the 2905's?
Ever hear of the late Julius Futterman?
Quote:Is 16 watts enough for the 2905's?
Not really, unless you plan to listen for the most part at low-to-moderate SPLs. The ESL-2905s is not as high in sensitivity as Quad claims. (Quad says the 2905 has a sensitivity of 86dB/1m/2.83V input, but Hi-Fi News measured the speaker's sensitivity at 79dB/1 meter/2.83V input!) However, I guess I should note that the ESL-2905 is the best speaker I've ever heard at low-to-moderate SPLs; moreover, it has dynamic-range limitations at moderately-loud-to-very-loud levels. All things considered, I would be more comfortable with an amp of at least 50-100W. If you're a tube guy, you might want to look at a more affordable EL-34-based amp (the Air Tight AMT-3s uses EL-34s and the Quads loved them), such as the VTL ST-85, the Manley Stingray or Snapper, and the conrad-johnson MV60, all of which are a lot more less money than the Air Tight ATM-3. (Please note: I haven't heard any of these amps with the ESL-2905s, so you should definitely audition them with these speakers at length before purchase.)
Wondering how a Mac MC-275 would sound with the 2905's? Has anybody tried this with any Quad speaker?
Also, are there many Air Tight ATM-3's around for sale these days?
I've never been much of a Mac fan, but our Paul Seydor certainly is. I believe he uses a Mac with his 2805s.
As for Air Tight ATM-3s, go to http://www.axissaudio.com/amplifiers/ATM3.htm. I will be reviewing the ATM-3 in Issue 188.
i am a 20 yr esl 63 owner. the speakers are stage 2 crosby modified, however, they need a rebuild. do i send them to quads unlimited or electrostatic solutions or do i look for new speakers.
i have not heard the 2805s. can someone recommend synergistic electronics with esl 63 and 2805? are the atm-3s' a good match? what about the atm 2 and an appropriate preamp? i only have vinyl. thank you
RGO,
You should take a look at the thread "Amp Matching for Quad ESLs" at http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=3915 for some suggestions.
As for updating your 63s or buying 2805s, perhaps PS could comment, as I believe he owns (or owned) both. You might also want to give a listen to the 2905s.
Jon
Jonathan, if you can find the time to give your opinion?......
Your experience Jonathan, as well as Paul Seydor's, and Jm Hannon's would be very much appreciated.
I would like to update of my Quad 63's, with which I use the REL Stadium III.
I need your expertise as to whether to go for the replacement with the 2805, or the 2905s.
I have of course read your past review and enthusiasm for the larger Quads.
My dedicated listening room is 4.20x6.60 meters, 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 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 even better?
Mind you Jonathan, 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.
Speakers: Quad 63's & REL Stadium III
Sources: Brinkmann LaGrange with 10.5 arm and Ikeda 12" arm
Scheu turntable with Moerch DP6
Magnum Dynalab MD 108 tuner
North Star CD & DAC
Preamp: Rowland Coherence II & BPS
Rowland Cadence phono
Rowland Synergy IIi
Marantz 7
Amps: Rowland Model 6's & BPS
Marantz Model 9's
Cables: Synergistic for the Rowlands
Townsend for the Marantz
Electr: Shunyata Hydra
Shunyata power cables
aft
Could any
A lot has been written here about amplifiers that work well with the 2905s.
Can anyone comment on the sound when solid state amps are driving ?
I am a long time CLS user and am seriously considering the 2905s which I would use with a Moon 7 amp. Would hate to lay out the big bucks and then need to go and buy a new amp as well.
Thanks guys.
I own the Quad 2905's and am in a room that is 12'5.25" long by 11'11.5" wide. I have the Quads on the shorter wall. Right now they are 3.5' from the rear wall and 20" from the side walls.
I'm just wondering what other people have felt to be the best location for these speakers in terms of how far to space them, toe-in, distance from rear wall, and listening position.
I now have Real Traps behind each speaker, and at the first reflection point.
