The closest approach...really

GG,

If your original question was:

Can the Quad/Gradient combo be beaten?

I'd say, depends what's importaant to you.

Visit one of those crushingly loud MBL demos the company hosts. You may well walk out saying that there's no way in hell you'd trade your combo straight up for a 101 - and I'd probably agree with you. OTOH, you will know what the MBL does better - not that you'd necerssarily care.

Marty

I'd guess that few people (in practice) judge a system by it's fidelity to the live performance that the recording in use represents. As several have noted above few people have had the opportunity to compare. Even for those who have had the opportunity (I had one such as e.p. on a wonderful cd - virtuoso French horn player Richard Todd's "With A Twist"). The recording process makes direct comparison difficult. The sound of Richard's horn, live in the studio vs via the monitors, vs via the monitors in the mix all differed - sometimes subtly, occassionally less so.

IME, most people judge a system on whether the illusion of some abstract live perfomance is convincing. This abstract illusion is more a platonic ideal than a real world reference point.

As a practical matter, the ability of a system to produce such an illusion is related to, but not identical to, what is on the recording. A great recording provides a great system an opportunity to prove convincing.

The original question posed here "Is this the closest approach" can't be answered. For timbre, detail, midrange purity, and several other components of the illusion, a Quad based system that is seamlessly extended into deep bass is one very effective approach. For the full impact illusion of a rock band at/near live volume levels, it cannot touch -IMHO- a big MBL or many other monster dynamic systems. Conversely, these dynamic systems - again IMHO - fall short of the Quad on those qualities that make the Quad so effective.

IMHO, the closest approach depends on the system, the recording, the type of music, and the particular priorities of the listener at hand. I've never heard a system that is al things to all listeners on all recordings.

Marty

GG

Sheer power/large scale dynamics was the main thing I was driving at. In the case of the MBL, you can add a certain sense of dimensionality to the imaging (particularly a soloist in front of full accompaniement) that is different, and for me, more convincing than Quads (or anything else).

If you've got Quads well integrated to a sub, I wouldn't have any advice for you. The Quads aren't perfect and I don't know of any way to change that. But, for all I've said about MBL, I'd personally take a great Quad/Sub set-up first, because I prioritize for certain things (particularly octave to octave balance) that the MBL doesn't shine on. I was merely pointing out that your phrase "the closest approach" begs the question "to what?" Sounds like you're on a good road for your priorities.

Good luck,

Marty

Detlof,

Funny you chose Soundlabs as your "compromise". I have reached the same conclusion: If I go with ESLs, they'll be Soundlabs (or is that "Sound Labs"?) for the same reason. Now I just gotta figure out where to put 2 giant panels and I'm all set.

BTW I believe that MBL is a uniquely "love 'em AND hate 'em" product. What they do well is important to me and they do it better than any other speaker I've heard, However, the stuff that is very important to me, they do unacceptably. Love 'em AND hate 'em. Ultimately, won't buy 'em.

Marty