Zitrons - a warning on the way of the burn

[CGabriel]

They are my personal speakers but I keep them at the factory where they are used as room art when they are not being used in the reference room. The only other speaker that has the mid transparency (that I have used) are the SoundKaos Wave 40s.

I am certainly not an expert on ancient Quads and geeking them out. Mine are mounted on Arcici stands which seem to work well. I did modify the stands and the Quad frames with some of the vibration dampening compounds we developed for our power conditioners. This helps get rid of spurious buzzes on bass notes. I did pair the Quads with Magneplanar’s bass panels. That worked out quite well since the bass panels were designed to be mated to a panel speaker. I didn’t find any other sub that mated well.

The Quads do benefit from better power cords. But what works on them is very different from ‘normal’ high-end PCs since the speaker pulls very little current. I did make a set of cords that are quite small as far gauge goes but emphasized the purity of the wire. I considered making a ‘Quad PC’ but the market for it might be 10 world-wide so we just didn’t bother.

[MisterBritt]

Originally Posted by CGabriel

They are my personal speakers but I keep them at the factory where they are used as room art when they are not being used in the reference room. The only other speaker that has the mid transparency (that I have used) are the SoundKaos Wave 40s.

I am certainly not an expert on ancient Quads and geeking them out. Mine are mounted on Arcici stands which seem to work well. I did modify the stands and the Quad frames with some of the vibration dampening compounds we developed for our power conditioners. This helps get rid of spurious buzzes on bass notes. I did pair the Quads with Magneplanar’s bass panels. That worked out quite well since the bass panels were designed to be mated to a panel speaker. I didn’t find any other sub that mated well.

The Quads do benefit from better power cords. But what works on them is very different from ‘normal’ high-end PCs since the speaker pulls very little current. I did make a set of cords that are quite small as far gauge goes but emphasized the purity of the wire. I considered making a ‘Quad PC’ but the market for it might be 10 world-wide so we just didn’t bother.

Very nice. Thank you for the reply. My ESL 57s were totally and professionally refurbished a few years ago, just to say it. Martin Logan makes a sub and it's just something in the back of my mind to think about adding if I wanted to make these my primary speakers. If I did that they would be my only speakers. I'll cast about the web regarding the Magneplanar bass panels.

One last thing I wanted to ask. Do you run yours plugged into one of your power conditioners or straight to the wall? I'm thinking I am doing okay running straight from the wall because the Typhon is on that line. But maybe I'm missing something that could be gained from adding, say, a Cyclops V2. I ruminate about such things.

[CGabriel]

The Cyclops is definitely a positive especially since you can them at a good price now. But is does require a third power cord and that power cord does matter sonically.

Usually speakers are on opposite walls and get plugged into different wall outlets. I prefer to do it simply with the power cord direct to the wall and then use a Venom Defender in the second outlet for noise reduction and transient protection.

On the Maggie bass panels with the Quad: I have never seen anyone else try it so I think it is a Gabriel original. Please let me know if you find something. I would recommend a crossover and amp combo to relieve the Quad from attempting to do low bass which it is uncomfortable with.

There are many to choose from. http://marchandelec.com/mb42.html

[CGabriel]

BTW, when mating subs or separate speakers, I highly recommend using some measurement tools. The XTZ Room Analyzer is a good inexpensive device to have on hand. Around $200 bucks if I remember correctly. This will ensure that you get phasing correct and relative levels along with the ability to align the wave launch. It is also helpful optimizing your room acoustics. I have used this simple gizmo to successfully integrate many satellites and subs. Mark Seaton and his website is a great fountain of information about successful sub integration.

[MisterBritt]

Originally Posted by CGabriel

BTW, when mating subs or separate speakers, I highly recommend using some measurement tools. The XTZ Room Analyzer is a good inexpensive device to have on hand. Around $200 bucks if I remember correctly. This will ensure that you get phasing correct and relative levels along with the ability to align the wave launch. It is also helpful optimizing your room acoustics. I have used this simple gizmo to successfully integrate many satellites and subs. Mark Seaton and his website is a great fountain of information about successful sub integration.

Oh wow, this gives me a lot to consider. Thanks for the replies and link. I'm checking this all out.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by CGabriel

BTW, we have the original Quad 57 (rebuilt) set of speakers that we use for development. They are still the reference for mid-range transparency. Love them.

Ooh, la la! Love Quads for their transparency and naturalness. You can listen to them at low levels and still hear deeply into the music.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by CGabriel

BTW, when mating subs or separate speakers, I highly recommend using some measurement tools. The XTZ Room Analyzer is a good inexpensive device to have on hand. Around $200 bucks if I remember correctly. This will ensure that you get phasing correct and relative levels along with the ability to align the wave launch. It is also helpful optimizing your room acoustics. I have used this simple gizmo to successfully integrate many satellites and subs. Mark Seaton and his website is a great fountain of information about successful sub integration.

I did a Design of Experiments (DOE) using a NIST-traceable calibrated mike and Room Equaliziation Wizard to optimize the integration of my REL sub with my Dynaudios as I had three control factors (gain, XO and plug/no plug) that possibly interacted that I wanted to optimize for my target in-room response. The DOE told me where to set the control factors (aka "the knobs) to obtain the desired response in my room.

It's that 'ole Y=f(x) thang....

Here's a teaser screen shot of the DOE analysis using JMP...


Notice that there is an interaction between sub Gain and Sub XO as shown in the Interaction Profiles plots. This is not uncommon in systems where multiple control factors exert influence ("leverage" in DOE parlance) on the functional response(s).

I can post the design and analysis of this DOE if folks are interested. DOE is really the only effective and statistically rigorous way to do characterize and optimize a set of functional responses where there are multiple factors (especially if there are interactions). Much better than the OFAT (One Factor At a Time) we were all taught as scientists and engineers in school.

BTW, one could use this same DOE approach for determing the key and then optimizing the various "control" factors that go into power cord design using the DTCD measurement system (hint, hint...)

[W9TR]

Love to see your DOE Stephen.
Tom

[CGabriel]

It looks very useful, Stephen.
Definitely post it.
Start a new thread so that it doesn’t get buried in this burn-in ramble.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by CGabriel

It looks very useful, Stephen.
Definitely post it.
Start a new thread so that it doesn’t get buried in this burn-in ramble.

Yep, will do.