It would be interesting to hear what someone would have to say when comparing a full comp to a quasi side by side.
I am probably one of those that has heard these WOPL's since the beginning of WOPL's. From Joe's initial offering to the latest have been beta tested in my basement. They have been brutalized, blown up, roasted, toasted, tested, measured, and most importantly.........LISTENED to. I have a very revealing set of homebuilt Kornerhorns using the 1985 plans issued by Speakerlab. Mine were built in 1985 using a 7" skillsaw, protractor and straightedge. I used the original Speakerlab drivers till about 5 years ago when I upgraded to a Crites 1526C woofs, a B & C DCM-50 2" compression driver with a Martelli Tractix wood horn, a B & C ME-10 tweeter and Al Klappenberger's Universal Crossovers. These speakers have taken massive amounts of power at times, and I have blown numerous woofers, Mid Diaphrams and tweeter diaphrams. Numerous crossover components have also bit the dust. I absolutely love my speaks. They can vibrate your eyeballs or let you witness, sonically, Patricia Barber swallow her mic. They are very revealing of any shortcoming in reproduction gear. That's a handy trait when Joe come up with something different and wants to know if I'm hearing the same change he is. Joe has said that the SPICE program can predict performance but not how it will sound. That is what Joe depends on the rest of us, all who have listened to a WOPL , to do....tell him how they SOUND. Joe can tell you exactly WHY they sound like they do, and it has a lot to do with Bob's original design.
It seems impossible to describe an audible experience such as music in definable, and consistent terms , when terms such as warm, subtle, engrossing, loose, tight, airy, enveloping, captivating...etc...how does one describe something that is heard differently by everyone?? Then the phenomena of "SOUNDSTAGE"....I'll not even try, but I think I can describe the differences between a quasi and an FC WOPL.
Bass-------
The bass of a quasi is more pronounced but less well defined than an FC. Boomier is probably an accurate description. Fc bass is tighter, faster, crisp and better defined. Both are very listenable, and I've discovered the quasi can be revisited and enjoyed as well as the FC. If I was limited to one version, an FC it would be, but I have not heard a quasi E board yet, that will be remedied shortly.
Mids------
The quasi's seem to be less clear than the FC's. Depernding on program material, that difference can be hard to detect. The mids are where I can notice the increase of soundstage in the FC's. Instrument placing is dependent on a lot of factors, some unknown to me and some I barely grasp. But I know it when I hear it. The FC's do it better.
Highs------
This is where a bad recording can get me running for the door. Horns are very unforgiving of poorly recorded high ends. The cringe factor is a real thing. It happens, period. Certain recordings I can't tell much difference, others I can. The improved distortion specs of the E board do make a difference I can hear, once again I haven't heard an E quasi yet, but up to now the FC has a better hi end.