jasee wrote:
> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:VA.0000075c.007a5072@escapetime.removethisbit .myzen.co.uk...
>> In article <bjcc1fM6STTKFw75@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> wrote:
>>> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
>>> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
>>> them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
>>> took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>> I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
>> earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
>> loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
>> really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
>> generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.
>
> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain
> organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the
> fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so
> noisy that I sent it back.
>
>
Early quad transistor amps were crap really. I had one on the bench..