Has anybody had the opportunity to compare the Quad 989 against the Quad 2905? Ken
I had a brief comparison between the 2805s and the 988s, followed shortly thereafter by a pair of ESL63s. Personally, the new ones were streets ahead, in just about every way. They had much more bounce, bass depth and punch, top-end sparkle, resolution, and just sounded much better. I couldn't live with the older Quads due to the massively rolled off treble and the overly warm, burnished midrange - but I'd be delighted with a pair of the new ones in my living room. That said, all three listens were at dealers, so it's possible more can be squeezed out of them (all three models). Dunc
dunc, would you mind comparing both 989 and 2805 with your ATCs? i still dont think about upgrading ATCs but the quads would be high on the list
I'd love to be able to compare the 2805s directly with my ATCs. I think it would be interesting. From memory, the Quads have a much larger, more solid, and more believable soundstage (not something I thought was important till I heard it) and imaging, slightly better resolution (except perhaps in the treble), wonderful inner detail (though the ATCs are excellent here as well), breathtaking low-level detail (the ATCs aren't quite as good at the quiet bits, or with the volume turned down low), and a wonderful cleanliness to the sound - the bass in particular - sounding as if the room was having no effect on the sound (much like a top notch pair of headphones actually). The downside is that the Quads don't have the same unburstability as the ATCs - their headroom is clearly more limited (especially with the Quad valve amps used in the demo), though it was an absolute thing. Relative dynamics on the Quads was still excellent. The other thing about the Quads that didn't impress me too much was the midrange, surprisingly enough. It just wasn't as full and rich and natural as the ATCs. I almost felt as if Quad had gone too far in correcting the flaws of the 988s (over-warm midrange, rolled off treble, lack of punch, bounce, sparkle) and had made them sound almost too lean and cold in the middle. I suspect though that this can be corrected with care in the choice of upstream electronics. The CD player at the dem was the Quad 99, which I suspect isn't a patch on my DAX Decade. So yeah, if I could get the Quads to warm up a bit in the midrange, I would want them 100% and I'd start saving now! As it is, I'm happy saving my money and sticking with my ATCs. One comparison I'd LOVE to do would be Quad 2905 vs. Active 50! Dunc
after my recent rather shocking session with a DIY TVC preamp, i would actually address most of the 20s flaws (you mentioned above) to a preamp choice. if it is true that promitheus and music first are hard to distinguish, than they don't extract 100% out of the 20s. promitheus and 20s is fine but it is not 100%. the right TVC choice elevates 20s into a league where it is diffucult to think about any improvement, if used in an adequate space (my case 24m2 x 3m ceiling). i've even stopped thinking about a subwoofer. i spent a year suffering with 20s but i was confident it wasn't their fault. i've finally heard them producing unbelievably realistic sounds with everything in place. it doesn't happen often that i hear a system where you can't tell if it is SS or valve, analogue or digital. it just sounded right. but it won't stop me from demoing 2805 with 909 and CDP-2 next week.
Yup, at some point I'm going to investigate possible preamps, and TVCs will be near the top of my list. But I'm going to be a very tough customer as any preamp will have to sound no worse than no preamp! BTW, the "flaws" I listed aren't really flaws with the ATCs. They're way better than most comparable dynamic speakers, and even speakers that better them in some ways, don't do so to any great degree. The Quads are a real leap ahead of dynamic speakers I've heard in terms of the qualities mentioned - soundstaging/imaging, inner detail, low-level detail, and freedom from room interactions. I've not heard any cone-based speakers that come close in those regards. That's what makes them so seductive to me... Dunc
I know of a dealer here in OZ would who sell me a pair of 2905's at about the same as UK price. He also has a pair of 989's that are the shop demo's that I could buy, plus 2 X REL Sub's for the same price as the 2905's. Room is new dedicated (will be when builder is finished) size is 7.0 X 4.95 X 2.85 (L X W X H). Ken
I do not think there is something wrong with 2805 midrange. I would say it is very natutral. The voices float between the speakers and the sensation of beeing in the room with the singer is trully spectacular and hard to beat at any price. The problem of 2805 is their midbass, which is a bit too prominent, and the relative lack of the highest treble, which compromises HF air, making the speaker sounding a bit dull. The HF performance of Quads is in general a bit disappointing for electrostatic speaker. They are MILES behind the similarly priced Audiostatic DCM-5 that I have on loan right now. The Audiostatics are MUCH faster, much more open, VASTLY more transparent and uncoloured, and their HF performance tops everything I have heard to date this side of Raven 3.2MMX ribbon tweeter. The 2805 treble has an audible lift around few kHz, and then rapidly falls down towards 20Hz.
Hi, I'm a new member and I'm interested in Ken's posting of 16th March 2007 re Quad 2905's in Australia for about the same UK price. I have 63's which I bought in England 28 years ago, with Duntech subs, driven by 7000 series Quads and have loved them. Prior to that I had the ESL 57's and the 33/405 combination - again marvellous. I am now toying with the idea of trying out 2905's with the 9000 series amps. Does anyone have favourite dealers with reasonable prices in Australia and have there been reliability issues with the 2905's. I have never had a problem with the 63's or 57's.
