quad esl 2905
jek -- Wed, 08/20/2008 - 07:54
I am driving these wonderful speakers with the latest iteration of Tenor 300HP monos using the MBL reference pre and CD and DAC with all golden cross cabling, trouble is it all takes up too much room!!! Having been directed here by your erstwhile editor and just having read your review of the latest Pass integrated, coupled with a need to downsize the rack I am wondering if the Pass may be the solution to my problem, or at least the XA 100.5s,with a small Pass pre. I am very interested in views on whether it would be a worthwhile excercise and on whether the cabling I am using is also suitable.
john
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.
Perhaps Jonathan Valin can weigh-in on amplifiers for the 2905. His review will appear in Issue 186 (November cover date, August 30 mail date).
My review of the Pass Labs XA100.5 will appear in Issue 185 (mails August 29).
I suspect that the XA100.5 would be great match for the 2905.
The Quad ESL-2905s are, indeed, wonderful speakers. My review of them will appear in Issue 186.
To drive the Quads I highly recommend the 100W Air Tight ATM-3 monoblock amps (yes, they're monoblocks but they're quite small). The superb MBL 6010D preamp is a great match with the ATM-3s (I've tried this combo so I'm speaking from experience); however, if you're looking to downsize you might consider the matching Air Tight ATC-2 preamplifier, which is considerably smaller than the MBL 6010D. If you're looking for a single-box solution, I'd also give a listen to the 150Wpc GamuT D150 integrated amp. For considerably less money, you might consider the Parasound Halo JC 1 amps and Halo JC 2 preamp, although the 800Wpc (into 4 ohms) JC 1s probably have more power than you'd need (or want) in this application. The Halo JC 2 is simply the best buy in a high-end preamp. As for cabling, I can recommend Silent Source Music Reference, which, while not cheap, comes within shouting distance of the best interconnects and speaker cables I've heard--the ultra-expensive Tara Labs Zero Gold and Omega Gold--albeit a bit heavier and less discerning in the midbass.
Thank you both for your prompt response. I very much look forward to Mr Valin's review in the forthcoming issue of TAS. My goal of course was to achieve the "downsizing" whilst gaining an improvement in sonics, we audiophiles are a demanding lot!! With this in mind I will attempt to locate a dealer over here to audition ATM 3's in my room and will certainly try to listen to the wire as I feel the Golden X may be constricting the sound somewhat. What I do want to avoid is a compromise in the sound quality and will live with the all of the boxes if necessary, am I correct in thinking that the Quads merit the "best" electronics?
cheers
john
Any high resolution speaker will be more demanding of the sources and amplifier driving it. The speaker's resolution not only reveals musical information, but also shortcomings in the signal path upstream.
Quote:am I correct in thinking that the Quads merit the "best" electronics?
Yes, you certainly are. And the best front end, too.
It slipped my mind in my last post, but the Emotive Audio 50W Vita monoblock amps and matching Epifania preamp are also a great combination with the 2905s. (This is another combo I've tried and liked.)
While the Quads and the Air Tights are heavenly, you might also consider the new 80 watter from Quad designed by Tim Paravacini.
Have fun!
Jim
Jim, I remember very well visiting an old neighbour a few years ago who had a full 1950's Quad system from new, still intact and sounding lovely.
At the time I had Wilson Maxx's powered by ML33Monos, in many ways I would gladly have swapped, there and then, on the spot!
There is something seductive about having an all Quad system, it appeals to the collector in me, in a nostalgiac way.
I must thank all of you for your willingness to share your knowledge and I very much look forward to reading the reviews of the Pass and 2905s, in the meantime I will have a go at putting that knowledge to good use!
John
In the past 10 years I have tried a number of amplifiers with Quad ESL-63, then ESL-63 USA monitors. On the question of Air Tight I humbly agree with these experts that certain models can work quite well. I tried the ATM-1, ATM-2 and ATM-211. My experience was most positive with the ATM-2. The ATM-1 sounded lovely, but for me was a bit too lush. The ATM-2 with better control from KT-88 (compared to EL-34 of ATM-1) was much more neutral while maintaining beautiful timbre. Initially I used the ATM-2 as an integrated amp, but found the dynamics and soundstage to improve considerably with an ATC-1. Finally I was so hopeful to marry SET with the Quads in the form of the ATM-211 monoblocks. These worked okay at moderate volume, but even with an ATC-2, did not match the ATM-2/ATC-1 combination I had tried earlier. This was then replaced by a WAVAV MD-572 that was really tremendous with the Quads, giving a good SET experience that was not held back by power or dynamics. As much as I enjoyed these tube amplifiers, and consider myself to be a “tube guy” the best match I have had to date was with the Pass Aleph 2’s. Initially I tried Aleph 2 and then Aleph 5, but both lacked bass extention on the Quads. The Alephs 2’s sounded powerful and beautifully open with a sound all to their own that others have described before. After a trans-continental move the Aleph’s are gone but their memory has motivated me to try a Gamut amplifier next.
3rd to last line should have read...Initially I tried Aleph 3 and then Aleph 5, ...
Has anyone tired the Balanced Audio Technology VK 55se or VK 75se tubed amplifiers with Quad 2905? Also any one tried any other Air Tight Amps with 2905's other than ATM 3 in Mr. Valin's review? would be nice to know from those who have tested these!
Anyone with expirence in paaring the Pass 100.5´s with Wilson WP6 ?
I can vouch for them sounding great with a rather old (20 years?) Quad 606 amp.... which can be had used for a (relative) song
My Quad 2905's sound very nice with a Mark Levinson ML390S CD/pre and ML431 amp, the system flies through the Stereophile #1 and Chesky Ultimate dem discs - sounds wonderful. Sound staging is really spooky! They're 29% into the room and 30cm from the side wall, angles at 20 degrees with my chair 2.9m away.
The Graaf GM20's need to be mono'd to get the dynamics required and are preferable in midrange tone to the ML, but we're talking fractions... The Deltec DPA50S simply can't handle the load, or maybe it's the type of load.
I've switched from Nordost Valkyrja i/c's to Audioquest Anacondas to add the last bit of dynamics - these are my first ESL's after years of cones and the relative lack of punch is taking some adjusting to, speaker cable is Nordost Valkyrja. Mains are ferrited Nordost Shiva, the rest of the system Valhalla.
I intend to make them "active" using Susan Parkers Zeus amp built into the base fed by balanced i/c's. The output tx of the amp will be wound to replace the Quad tx. Pre-output will need to be around 15v, achieved by my Weiss Medea DAC in high output mode.
I have read that some question the output level... they're way too loud for all my neighbours apparently!! Unless you're looking for crazy levels you'll be fine. Music isn't restricted to classical either, they play everything from prog rock, reggae, rock, opera - all fine! I concede they're not ideal for thrash or hip hop at full tilt but hey that's a blessing! Buy, enjoy, you'll never look back......
I drive ESL989 with Ear 834 pre + Ear 834 power (50Wpc from 4xEL34) and I like very much the sound of the match. Altough I experience some hardness and sometime some clipping too on impulsive notes of piano in mid-treble range at medium-high level.
So, hoping to solve the problem, I'm searching for a more powerful amp and I'm watching primarly at T+A V10 integrated (80Wpc from 4x EL509) and at Ear 890 power (70Wpc from 8xKT90/88) + new Ear 868 pre.
Should they have enough power to properly drive Quads? (I listen to quite high volume). Or the problem concerns panels limits and not ampifiers? Thank you.
easyliving,
They need more power! If you want to drive them with tubes look for 200 watt per channel. A lot of people happily pair them with McIntosh gear. I drive my 2905s with a Musical Fidelity NuVista 300 (300wpc) and they play really, really loud without clipping.
I drive 2905 with ARC REF 110 and REF3limited edition--cablings all valhalla , including thor and quantum qx4 , sources esoteric x-05 and rega 3 dynavector dv x20..
the results are fantastic--spooky soundstaging and transparancy and transients are astonishing also..
the quantum and thor adds the blacker backgrounds tremendously , while the valhallas mostly delivering the transparancy , lightning fast transients..
I planned to use this combo to drive the Kharma CRM3.2ES ( different from 3.2FE in full enigma wirings and different woofer )..
and would like to buy solid states ( either Pass xa 100.5 or ML ) to drive the 2905
I'll report after all those changes happens
antono
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 Jonathan's past review and his 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
John,
I AM sorry for not answering you sooner. I simply didn't realize that this question was addressed to me. By now you may have already made your decision. In any event, here's my take: With a room that is 21' x 14' x 7.5' you'd be safe with either the 2805 or the 2905. Yeah, it would be nice to have a slightly taller ceiling, but you don't so...don't worry about it. If you are planning to combine your new Quads with your REL sub, I wish you luck. I've found that adding a sub to a 'stat is very difficult to do without trading away some of the reason for choosing the 'stat in the first place. But others routinely add subwoofers to 'stats and planars, apparently without problems. Were it I, I think I'd rather live with the Quad 2905's (slightly tipped up) midbass and (slightly rolled-off) low bass than add a sub. On most music you won't feel as if you're lacking low end (the speaker is designed to give you the impression that it goes deeper than it does). However, if you are a "head-banger"--a phrase I particularly detest and have used here simply to give me the opportunity to say that I detest it (there is plenty of music and there are plenty of listeners and there are plenty of speakers that cry out for louder levels than the Quads are capable of--none of which makes that music, those listeners, or those speakers worthy of the derogatory epithet "head-banger")--you'd be better off with a different loudspeaker.
Jonathan