Quad ESL-2912 ...

Quads have always been amazing for vocals. Just amazing!!!!!! And the new ones have all of that plus not near the drawbacks of the Quads of 20 years ago.
 
joeinid said:
http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/product-detail.php?pid=11


Any comments from RMAF on the Quad ESL-2912's?

I've always wanted Quads. Anything to look out for in reliability?
Click to expand...

Joe,

These are one of my favorite speakers. Just beautiful midrange and treble. Vocals and piano are to die for. I think they are pretty reliable for electrostatic speakers. They've been building them forever.

Best,
Ken
 
Alpinist said:
Joe,

These are one of my favorite speakers. Just beautiful midrange and treble. Vocals and piano are to die for. I think they are pretty reliable for electrostatic speakers. They've been building them forever.

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...


Thank you Ken. Mike was raving about them to me again and now I am a little obsessed. I have some thinking to do on what's next :D
 
Paul said:
Oh Mike....... what have you done to my friend? ....again..
Click to expand...

:panic::roflmao:


Paul,

I've wanted a pair for a very long time. Maybe in the next 3-4 months.

I like Wilson Sasha 2, Magnepan 20.7 or 3.7i, and these Quads.


I need a vacation :(
 
Wish there was a way I could demo off a pair of Rosso Fiorentino Sienna's for ya. BUwhaahhaha :lol:
 
Joe
I believe I have posted this elsewhere but this is what I heard. At RMAF they sounded good but after having heard them in a larger room during a demo at one local dealer I know they can do much better. I actually think they might have sounded better at RMAF had they put them on the long wall but then they could have only installed maybe one row of chairs for attendees. If someone has a big enough room, these are really nice speakers.
 
Zero said:
Wish there was a way I could demo off a pair of Rosso Fiorentino Sienna's for ya. BUwhaahhaha :lol:
Click to expand...

:)

Those are supposed to be very nice. Neve heard them.

still-one said:
Joe
I believe I have posted this elsewhere but this is what I heard. At RMAF they sounded good but after having heard them in a larger room during a demo at one local dealer I know they can do much better. I actually think they might have sounded better at RMAF had they put them on the long wall but then they could have only installed maybe one row of chairs for attendees. If someone has a big enough room, these are really nice speakers.
Click to expand...

Thank you Jim. My room is L shaped and has a surprising amount of space. I used to have Apogee Duetta II's and they worked really well. I am sure the Quads could be great in my room.
 
joeinid said:
:panic::roflmao:


Paul,

I've wanted a pair for a very long time. Maybe in the next 3-4 months.

I like Wilson Sasha 2, Magnepan 20.7 or 3.7i, and these Quads.


I need a vacation :(
Click to expand...

Hi Joe,

I owned the Magnepan 3.7 and Apogee Duetta Signature. I also have auditioned the Quad 2912, Magnepan 20.7 and Analysis Audio Omega. The latter three of these speakers are all outstanding and each bring their own special qualities to the table.

I would have to say my favorite of the three are the Magnepan 20.7. These speakers throw a huge soundstage with a massive wall of sound that can extend well beyond the dimensions of the room in width, height and depth. They are also one of the only planar speakers that provides truly magnificent bass, which is fast, tight, deep and can move you. Midrange and treble are seamless and they absolutely excel on piano and vocals, although they can rock too. They are "you are in the venue" speakers. These speakers need a large room that is wide, high and deep enough to let the sound out from behind them. They also need a lot of power to sound their best.

Comparatively, the Quad 2912 produces a more intimate presentation. They are more "the musicians are in your listening room" speakers. They are absolutely gorgeous in the midrange frequencies, probably the best of the three. Piano, vocals and chamber music are magical on these speakers. However, bass is not nearly as tight, fast or robust as the 20.7, nor is treble as extended. They also don't handle as much power as the 20.7 and need to be treated with more care. However, you can run them more effectively with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7.

The Analysis Audio Omega is more similar to the 20.7 than the 2912. They also have that "you are there" presentation. In the treble and midrange, I would say they are slightly better than the 20.7 because they are a little smoother and more organic. However, their soundstage, while very nice, is not nearly as large or impressive as the 20.7. In addition, their bass, while very fast, is not nearly as deep, robust or impactful as the 20.7. I feel these speakers will also perform better with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7. However, they can rock and do have the capacity to handle a higher powered amp and fill a large room as well.

To conclude, I could be extremely happy with any of these speakers. But the 20.7 are my favorite because they have no weak points. They may not be the best in every category but they are close. And they are one of the best values in high-end audio at their price point.

Please keep in my that these are just my personal observations and your mileage could definitely vary.

Best,
Ken
 
Hi Ken,

Thank you so much for your thoughts. I had Apogee Duetta II's and loved them.

I understand your points and think I agree 100%. I have the perfect amps for the 20.7 with the Bryston 28's and CJ ART monos.

I would like the intimate nature of the Quads but worry about their complexity. I have to believe the 20.7 would be easier to live with in the long term and a great counterbalance to my Strads.

I'll have to see what other bright ideas I get before I pull the trigger on something. There's so much I want and so little funds to play with :D

Thanks again!




Alpinist said:
Hi Joe,

I owned the Magnepan 3.7 and Apogee Duetta Signature. I also have auditioned the Quad 2912, Magnepan 20.7 and Analysis Audio Omega. The latter three of these speakers are all outstanding and each bring their own special qualities to the table.

I would have to say my favorite of the three are the Magnepan 20.7. These speakers throw a huge soundstage with a massive wall of sound that can extend well beyond the dimensions of the room in width, height and depth. They are also one of the only planar speakers that provides truly magnificent bass, which is fast, tight, deep and can move you. Midrange and treble are seamless and they absolutely excel on piano and vocals, although they can rock too. They are "you are in the venue" speakers. These speakers need a large room that is wide, high and deep enough to let the sound out from behind them. They also need a lot of power to sound their best.

Comparatively, the Quad 2912 produces a more intimate presentation. They are more "the musicians are in your listening room" speakers. They are absolutely gorgeous in the midrange frequencies, probably the best of the three. Piano and vocals are magical on these speakers. However, bass is not nearly as tight, fast or robust as the 20.7, nor is treble as extended. They also don't handle as much power as the 20.7 and need to be treated with more care. However, you can run them more effectively with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7.

The Analysis Audio Omega is more similar to the 20.7 than the 2912. They also have that "you are there" presentation. In the treble and midrange, I would say they are slightly better than the 20.7 because they are a little smoother and more organic. However, their soundstage, while very nice, is not nearly as large or impressive as the 20.7. In addition, their bass, while very fast, is not nearly as deep, robust or impactful as the 20.7. I feel these speakers will also perform better with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7. However, they can rock and do have the capacity to handle a higher powered amp and fill a large room as well.

To conclude, I could be extremely happy with any of these speakers. But the 20.7 are my favorite because they have no weak points. They may not be the best in every category but they are close. And they are one of the best values in high-end audio at their price point.

Please keep in my that these are just my personal observations and your mileage could definitely vary.

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joeinid said:
Hi Ken,

Thank you so much for your thoughts. I had Apogee Duetta II's and loved them.

I understand your points and think I agree 100%. I have the perfect amps for for the 20.7 with the Bryston 28's and CJ ART monos.

I would like the intimate nature of the Quads but worry about their complexity. I have to believe the 20.7 would be easier to live with in the long term and a great counterbalance to my Strads.

I'll have to see what other bright ideas I get before I pull the trigger on something. There's so much I want and so little funds to play with :D

Thanks again!
Click to expand...

Thanks Joe! The 20.7 and 2912 are entirely different sounding speakers in my opinion. I wouldn't mind having both of them. The 20.7 are great all arounders, which sound terrific on jazz, rock or classical. IMO, the 2912 does not excel on rock but is great on classical or jazz. I actually wanted to like the Analysis Audio Omega the most because they are modeled after Apogees but with some technological improvements. But once I heard the 20.7, I lost interest in the Omega. The 20.7 are just a steal at their price point and do some things better than any other speaker I've ever heard. If you have the space in your room, they would be one hell of an addition! I would recommend auditioning them at Overture Audio in their big room.

Best,
Ken
 
I think I heard the 3.7i the same day I heard the Wilson Sabrina and Sasha 2. Unfortunately, the Maggies were being played with lower end McIntosh and the room was shaped funny so the sound was not what I expected. I know they are capable of much better performance. There was a hint of how good they could sound so I expect better.

The ARC GS and Sasha 2 combo stopped me in my tracks. I really did not like the Sasha 1 so I was in massive shack. I don't know if it was the Sasha 2, the ARC GS or more likely the combo was just awesome. As much as I'd love the Sasha 2, I don't know the long term listenability of them. I do not want another TAD experience.



