Quad 988 / 989 reliability ??

And here I thought this was a forum for audiophiles to excange ideas and share knowledge,not free, crass advertising by dealers trying to push their latest product line.At least now I know I will never buy anything from the previous poster.

For anyone interested in what makes the new Quad tick compared to the old here is a breakdown of the differences as we see them.
There is a fairly good deal of difference in the way these spaekers sound compared to the original 63's and the later 63 USA monitor. First The construction quality is not at all the same as they have used a much cheaper plastic to contain the electronics than in the 63's. All the electronics are now contained on a single circuit board of a lower quality creating several problems. If you have a problem with protection it requires a new board ,if it's delay lines,a new board ,if it's power supply ,a new board.This certainly will cause a higher cost to the customer after the warrenty period if work is needed. Along with the lessor expensive parts come some distinct differences in tonality. We still sell after market speakers certified with full warrenty form the 57's to the latest 63's and find a more desirable balance over the new models. In my opinion ,and I've sold the speaker for 20+ years and have used hundreds of different components ,the new speaker offers some advantage in volume but never in the area for which they became famous ,long term listenability.As for the realibility we are in close contact with many people who are intimate with these speakers and issues still exist with realibility.. In one of my home systems there sit's a pair of 30 year old 57's and there great. I think better than any of the products produced since, but I certainly recommend auditioning more modern designs be they one's I carry or any other qualified dealer before purchasing the newer speakers. There are many that will produce a higher level of detail, sheer dynamics, better listenability and will not fall apart under maximum listen conditions.

I fully agree with Hififarm. I can compare the 989 side by side with the 63, as far as sound, workmanship and quality of parts, as well as reliability are concernend and I regret the day for my part, on which I took in a pair of the 989s. Period.

The Hififarm post comes from someone who just two years ago -- before he and IAG America, the Quad importer, had a falling out -- told me that any reviewer worth his salt had a pair of Quads on hand. He said the Quads 988s and 989s were far better than the Dunlavy SC-IV/A, which I had at the time. He offered me a pretty good deal, actually, on a pair of 989s, and he said nothing about their poor build quality. If it's a product he was carrying, I would think he would have looked into that.

Anyway, the previous year, I think HiFi Farm was pushing Dunlavy. Before that, ProAC. Before that, Merlin. Before that, well, you get the picture. It changes often. Today it's Piega. Tomorrow, let me guess, Ensemble?

Sadly, Hi Fi Farm writes a note which casts great suspicion on their trustworthiness. After reading it I would expect that anything they carry at the moment would be fabulous while gear they no longer carry, but which used to be fabulous, is now unreliable junk. I had Quad 57s for many, many years. Yes, they do sound great if they're not arc'ing, if you limit your SPLs to something short of realistic, if the bass panels don't flutter while trying to do low frequencies, if you don't overdrive and burn them out with your 100 watt amp, etc., etc. There are now many dynamic speakers which have equalled, if not surpassed, the Quad's vaunted midrange and they wont break down.