It is a real upgrade? replacing Quad with Zensor 3

[Tibor]

What do you think replacing my Quad 11 L Classic speakers with Dali Zensor 3 or Acoustic Energy 101 will be a real upgrade? (or a wrong step sideway)

I like the Quad, but is dull sounding at low volumes, so I want a more open sounding speakers , which has more life at low volume

Thank you for response

 

[drummerman]

Not sure but I have a feeling your amplifier may be half of the problem.

Anyway, Mission have always sounded exciting and are now made by the same team, IAG.

Richer Sounds have the SX1 and 2 on offer. They should easily be good enough for some future amplifier upgrades imho.

The Zensor 3 is fugly and big though beauty is in the eyes of the beholder or so they say 🙂

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Agree with drummerman but would go 75% - change the amp.

Is this threads familiar..... *SCRATCH*

 

[lpv]

recommended amplifier power for your speakers is 30 - 150 watts so 40 watts in your arcam is bordering on too low. Get 100 watts amp and keep the Quads as ANY speakers works better with more power... also, you don't need to listen loud to appreciate bigger amp as even at low volumes with high dynamic material speakers have to move fast.

 

[Tibor]

I listen music at low or at moderate sound level (because of family) , so I think 40 W/chanel is enough for me. The Quad lacks some extcitement and dinamism, some spark and treble detail at this volume level, so I thinking about replacing them with Zensor 3 or Acoustic Energy 101 (these speakers would be better with pop/rock music, I think). Replacing the amp would be very expensive, Dali Zensor 3 is at very low price now in my country, so the question remain: Is the Zensor 3 better (more open sounding) speaker than the Quad 11 L Classic?

 

[Al ears]

I listen music at low or at moderate sound level (because of family) , so I think 40 W/chanel is enough for me. The Quad lacks some extcitement and dinamism, some spark and treble detail at this volume level, so I thinking about replacing them with Zensor 3 or Acoustic Energy 101 (these speakers would be better with pop/rock music, I think). Replacing the amp would be very expensive, Dali Zensor 3 is at very low price now in my country, so the question remain: Is the Zensor 3 better (more open sounding) speaker than the Quad 11 L Classic?

To be honest there probably are not many people on this forum who have heard both and can remember what they sounded like. You may have to audition for yourself.

 

[matthewpiano]

I've owned both. The Quads can indeed sound veiled at low volumes, and this is a characteristic whether you drive them with a 40wpc Arcam or a 90wpc Yamaha. They can sound superb, but they only start to open up at higher volumes than is sometime domestically acceptable.

In this respect, the Zensor 3 are better, though the bass can slightly muddy the sound if they aren't given sufficient space from rear and side walls. You will also lose some of the Quads' refinement.

If you really want openess and clarity at lower volumes, something like the Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, or Q Acoustics Concept 20 will do a better job, though there will obviously be less bass impact.

 

[Al ears]

I've owned both. The Quads can indeed sound veiled at low volumes, and this is a characteristic whether you drive them with a 40wpc Arcam or a 90wpc Yamaha. They can sound superb, but they only start to open up at higher volumes than is sometime domestically acceptable.

In this respect, the Zensor 3 are better, though the bass can slightly muddy the sound if they aren't given sufficient space from rear and side walls. You will also lose some of the Quads' refinement.

If you really want openess and clarity at lower volumes, something like the Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, or Q Acoustics Concept 20 will do a better job, though there will obviously be less bass impact.

I stand corrected, although I did say not many. 🙂

I own the original Quad 11L's and have heard the Dalis but not the 11L Classics, so couldn't comment.

 

[paulkebab]

I like the Quad, but is dull sounding at low volumes

before I upgraded the amp.

 

[Vladimir]

Maybe Quad wants you to listen to the 11Ls at ear height and tilted aiming at you. I see they place the tweeter in a waveguide, but they didn't do what other manufacturer usually do, and that is have it blast scortching bright and loud on axis, only to sound normall off-axis. If the 11L tweeters sound normal on-axis, then they will feel muted at lower volumes off-axis.

Makes sense?

 

[lpv]

I've owned both. The Quads can indeed sound veiled at low volumes, and this is a characteristic whether you drive them with a 40wpc Arcam or a 90wpc Yamaha. They can sound superb, but they only start to open up at higher volumes than is sometime domestically acceptable.

In this respect, the Zensor 3 are better, though the bass can slightly muddy the sound if they aren't given sufficient space from rear and side walls. You will also lose some of the Quads' refinement.

If you really want openess and clarity at lower volumes, something like the Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, or Q Acoustics Concept 20 will do a better job, though there will obviously be less bass impact.

what power amp did u use with quads? cause as I remember u keep swapping amps but stay within low power ones?

 

[matthewpiano]

I've owned both. The Quads can indeed sound veiled at low volumes, and this is a characteristic whether you drive them with a 40wpc Arcam or a 90wpc Yamaha. They can sound superb, but they only start to open up at higher volumes than is sometime domestically acceptable.

In this respect, the Zensor 3 are better, though the bass can slightly muddy the sound if they aren't given sufficient space from rear and side walls. You will also lose some of the Quads' refinement.

