Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
99.254.230.207
In Reply to: RE: Quad vs Martin Logan posted by cawson@onetel.com on February 09, 2017 at 17:30:06
Save yourself about $10K and try to find a pair of Acoustat Spectra22 or Spectra33 speakers. The Quads are nice, but I would put the two Spectras (with renovated interfaces) against the Martin Logans anytime there is something special about full range stats (not a big fan of the hybrids).
Edits: 02/10/17Follow Ups:
> Save yourself about $10K and try to find a pair of Acoustat Spectra22 or Spectra33 speakers.
Bankrupt and out of business. Imagine the distress that owners have when they want to service or sell these speakers. Value virtually nil! That's why I'm not interested in cottage industry companies making electrostatics. Far less of a problem if a conventional cone speaker manufacturer goes bust, but electrostatics??
If you can offer an informed insight into Quad vs Martin Logan, I'd be delighted. Thanks.
Sir you are sadly misinformed.
Acoustat panels are the most durable electrostatic panels ever built. Thousands are operating perfectly today 35 years later. Interfaces are simple and easy to repair. Very few owners are in distress (and I assure you that none of them think the value of their speakers is virtually nil LOL).
Quad and Martin Logan panels have a lifetime of about 15 years and then have to be replaced or rebuilt at considerable cost.
In its prime Acoustat was one of the largest producers of electrostatic speakers in the world. It was no more a "cottage industry company" than Quad and Martin Logan are today.
If you are not interested in Acoustat that is perfectly fine, but no reason to be rude and spread misinformation.
While the Acoustat panels hold up well over time I do get quite a few inquiries about panel rebuilds for Acoustats. They do fail. And as they continue to get older there will be more failures. Given their value on the used market the cost of rebuilding panels does not make financial sense. I advise owners to simple find another inexpensive donor pair for the working panels. The electrical interface is different. Easy and inexpensive to get them running to spec. I have done many over the years.
That does not mean the Acoustat is a bad or unreliable speaker. They are not. They are however getting very old, all of them have degraded to some extent, and time will only continue to take its toll. Nothing lasts forever. Since they can be found for little money on the used market these are not huge issues.
OTOH I have seen plenty of Quad speakers that are 35+ years old going strong.
Acoustat had a good run but to compare them to Quad or Martin Logan is a stretch. Quad and Martin Logan have built far more speakers than Acoustat ever did. There are well over 100,000 Quads in the field and they have been at it now for 7 decades. Acoustat did not get remotely close to those production numbers let alone longevity as a company in the market.
Mendels point was Acoustat was no more a cottage industry in its day than Quad or ML, not that Acoustat produced more speakers. BTW, I took no offense at the OP's comments. After all, there are different spokes for different wheels. The Acoustat advice was simply offered as an EXTREMELY cost efficient means of achieving the same goal as spending many, many times that on Quads or ML's. You rebuild Quads for a living, I would not expect you to speak ill of them.
I rebuild Quads and other stats for a living. And yes I will speak ill of all of them! Catch me on the wrong day and you would never buy a stat!!!!
Acoustat was never the size company of Quad not even close. By the 1970's and well into the 80's Quad was the largest maker of audio equipment in the UK with a staff of over 450 people. Millions of pieces of Quad electronics were produced the stats were just a vanity product a drop in their production bucket. And M-L may have started out as a small one man operation but grew into a giant probably the most successful builder of electrostats. By comparison to either company Acoustat was a small operation.
This is no dig on Acoustat they do some things quite well and are a bargain on the used market. But lets not make them into something they never were. They had a good 15 year or so run and then folded.
2+2"s were one of the best speakers I have ever heard and in addition has dynamics that the original clx ML (1987) or Quad never had. Not even close.Quad had one advantage it did not require idiotically expensive electronicd. But have fussed with Cosmostatics, an omnidirectional hybrid for 22 Years (Keeping the monsters afloat) you will live with rebuilt Acoustats never knowing , weekend to weekend whether they will work.
I have never heard the Sound Labs
I lived with 2+2s for over twenty years and have a modified pair of 1+1s today.
Imagine 2+2 image height and bass power with better top to bottom resolution, a more neutral tonal character and...elimination of the head-in-a-vice sweet spot. :)
I can imagine it:THAT TO MY MIND WOULD MAKE THEM THE BEST SPEAKER IN THE WORLD. Thanks....
Thanks Sondek and MendelThese was no intention to be rude about these speakers or to "spread misinformation". If you read my words, you will see that this isn't the case.
However, the truth is that buying speakers from a company that went out of business 30 years ago would be a very unwise (for most of us) choice. Yes, I'm sure you can pick them up cheaply in working order, but they are old and built with the technology of the day. Despite the fact that original Quad electrostatics are still highly sought after and can still be repaired and improved - and Quad is still a thriving company - I'd not buy these either because frankly, the technology of the day is far short of today's standards.
Also what we now consider as "attractive" items of furniture and things such as speakers has changed over the decades. I'd certainly not want to give room space to any Acoustat speakers I've seen on Google - nor first-generation Quads for that matter!
Those who own and love last century speakers thoroughly enjoy them and are likely to praise their performance, perhaps overly so. My KEF 107-2 Reference speakers were state-of-the-art when built and I loved their sound in the 1990s when they were already about 10 years old. Would I want them now and would I recommend them now? No but only because they were designed 35 years ago and times have changed enormously. You may not agree that it's to the better, but there's no denying that speaker development didn't stop in the 1980s and that modern speakers are streets ahead of these lovely antiques.
As I say, I appreciate your praise for these speakers but they are not for me. The question was "Quad vs Martin Logan" and I'd like to hear from anyone who can provide informed advice or observations on these current models. Also I'm sure that both these companies would strongly counter your unsupported claim that they last for 15 years only! Peter
Edits: 02/10/17
Acoustats are virtually bullet-proof. That's whey they are still around nearly 30 years after the company went out of business. Given what they can be had for in today's used market you could probably afford to put them in the bin should you ever have a problem and only be out pocket change. The main draw back in your situation would be finding someone in the UK to do the initial rebuild of the transformer interfaces, but given that it's not exactly rocket science to update caps and resistors, I suspect any reasonably competent tech could perform the work. Point being that once old components are replaced you could easily expect 20 years or more of faithful, trouble free service from them.
Edits: 02/10/17
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: