Speaker Asylum: Re: Quad L series owners, help me decide between 21L and 22L please.. by nathan

Ah the debate re-emerges :)

The last three consecutive issues of Hifi Choice have reviewd the 22L, 21L, 12L all in order. Someone asked me for a scan of the 21L review (lost your e-mail sorry) and haven't had access to the scanner yet. Each of the reviews (part of their 'speaker roundups') has been compariing the Quads to each other in their writeup section. They found the 22L to be brighter and more forward than the 21s. They found the 12Ls to be 'boxy' in comparison to the 21Ls but that they measured similarily. They described the 21L as having a 'hint' of forwardness in the midrange to slightly accentuate detail. They preferred the sound - and frankly I prefer the 21Ls to the 12Ls.

The long and short of it is that they find the 21L to be the best out of these three. They measured the 21L as -6DB @ 25hz. I always knew it went lower than the rated 35hz, and I think that is a pretty reasonable assertion.

So the crossover issue. I have no doubt that the 22L is a great speaker, but based upon measurements and discussions of people (such as Duckman who owns the 22Ls and the 21Ls) the 22Ls seem as though they are 'deeper' but perhaps a bit brighter. I have spent time with all the Quads--except for the 22L. There have been many threads about the needs of 'kevlar' woofers and there are lots of detractors on either side. Some thing they are great - some do not. The consensus is that they should be crossed over as low as possible.

Someone else posted not so long ago that the ACTIVE 12Ls were crossed over @ about 1800hz(?) I think. And that individual owned the 12L (passive) and preferred the sound of the 12L Active. Is this because of the amplification difference or the lower crossover point? No one can say for sure. What is certain is that the 22L receives medicore reviews and the 11/12/21 all receive very positive reviews - and all are crossed over identically.

My local Quad dealer stopped carrying them soon after I bought them because (as he put it) it is too small a line of products there is no room to upsell (as it goes from 22L -> ESL 988 lol a rather large jump). I bought the 21L initially due to budget considerations.

Ultimately this is about listening preferences coupled with money. With my 21Ls I do not feel the need for a sub, I have a wonderful soundstage (very wide with depth and height), good detail, its not bright (since I moved away from lower quality fatiguing components). I don't have any complaints.

My speakers are not the be all and end all of speakers, to be certain. The only other brand that keeps coming up, which I would like to hear, is Audio Physic. Some people have bought Audio Physic over Quads. If they sound 'similar' but better-- I'm sure that those will be my next step up as well.... after I finish my M.A. and PhD :) Till then I'll be happy with my Quads.

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

Regarding equipment and positioning.

In my experience they do not like 'copper plated' anything for speaker wire. I've been happiest with NearSota OTA Copper Cable (single strand solid core copper wire) for speaker cable, which is very reasonable in price.

They need room to breath, mine are atleast 36 inches off the back wall - they sounded better with 48 inches but I do not have the space for that right now. Any less than 36 and I found them to be quite 'boomy' which also shifted the tonality of the midrange.

Feed them a good source and you will be happy, don't and you will not. Pioneer DV-353 was horribly etched and fatiguing as soon as I replaced it with the flavour of the month DVD player (tosh) things were better. I will be replacing the Tosh with Creek CD50mk2 or Bluenote Koala or Roksan Caspian.

They like tubes and good SS (Monarchy SM-70 currently) for amplification.

I run a passive pre-amp although i suspect a tubed pre would be fine as well.

Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions you may have,

Nathan Klassen