Poll For Electrostatic / Planar Speaker Users

[Ninanina]

Wondering how many people are using electrostatic or planar speakers

[jandl100]

Maybe you need a 3rd option - have owned them, but no longer do.

I've had lots of planars and stats, and enjoyed them.
But not at the moment. :)

And maybe a 4th option for hybrids.

But I'll vote No.

[Frazeur1]

Yes, another choice would maybe be good, as I used several Maggies for quite a few years. If you have the room and right gear for them, they certainly can be quite nice. Who knows, maybe someday I will get back to panels again.

[struth]

added 3rd choice

[jandl100]

added 3rd choice

Too late, I've voted already!

[walpurgis]

It won't let me vote on that. I've already voted on 'don't use them'. But I have in the past.

[Frazeur1]

Thanks Grant. I guess Jerry, Geoff and I have weighed in though, even if we cannot revote!

Also, more importantly, I am glad that Nina is enjoying her Magnepans!

[struth]

marco may be able to change you vote or remove it..

[bumpy]

Where do open baffles fit in?

[Marco]

marco may be able to change you vote or remove it..

Wotcha want me to do?:)

Marco.

[struth]

Wotcha want me to do?:)

Marco.

3 of the lads wanted to change vote now a third option is there.. jerry, geoff and timothy above:) if possible to option 3

[Marco]

Okies... I need to know how each of them voted previously, so I can deduct the votes from the right place., and place them instead in option 3.

Marco.

[struth]

lads need to say then.im not sure.... is ticked to show as public vote but its not showing

cummon lads fess up:lol:

[walpurgis]

3 of the lads wanted to change vote now a third option is there.. jerry, geoff and timothy above:) if possible to option 3

I don't want to vote just for option three. I want to vote for option two and three as both apply. Already voted for two.

[Sherwood]

:cocktail::clapclapclap: :dance: WE'RE WINNING :dance::clapclapclap: :cocktail:

[struth]

I don't want to vote just for option three. I want to vote for option two and three as both apply. Already voted for two.

if you vote for 3 then it means 2 as well..:doh:

[Barry]

Where do open baffles fit in?

They are not panel speakers - so if you want to, you would vote 'No'.

[Sherwood]

if you vote for 3 then it means 2 as well..:doh:

No way! They are in with us pinkos!

[walpurgis]

They are not panel speakers - so if you want to, you would vote 'No'.

Or ask for a fourth category. They are all dipoles are they not?

(not muddying the waters am I? :D)

[struth]

No way! They are in with us pinkos!

means tried them, and went back to trad ones..

might be best deleting poll and starting again with more options

[Barry]

I don't want to vote just for option three. I want to vote for option two and three as both apply. Already voted for two.

Logically, there should be a fourth option for those who have used non-planar speakers in the past, but now presently use planar speakers.

But all of this is complicating matters. The reply options use the present tense; Member's equipment history is not of interest in this poll.

[walpurgis]

The reply options use the present tense; Member's equipment history is not of interest in this poll.

Not how I interpret option three.

[Sherwood]

Logically, there should be a fourth option for those who have used non-planar speakers in the past, but now presently use planar speakers.

But all of this is complicating matters. The reply options use the present tense; Member's equipment history is not of interest in this poll.

Then I propose another category. Those who would like to use such speakers if they could!

Geoff

[Sherwood]

True, open baffle speakers are dipoles, but I think that cone/moving coil drivers are so different from electrostatic panels or electromagnetic panels (is that what we should call Magneplanars?) that open baffle speakers using cones shouldn't be in the same category.

I think the generic term for Maggie type speakers is magnetic planar (like the headphones).

Geoff

[Barry]

Not how I interpret option three.

The two original options, as written by Bev, used the present tense - asking what people use now.

[Frazeur1]

Marco, I voted #2-No Don't use Electrostatic or Planar Speakers, initially. However, #3 does fit...Thanks!

[jandl100]

Marco, I voted #2-No Don't use Electrostatic or Planar Speakers, initially. However, #3 does fit...Thanks!

Yep, me as well.

[Marco]

Ok chaps, amendments made :)

Marco.

