[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 1/19/2011 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Jan 19, 2:31=A0pm, Dick wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:
I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design ...
If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?

You may not.

If you did, what is your impression?

Having been a Quad-authorized repair center for a number
of years, having set up dozens, repaired dozens, modified
dozens, and lived with several pair for a number of years,
and thus can claim at least some familiarity with them,
my impression is, with all respect, the suggestion that
one could experience even the rumor of a suggestion of
a hint of a clue of what any speaker might sound like is,
with no intent to offend, ridiculous.

In fact, listening to the YouTube video, it is nearly
impossible to, without looking, decipher even what speaker
is playing. It's a completely unfamiliar room, material
which is unfamiliar, recorded with an unknown microphone
(seems like it's the cheap-ass mike in the video camera).

To be quite honest, it was difficult to take your original
post seriously

Seriously, if the "dinky little computer speakers" were
capable of rendering even the vaguest hint of a miserably
done recording of speakers in a room with ANY fidelity at
all, then, indeed, those dinky-little speakers share, in
a small measure, some of the qualities of the Quads.

Is THAT what you are suggesting?