Alpinist said:
Thanks Joe! The 20.7 and 2912 are entirely different sounding speakers in my opinion. I wouldn't mind having both of them. The 20.7 are great all arounders, which sound terrific on jazz, rock or classical. IMO, the 2912 does not excel on rock but is great on classical or jazz. I actually wanted to like the Analysis Audio Omega the most because they are modeled after Apogees but with some technological improvements. But once I heard the 20.7, I lost interest in the Omega. The 20.7 are just a steal at their price point and do some things better than any other speaker I've ever heard. If you have the space in your room, they would be one hell of an addition! I would recommend auditioning them at Overture Audio in their big room.

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...
 
An open question for ESL enthusiasts: how do Quads compare sound-wise and reliability-wise to Maggies or other ESLs for that matter?

Just an aside, while I gather that the new Quads are better designed from a mechanical and electronic perspective to protect against being over-driven, I have concerns based on numerous posts on Audiogon about blown panels and the PITA troubles owners have had getting their Quads repaired. How much of a concern is this with the new Quads?? Does Quad have a network of authorized in-home repair techs, or does repair require a trip to a Quad repair center in the middle of .... .?

Are the new Quds less susceptible to ambient humidity and dryness operational issues? Many A'gon posts about HV arc'ing if ambient conditions aren't just right.

Last ... a number of A'gon posts about some ML ESLs having wacko impedance curves. Some have described a couple of ML models as having impedance curves that looks like a giant capacitor. What about Quads. How amp friendly are these speakers?
 
Quad 2812/2912's dip to 4 ohms at 10k. They can play at 97db at 1 meter continuously and a 107db peak. They are supposedly more reliable.

I've owned 5 pairs of Maggie's and to my ears, the Quad's are far better. I've never heard piano like the ones at Axpona and RMAF. Not as dynamic or "live" as horns, but a beautiful sound and a brand I'm seriously considering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Alpinist said:
Hi Joe,

I owned the Magnepan 3.7 and Apogee Duetta Signature. I also have auditioned the Quad 2912, Magnepan 20.7 and Analysis Audio Omega. The latter three of these speakers are all outstanding and each bring their own special qualities to the table.

I would have to say my favorite of the three are the Magnepan 20.7. These speakers throw a huge soundstage with a massive wall of sound that can extend well beyond the dimensions of the room in width, height and depth. They are also one of the only planar speakers that provides truly magnificent bass, which is fast, tight, deep and can move you. Midrange and treble are seamless and they absolutely excel on piano and vocals, although they can rock too. They are "you are in the venue" speakers. These speakers need a large room that is wide, high and deep enough to let the sound out from behind them. They also need a lot of power to sound their best.

Comparatively, the Quad 2912 produces a more intimate presentation. They are more "the musicians are in your listening room" speakers. They are absolutely gorgeous in the midrange frequencies, probably the best of the three. Piano, vocals and chamber music are magical on these speakers. However, bass is not nearly as tight, fast or robust as the 20.7, nor is treble as extended. They also don't handle as much power as the 20.7 and need to be treated with more care. However, you can run them more effectively with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7.

The Analysis Audio Omega is more similar to the 20.7 than the 2912. They also have that "you are there" presentation. In the treble and midrange, I would say they are slightly better than the 20.7 because they are a little smoother and more organic. However, their soundstage, while very nice, is not nearly as large or impressive as the 20.7. In addition, their bass, while very fast, is not nearly as deep, robust or impactful as the 20.7. I feel these speakers will also perform better with a lower powered amp and in a smaller room than the 20.7. However, they can rock and do have the capacity to handle a higher powered amp and fill a large room as well.

To conclude, I could be extremely happy with any of these speakers. But the 20.7 are my favorite because they have no weak points. They may not be the best in every category but they are close. And they are one of the best values in high-end audio at their price point.

Please keep in my that these are just my personal observations and your mileage could definitely vary.

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...

Thanks for the informative post, Ken!:thumbsup:
 
I will concur both quad and magnapan have a completely different sound , if coming from dynamic speakers the maggies will have a more familiar sonic signature to you vs an ESL which voices differently as do all ESL 's vs magnostats ....


You will need big amplifiers to get the maggies going , this is very important when making a decision ..



Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top