The question also depends on your wife/partner. I had unstacked 57's for 10 years. My wife said it was her or the speakers. It was a close call, but the speakers went. They are ugly devils, OK if you like 1950's styling, but who does? The 50's were probably the nadir of design in all human history. only my opinion, you understand |
mrtennis, my sincere apologies of trying to pick your post apart in order to make a largely irrelevant point. as you so rightly intimated, the relations between perception and fact is at best something for philosophy not audio sites.... not that my opinion should really matter given my lack og audiophile experience, but my non-electrostatic panels (apogee mini grands) were the next best speakers to any i heard except the five minutes i spent in the mid-90s in baltimore with sound lab a-1s (though god knows i can't say that was based on my appreciation on differences with cones in terms of accuracy) and like i said before i would not be surprised if stacked quads sent me over the edge... i only own cones (single drivers) because i am poor, even though i do appreciate them.....when i bought the mini grands the dealer had some wilson maxx's in the same room and the wilsons had a bigger more dynamic sound but the humble apogees seemed to be more controlled and stable in terms of frequency response (especially ignoring the questioniable sub frequencies) and overall presentation, dynamics,and soundstage...anyway much respect for your preferences/insights, when it comes to communicating the experience of high end, i have little to offer |
my statements are subjective, based upon my perceptions. are perceptions factual or merely an opinion ?
if perceptions are facts, than i am basing my opinions upon facts. if perceptions are opinions than my statements are purely subjective.
what is a fact ? if statements are made based upon audition of components it becomes necessary to establish, if any facts cann accrue from listening experiences.
semantics aside, listen to stacked quads and then make up your mind about their timbral accuracy.
i stand by my statements regarding cone designs. i prefer panels to cones. i believe cones are more timbrally inaccurate than most panel designs. |
Yep- whatever it is if you can't find it look behind the refrigerator. Duh? No way - look IN the refrigerator - that is where the beer is kept! (A beer is better than finding mouse droppings behind the frige but that too, is of course, entirely subjective!) |
Yep- whatever it is if you can't find it look behind the refrigerator. |
"I thought we had all this sorted out elsewhere".
One of the hallmarks of advanced age is increasing short term memory loss. It may be out there but I can't remember where I put it. What did you say again? :-) |
MrT, are these guys getting on your case?? I thought we had all this sorted out elsewhere :) |
mrtennis,
just a quick, relatively unimportant comment, but trying to qualify the above statement with "it's all subjective" does not change the objectivistic tone and (at least implied) content of the claims that follow. this has to do with what the word "preferable" means. if it "all" really is subjective, then it simply is not possible that "no cone speaker is preferable," except to some individual(s) based on their own subjective preferences (the word prefer implies subjectivity.) do you mean something like "in my opinion no cone speakers are preferable...." or perhaps more simply (and directly), "I prefer the stacked quad 57s to cone speakers"? this would be consistent with the statement that "it's all subjective." It is a matter of semantics and sneaking in objectivistic statements under cover of a subjectivistic one. while language is ambiguous enough that your post can technically be read to mean that these statements are subjective and merely reflect your own preferences, the actual wording belies a strong belief that you think your preference is grounded in an actual fact that exist beyond that preference (in the external world), namely, that the quads are objectively more accurate than any cone speaker. in turn this implies that the "preferable-ness" of the quads really isn't subjective at all but an objective reality, which contradicts the normal uses of the word "preferable" (i.e., when referring to an objective fact, this word in redundant and thus unnecessary).
in other words, one can't have it both ways, either one believes that the 57 is objectively more accurate, "period," or one believes that the 57s are only one's own perference, however strong that preference may be, i.e., that the strength of that personal preference cannot convert it to or even bring it into proximity with "objective truth" (assuming such a thing can itself be objectively real or true without becoming little more than a tautology).
that said, and more importantly, though, i am jealous as i feel sure that if i ever heard the stacked quads my brain would melt in musical ecstacy! :) |
Mrtennis
I don't care which speaker is less "inaccurate"...that was not what my mention of the Apogee Scintilla was even about.
I would explain the reasons for my mention of the Scintilla to the poster, if he were interested...and asked. He has not, so I won't.
On the other hand. I've read many of your posts in other threads regarding sound reproduction, and system component selection. My conclusion was, and still is... that you know nothing about "timbral accuracy", or little else audio related?.
You have "almost" no credibility as a useful source of information regarding speaker systems, system components, or acoustics....at least, not with me.
Dave |
it's all subjective, but no cone speaker is preferable to stacked quad 57s. you can have your scintilla, duetta signature, martin logan, or any other speaker. the 57 is less inaccurate within its range than any other speaker, period. |
My friend had the same system as "Donaudio".Stacked Quads,with ribbon tweets,and triamped,with three Bedini 25 wpc amps.Superb set-up,but took up lots of space.Completely different presentation than Wilsons.Nobody is going to tell you which to buy,with any degree of accuracy,between these different approaches.
Sorry,but you've got to think this one out.
Best. |
Mrtennis
"the scintilla has merely an iota of the quad 57's timbral accuracy. look at the driver material and "speed' of the drivers."
Says you?....I'd take the Scintilla any day (by a long shot).
Says me,
Dave |
the scintilla has merely an iota of the quad 57's timbral accuracy. look at the driver material and "speed' of the drivers. |
There is a newly rebuilt pair of "Apogee Scintilla" for sale at Audiogon...(not mine). If you have room to setup "stacked Quads"...I'll assume you have room for the Scintilla.
The Scintilla will do what both of those will do, if you set them up properly...kills two birds with one stone for you.
Just a thought,
Dave |
Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate they sound different, but what areas does one speaker major over the other? That might help give me a better idea of how they sound in comparison. |
Quads => Yamaha NS1000M => WP 6/7 arranged in order of increasing loudness/dynamics/reliability. The Yamaha's are awesome - just don't push 'em too hard. |
I once had a diy version of the Mark Levinson HQD. This consisted of stacked Quads, Decca super ribbons and I added two transmission line subwoofers. Probably the best system I have ever had. It was triamped. However, getting older I moved to a condo and didn't have room for it. |
I have owned Quad 63's, Yamaha ns1000's, and now have wp 7's. I am also familiar with Q 57's. Quite aside from the vitriol that some seem to relish towards Wilson, many reviewers OWN Wilson speakers as their reference. Can they all be so wrong? All speakers relate to amplification in different ways and ss and tubes are two unique and sonic approaches that change the character of any good/great speaker. I can give you a very good idea what these speakers sound like. I still use both high end tube and ss amps as a way to change the sound periodically rather than searching for the illusive holygrail. I listened to ns 1000,s last night and they still sound great although they sound better with tubes. I still miss the quads some of the time. My wife who has close to golden ears loves all of them. If you are interested in a verbal discussion about these speakers, e-mail me and I will send you my phone number. Most of the high end is more about what you have been convinced you should like or convinced yourself that you should like than any "absolute sound" since if such an animal does exist, is subjective to human interpretation. The very concept of absolute brings into play the nature of doubt. They are in constant conflict and the only way to avoid doubt is to become a true believer. Hence the obsession with "truth" since it provides a security blanket. Remember, music shoud be fun and the anxiety we all create within the high end is of our own making. I could still live comfortably with any of the speakers you mention although for practicality, I would prefer the 63's over the 57's. The old joke was you needed two pair of 57's, one to listen and one being sent in for repair. Enjoy. |
David Wilson is a world class marketeer. The Quad 57, even unstacked, is a world class speaker. There is a profound diference between hype and performance. Try to forget what the magazine reviewers are pushing as the flavor of the month and listen for yourself. I predict that the results will be unambiguous. |
can you say an apple is better than an orange ??
the quads and any cone speaker are two totally different technologies. one can never be better than another. they are different.
one may prefer one to the other.
in my case any cone system comes in second when compared to stacked quads. however, i would not say the quads are better. |
