Quad ESL 989 and Maggie 3.6s


I'm thinking of moving from the world of monitors and floorstanders to planers/electrostats -- this is partly due to my new amps, a set of McIntosh MC-501s, which finally give me more than ample power to get into this world.

So, I'm wondering if anyone has listened closely to both of these speakers, or has strong opinions toward one or the other? I've heard both described as near-ultimates of the type and certainly as "giant killers." Unfortunately, I have not heard the Quads (and it's been a long time since I have heard Quads).

One possible consideration against the Quads is that we do have small children in the house and they could be dangerous.

Ideas?
highdudgeon
I've heard (not with my ears) and have read that the ESL-988 actually surpasses the 989, especially in the all-important midrange. They're much in price point to the 3.6rs.

Anyone familiar with them?
FWIW, from my experience in auditioning Maggies, and owning Quads (63's) the differences I heard are significant and which you prefer will depend on your expectations. The Quads are much more of a point source speaker where as the Maggies are more like typical line stages in providing an image inhanced in height and width which can be great on orchestral stuff but which can be distracting on recordings of voice and solo instruments.

Also, before you plunge forward with planers or electrostats, research thoroughly the set up issues. They are more demanding of placement and room treatment than the typical dynamic speaker. If you're not going to do this set up properly you lose the benefit of the transparency that they can bring to your music.

I prefer the sound of point source speakers and I've always liked the Quads driven by a good medium powered tube amp. I've never heard them with a Mac, but other than a Levinson ML2, I've never heard them with SS that I've really enjoyed.

The problem with the Quads in comparison to a good dynamic (box) speaker is you do lose the ability to play loud and you lose some of the dynamics (think compression) of live music. I've lived thru panels and electrostats and I'm back to good dynamic's all because I went off half cocked. Hope your experience is different. :-)

Really? You feel the electrostats are somewhat compressed and less dynamic? I would have thought the opposite.

Also, I'm hearing (and reading) tha the esl-988 is actually the smoother speaker. Anyone audition both of these?
HighDungeon -

Put a pair of Quads or Maggies next to a big pair of wilsons or Dynaudios. Play some dynamic rock or jazz music. You will near night-and-day differences in dynamic capabilities between the planars and the boxes. Granted, you'll also hear night-and-day differences in transparency in favor of the planars... so pick your poison.

Goatwuss
Auditioned both and bought 88. More focused and better mid-range. Bottom end difference between the 88 and 89 is insignificant as you will need a sub or ideally a pair anyway. There is no reason to spend extra $$$ for the 89.