[Sherwood]

Definitely no selection bias here! When did box speakers cease to be commonplace? :scratch:

Geoff

[Ali Tait]

Had a few statics, a pair of 57’s a good few years ago which were lovely. Then a couple of models from ER Audio, which I bought from Colin Topps who used to be the U.K. agent for them many moons ago. I still have their top model, the Acorns, a long term project for which is to drive with them some direct coupled GM70 valve amps, though a trip to a previous Owston unfortunately damaged one of the panels which I have yet to repair - been mucking about with active OB’s ever since..

Nick Gorham threw together a prototype 813 direct coupled amp for that Owston ( because I had several pairs) which sounded amazing, in many ways still the best sound I’ve ever heard from a sound system. Definitely the way to get the best from statics IMO.

[Barry]

Had a few statics, a pair of 57’s a good few years ago which were lovely. Then a couple of models from ER Audio, which I bought from Colin Topps who used to be the U.K. agent for them many moons ago. I still have their top model, the Acorns, a long term project for which is to drive with them some direct coupled GM70 valve amps, though a trip to a previous Owston unfortunately damaged one of the panels which I have yet to repair - been mucking about with active OB’s ever since..

Nick Gorham threw together a prototype 813 direct coupled amp for that Owston ( because I had several pairs) which sounded amazing, in many ways still the best sound I’ve ever heard from a sound system. Definitely the way to get the best from statics IMO.

I believe Tim de Paravicini did something similar with a pair of Quad 57s, though I don't remember which output valves he used. Makes a lot of sense: direct coupling of the anodes of the push-pull output valves to the stators eliminates two transformers at a stroke. Wouldn't need much power, but the anodes would have to run at about 2kV.

[YNWaN]

I can hear the appeal of electrostatic speakers but, for me, their strengths have never outweighed their limitations. Also, I’m really not a fan of dipoles as such (not all electrostatics have been dipoles).

[Lawrence001]

What are hybrid ribbon speakers classed as??

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Barry]

What are hybrid ribbon speakers classed as??

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

Planar, as are hybrid electrostatic speakers.

[Ninanina]

Thanks for adding the new option, that makes sense

I'm actually quite surprised how many people are using, or have used, electrostatic/planar speakers :)

[struth]

Planar, as are hybrid electrostatic speakers.

got trad drivers too tho

[montesquieu]

Had a couple of pairs each of 57s and 63s, have several times gone to hear but chickened out of buying 989s and 2905s (wider frequency range, but I don't think they have the magic of the oldies) ... heard a few pairs of Maggies at shows, not sure they are really my kind of thing ... warming to Apogees, for all their idiosyncrasies as I've always liked them any time I've heard them (though I suspect it takes dedication at Justin's level to get the best out of them) ... loathe and detest the hybrid Martin Logans with their 10ft tall violinists and midget cellists (though do like the CLS).

All of my (actually fairly lengthy) electrostatic ownership experience is therefore with Quads ... and what do what they do well, they do fantastically well ... however, some things they don't do well at all.. The wife's not a fan as she refuses to sit in the (typically very small) sweet spot so really needs a room-filling dynamic driver (Tannoy fitting the bill nicely) that doesn't do weird things if you aren't in the directly radiated area. I suspect I won't have another pair.

[Barry]

got trad drivers too tho

Well yes - that is what is meant by 'hybrid'. But the traditional driver is usually the bass driver.

Not all electrostatics were planar (dipole) though: the Alex Shackman mid/tweeter wasn't, nor was the American Electro Static Sounds (ESS) speaker which used electrostatic tweeters. Both used a conventional cabinet.

[walpurgis]

Not all electrostatics were planar (dipole) though: the Alex Shackman mid/tweeter wasn't, nor was the American Electro Static Sounds (ESS) speaker which used electrostatic tweeters. Both used a conventional cabinet.

I believe Jenszen from the US used an enclosure too.

[Barry]

I believe Jenszen from the US used an enclosure too.

Yes you're right - I had forgotten about the Jenszen unit.

[magiccarpetride]

Yes, another choice would maybe be good, as I used several Maggies for quite a few years. If you have the room and right gear for them, they certainly can be quite nice. Who knows, maybe someday I will get back to panels again.

