Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Hi Eric - would never have figured out your name from Bdp24 :^)

Firstly what is very important here to me and I thought about it when u said this.

I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric
I appreciate real experiences over all else. it holds a lot of value to me. This thread only a couple years old now and before Audiogon buggered it all up last spring, showed me the views. Back last spring was near 1/2 million views ....i think. So I believe your experiences are of interest to me, and others I am sure. Especially since you show a lot of passion and are not tied to the Audiophilia Biz. :^)

Eric ...Pictures are a real asset. Especially speakers in a room ! Like a thousand words ..... Every experienced audiophile can look at speakers/type in a room and has a good idea how it sounds. Now regarding stacked Quads.

For those on this thread unfamiliar with Quad 57's, and stacked quads I attach some links for reference.

Please notice the positioning of the bottom panels on the first two links compared to last three. The last three links - the bottom panels are setup like stock. On stock form - single pair - this produces music to a listener that imitates sitting in a balcony. So I would expect that the last 3 setups fill in more bottom to top.
As you tilt the ground panel forward. Like putting a piece of wood under the third back leg on a stock 57 - imaging rises. You are no longer in the balcony hearing the performance.

Stacked Pic 1

Stacked Pic 2

Stacked Pic 3

Stacked Pic 4

Stacked Pic 5

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that I linked here that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...
They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output.
The prominent midrange where the magic is - loses some of its magic when Quads are stacked. The numbers support this too - 6db versus 3 db. This is just my opinion on it. And only hearing a setup like this once. Now it could of been the room or condition of one or more panels. Too many variables. Readers can see if you look at the links that it is quite the effort to do; Stack Quads 57's. What you are not seeing is the time it took to restore the panels. Very few panels for sale are 100%.
If they were the owner would be hanging on to them. imo

For me right now its just not worth acquiring a second pair and sending them to Wayne Picquet for restore. Effort, time and cost. This is mainly because I am able to play my pair in my space (a bigger space than most of those links from what I can tell) with one RM10 at 90 db AVERAGE measured at the chair if I want . This is 10 more db than normal for me with no issues. The sub comes in at a low 50 hz. More on this in a bit.

57's need to be set up in a live room. This is a total opposite to my Room A and experience with John Bowers era matrix 800 series. Those take work and knowledge on room tuning to get right. And fwiw - I am not impressed that B&W unleashes speakers like this to the unsuspecting audiophile. Studios know how to set them up. Audiophiles new to the brand with cash to burn do not. The John Bowers era was all about 2 channel music. Not a fan of the post - John Bowers era.

Re:DM70
Bdp24 - To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads!
Eric....To be honest :^) , if you have these two speakers staring at you, in your own space. I can't imagine any red hot blooded audiophile - NOT - trying it out and hearing for themselves. Room B has always been an audio play room of sorts for me. This experiment lasted 3-4 days. Switching polarities on the woofers helped,if I recall?, but am not sure now. The experiment let me hear it for myself.

The DM70 on their own absolutely need to be set up high. The panels at your ear level. This means a lift of one foot minimum. They have a resonating - non matrix box. Up high also makes them less boomy with more bass note articulation. They should also be setup in a larger live room. They don't play any lower than 40 hz just like the Quad 57's, but their lower end is obviously more fuller. So depending on the music you can get away without a sub.

Re: OB sub
Bdp24 - Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile.
Yeah, I got this message and it is cool. All those in the audio biz all need/have to play within their own silos. he was however helpful.

Re: RM10
Thanks for the insight into the RM10. You have a unique relationship with Roger. I found him very elusive when emailing - I gave up. He's just too far away. It's too bad you haven't heard a single pair of 57's with the RM10 to hear how much output / quality I am getting.

Bdp24 - Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!
*********************************************
Eric - Sorry for the asterisks - But wanted u to see this in this post - post getting long - what else is new !
Consider something here as I believe it is a big factor in play. The OTL's I owned were 200 wpc. They could not compete in the bass dept with the push pull RM9 in the bass dept. i believe (using OTL's) is a big factor in having to set a higher crossover on subs with 57's. I base this on my own experience and your comments on recommending the use of 80hz and 120 hz crossover points. The bass I found is just more lean with OTL's. I would never go that high a crossover in my room with the Quads and sub.

You may prove my above theory in your own room only, by borrowing 1 or 2 RM10's from your buddy Roger. :^) .....:^)......:^)
And this needs to be done in your room only for a direct comparison.

*********************************************

Bdp24 - the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally..
I can position any way I want in Room B. The 57's are 7 feet out from the front wall right now. I am getting really good results with just one nearfield / conventional sub. The brown chair you see in the pic I linked has seen every side of the space. But the overall music results are best as in the pic. I wish I could get rid of that house support pole - like move it to the left a bit.
The brown chair as pictured - for a nearfield sub, has boundaries to the the right of it, That is where the sub is. The staircase, which would be a back wall to it. To the left is open. I realize those OB subs would allow me to try positioning within range of the speakers themselves. But right now Eric, unless you have tried this with a nearfield sub/s, and can provide me with some direct comparison insight; I am staying on this nearfield track for now. Bringing anything new in at this time requires selling existing stuff. That gives one patience and incentive to research this through. If I wasn't getting excellent results with a nearfield sub it would be a different story.

Cheers Chris
.

ct0517 November 09, 2015 08:55

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Let me address your concerns Chris, all well founded.

- Yes, the OB/Dipole sub needs to be away from the wall behind it, as do all Dipoles, including Quads. They can be right up against a side wall though, or on the floor if placed horizontally.

- B & W DM70! Now there's a speaker I haven't thought of in years. In '71 I heard my first ESL's, the Infinity Servo-Static 1. I also heard two speakers with ESL tweeters, the Infinity 2000A and ESS Tran-Static I. Thus began my love affair with ESL's, which continues to this day.

Having heard those speakers, I started planning the purchase of my first perfectionist system. By the time I had the dough, Audio Research and Magnepan had made it to the West Coast. I happened to make my first visit to the new ARC dealer in my area (Audio Arts in Livermore, CA, owned by Walter Davies, now the maker and seller of the excellent Last LP care products) on the day that Bill Johnson was delivering and setting up his complete ARC system, including bi-amped (with D-51 and D-75 amps) Magneplanar Tympani I-U loudspeakers. Over the next few months I went to listen to the Maggies at the shop, wherein Walt had a pair of the DM70's as well. I bought the Tympani's (and the ARC electronics), but remember the B & W's well. To be honest, I can't imagine why you would be using the woofer in that speaker as a sub for Quads! Let me tell ya, you are in for a pleasant surprise when you hear the OB/Dipole sub (or a Rythmik)!

- Danny Richie has found a pair of the OB/Dipole subs to produce about the same output as one of the sealed F12's. So yes, you are giving up 3dB by going OB/Dipole. Then why do people do it? I have both a pair of GR Research OB/Dipole subs and a pair of Rythmik F15HP subs, and though they have much in common, there are also differences. You will find all of the following on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum, but it is buried in a lot of other information. So let me condense it for you:

Danny Richie is a loudspeaker designer specializing in Open Baffle design, selling his designs as kits to the DIY crowd. Guys who make not only their own speakers, but often their own electronics as well. His designs are mostly of high-sensitivity, and his customers are into low-powered SET tube and Class A SS amps to power Danny's speakers, the Pass DIY designs being very popular. Danny is a firm believer in high-quality passive parts, offering x/o upgrades to commercial loudspeakers using them. So Danny is coming from a perfectionist, no compromise, high performance point of view.

He had been a long-time fan of not just OB speakers, but OB subs as well. OB subs are not new, and are favored by some, Danny included, for their non-room loading nature (a result of their Dipole design), and clean unboomy character (no enclosure!). He learned of a subwoofer designer, conveniently also located in Texas, who had a new idea that he had patented, which he had named Direct Servo Feedback. The designer's name was Brian Ding and his company Rythmik Audio, and Danny got in touch with him. Danny's creative mind envisioned that an Open Baffle sub combined with Brian's DSF design could produce a new standard in bass reproduction. The two put their heads together, and we can now enjoy the fruits of their skills and labors.

But here's what you have to realize: Though the OB/Dipole sub uses the Rythmik plate including the Direct Servo Feedback circuit that controls the 12" woofers in the sub, the sub is a Danny Richie design. Enrico is of course not going to recommend the sub to you (or even mention it), or be able to advise you on it's use. He is involved with Rythmik, a completely separate operation with a different target audience and customer bass (largely Home Theater, most definitely not audiophile. Most Rythmik customers power their mass-market speakers with receivers, like Denon). Brian Ding himself is not really that much enamored with the OB sub. Upon hearing it, he admitted to not quite knowing what to make of it, finding it to sound very "lean". Now, the Rythmik subs themselves have been described as sounding lean when compared to "normal" subs, even very famous, expensive, "Class A" rated ones. Compared to them, a Rythmik is superior in degree, but not in kind. The OB/Dipole sub is different in kind, as different from a Rythmik sub as a Rythmik is from all the thick/heavy/boomy subs everyone has heard and found unacceptable for use with panel speakers. The same way that an electrostatic loudspeaker or any other dipole is different from Any and all box speakers.

The GR Research OB/Dipole sub does not sound like a sub. When added to a high-transparency speaker, it does not expose it's presence, but rather blends invisibly. You do not hear it as a separate entity, but only hear the bottom octave of music evaporate when you turn it off! It makes your speaker sound like the bottom octave of missing sound has been restored, not that a sub has been tacked on the bottom of the speaker, trailing along behind the music like a caboose. Now I ask you, is that worth giving up 3dB for?!

- The Rythmik plate amp is loaded with controls that will allow you to add the sub to your Quads without giving up any of their sound quality. If you want to x/o at 80Hz using a 2nd order x/o you can. If you prefer 120Hz with a 4th order, you can do that as well. Or any combination of the two. You can locate the subs anywhere you want, as the plate amp's continuously variable 0-180 degree phase knob simulates physical distance, and can get the speaker and sub in phase at the x/o frequency no matter where each is located.

- There is actually one person making speakers that include the OB/Dipole woofer system, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. He has been making Open Baffle speakers on 2-1/4" thick MDF panels, using the GR Research 12" woofers and Rythmik DSF plate amp for the bass section. The midrange an tweeters he was using (BG Neo) are currently unavailable, but Ric may be willing to make you a pair of subs. He does not, however, make it as a W- or H-frame, but as a flat baffle. So there may be more low-end cancellation and roll-off in his version of the sub. You can check him out on his website.

- Here's my experience with the Music Reference RM-10: Roger Modjeski gave a seminar in the early 90's at Brooks Berdan's shop in Monrovia, CA. In it, Roger discussed a new design he was still working on, which became the RM-10. He mentioned that the Quad was one speaker he had been using in fine-tuning the circuit. After the talk I approached Roger, telling him I was looking for amplification for my stacked Quads. I asked him if he advised me to wait for the RM-10's design to be finalized and put into production, when I could get a pair of them, one for each pair of Quads, or to get one of the already available RM9 amps. He told me that because he was a believer in high-overload margins, he would go with the RM9. I pressed him further, pointing out that one RM-10 would have more power than a pair of Quads would be able to accept without damage to the panels from arcing, that the combined insanely low impedance of the Quads at high frequencies was even lower in a stacked pair, and that lower-powered amps, all else being equal, usually sound better than higher-powered ones. That didn't persuade him.

A couple of years later, Roger gave another seminar at Brooks shop (Brooks loved Rogers stuff, selling it as his "reasonably" priced tube line, selling VTL to his wealthy customers). When Roger saw me, he came over and said my questions had lead him to reconsider his position on the choice, having seen the wisdom in my thoughts on the subject. Yes, he did now recommend a pair of RM-10's. Unfortunately, I had already bought an Atma-Sphere M60!

Well Chris, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and that at least some of this rant will be of use (or at least interest!) to you---Eric.

bdp24 November 08, 2015 01:33

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46

Halcro - Why don't you contact Richard Vandersteen about the suitability of the 2Wq for the Quads or John at Audio Connection who is an expert.

Hi Henry (Halcro)

There are a number of Vandersteen dealers in Ontario. I spoke with a couple of them today. There is a design issue with the 2wq for my setup that I was not aware of. The 2wq's require you to make the crossover that comes with the 2wq the ALPHA. Meaning outputs coming out of the preamp need to go through the 2wq first; then on to your main amplifier/s and main speakers. I want the Quad 57's running full with the Music Reference RM10 amp. The sub/s running parallel to fill in the lowest octave only when needed. Unfortunately this is not something one can try before you buy.

Also ...my experiences with Rel, ML and HSU have been that the sound is not as good - when your amp that powers the main speakers are receiving signals from an extra box** , unless that box was designed for them specifically - in this case a Music Reference RM10.

** External crossover's, equalizers, Bass Alignment Filters's , etc...

Whatever else happens going forward will need to work in parallel mode. Preamp has two low level outputs. One L-R for the MR RM10 amp and Quad 57's and one extra L-R for one or two subs.

Bdp24 Yeah Chris (saw your name!)
You can call me Chris, you can call me Chrissy. If we meet in person you can call me Christie - but then you better bring chocolate chip cookies. :^)
Some are comfortable with names, others feel a need for their moniker only - I am good either way.

Bdp24 - have you ever heard 57's with a Music Reference RM10 ?

I don't know how you feel about this idea Chris, but the width of a W- or H-frame is around 16". The OB/Dipole sub can actually be used horizontally (laid on it's side), and a Quad speaker set on top of it, the sub thus becoming a 16" high stand for the speaker.
Bdp - Short answer is no. And you are reminding me of an experiment I did which was really illuminating for me. So I share it here.

Dm70 Quad 57 Combo

The DM70 is left unplugged making only the woofer active. It started out right under the 57 (looked kinda funky...no ?)and gradually moved forward until the bass wave was aligned with the 57's - to my ears. The problem is the crossover for the dm70 is 500 hz and intruded into the Quad's space. The woofer is designed to work with its own ESL panel. The ESL panel which btw was made for B&W by Janszen. .

1-06-15: Bdp24
Oh, I neglected to address your desire to fill in only the bottom of the Quad, without encroaching on the it's sound above that. A well-justified concern Chris, and the inability of almost all subs to do just that is exactly why most Quad lovers choose to just live without deep bass, the loss of too much of the Quad's sound being too high a price to pay to get it.
Well I think I have it figured out. I need some time with my wife out for some fun test runs to really test it out. Maybe this weekend.

Also I found out from Rhythmik that you need at least a pair (4 drivers and two amplifiers) to get the same output as one F12.
The OB sub is not good for near field placement. They need a lot of room around them to work properly.

Just sayin....

Cheers Chris

ct0517 November 06, 2015 16:46