Tannoy Westminster vs Quad 989


Yes, Yes, Yes -- I know they are completely different speaker types...

My history, for many many years in the past I absolutely loved the sound of the old Klipsch speakers -- over the years I have had; KG2, KG4, Quintets, Chorus, and Klipschorn and completely loved them all, increasing with each move up the line.

Upon 2 moves ago -- I ended up with a room too small for the Klipschorns and they overwhelmed me in that room (though I still loved the sound). At that point I moved to Quads, which worked extremely well in that environment.

Why from horns to ESL's? Because I value intricate micro detail -- I primarily listen to jazz (but do enjoy classic rock) and the ESL's made the sax, woods, and voices sounds heavily (rock they do accurately but the impact is missing). Yes, I missed the intense impact of the horn but the ESL did the mids perfectly.

Now, I have moved again and have a larger listening venue again. I still love the ESL's but I have to say that I can't help relishing in the availability of some increased impact... Thus, brings me to the Tannoy... Its said that their kids are to die for, yet they certainly are able to provide the impact I would like on the occasion I may though in some Zeppelin.

Thus, I reckon the essence of my question is; would moving to 15" cones muddy the sound after being so used to ESL's? Is the Tannoy mid accurate or just a "housebound" of Tannoy?

I absolutely love being able to hear DEEP into the music, the nuances, the echoes of the venue -- I hear all that with the Quads. But, I due miss the impact, the "energy" that horns can produce.

But most of all; do I just have the upgrade psychosis or would there be a significant upgrade in my enjoyment of the music if I ditched the Quad 988's and moved to Tannoy Westminster's ???

If you have actually OWNED Westminster's, Canteberry's, and ESLs' or similar reproductions please reply with your comment -- Thank you
128x128grateful

Showing 1 response by mulveling

I'm a longtime Tannoy fanoboy; I own Canterbury SE and had Kensington SE
for 3 years before that. Love my Tannoys, but I think realistically you have to
qualify their microdetail/resolution as being great *for dynamic driver
implementations*. You won't be fooled into thinking you're listening to a top
'stat here. I'm basing this on a recent audition of the Stax SR-009 electrostatic
headphones, which quite honestly blew me away with their resolution. Of
course, 'stats just can't do convincing bass impact for me, either.

What sets Tannoys apart is the coherence of their point source, which is
unique for a full-range dynamic speaker (coming from high-end headphones,
I require this coherence). You also get a touch of warmth/sweetness in the
mids (pepperpot models), which I find very pleasing and musical. Add in the
dynamics and you get a big musical sound and visceral experience with good
resolution. I prefer them to the Magico S5 for these reasons. On the downside,
these pepperpots' treble also has a slight tendency towards shrillness that
must be mitigated through proper setup and system matching (for example, I
find the S5's beryllium tweeter to be excellent, with no such issue).

The dynamic range of the bigger Tannoys is great, but the Westminster (which
I've not heard) should vastly exceed the Canterbury/Kensington in this area.
Honestly, you may not get quite as much low-end extension, dynamics, and
impact from the Canterbury as you'd expect from a 15" -- surprisingly
the now discontinued Yorkminster did better with a mere 12", but then I
didn't like its slightly recessed and dry midrange (compared to Canterbury &
Kensington).