What is the best speaker you have ever owned ?????

[Andre Marc]

Where did i say that my speakers are better than anything else, i don't even talk about MY speakers all the talk was about the DIY Acoustat Spectra 8800s that where rebuilt by my friend Jocelyn and what i said is that it is the BEST 12k speakers that I have ever heard in my 40 years plus in this hobby, i am not asking anybody to believe me i am not looking for anyone's approval i'm old enough to judge by myself.

PS: Andre Marc thank you for your comments, you are a man with great class.

Mr. A, I know what speakers you were talking about, and your comparing them to others at different price points got a little
crazy, that is all. I admire your loyalty to the cause.

BTW, you should know that Jeff Dorgay, publisher of Tone Audio, has a pair, and is giddy about them.

Just try not to make it so personal...your love for the brand. I have taken endless insults about my choice of equipment..Harbeth..boring!
retro! over priced!....Thiel: bright...no bass....ugly!......McIntosh: for the carriage trade! all about the blue meters!..etc...

I could not care less.

 

[DaveyF]

Mr A. have you heard the old Quads?( originals...I think they are called '57's). I love this speaker, particularly in a stacked version. They don't do bass or go much into the high freq's, BUT they really do MIDRANGE, perhaps better than any other speaker ever! Someone who I think knows a little about what they say, once told me that most music lies in the midrange ( which i also totally believe). If you have heard these speakers, I would be interested in your opinion.

 

[MrAcoustat]

Mr. A, I know what speakers you were talking about, and your comparing them to others at different price points got a little
crazy, that is all. I admire your loyalty to the cause.

BTW, you should know that Jeff Dorgay, publisher of Tone Audio, has a pair, and is giddy about them.

Just try not to make it so personal...your love for the brand. I have taken endless insults about my choice of equipment..Harbeth..boring!
retro! over priced!....Thiel: bright...no bass....ugly!......McIntosh: for the carriage trade! all about the blue meters!..etc...

I could not care less.

Well all i can tell you sir, NOBODY outside Quebec knows how these speakers sound NOBODY because ALL the special models where made for audiophiles in the province of Quebec, i myself know nothing about DIY my friend Jocelyn is very well known all over he is in contact with Acoustat lovers around the world and people that use to work for Acoustat USA, there are only a few things that i can tell you because Jocelyn has told me, PANELS all of them the top and bottom heads are all soldered together the contact points on all panels are doubled, for three of the models the frame is 2x3 steel covered with mahogany russian wood for stability ( no swing ), major upgrades to the interfaces with very high quality caps & resistors and lots of things that i don't know like i said before i know NOTHING about DIY all i do is sit and listend, all i can tell you is that when i bought my last pair of Acoustat the original price was $600.00, after all the mods and steel frame my speakers cost me around $3,000.00 ALL the work was done labor cheap and parts of course transport delivery to my condo third floor 200 pounds per speaker i'm an old man and i didn't want nothing to do with the moving of these heavy speakers 2 hours drive from his place to mine.

PS: I have NEVER said that they where the best speakers out there what i have said is that the only other speaker that came CLOSE to that sound where the Audio Exklusiv P3.1 that i heard in Toronto last year but retail price was 16k that's why i say that my speakers where a great deal for ME and yes i know that you cannot compare the price of DIY gear and and gear sold in stores.

PS: A small photo of the new Audio Exklusiv P6.1 electrostatic speaker retail price around 21k

- - - - - - - - -

 

[MrAcoustat]

Mr A. have you heard the old Quads?( originals...I think they are called '57's). I love this speaker, particularly in a stacked version. They don't do bass or go much into the high freq's, BUT they really do MIDRANGE, perhaps better than any other speaker ever! Someone who I think knows a little about what they say, once told me that most music lies in the midrange ( which i also totally believe). If you have heard these speakers, I would be interested in your opinion.

