tubes and electrostatics

[dshoaf]

Yes, Quads _can_ require little power to drive them - but in small rooms. The thing about the 'static Quads is that they'll quickly tell you about the quality of the components further upstream in the audio chain.

Currently, I've got a large living/dining room combination with 10 ft ceilings and 25wpc on the Quads (Mac MC-225) did an ok job. Quality sound but it was working hard, according to the metering on the Mac C2200, which is calibrated.

They are running much nicer, now, with a HK Citation II that's been fully restored a la Jim McShane's recommendations.

Hope that perspective helps.

Cheers,

David

 

[hammr7]

You can't compare Martin Logans or Maggies to the small electrostatic units. There are huge differences in how they utilize power.

Bi-amped Quads (with separate subs to take the low end load off the Quads) can be driven perfectly by 50 WPC tube amps. My RTR DR1's, with their 27-element electrostatic configurations, can be driven to painfully high volume levels with their RTR 65 WPC SS Amps.

 

[jcmjrt]

I've never tried Quads, so I can't speak to them. But I do have experience with Acoustats and Martin-Logans. Those big pannels require _lots_ of power.

That's my understanding too. And KLH-9s like lots of clean power as well. I'd probably be looking for 300wpc for those...but the 57s don't need more than a small tube amp so not all of 'em do.

 

[Freo-1]

I own Acoustat Spectra-33's. and they are VERY power hungry. I tried too many power amps over the years to coax out the magic from them. The closest I came was a Audio Research D115, which really sounded nice. However, ARC gear is well know for it's quirks, so, I eventually had to dump the amp.

I finally gave up with them, so now they sit off in a corner. A classic case of trying to find the right amp for a ESL.