I'm staying with my Maggies because, unlike other speakers I've tried, Maggies seem the least fussy about positioning/room treatments. I don't have the ideal listening room, so Maggies are heaven sent for me.

[Lawrence001]

Planar, as are hybrid electrostatic speakers.Put me down as planar then. At least for 2 more weeks, something might be arriving at that point :)

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Lawrence001]

Well yes - that is what is meant by 'hybrid'. But the traditional driver is usually the bass driver.

Not all electrostatics were planar (dipole) though: the Alex Shackman mid/tweeter wasn't, nor was the American Electro Static Sounds (ESS) speaker which used electrostatic tweeters. Both used a conventional cabinet.The only ESS speakers I've seen actually used a "bellows" principle Oskar Heil air motion tweeter in a hollow alcove above the bass driver, despite the company name. What is a good example of one of their electrostatic speakers?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[walpurgis]

The only ESS speakers I've seen actually used a "bellows" principle Oskar Heil air motion tweeter in a hollow alcove above the bass driver, despite the company name. What is a good example of one of their electrostatic speakers?

I'm fairly sure there was a large Heil pleated ribbon driver that either provided bass or was full range. This may have been an experimental unit, it was a long time ago and my recollection is not clear. I suspect it may not have been anything to do with ESS.

[Pharos]

Yes, ESS produced the Transar, a massive full range Heil principled thing using rods to drive cone-cups, but I don't think it was ever commercially successful though.

[Barry]

The only ESS speakers I've seen actually used a "bellows" principle Oskar Heil air motion tweeter in a hollow alcove above the bass driver, despite the company name. What is a good example of one of their electrostatic speakers?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

I may have been mistaken with the name. I have a review of such a speaker in an old US audio magazine of 1972. The magazine is boxed up along with others, so I will need some time to find it and check the name of the US speaker I had in mind. Whatever it was called, it definitely used electrostatic tweeters.

[Lawrence001]

I may have been mistaken with the name. I have a review of such a speaker in an old US audio magazine of 1972. The magazine is boxed up along with others, so I will need some time to find it and check the name of the US speaker I had in mind. Whatever it was called, it definitely used electrostatic tweeters.Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they made some electrostatics or where would they have got the name from? I just haven't been able to identify a pair yet. Unless they got the name from making amplification for electrostatics, I had a beautiful power amp by them a few years ago, it was apparently the first American "monster" amp, I think it went to about 200wpc into 8 ohms.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Pharos]

They did make electrostatics. I spoke extensively to them in the mid 80s during my first ESS rebuild and they confirmed it.

I also have brochures of their amplifiers from that time, and the specs were so far ahead of what we were typically using that it was astounding.

I think that the relative vulnerability of electrostatics, coupled with the arrival of the Heil changed their direction.

[Sherwood]

They did make electrostatics. I spoke extensively to them in the mid 80s during my first ESS rebuild and they confirmed it.

I also have brochures of their amplifiers from that time, and the specs were so far ahead of what we were typically using that it was astounding.

I think that the relative vulnerability of electrostatics, coupled with the arrival of the Heil changed their direction.

Yes, ESS stood for ElectroStatic Sound. I am a big fan of the Air Motion Transformer, though the technology is not your standard magnetic planar technology. http://www.hedd.audio/en/hedd-amt/

Properly implemented, an AMT has a speed and clarity that few other technologies can match. That is why I recently bought a pair of Martin Logan Motion 2 speakers for use in my travelling hifi system. Yes, the bass output is limited, but in truth after a while you just don't notice that much, such is the transparency and speed of what is there. Even though they are small speakers, dynamics are outstanding. On vocals, you really get the sense of the performer being in the room.

Geoff

[User211]

Just been reading the technical review of the Maggie 20.7, at £19K in April's HFN.

It really isn't good. 80DB sensitivity, 2.5Ohms at 451Hz and an uneven pair matching response of up to +/- 5.5DB, probably due to inconsistent panel tension I would imagine. Also, there's much complaint about panel resonance, which isn't kept in check by their super flimsy construction IMHO.

There are huge suckouts in the FR with a plus/minus max difference over the frequency range of nearly 20DB swing. But the microphone placement is so far from ideal positioning it is hard to make any real conclusions about exactly how bad it really is.

