+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 90

Thread: Quad ESL help appreciated!

  1. #71
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 803
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jandl100 View Post
    I replaced my Quad 63 stats (of 7 years ownership and well maintained by Quad) with the then-new ProAc Response 2 speakers. The ProAcs beat them in every way, imo.
    People get latched onto one particular thing - "oh, I could never go back to XYZ" - but in reality there's usually a lot of choices that may even beat your favourites.
    Yes I agree it can be easy to get set in your ways a bit. The ProAc's look really nice.

    If I cannot sort this issue I have, they'd certainly warrant an audition.

    Cheers Jerry

  2. #72
    Join Date: Feb 2011

    Location: Troon

    Posts: 2,439
    I'm tony.

    Default

    I echo Jerrys position....i retired the statics when i took delivery of reiver acoustic eddingdale sr.

    Colin Topps that builds them sold me my 57s years ago, he knew what the do well but the big eddies do everything better sonically with no positioning problems and lovely efficiency.

    I found with the 57s i would tailor my music choices to their strengths-the eddies do everything you throw at them with aplomb IMHO.

  3. #73
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 803
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wee tee cee View Post
    I echo Jerrys position....i retired the statics when i took delivery of reiver acoustic eddingdale sr.

    Colin Topps that builds them sold me my 57s years ago, he knew what the do well but the big eddies do everything better sonically with no positioning problems and lovely efficiency.

    I found with the 57s i would tailor my music choices to their strengths-the eddies do everything you throw at them with aplomb IMHO.
    Spot on Tony, choosing specific albums, genres and even individual tracks to flatter the speakers is something I've just come to accept as necessary with the 57's, in return for the transparency and midrange.

    If, as you say, this is obtainable elsewhere maybe its time to reconsider. Those Reiver Acoustic's look incredible actually and if they do what you say are well priced.

  4. #74
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 37,695
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Utter nonsense!

    I've been using Quad 57s for over forty years, and I play everything through them: classical; choral; jazz; blues; folk; "world" music; pop; rock and punk.
    Barry

  5. #75
    Join Date: Feb 2011

    Location: Troon

    Posts: 2,439
    I'm tony.

    Default

    I love my 57s but have to be realistic as to what they can and cant do.

    Last time i plumbed them in i was shocked...sadly it sounded like a duvet had been thrown over the hi fi.

    I had considered stacked 57s but just felt it was a losing battle.

  6. #76
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 803
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Utter nonsense!

    I've been using Quad 57s for over forty years, and I play everything through them: classical; choral; jazz; blues; folk; "world" music; pop; rock and punk.
    I play everything through mine too but they just shine more with some material than others. This will also be amp and crucially for me, room dependent.

    Like I say its probably due to the limitations of my amp and room but they do tend to fall apart a bit with rock and larger scale music for me.

    I think to play classical properly you have to be at the top end of their input limit (unless you have protection boards and clamps which I don't).

    Interestingly I find them unbelievably good with electronic synth and keyboard/piano music.

    I'm far too worried to put anything over 25w through them with all the scare stories . . .

  7. #77
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 803
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Here's an interesting little product if I do decide to go the EQ route. As suggested by Jerry and others. (Not Shane haha).

    I quite like the idea of wide(ish) band EQ manipulation. In my mind it would be smoother than "cutting" into the spectrum with more precise sliders.

    It also has a bypass mode.

    Would prefer it to be integrated into my tube amp though . . .

    https://schiit.eu.com/loki

  8. #78
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 43,319
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    No you don't want that, you want the one Jerry linked to, do the EQ digitally.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > Troels Gravesen Faital 3WC-15.

  9. #79
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 803
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    No you don't want that, you want the one Jerry linked to, do the EQ digitally.
    Will do Macca, thanks. Never dabbled in EQing with hifi before . . .

  10. #80
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: gone

    Posts: 11,510
    I'm gone.

    Default

    Actually, the £40 one I linked to is analog.
    I have one in my 2nd system and have been impressed by it.

    The full monty EQ I suggested is the Behringer DEQ2496, that's capable of doing it all digitally. And it would give you full flexibility for whatever equalisation curves you want - it's a very flexible device indeed. Typically £150 used.
    But to take best advantage of that you need to be using digital-only sources - and did I notice a turntable in those photos?
    - in which case you'd be using the Behringer DEQ2496's onboard ADC (and maybe DAC, if you haven't one of your own), which are pretty good, imo!
    .

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •