Peculiar conclusion to John Atkinson's Quad review

caesar · May 24, 2012

Have been catching up on my audio reading and found a cice write-up by John Atkinson in the May Stereophile. Hate to bust up the suspense, but Atkinson loved it. In fact, he says the speaker is on his bucket list!

Personally, I think stats are great for non-complex/ small scale type of music, but even playing that kind of material they lack that important jump factor of live music. Have Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat and it sounds damn good. But on a Wilson Maxx 3 or on a Scaena, the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. In fairness, this gap becomes much more apparent when you are comparing the two speaker, but it is there.

And what does it say about speaker design? Are we really pretty much there with electrostats playing small-scale stuff?

MylesBAstor · May 24, 2012

caesar said:
Have been catching up on my audio reading and found a cice write-up by John Atkinson in the May Stereophile. Hate to bust up the suspense, but Atkinson loved it. In fact, he says the speaker is on his bucket list!

Personally, I think stats are great for non-complex/ small scale type of music, but even playing that kind of material they lack that important jump factor of live music. Have Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat and it sounds damn good. But on a Wilson Maxx 3 or on a Scaena, the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. In fairness, this gap becomes much more apparent when you are comparing the two speaker, but it is there.

And what does it say about speaker design? Are we really pretty much there with electrostats playing small-scale stuff?

I disagree. If that's what you heard, either something was wrong, it was the source or they speakers were set up incorrectly. I guarantee if I put the 15 ips tape of Benny Carter Jazz Giant, both Ben and Benny's saxes will smack you across the face.

caesar · May 24, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
I disagree. If that's what you heard, either something was wrong, it was the source or they speakers were set up incorrectly. I guarantee if I put the 15 ips tape of Benny Carter Jazz Giant, both Ben and Benny's saxes will smack you across the face.

Myles, I have no doubt that they will. But then put the same recording on a Maxx 3, and it will smack you a bit harder. You are just up against the physical reality with stats. Stats do have superior dynamics from a whisper to the speaking voice range (ppp to mp). But then the physical limitations kick in and they cannot go from very soft to very loud. Dynamic speakers are superior in dynamics from the speaking voice to very loud (mf to fff).

puroagave · May 24, 2012

the quad 57's have jump factor in spades and yet they hardly reach realistic SPLs. if we can agree on JGH's definition of 'jump factor' then it happened just last night playing neil young's live at massey hall over my 57s...i swear i could almost understand a conversation in the audience. at first i thougt it was coming from outside my window.

mep · May 24, 2012

puroagave said:
the quad 57's have jump factor in spades and yet they hardly reach realistic SPLs. if we can agree on JGH's definition of 'jump factor' then it happened just last night playing neil young's live at massey hall over my 57s...i swear i could almost understand a conversation in the audience. at first i thougt it was coming from outside my window.

Which cut was that? I get the same type of sensation while listening to Waltz for Debbie.

MylesBAstor · May 24, 2012

caesar said:
Myles, I have no doubt that they will. But then put the same recording on a Maxx 3, and it will smack you a bit harder. You are just up against the physical reality with stats. Stats do have superior dynamics from a whisper to the speaking voice range (ppp to mp). But then the physical limitations kick in and they cannot go from very soft to very loud. Dynamic speakers are superior in dynamics from the speaking voice to very loud (mf to fff).

C'mon that's apples and oranges. You're comparing a 14K speaker with what, a $70K (?) speaker system? What if you compared the old Martin Logan Monoliths then which have much more surface area. But I find the Summits move plenty of air in the mids; of course, the two speakers will differ in the low end.

microstrip · May 24, 2012

Ceasar,

If you operate the electrostatic outside its dynamic range, surely the Maxx3 will win. If you want to reproduce sax at two feet, do not buy electrostatics.

But used with the proper system an electrostatic can be as dynamic as the cone speaker. The coherency of a full panel system, coupled with the absence of box sound and the power of a large panel moving the air sounds really dynamic. We should remember that many non synergistic systems measure perfectly, sound loud, but do not seem dynamic.

Keith_W · May 24, 2012

caesar said:
Personally, I think stats are great for non-complex/ small scale type of music, but even playing that kind of material they lack that important jump factor of live music. Have Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat and it sounds damn good. But on a Wilson Maxx 3 or on a Scaena, the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. In fairness, this gap becomes much more apparent when you are comparing the two speaker, but it is there.

Stats are amazing for all types of music provided you don't play it too loud! As for the "jump factor" of live music - well I suppose that depends on what you mean by live music. They will never be able to reproduce the scale of a pipe organ when you are standing next to it, or recreate the sound of live musicians in a jazz club. But they do an amazingly lifelike reproduction of an orchestra or a lieder singer. I have heard a few ESL57's, and all the modern Quads - 988, 989, 2805, and 2905.

