Quad ESL 989 and Maggie 3.6s

Hi Wc65mustang,

I'll be auditioning Quad 988/989 hopefully soon myself.

Did the 989 have a taller soundstage compared to the 988 so you don't have to look at the performance?

My concern would be if images have body like good cone speakers like Living Voice OBX-R2. And mid level dynamics.

Thanks!

Kw6
With the exception of the 88's slightly more liquid mid-range and and a more focused presentation, the 88 and 89 are virtually identical in sonics. I suppose that the extra panels permit the 89 to go a bit lower but it is barely discernible and relevant. As I mentioned before, you'll need assistance at the bottom end as neither the 88 or 89 are true "full range" speakers.

"Bottom end difference between the 88 and 89 is insignificant as you will need a sub or ideally a pair anyway."

I disagree. The extra level and extention of the 989s WITHOUT subwoofers are what helps the coherency of the system. The 989s may not reproduce the bottom half of the bottom octave very well, but driven full range they do VERY well with orchestral bass drums and organs down to, say, low-C, and that takes VERY GOOD care of ALL the big-orchestra music I listen to. I love my 989s and wouldn't have the 988s.

I do have subwoofers connected to the '.1' channel of the preamp, but they're driven only when there's something IN that channel, and the vast majority of my DVD-As and SACDs have nothing there. The system sounds fabulous with movies*, too, where, of course, the subwoofers often are driven hard.

* my favoriteof which is the DTS track of 'Master and Commander...'.
.

The bottom line is the 988 is an overall better sounding speaker than the 989, bottom end nothwithstanding. Period.

Thanks both to Wc65mustang and Jeffrey!

I'll keep your points in mind when I go auditioning.