They are a bit crap when measuring planars. They don't seem to be able to place the microphone far enough away, and at least with this review they are fessing up to it. They produced frequency response plots for the Analysis Omega years ago that quite frankly were very, very hard to believe.

The subjective rating? 89%, which is pretty damned good for an HFN score.

All is not necessarily well in technical review land. I have seen technical reports for some products recently that I think are utter bullshit.

[User211]

If they can only put the mic 6 foot away, you have to wonder what they have done. I'd imagine these huge planars have been dumped in a tiny room, with nowhere near the distance they need from the front wall to perform well.

I'm not defending the Maggies but I am very sceptical about what they have really done.

[Ninanina]

Yes Justin I just read an old HFN review of the Maggies I have and they didn't score very well at all

However they also stated that they were: "hard to put down, possibly due to the absence of the usual unpleasant speaker faults" and carried on to say "they may prove sufficiently beguiling in circumstances where musicality can be placed beyond accuracy" etc etc

They didn't 'measure' well either in the test but I guess not all speakers that 'measure' well sound good either :)

[User211]

Logans typically don't do well either, with the usual complaints about panel break up and resonances.

Interestingly mine do measure well with the mic exactly at the listening position, some 12 foot away. But they do work quite differently to a Maggie or Logan. Whatever, in my case it is irrelevant, they aren't a commercial product in the normal sense of the concept.

[Ninanina]

I am amazed that so many people are using, or have used, electrostatic/planar speakers...

[Dylanthecat]

Hi, I currently have the following across both camps - a pair of Maggies, Apogee hybrids, DM70 Continental hybrids, ELS57, and ELS63. They are all very pleasing and have their nuances. If I was pushed the ELS57 might have the edge. Martin

[hifinutt]

used martin logan summit x before and probably the best speaker i ever had . 4 years of absolute pleasure terminated sadly by my wife :eek:

[alphaGT]

I didn’t own them, but a pair of Martin Logan’s gave some of the best sound I’ve ever heard! Soundstage was 3 dimensional, I had no sense of the sound coming from the speakers, just suspended in the air between and beyond them.

Of course the associated electronics were top notch, which I’m sure had much to do with it.

Russell

[lilolee]

Maggie SMGa currently in my office. Had them for years and will never get rid of them.

[gary1]

hi I'm using magneplanar smga before that I had some quad 63esls and some analyses epsolons prefer the openness of panels

[wee tee cee]

Plumbed my 57s back in Sunday night....they beguile me,regardless of there well documented shortcomings.

They just do voices so naturally.

[User211]

The below is a video of a 320Kbps MP3 of Jim Keltner's Improvisation from an Usher test disk.

Underneath it is a link to the same track recorded using a Rowland Edirol you see in the video by the sound pressure meter.

Make no mistake this test track is really hissy with additional LF noise from somewhere - no noise reduction on analogue tape from a long time ago. However, the recording has plenty of slam, which makes it an impressive listen.

If you follow the link you can download the 44.1KHz uncompressed .wav recording, which is better quality than the camera mic, obviously. Compare the two for fun, but you'd have to be pretty mad to bother doing it, I accept that. Play loud, though, if you do. The .WAV download contains the bass the camera mic misses along with other improvements in quality, I think.

The problem is when played back on my dynamic Mark & Daniels, they can't convey the sheer speed of the Apogees. However, I think all will agree you can tell the speakers aren't slow (and have real balls), LOL.

Just a bit of fun don't take it too seriously. Feel free to say it sounds bad, but I can tell you in room it is astonishing. This on properly tricked out restored Full Range must be astonishing+++.

We're getting 96 odd DB from nominally 80 Watt tube amps here, with a bit of headroom to spare yet, from an Apogee. Take note of that - the Duetta never was really hard to drive.

Note my Lampizator is away being fixed/modified, and I am simply using a £100 Chinese DAC, a Xiang Sheng DAC-01A, with a Western Electric 396A in it. Amazingly good for the money.

Make sure you play back at at least 720P.

The track is a pretty well known hi-fi show track.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ms-Km_Yp5A



The Rowland Edirol .WAV version download. (https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApUl1xxOUo0ljBsBZl-zpTAlqzAi). It will start playing as soon as you hit the link, with the option to download.