Hello Jon,
I read your review on the 2905 and found it very interesting. First, I would like to point out that you give the weight of the 2905 as 34.8 kg. However, the Quad brochure says that the 2905 is 41.6 kg, while the 2805 is 34.8 kg.
But what I would really like to know is whether you think that the 2905 or 2805 would work in near-zone listening.... specifically, five feet from my ears. The Quad seems to be a very large radiating surface that might not work close up.
Thanks,
Mike
Hello Mike,
I know it is a bit late to get back to you about in near zone listening to Quads but later is better than never. My and my partner have nearly exact systems. Only he listens his 2805 s from 1.5 to 2.0 meters distance and I listen my 2905s from 7 meters distance. His system sounds so wonderful that I put a new chair for near distance listening. They are more involving in near distance listening. Don' forget to place Quads. 1.0 to 1.5 meters away from the rear wall. Also you can check www.cardas.com for speaker positioning. You should try to place them according to Golden Ratio mentioned in the Cardas website.
Good Luck,
Izzet
Mike,
The weight was taken from Quad's Web site: http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php?sector_id=1&range_id=1&model_id=2&content=3#details.
To answer your question about nearfield listening, I haven't tried the experiment so I can't say for sure, but I'd be a little surprised if any 'stat that uses multiple panels (as the ESL-2905 does) would show at its best very close in. You could give it a try of course, but I'd think it would work more optimally if you were sitting a bit farther away from it than five feet.
Jon
Thanks Jon,
Funny thing about the Quad website -- it says that both the 2905 and the 2805 are 34.8 kg.
http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php?sector_id=1&range_id=1&model_id=1&c...
Mike
I'm sure the 2905 does weigh more than the smaller 2805. It's just a screw-up (which I fell for).
jvalin wrote:To answer your question about nearfield listening, I haven't tried the experiment so I can't say for sure, but I'd be a little surprised if any 'stat that uses multiple panels (as the ESL-2905 does) would show at its best very close in. You could give it a try of course, but I'd think it would work more optimally if you were sitting a bit farther away from it than five feet.
Jon
Dear Jon and Mike,
I do use the 2905 for nearfield listening.
My listening room is just 12.80 x 9.70 feet, with an height of 12.80 feet (old Florentine building). For the time being, the speakers are placed at the recommended minimum distance from both the back wall (which is entirely occupied by a bookcase) and the side walls - the distance from the listening position is approximately 5.60 feet. In the future, after placing a column of three Acustica Applicata DaaD3 in each of the corners behind the speakers, I hope to be able to move them back a tiny bit, as well as to bring them closer to the side walls. If things go well, I should be able to eventually place the 2905 at a distance of some 7 feet from my listening position.
That having said, while I definitely agree with Jon that the 2905 would work "more optimally" (nice, this one) if I were sitting farther away from it than 5, or 7, feet, I must say, and that's the point I would like to make, that even now I am extremely satisfied. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any better speaker for listening to the music I love (chamber music - and classical music in general -, small-combo jazz, female voices) in my little room (though I suppose that such omnis as the stupendous Bolzano Villetri Torre - let alone the MBLs, that are out of my reach - should work very, very fine).
In this particular respect, Jon, I would highly appreciate the benefit of your thoughts, including, why not, your recommendations as to possible alternatives - and, Jon, may I attract your attention to my posts in the Turtables forum (mono cartridges and TW-Acustic Raven One topics).
Ciao,
Ruggero
Re: Quad 2905's for nearfield listening.
IMO this would not be a problem. I recently spent a week staying at my friend's house and getting to know this speaker intimately. It is true that this speaker has a large radiating area, but the way Quad have designed the speaker it is actually closer to a point source than you may think. The reason is because the panel radiates from the center first, before successively outer concentric rings start to radiate. The sound that emerges is full frequency sound, and is not the result of attempts to blend multiple different drivers together.
