advertisement


Martin- Logan or Quad ESL format? Pros and cons?

I have my 2805s about 1.5 m from walls behind ... Any closer and bass gets cludgy and imaging not so good.

Many years ago I had a pair of the 988s, which were basically cosmetically updated 63s. I never got anything like as good bass from them as I am getting now from the 2805s, and I think the much heavier and stiffer frame of the 2805 might be part of this.

But amplifier matching remains a mystery.... Denon PMA2500, Quad Artera pre/power, Lyngdorf SDA2175 all drove the 2805s nicely and enjoyably....but change to 50w push-pull KT90 Graaf GM50B has transformed them.... Especially the tautness and depth of the bass.... Even bass drums, gongs and organ pedals get their full effect and that's not what reading about Quad ESLs on hifi forums would lead one to expect.
 
Very much a case of if it works it works! Some of the most appealing sounds I got from the Logan Ascents was with a BAT vk75 driving the panels and solid state the woofers.It may have appeared to work as in reality the treble was rolled. My tastes changed though, and after a while I went back to solid state.
 
One thing to consider moving from a dipole bass to monopole bass is that it will likely excite room nodes differently.
M-L had a dual driver woofer technology - maybe they use that to create a bipolar pattern?
 
I have my 2805s about 1.5 m from walls behind ... Any closer and bass gets cludgy and imaging not so good.

Many years ago I had a pair of the 988s, which were basically cosmetically updated 63s. I never got anything like as good bass from them as I am getting now from the 2805s, and I think the much heavier and stiffer frame of the 2805 might be part of this.

But amplifier matching remains a mystery.... Denon PMA2500, Quad Artera pre/power, Lyngdorf SDA2175 all drove the 2805s nicely and enjoyably....but change to 50w push-pull KT90 Graaf GM50B has transformed them.... Especially the tautness and depth of the bass.... Even bass drums, gongs and organ pedals get their full effect and that's not what reading about Quad ESLs on hifi forums would lead one to expect.
Like you, I also prefer the sound of the four panel 'modern' Quad electrostatic speakers to the larger six-panel variants. IMHO, the bass performance is much better integrated /seamless with, for instance the 2812 when compared to what seems the 'semi-detached' bass of the 2912 model. The slight extension in lower end frequency response afforded by the 2912 is insufficient to persuade me that it is the superior speaker overall.
 
Like you, I also prefer the sound of the four panel 'modern' Quad electrostatic speakers to the larger six-panel variants. IMHO, the bass performance is much better integrated /seamless with, for instance the 2812 when compared to what seems the 'semi-detached' bass of the 2912 model. The slight extension in lower end frequency response afforded by the 2912 is insufficient to persuade me that it is the superior speaker overall.
I like the expression semi detached bass! It certainly describes how I felt about the bass on the bigger models. I think, subject to correction, that the larger six panel models came out after Peter Walker’s time at the helm. I seem to recall his son Ross taking over for a while and when asked about more bass (may have been in reference to adding a sub) suggested that if anyone needed more bass they should king or bang on a box.
 
Panels/Stats Owned ML , Quad , Maggies & many others
Past ten years ran Sanders 10 Active with quad 2,000w @ 4ohm sanders magtech monos via DSP Xover with room correction. All the good bits about stats but with stupid dynamics & full range ( 20hz ) , 120db all day if required with Dub/Edm/Organ all the stuff Stats struggle with.
Only drawback they beam as panel is flat and not curved & Only active and no passive version as total nightmare to drive ( sub 1/2 Ohm load )
Diptyque from france are also well worth a listen for a modern 21st panel
 


advertisement


Back
Top