The sound pressure meter is set to read max peak. Ambient reads around 44DB but hitting the peak read button pushes that up to 66DB the buttons are so clunky.

[montesquieu]

The below is a video of a 320Kbps MP3 of Jim Keltner's Improvisation from an Usher test disk.

Underneath it is a link to the same track recorded using a Rowland Edirol you see in the video by the sound pressure meter.

Make no mistake this test track is really hissy with additional LF noise from somewhere - no noise reduction on analogue tape from a long time ago. However, the recording has plenty of slam, which makes it an impressive listen.

If you follow the link you can download the 44.1KHz uncompressed .wav recording, which is better quality than the camera mic, obviously. Compare the two for fun, but you'd have to be pretty mad to bother doing it, I accept that. Play loud, though, if you do. The .WAV download contains the bass the camera mic misses along with other improvements in quality, I think.

The problem is when played back on my dynamic Mark & Daniels, they can't convey the sheer speed of the Apogees. However, I think all will agree you can tell the speakers aren't slow (and have real balls), LOL.

Just a bit of fun don't take it too seriously. Feel free to say it sounds bad, but I can tell you in room it is astonishing. This on properly tricked out restored Full Range must be astonishing+++.

We're getting 96 odd DB from nominally 80 Watt tube amps here, with a bit of headroom to spare yet, from an Apogee. Take note of that - the Duetta never was really hard to drive.

Note my Lampizator is away being fixed/modified, and I am simply using a £100 Chinese DAC, a Xiang Sheng DAC-01A, with a Western Electric 396A in it. Amazingly good for the money.

Make sure you play back at at least 720P.

The track is a pretty well known hi-fi show track.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ms-Km_Yp5A



The Rowland Edirol .WAV version download. (https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApUl1xxOUo0ljBsBZl-zpTAlqzAi). It will start playing as soon as you hit the link, with the option to download.

The sound pressure meter is set to read max peak. Ambient reads around 44DB but hitting the peak read button pushes that up to 66DB the buttons are so clunky.

After you played that to me Justin I went home and dug out the vinyl. :D

The Apogees are about the only panel speaker I can imagine that would come close to handling this track. ESLs for all their charms would simply not capture the scale. The Apogees really nailed it.

Tannoys made a decent fist of it - the Apogees scored higher in the stick hits skin sound but Tannoys just about matched in scale and caught the subtleties well too.

Maybe I should digitise it - I noticed that the version on Spotify doesn’t have the dynamic range / explosiveness down to whisper quiet of the vinyl copy - sounded a bit flat by comparison. You were using Tidal though.

[Mike Reed]

..... ESLs for all their charms would simply not capture the scale. The Apogees really nailed it.

ANY ESLs, Tom? I find that hard to believe when you talk about scale. My experience is limited (57s & 2905s) but the latter do scale like no other speaker I've had, and those were behemoths in the majority of cases.

[User211]

If it is the Sheffield version on Spotify it is poor in comparison to the MP3 I have. The Sheffield version is on TIDAL.

I must order the Usher test disc itself for an uncompressed version, thought the rest of the disc is a bit shit, TBH.

Not all digital is created the same:D

The difference in SQ between the Rowland Edirol and the camera mics is quite marked when played back on decent speakers.

To my mind there is only one other speaker I have ever heard that can do this track well. That was Jim from the Wam's lead lined Wilsons on the end of some 600 Watt Rowland monos.

When my Lampi comes back Tom, and you have the Radford, maybe I'll come round and we'll see how well it does on yours with a "proper" version of it.

[User211]

ANY ESLs, Tom? I find that hard to believe when you talk about scale. My experience is limited (57s & 2905s) but the latter do scale like no other speaker I've had, and those were behemoths in the majority of cases.

I must admit I don't think Tom's speakers could quite match the scale or speed. But they do sound much bigger than you would have any right to expect. And they are quick enough to be convincing.

Tom's speakers are bloody good, though. Seriously so.

[User211]

Just been remembering Mike, long time since I heard 2905s but yes, they did do scale well. And for an ESL, they could do some quite meaty bass.