Hi Davey the older quads where popular around the same time as Acoustats you are correct they where known for there sweet midrange but true a lack of bass things changed a bit with the 989 - 2805 - 2905 - all great speakers but well outside my budget i bought my first pair of Acoustats in 1984 and never looked back i love ALL panels but i have a preference for full range.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Andre Marc]

Well all i can tell you sir, NOBODY outside Quebec knows how these speakers sound NOBODY because ALL the special models where made for audiophiles in the province of Quebec, i myself know notting about DIY my friend Jocelyn is very well known all over he is in contact with Acoustat lovers around the world and people that use to work for Acoustat USA, there are only a few things that i can tell you because Jocelyn has told me, PANELS all of them the top and bottom heads are all soldered together the contact points on all panels are doubled, for three of the models the frame is 2x3 steel covered with mahogany russian wood for stability ( no swing ), major upgrades to the interfaces with very high quality caps & resistors and lots of things that i don't know like i said before i know NOTHING about DIY all i do is sit and listend, all i can tell you is that when i bought my last pair of Acoustat the original price was $600.00, after all the mods and steel frame my speakers cost me around $3,000.00 ALL the work was done labor cheap and parts of course transport delivery to my condo third floor 200 pounds per speaker i'm an old man and i didn't want nothing to do with the moving of these heavy speakers 2 hours drive from his place to mine.

PS: I have NEVER said that they where the best speakers out there what i have said is that the only other speaker that came CLOSE to that sound that i like where the Audio Exklusiv P3.1 that i heard in Toronto last year but retail price was 16k that's why i say that my speakers where a great deal for ME and yes i know that you cannot compare the price of DIY gear and and gear sold in stores.

View attachment 10609 - - - View attachment 10610 - - -

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.547486558624492.1073741825.202814503091701&type=3

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, Andre (MrAcoustat) did mention the extra care in washing them properly, them 'baby' speakers of his.
...Cannot remember if it's from this audio forum or another though; Andre would know.

* My middle name is Andre, too. :b

 

[MrAcoustat]

Yes, Andre (MrAcoustat) did mention the extra care in washing them properly, them 'baby' speakers of his.
...Cannot remember if it's from this audio forum or another though; Andre would know.

* My middle name is Andre, too. :b

Yes Bob you're right, Acoustat panels soaking in luke warm water with very mild soap ( Dawn ) not to damage the special coating yes the same mild soap they use to wash the greasy ducks in the ads.

PS: Very important RINSE - RINSE - RINSE - AND RINSE AGAIN.

 

[mep]

Mr. A is a fine gentleman...no problem there..but his claim that his speakers are better than anything else became insufferable. The best for him, no doubt. Great.

How is that any different than DaveyF constantly claiming his beloved D-70 MKII is fantastic and he thinks it sounds better than the new REF-75 because he has heard the REF-75? Does anybody know of someone that ditched their REF-75 and went on a search for an old D-70 MKII? Davey even went on to start a whole thread about his CAT preamp and D-70 amp and how they just couldn't be appreciated for how great they are back in the day. DaveyF's constant chatter about how great his D-70 amp is no different than Mr. Acoustat proclaiming his love for his speakers. The biggest difference I see is that DaveyF doesn't constantly show pictures of D-70 amps in systems. So if Mr. Acoustat is insufferable, so is DaveyF and his antique D-70 and all of his little winky emoticons when he says he has heard the REF-75 and he knows which one sounds better.

So the self righteous defense of Mr. A is rather pointless.

DaveyF asked some redundant questions and I gave him some answers. I now pronounce you and DaveyF as the new official tag team on WBF.

 

[microstrip]

Mr A. have you heard the old Quads?( originals...I think they are called '57's). I love this speaker, particularly in a stacked version. They don't do bass or go much into the high freq's, BUT they really do MIDRANGE, perhaps better than any other speaker ever! Someone who I think knows a little about what they say, once told me that most music lies in the midrange ( which i also totally believe). If you have heard these speakers, I would be interested in your opinion.

I am not Mr A., but perhaps I can help, as I have owned a few pairs of ESL57 (one of my high-end glories was meeting Peter Walker at the factory entrance hall, as I was buying ESL57 replacement panels to built speakers at the Huntingdon factory when I was still a student) and still own ESL63.

The midrange of the ESL57 is very clear and transparent, can even sound crispy with some electronics, but unhappily it is not easy to integrate in a system. Many people modify them from stock, changing geometry , stacking them and removing the back absorbers, but IMHO they only manage to kill the beauty and magic of their sound. They are very limited in dynamics and again IMHO they have more coloration than the ESL 63 (many people, most of them who never listened to both Quad ESL's will disagree ).

Contrary to popular belief, that tells us that placement of the Quad's is not critical, as they are dipoles with a figure of 8 radiation pattern emitting very little sideways and with a very controlled decrease of angular radiation with frequency, I have always found that placement and room acoustics were very critical with them. In the wrong room they sound thin and lifeless, in an adequate one they sound big and lifelike, to the point you will often risk their integrity for the pleasure listening to large symphonic orchestras or the dramatic intensity of "Un bel dì vedremo" of the Puccini "Madama Butterfly" opera.

I once had the pleasure of listening to opera in an all Quad system using the ESL 63 setup by Peter Walker - this great man really knew his speakers!

And yes, Davey, I also have been told that most music lies in the midrange. But other people tell me that you will need to have great bass foundation to have a proper system and I can not support unpleasant treble. It is really a terrible hobby!

 

[MrAcoustat]

I am not Mr A., but perhaps I can help, as I have owned a few pairs of ESL57 (one of my high-end glories was meeting Peter Walker at the factory entrance hall, as I was buying ESL57 replacement panels to built speakers at the Huntingdon factory when I was still a student) and still own ESL63.

The midrange of the ESL57 is very clear and transparent, can even sound crispy with some electronics, but unhappily it is not easy to integrate in a system. Many people modify them from stock, changing geometry , stacking them and removing the back absorbers, but IMHO they only manage to kill the beauty and magic of their sound. They are very limited in dynamics and again IMHO they have more coloration than the ESL 63 (many people, most of them who never listened to both Quad ESL's will disagree ).

Contrary to popular belief, that tells us that placement of the Quad's is not critical, as they are dipoles with a figure of 8 radiation pattern emitting very little sideways and with a very controlled decrease of angular radiation with frequency, I have always found that placement and room acoustics were very critical with them. In the wrong room they sound thin and lifeless, in an adequate one they sound big and lifelike, to the point you will often risk their integrity for the pleasure listening to large symphonic orchestras or the dramatic intensity of "Un bel dì vedremo" of the Puccini "Madama Butterfly" opera.

I once had the pleasure of listening to opera in an all Quad system using the ESL 63 setup by Peter Walker - this great man really knew his speakers!

And yes, Davey, I also have been told that most music lies in the midrange. But other people tell me that you will need to have great bass foundation to have a proper system and I can not support unpleasant treble. It is really a terrible hobby!

Yes it is a terrible hobby BUT a great one.

 

[microstrip]

Yes it is a terrible hobby BUT a great one.

I am happy that we feel that way!

 

[Andre Marc]

I am not Mr A., but perhaps I can help, as I have owned a few pairs of ESL57 (one of my high-end glories was meeting Peter Walker at the factory entrance hall, as I was buying ESL57 replacement panels to built speakers at the Huntingdon factory when I was still a student) and still own ESL63.

The midrange of the ESL57 is very clear and transparent, can even sound crispy with some electronics, but unhappily it is not easy to integrate in a system. Many people modify them from stock, changing geometry , stacking them and removing the back absorbers, but IMHO they only manage to kill the beauty and magic of their sound. They are very limited in dynamics and again IMHO they have more coloration than the ESL 63 (many people, most of them who never listened to both Quad ESL's will disagree ).

Contrary to popular belief, that tells us that placement of the Quad's is not critical, as they are dipoles with a figure of 8 radiation pattern emitting very little sideways and with a very controlled decrease of angular radiation with frequency, I have always found that placement and room acoustics were very critical with them. In the wrong room they sound thin and lifeless, in an adequate one they sound big and lifelike, to the point you will often risk their integrity for the pleasure listening to large symphonic orchestras or the dramatic intensity of "Un bel dì vedremo" of the Puccini "Madama Butterfly" opera.

I once had the pleasure of listening to opera in an all Quad system using the ESL 63 setup by Peter Walker - this great man really knew his speakers!

And yes, Davey, I also have been told that most music lies in the midrange. But other people tell me that you will need to have great bass foundation to have a proper system and I can not support unpleasant treble. It is really a terrible hobby!

These are the speakers I grew up listening to...they lasted my father 20 years..drive by Quad amps, Revox R2R, various turntables...later driven by Revox amps.

 

[DaveyF]

These are the speakers I grew up listening to...they lasted my father 20 years..drive by Quad amps, Revox R2R, various turntables...later driven by Revox amps.