Bill Hart · May 24, 2012

I own two pairs- a very crusty pair of ESL's that I bought used, in 1973, and hauled around with me as a student, and later to NY, where I still live. They are now moldering in the basement, and my plan is to send them to Wayne for restoration when I move and have them shipped to my new address (whatever that is) in Austin. I also have a pair of Crosby Quads (63's) that I bought used back in 1990. The Crosby plays louder and goes deeper but does not have that uncanny immediacy that the original Quad does on the right material. I also have a pair of vintage Quad II amps that I bought long after I retired my original Quads to boxes, so I've never listened to them together. (I used to use various low powered tube amps of other types on the Quads, and the Crosby's sang with a then new ARC Classic 60, which, for the day, imaged like crazy). I'd love to try them with some Atma-Sphere OTLs some day, but I've got enough on my hands right now. I didn't read the Atkinson review. I do think the original ESL still sets the standard for midrange purity within its limitations, which are considerable.

caesar · May 25, 2012

microstrip said:
Ceasar,

If you operate the electrostatic outside its dynamic range, surely the Maxx3 will win. If you want to reproduce sax at two feet, do not buy electrostatics.

But used with the proper system an electrostatic can be as dynamic as the cone speaker. The coherency of a full panel system, coupled with the absence of box sound and the power of a large panel moving the air sounds really dynamic. We should remember that many non synergistic systems measure perfectly, sound loud, but do not seem dynamic.

The sax at 2 feet still sounds pretty awesome on stats, as Myles points out, but just not quite as realistic.

caesar · May 25, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
C'mon that's apples and oranges. You're comparing a 14K speaker with what, a $70K (?) speaker system? What if you compared the old Martin Logan Monoliths then which have much more surface area. But I find the Summits move plenty of air in the mids; of course, the two speakers will differ in the low end.

Myles, I am talking about the midrange only. Obviously, the bass will be better on the Wilson, but that's their forte. It's just that the top box speakers have gotten their midrange units to sound pretty damn good. Combine that great midrange driver with the more realistic jump factor, and you get that much closer to the real thing. But, as you mention, they also cost a lot of money. That's why stats have been and will be a great value for a long, long time.

MylesBAstor · May 25, 2012

caesar said:
Myles, I am talking about the midrange only. Obviously, the bass will be better on the Wilson, but that's their forte. It's just that the top box speakers have gotten their midrange units to sound pretty damn good. Combine that great midrange driver with the more realistic jump factor, and you get that much closer to the real thing. But, as you mention, they also cost a lot of money. That's why stats have been and will be a great value for a long, long time.

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree. As I said before, I think there's more presence because there's more information coming through a stat (all things being equal in front of the speaker). I just find the stats more convincingly recreate the sense of body of a trumpet, sax, voice, etc. And as I said before, with the best medium, say 15 ips tape, you'd be quite surprised by the air moved.

Now I doubt that you've heard the say Wilsons and stats in the same system? Then one can never be absolutely sure what they are hearing. The reason is that I find electric line contamination absolutely critical to the recreation of the sense of an instruments body as well as the air the instrument moves (and btw, I find that some dynamic speakers just don't have enough midrange).

microstrip · May 25, 2012

whart said:
(...) I also have a pair of Crosby Quads (63's) that I bought used back in 1990. The Crosby plays louder and goes deeper but does not have that uncanny immediacy that the original Quad does on the right material. I also have a pair of vintage Quad II amps that I bought long after I retired my original Quads to boxes, so I've never listened to them together. (I used to use various low powered tube amps of other types on the Quads, and the Crosby's sang with a then new ARC Classic 60, which, for the day, imaged like crazy). I'd love to try them with some Atma-Sphere OTLs some day, but I've got enough on my hands right now. I didn't read the Atkinson review. I do think the original ESL still sets the standard for midrange purity within its limitations, which are considerable.

You should listen to the new REF150 with the ESL63. After I listened to some chamber music in this system using an all ARC system I almost asked myself - why more? But yes the Classic60 or the 120's sounded great with them - mainly on Bach Brandenburg Concertos!

I have had great listening experiences with ESL63 and OTLs - both with Futterman and Technics 20A that use pentodes. Curiously I could never get the Atmasphere's (both the M50 or M2) cause them to sound with the unique immediacy and aliveness that the pentode amplifiers got from them. The Atmaspheres sounded very nice on them but too polite for my taste. IMHO much more adequate to either the A4 or A1 SoundLabs.

Bill Hart · May 25, 2012

Obrigado, Micro, for the insight re the Atmaspheres and the 63s.

MylesBAstor · May 25, 2012

microstrip said:
You should listen to the new REF150 with the ESL63. After I listened to some chamber music in this system using an all ARC system I almost asked myself - why more? But yes the Classic60 or the 120's sounded great with them - mainly on Bach Brandenburg Concertos!

I have had great listening experiences with ESL63 and OTLs - both with Futterman and Technics 20A that use pentodes. Curiously I could never get the Atmasphere's (both the M50 or M2) cause them to sound with the unique immediacy and aliveness that the pentode amplifiers got from them. The Atmaspheres sounded very nice on them but too polite for my taste. IMHO much more adequate to either the A4 or A1 SoundLabs.

I preferred the George Kaye modded Futtermans on the Crosby Quads. Of course, the Futterman's aren't known for their reliability. And agree on the Atma-sphere amps.

mep · May 25, 2012

Just try taking the cover off of an Atma-Sphere MP-3 preamp and see if you can line up the screw holes through the flimsy sheet metal again.

Search

Search

Peculiar conclusion to John Atkinson's Quad review

caesar

Well-Known Member

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member

caesar

Well-Known Member

puroagave

Member Sponsor

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member

microstrip

VIP/Donor

Keith_W

Well-Known Member

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member

caesar

Well-Known Member

caesar

Well-Known Member

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member

microstrip

VIP/Donor

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Similar threads

Members online