If you really want openess and clarity at lower volumes, something like the Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, or Q Acoustics Concept 20 will do a better job, though there will obviously be less bass impact.

what power amp did u use with quads? cause as I remember u keep swapping amps but stay within low power ones?

Several different amps with the Quads. Most powerful were a Denon PMA1500ae at 140wpc, and a Yamaha A-S700 at 90wpc. At the other end several, including an Arcam A65+.

 

[Tibor]

Thank you for all, the solution is: I will buy a Q Acoustics 3020 plus the Quads 11 L classic will remain.

 

[lpv]

11l are 6 Ohms with minimum impedance at 4 Ohms. Denon amp is rated 70 wpc at 8 Ohms and 140 wpc at 4 Ohms. Yamaha is 160 wpc at 4 Ohms.

why did you change high power amps for low power?

 

[matthewpiano]

11l are 6 Ohms with minimum impedance at 4 Ohms. Denon amp is rated 70 wpc at 8 Ohms and 140 wpc at 4 Ohms. Yamaha is 160 wpc at 4 Ohms.

why did you change high power amps for low power?

Power makes absolutely no difference to my listening which never goes beyond 9 o'clock on the volume dial of any amp. I hate it being too loud, and I have neighbours to consider. I never push any amp to anywhere near being outside it's comfort zone.

 

[ID.]

Several different amps with the Quads. Most powerful were a Denon PMA1500ae at 140wpc[/b], and a Yamaha A-S700 at 90wpc. At the other end several, including an Arcam A65+.

Then Denon rating is for 4 ohms with pretty high distortion. I think it's closer to 70 wpc at 8 ohms which is the more standard way of giving it, but manufacturers like to quote at 4, or even with one chanel driven, to give the impression of higher power.

 

[Vladimir]

Several different amps with the Quads. Most powerful were a Denon PMA1500ae at 140wpc, and a Yamaha A-S700 at 90wpc. At the other end several, including an Arcam A65+.

Then Denon rating is for 4 ohms with pretty high distortion. I think it's closer to 70 wpc at 8 ohms which is the more standard way of giving it, but manufacturers like to quote at 4, or even with one chanel driven, to give the impression of higher power.

From their site:

[style="box-sizing: border-box;"]Rated output / both channels driven (CD → SP OUT) 70W + 70W (load 8Ω, 20Hz ~ 20kHz, THD 0.07%)[/style] [style="box-sizing: border-box;"]Practical maximum output / 140W + 140W (load 4Ω, 1kHz, THD 0.7%)[/style]

I think[/u] Denon implemented its UHC MOSFET design even at this affordable part of their range. If so, this amp will pump current in low impedances like nothing. It's bigger brothers do 30A easy. The result is good stability in any load and clean transients. Sound might come off forced compared to your usual PM6005 and such.

 

[ID.]

Several different amps with the Quads. Most powerful were a Denon PMA1500ae at 140wpc, and a Yamaha A-S700 at 90wpc. At the other end several, including an Arcam A65+.

Then Denon rating is for 4 ohms with pretty high distortion. I think it's closer to 70 wpc at 8 ohms which is the more standard way of giving it, but manufacturers like to quote at 4, or even with one chanel driven, to give the impression of higher power.

From their site:

Rated output / both channels driven (CD → SP OUT) 70W + 70W (load 8Ω, 20Hz ~ 20kHz, THD 0.07%) Practical maximum output / 140W + 140W (load 4Ω, 1kHz, THD 0.7%)

I think Denon implemented its UHC MOSFET design even at this affordable part of their range. If so, this amp will pump current in low impedances like nothing. It's bigger brothers do 30A easy. The result is good stability in any load and clean transients. Sound might come off forced compared to your usual PM6005 and such.

Interesting. Only looked at the Japanese site which only gave the 4 ohm figure.

 

[Vladimir]

I took that from the Japanese site. *scratch_one-s_head*

 

[ID.]

Oops, didn't read beyond the 4 ohm part but 70 into 8 as I said. Distortion increases tenfoor, but no idea whether that's still within non audible levels

that'll teach me to try to "multitask ".

 

[Vladimir]

Oops, didn't read beyond the 4 ohm part but 70 into 8 as I said. Distortion increases tenfoor, but no idea whether that's still within non audible levels

that'll teach me to try to "multitask ".

They should have declared conservatively 120W RMS in 4 ohms 20Hz-20kHz contunuous <0.05% THD or something like that. But they wanted to show it doubling its power so they pushed the envelope to 140W at 1kHz <0.7% THD. Which is probably 1% THD at 20Hz-20kHz. 1% is where clipping begins.

When you have an amp that is 240W in 8ohms, you can be spendy and only declare 200W in 8ohms, so the 400W in 4 ohms look brilliant. As per regulations you can declare less, but not more watts. But when you have an amp with 70W, you might not want to lower down those 8 ohms any further, so you spice up the 4 ohms.

They fiddled with the specs, it's not a weak amp nonetheless.

 

[Blackdawn]

Tibor - hope the Q Acoustics 3020 work for you. If this doesn't do the trick i would suggest and amp swap. Plenty of budget amps with some sparkle and musical energy.