In Reply to: RE: LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION... posted by mbnx01 on June 21, 2014 at 14:40:58:
I too particularly like the dynamics of the quad as well as that of other electrostatics. They do dynamic changes at lower volume levels much better than do most dynamic systems. They are criticized for not being dynamic because they don't do high volume very well (macrodynamics). The 57s will sound great for someone who doesn't require high volume capability or extemely deep bass.
I like the sound of the older classic line of Spendor. These have a lower midrange/upper bass response that is perhap more full and rich sounding than other speakers, at a cost of the speaker sounding not quite as clear and tight, particularly in the bass. But, this sound serves classical music quite well, much of which is recorded with not quite as much weight in the upper bass as needed for realistic sound. The "woody" sound of Spendors makes lower stringed instruments and lower woodwinds sound particularly good. The Quads will sound more open and airy but the Spendors will deliver more "weight" to the sound.
On the Harbeth vs. Spendor issue discussed elsewhere in this thread, I find their house sound to be quite different even though they share a lot of the same design philosophy. Harbeths tend to "sound" more transparent, clear and articulate. But, to me, this comes at the expense of a slight bit of exessive prominence in the upper midrange that makes them a bit rougher (mass strings will sound a touch steely and thin). I find the sound to be different, but, I like them both for different reasons. The Harbeths, because of that midrange projection, might be a little bit harder to match with other components, but, they can sound very good.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION... - Larry I 06/23/1406:04:05 06/23/14 (0)