This is the problem with multi-driver speakers - if you sit too close to them, the sound from the multiple drivers do not blend and you perceive each driver as a seperate source. IMO the most obvious example I have heard are Avantgarde speakers - much as I love them, the horns are placed far apart and are too directional to be used for nearfield listening. You have to have a very large listening room before you can listen to those speakers.
The Quad 2905 speaker is one of the most coherent I have ever heard.
I've got a pair of ATM3's running with an Aesthetix calypso, and powering Merlin TSM MMe's (overkill). Did you try any tweaks, like power cables or tube rolling or the such? I've tried a few NOS tubes for the input drivers, and they sound a lot better than current tubes. Using winged c's for the output tubes, nice sound.
Love these amps ever since I heard them in the early 90's, but couldn't afford them until more recently. Love em, love their sound. Happy you gave them a recent review.
Dave, how's the match of ATM 3 with Calypso? Any issues or comments? What cabling are you using? Did u buy new or used? Some nice pictures of your system would be nice. Thanks
<<Did you try any tweaks, like power cables or tube rolling or the such? I've tried a few NOS tubes for the input drivers, and they sound a lot better than current tubes. Using winged c's for the output tubes, nice sound. Love these amps ever since I heard them in the early 90's, but couldn't afford them until more recently. Love em, love their sound. Happy you gave them a recent review.>>
Until fairly recently, the ATMs were kind of under-the-radar for me. I simply didn't know that AirTight was making an updated Marantz 9--and had been for almost twenty years. It is, indeed, a swell amplifier and a particularly good combination with the Quad 2905s. (It doesn't go quite as well with the harder-to-drive MartinLogan CLXes.)
I didn't have the opportunity to roll tubes with the ATM-3s before writing my review, but I'm sure that NOS input and output tubes would make substantial sonic differences. (To be fair, the supplied tubes were better than acceptably good.) I did use several "audiophile" power cords with the amps, however. My own favorites are Tara Labs' top-of-the-lines.
Dear Jonathan Valin,
I am writing to obtain advice on placement of the Quad 2905 speakers in a room. My room is 30ft long and 17ft wide. I'd be grateful if you would be able to advice mt on distance from rear wall and inner distance between speakers.
Thanks for your help,
regards,
naresh
Naresh,
Are you planning to put the speakers on the short wall or the long one?
Jon
Dear Jonathan,
I am planning to put the speakers on the short wall so that the sound propagates down the length of the room. I would also be interested to know whether you found any benefit in increasing the tilt(backwards) of the speakers.
Regards,
Naresh
Dear Jonathan,
I am planning to put the speakers on the short wall so that the sound propagates down the length of the room. I would also be interested to know whether you found any benefit in increasing the tilt(backwards) of the speakers.
Regards,
Naresh
Hi, after reading HP's review on the "Hansen The King v2" loudspeakers (TAS january 2007 I think), I wanted to try one of the amplifiers HP felt was one of the best on these loudspeakers; the 60W 845 triode mono blocks Antique Sound Lab Cadenza on my Quads. I can tell you, these are fantastic amplifiers on all Quad ESLs! HP loved them as well. Im looking forward to the review he promised. In the meantime, try them on Quad ESL 2905 and 2805. These amplifiers are bargains as well.
Best regards
Trygve Bentsen
Norway
Hi, a small contribution from France to this tread: I live since 2001 with a pair of 989 (fantastic speakers, the best I have heard with 2905), and there is a combination tested one year ago between Christmas and New year: 989 driven by an integrated amplifier Audiomat Solfège Reference (pp of 6550 SED "C") from a small French factory AUDIOMAT, distributed in Canada by Mutine: During that week, it was very hard for me to leave the living room ... It is really Music witch is delivered there. Smooth, detailed, deep third dimension when present on the recording, and very deep bass with total stability: I listen often to classical organ works, and in my listening condition, the 989 go down to 25Hz, offering a sumptuous reproduction of the 32 & 16". The naturalness of classical organ restitution is also due to the dipole nature of these speakers.
Please note that the Solfège Reference is no more in the Audiomat product list, but can nevertheless be ordered …
Adrien