View attachment 10616

Wow, Andre! Growing up with those was a superb intro to audio. I can still remember the first time I heard stacked Quad '57's, my jaw pretty much dropped to the floor! I think that even today, there are
very few speakers that can compete with those in the areas that they were strong.

 

[Andre Marc]

Wow, Andre! Growing up with those was a superb intro to audio. I can still remember the first time I heard stacked Quad '57's, my jaw pretty much dropped to the floor! I think that even today, there are
very few speakers that can compete with those in the areas that they were strong.

They were not always stacked..my dad was restless...he later added an Infinity sub...

I think the reason tubes sound "correct" to me is that because from birth that is what I heard in the house. I believe our
ear gets tuned to certain things. It does not make it an absolute.

I have heard people say your very first high end "hifi" experience is almost never topped...in your lifetime. Imagine
hearing Rubber Soul, a pretty darn good early 70s pressing, and original pressing of Revolver through these. THAT,
my friend the very well worn cliche, jaw dropping, to quote a compatriot of yours, Robbie Koenig. It was as if John
and Paul's voices went from the microphone directly to my ears..with no intermediary.

 

[DaveyF]

I wonder how many a'philes today could say they grew up with a system like that! I would bet not that many. Do you remember what your Dad did with those speakers ultimately?
BTW, I would't mind owning a pair today as part of a 2nd system. IMHO, they are a true classic design and like I stated before, not easily bettered.
Your'e a lucky guy Andre

 

[Andre Marc]

I wonder how many a'philes today could say they grew up with a system like that! I would bet not that many. Do you remember what your Dad did with those speakers ultimately?
BTW, I would't mind owning a pair today as part of a 2nd system. IMHO, they are a true classic design and like I stated before, not easily bettered.
Your'e a lucky guy Andre

Not any of my doing Davey..had no choice in the matter..pure luck..my dad was a music lover and a bit of gear head. I am sure
many others had the same kind of exposure I did..

I believe he eventually sold them to a dealer. They did need quite a few repairs over the years. He pushed the SPLs beyond their limits heheh..

Just as I stated with the Rogers LS3/5A, technically there are much better estats today..the Sanders, King Sound, etc....the Sanders
is on my list...

 

[microstrip]

(...) Just as I stated with the Rogers LS3/5A, technically there are much better estats today..the Sanders, King Sound, etc....the Sanders is on my list...

Besides the well known magic midrange, the stacked ESL57 added an impressive scale to the sound. It managed to fill the room with a wall of sound. However, imaging suffered and the missing high treble become more noticeable. Many years after trying the single ESL 57 pair I could buy a stacked pair, coming from a Mark Levinson HQD system with the heavy wood frame and a Decca ribbon tweeter. Although I did not own a suitable crossover and could not use the ribbon tweeter, my ECM LPs were really jaw dropping, although bigger than life. Gary Burton vibraphone was really in my room!

The sentence above was just a preamble to remember you to consider the current generation of SoundLabs.

 

[Andre Marc]

Besides the well known magic midrange, the stacked ESL57 added an impressive scale to the sound. It managed to fill the room with a wall of sound. However, imaging suffered and the missing high treble become more noticeable. Many years after trying the single ESL 57 pair I could buy a stacked pair, coming from a Mark Levinson HQD system with the heavy wood frame and a Decca ribbon tweeter. Although I did not own a suitable crossover and could not use the ribbon tweeter, my ECM LPs were really jaw dropping, although bigger than life. Gary Burton vibraphone was really in my room!

The sentence above was just a preamble to remember you to consider the current generation of SoundLabs.

micro..you nailed it..the stacked Quads absolutely produced realistic scale....

Oh, yes SoundLabs are excellent too.

 

[rbbert]

Yes Bob you're right, Acoustat panels soaking in luke warm water with very mild soap ( Dawn ) not to damage the special coating yes the same mild soap they use to wash the greasy ducks in the ads.

PS: Very important RINSE - RINSE - RINSE - AND RINSE AGAIN.

View attachment 10615

I hope using de-ionized water for the rinse?

 

[NorthStar]

Distilled water? ...Nah, just regular clean water. :b

* I'm glad to see this thread's back on its feet, Andre & company.