[montesquieu]

Just been remembering Mike, long time since I heard 2905s but yes, they did do scale well. And for an ESL, they could do some quite meaty bass.

I wasn't over-fussed with the 2905s when I heard them. Could have been the source kit (all Quad) but while it was a pretty L-R picture they lacked dimensionality - just couldn't do 3D depth convincingly. Never really got to hear them with anything big scale though. When I talk about ESLs I really mean 57s though I've owned 63s as well. Given the space I'd happily have either in a second system. I may revisit modern Quads some day with the front end, pre and power I have now and see what they do with it.

[Barry]

I had similar thoughts when I listened to the '63s shortly after their introduction. For all their shortcomings, I'll stick with my '57s as they do the things that are important to me better than most other speakers out there.

[User211]

I had similar thoughts when I listened to the '63s shortly after their introduction. For all their shortcomings, I'll stick with my '57s as they do the things that are important to me better than most other speakers out there.63s aren't good. I reckon restored 57s or 2905s (s means plural).

57s for mid range and 2905s for bass and scale.

Running both in parallel would be interesting. And very hard to pull off well.

It could be done though.

Sounds a bit three way. But so what?

[Mike Reed]

.......... long time since I heard 2905s but yes, they did do scale well. And for an ESL, they could do some QUITE MEATY bass.

More chicken than beef, i.m.o., but good organic corn-fed chicken. nonetheless. However, I did have those things in my Avatar to compare them with.

I took a punt on a pair of 60s ESL 57s locally a few years ago, and luckily they were in good shape. I liked what they did, but I'm a scale man and they just can't do that. Shortly after, I took another punt on a nearly new pair of 'Classique' 2905s (Jackie Chan livery !). That was two punts which went well.

Two ESL characteristics came home to me after a lifetime (well, half century) of moving coil speakers: transparency and speed. I guess these two attributes are interlinked and symbiotic, though.

Now. if they came up with a bigger version of the 2905s (assuming lower frequency delivery) I'd be first in the queue. Sub's ? No way, Jose ! Martin Logans? Possibly, but firstly they're American and secondly they have a narrow (30 degree) angle of sound distribution. However...............:)

[User211]

Post #70 was made after a few glasses of wine after a session with my brother.

The in-parallel suggestion is probably a bad idea:D

[Liffy99]

Just changed from a pair of Finals (in a 2+2 configuration) to Quad 2905s.
Thats my sixth ‘stat and 8th planar. Guess I know what I like 😋

Any other Quad 2805/2905 owners know how to change the light behind the Quad logo ?
One speaker is fine, the other is not (yes, I have twiddled the rear knob).
I’m hoping I can just pull the badge off and an easily replaced bulb will lie behind, but dont want to go poking and prodding too much just 24hrs into ownership.

Cheers

[Barry]

I expect Mike Reed might be able to help you since he uses 2905s, otherwise give Quad a call.

[Mike Reed]

I've never had to investigate mine, Stephen. However, I'd echo Barry and give Quad a ring. As you can turn the lights off, why don't you just use them like that; assuming it's the front light you're talking about and not the rear 'on' light. I'd be interested in what you're driving them with and what you think of them, as you've got form with panels !:)

[Liffy99]

Yes, its just the front logo.
Driving them with a Lyngdorf 2200 fully digital amp with inbuilt room correction software.
Just finished calibrating the room correction, added the weights and spikes. Best I could do positioning wise is 2’6” from rear wall and toed in so axes cross just in front of my nose. Can only manage 5’ between inner edges and listen about 9’ away.

Well, they ceratainly disappear ! More so than any panel I’ve yet had (Audiostatic Wings came close) with a gloriously broad sounstage and good imaging. A little less depth than I had with my much smaller Finals and woofers but hey, the Quads could do with another foot behind them I expect. I do have acoustic wall panels behind mind.

And far more, and good quality, bass than I expected. I did think of relieving them of low bass by retaining my woofers (active.y bi-amped) but, as yet, I am not feeling the need. Volume is plenty for my needs too but my old Tannoys would show them a clean pair of (coloured) heels in macro dynamics.

If you are near Somerset you would be welcome to hear the set up. Source is just Qobuz and FLAC library via a Raspberry Pi and Allo Digione card.

[Mike Reed]

Norwich, I'm afraid, but thanks. That's a very strange amplification system to drive the 2905s, but it seems to work. You're probably right about the 2'6"; it's not a lot. Mine are driven by E.A.R pre. and two mono's (which were designed around 63s). I have four sources into my pre., so I do get v.f.m. out of the ESLs .:)

I have 6' between edges and sit around 12' away. I'm lucky inasmuch as I have a room (as the rear part of a through lounge) behind the speakers, but they're right up to side walls and arch as I'm a bit pushed for width. Unfortunately, there aren't any more walls I can knock down, so I'm stuck with it !

[Liffy99]

Strange ? Not really, just different perhaps.
As I discover more about the Quads I suspect they do not have the original mains leads as the IEC connectors, which are the usual straight ones, protrude too far for the plastic cover plate to sit flush. Did Quad used right angled IECs ?

Actually I do have other sources plumbed in - Oppo 103, Sony PS4, and Humax PVR for TV. Just nothing analogue (although the Lyngdorf does have the optional analogue input board).

[Mike Reed]

Hi Stephen. Yes, mine are the right-angled IEC plug. Guess I'm a bit old school where ESLs reflect valved amplification, but of course, as long as there's welly, anything above, say, 50 W/ch will suffice. Incidentally, my 2905s much prefer the 4 ohm taps on my 509s, but I don'y think non-valved amplification has this facility.

I'm a novice with ESLs, but simply can't imagine reverting to m/c speakers, despite having some really hefty ones over the decades. Re. your light, I can't see any way of accessing it except by prising off the 'Quad' tag, and I wouldn't fancy trying that, even IF that was the way in (which I doubt)

[Ammonite Audio]

Norwich, I'm afraid, but thanks. That's a very strange amplification system to drive the 2905s, but it seems to work.

I used to run Quad 57s with an early Lyngdorf TDA-2200 amplifier and it was a wondrous pairing. Lyngdorf’s particular flavour of Class D is one of those designs that genuinely laughs at difficult loads, and it showed with the Quads. Truly magnificent stuff.

[Liffy99]

Hi Stephen. Yes, mine are the right-angled IEC plug. Guess I'm a bit old school where ESLs reflect valved amplification, but of course, as long as there's welly, anything above, say, 50 W/ch will suffice. Incidentally, my 2905s much prefer the 4 ohm taps on my 509s, but I don'y think non-valved amplification has this facility.

I'm a novice with ESLs, but simply can't imagine reverting to m/c speakers, despite having some really hefty ones over the decades. Re. your light, I can't see any way of accessing it except by prising off the 'Quad' tag, and I wouldn't fancy trying that, even IF that was the way in (which I doubt)

Hi Mike
Bit of a daft request but don’t suppose you could post a picture of the angled IEC plug ? I have a feeling that Quad may have used something a bit off-piste. Thanks

[Mike Reed]

Since the cut-off of Photobucket, I haven't managed to sort out another host. I really must get onto it, but digital stuff like that presents a bit of a challenge. Best I can do would be to send you a pic via email (using message box) or describe it here.

Looking directly at the speaker and IEC inputs, the mains lead enters the plug at the bottom, with the contact IEC at 90 degrees to it. It plugs in at about 30 degrees or so from horizontal to fit the sloping panel. This means that the cover clears this when closed, Anything else wouldn't allow the flap to close, I'd imagine. The plug/lead connection is similar to the SME right-angled DIN tonearm plugs. Hope this helps. B.t.w., my plug is, think, moulded onto the lead.

[Mike Reed]

Pic's just sent by email, Stephen. Hope this sorts you out.

[Ninanina]

Poll now has 22 peeps using some form of planar speakers against 19 not and 9 others that have used them before, that's amazing to me

My Maggies are still amazing me with their sheer musicality and ease of producing sound that I have doubts that I will go back to 'normal' box speakers, however I will try the LV's back in the system at some point but I just don't think they will 'do it' for me..

[Frazeur1]

Glad you are enjoying the Maggies so much, Nina! They certainly can be a do-all, end-all for some. Hope you get your stands done soon too!