And most electrostatic speakers including Quad have that last wiff of plastic to their sound when they try to play loud, you pick your poison and go with what works for you. Some people can't hear when something is not phase coherent, others cant hear the plastic sound.
And most electrostatic speakers including Quad have that last wiff of plastic to their sound when they try to play loud, you pick your poison and go with what works for you. Some people can't hear when something is not phase coherent, others cant hear the plastic sound.
And most electrostatic speakers including Quad have that last wiff of plastic to their sound when they try to play loud, you pick your poison and go with what works for you. Some people can't hear when something is not phase coherent, others cant hear the plastic sound.
I heard it in new ones too !
anyway not disagreeing to the signature , all ESL do somewhat ...Quads are basically my least favorite electrostat (although I do agree the 57s sound very transparent). I have owned Stax, AudioStatic and Acoustat and the best all rounder is easily the Acoustat. The big ones I had (2.4 meters tall) had simply the best bass I have ever heard from any speaker anywhere...don't believe people who tell you an electrostat can't do weight and punch...these could. The most transparent (but also the most limited dynamically and frequency range) were the STAX with the Audiostatic not too far behind. The Audiostatic would have been nearly ideal if A) they could work well with less power, B) didn't have a "venetian blind" effect in the highs and C) Could scale realistic dyanmics. Acoustats didn't have any of these faults...just not the ultimate transparency...but better than just about all box speakers still. They had great bass as long as you didn't go too loud. Acoustats did almost nothing wrong and didn't have as much plastic coloration as I have heard with Martin Logans, for example. Horns, strings and cymbals all sounded very natural and realistic...similar to my Apogees.I have 2912s and Quad 88 IIs. I love them for what they are and what they can do. However, it is my opinion that the other 3 speakers I have had in my bedroom most recently are just as if not more coherent top to bottom and more extended than my 2912s. I hear the inability to fully resolve metal instruments, including steel strings, in the 2912 even when driven with an I1. This is the plastic sound I guess you are referring to. Their full frontal presence also dominates a room. My wife felt like she had two Uncle Festers standing over us as we slept. Hence their move back downstairs to the main living room. I think the 2912s can surely play louder than a 57, go much lower than a 57, throw a bigger stage than the 57, but the 57 to me still has the edge in purity and clarity in the upper midrange. The 57s performance window is so much narrower but what is there is near perfect. The grand kids less so. The 57 gets around the bass issues by simply making less bass to begin with. The HF attack by not being able to play loud enough for it to matter much. Nothing to criticize. No wonder Levinson stacked these, added a tweeter an active XO and a big ol sub. I have four friends that have these albeit none have the original subs.
I'll give this to the 2912's however. They cost a lot less money for what they can do very well as long as you don't meet Gramps. 10 grand less than the Marten Parker Trio Diamond (low level listening champ), 40 grand less than the VSA VR-55 (fairly compact all genre, all 'rounder that can blow your windows out) and 80 grand less than the Marten Mingus Septet (Deserves dedicated room, nuff said). A bonus is that uber expensive speaker cables make A LOT less difference with the modern Quads for reasons unbeknownst to me. More savings.
Modern design knowledge, parts and construction have nullified a stats advantages in many cases except that of cost. Cabinets, which panels obviously don't have, are probably the biggest cost factor. So, for the midrange-centric listener, the 2812 and 2912 really could be all that's needed. That and maybe a more understanding companion. That or I should have gone for the less imposing 2812
Very much agree on the ESLsI have 2912s and Quad 88 IIs. I love them for what they are and what they can do. However, it is my opinion that the other 3 speakers I have had in my bedroom most recently are just as if not more coherent top to bottom and more extended than my 2912s. I hear the inability to fully resolve metal instruments, including steel strings, in the 2912 even when driven with an I1. This is the plastic sound I guess you are referring to. Their full frontal presence also dominates a room. My wife felt like she had two Uncle Festers standing over us as we slept. Hence their move back downstairs to the main living room. I think the 2912s can surely play louder than a 57, go much lower than a 57, throw a bigger stage than the 57, but the 57 to me still has the edge in purity and clarity in the upper midrange. The 57s performance window is so much narrower but what is there is near perfect. The grand kids less so. The 57 gets around the bass issues by simply making less bass to begin with. The HF attack by not being able to play loud enough for it to matter much. Nothing to criticize. No wonder Levinson stacked these, added a tweeter an active XO and a big ol sub. I have four friends that have these albeit none have the original subs.
I'll give this to the 2912's however. They cost a lot less money for what they can do very well as long as you don't meet Gramps. 10 grand less than the Marten Parker Trio Diamond (low level listening champ), 40 grand less than the VSA VR-55 (fairly compact all genre, all 'rounder that can blow your windows out) and 80 grand less than the Marten Mingus Septet (Deserves dedicated room, nuff said). A bonus is that uber expensive speaker cables make A LOT less difference with the modern Quads for reasons unbeknownst to me. More savings.
Modern design knowledge, parts and construction have nullified a stats advantages in many cases except that of cost. Cabinets, which panels obviously don't have, are probably the biggest cost factor. So, for the midrange-centric listener, the 2812 and 2912 really could be all that's needed. That and maybe a more understanding companion. That or I should have gone for the less imposing 2812
My late uncle Johnny was the first person I met with a dedicated listening room. This was in 1984 and I was 14. I remain extremely good friends with his two sons and one of them is actually a partner in our audio business. While we had some good stuff at home, Thorens, AR, later a lot of Revox, he was the one who introduced me to the "underground" audiophile world full of Dragons and amplifiers for each speaker. He ran Beveridge 3s like yours and I was amazed at how different they sounded from anything I had heard before. They were also different looking than anything else I had seen before, big pillars with woofers on top. He also had 57s in the living room. He left me his SACD collection and the 50k CD collection was donated by the family to the University of the Philippines Mass Communications Department where his wife was a long tenured professor. When they got a crazy offer, they sold the house and along with them went the large speakers sadly at this point in disrepair. He downsized to 801 Matrix S3s and much later was gifted by his son, our partner with VS VR-4s after he loved them at our very first show. He enjoyed these until he succumbed to the big C eventually.
Agree 100%. This is just Veblen pricing for those few for whom price doesn't matter. I remember ...outrage? Surprise? at the price of the Chronosonic when they came out and I can't believe these will be materially better for twice the money.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |
