Guest
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 347
|
Post by Guest on Oct 22, 2016 11:55:19 GMT
James (Sovereign) has heard my 63's too - although in less favourable circumstances than I hope Kevin will. The room was smaller - the speakers were too close to the listeners - we were listening across rather than along the room, I was using the Quad 405-2 not the AHB2 and the PT hadnt had its mods. In spite of that - James quite liked them A few points The 63 needs stands. For years I assumed they were supplied with the speaker Like the 57 they do not work at their best in a small room. As I said to WOnky - they work in a small room, like a Ferrari works in a car park - but is that the point? I understand what Jerry is talking about - it appears to be forum gospel, but in many years of making the comparison I have never met anyone (live) who preferred the 57's to 63's for music listening. The 57 does have that "purity" -especially around female vocals, but for me it is a HiFi dem feature. They don't image. The following is (slightly doctored) from my email to Kevin The 57 was the original idea, and is a simple implementation with different panels for bass and treble. The 63 has better power and bass handling, but also the ESL63 uses a unique radiating system. The diaphragm surface is divided into concentric circular areas fed by delay lines. An impulse fed to the speaker goes first to the centre of the circle, then in turn to each larger ring until it reaches the periphery. This produces a close approximation to a spherical wavefront, similar to that radiated by an actual sound source of finite size. In practical terms, the result is a system that is (1) almost perfectly phase-coherent, and (2) free from treble beaming through a very wide included angle spanning the listening area. It also has better protection - although that demands an amplifier with appropriate protection circuitry (Quad 405-2, AHB2 - by a spooky coincidence). Unlike the original Quad Electrostatic, which had a tendency to break down if overloaded for an instant, the '63 has a sophisticated protection device designed to short out the input signal if its level approaches an amplitude that could do speaker damage (the famous "crowbar"). Shutdown is claimed to occur rapidly enough to provide full protection to the speaker, but some power amplifiers will not tolerate output shorting and may blow fuses or sustain serious damage. Sonically -, the 63s have more convincing bass and almost holographic imaging. The 57's are "purer" on female vocals but in a really fussy precise way which is lovely when you get it right but so often is not right. The real deal - as you may have heard me mention before - is stacked 57's. Although these are really the most ludicrous oversized headphones known to man, since they are so beamy you have to put your head in a special clamp to hold it on the right axis. They do however have both the power handling and the bass extension the 57's lack Both are better on the right stands. Reference to protection is original spec - a lot of 57's are retro-fitted with a protection circuit. When watching TV do you hope all the goals are scored at one end?
|
|
|
Quad ESL
Oct 22, 2016 12:12:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by jandl100 on Oct 22, 2016 12:12:14 GMT
Wow, pinkie is on a roll today - more verbiage than you can shake a stick at!
|
|
|
Post by daytona600 on Oct 22, 2016 14:21:22 GMT
modern 21st Stats have moved the game forward by a big margin & solved all the old problems
|
|
|
Post by tony on Oct 28, 2016 16:27:09 GMT
I have 57s and 63s. My 63s are in the attic needing some TLC after I went away on holiday with them bi amped to Berhinger amps and leaving behind a teenage son with a fondness for radio head at crakatonian volume. 63s do indeed benefit from being raised up on stands maybe a foot high. I prefered the sound with the socks removed tighter and brighter.
I bought a lovely pair of 57s on stands about 18 inches high with protection circuits already fitted but still sporting the bulgin plugs. Ive been using them for a couple of years and adore them. Vocals male or female are beguiling-they image like nothing I have tried 63s included. use them with a variety amps d class/valves/ss. They are married up with a Colin Wonfor TQ claymore-an exceptional match that really gets the best out of them.
If you like listening on high quality headphones 57s or 63s will be right up your street.
I love quad statics-when I plumbed them in I just felt....Im home!!! (my other speakers are Spendor SP1s and a lovely pair of electric beach frugels all terrific but the 57s just hit the magic spot for me)
Hope that helps....
|
|
|
Quad ESL
Oct 28, 2016 17:54:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by Sovereign on Oct 28, 2016 17:54:49 GMT
Yes I did hear them and yes I did like them, very much . Glad you have a bigger and better room now Pinkie, very nice
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Oct 28, 2016 19:58:21 GMT
Philip, if you are still considering Quad ESL's, but remain concerned about the lack of bass extension, just a reminder that several years ago, Noel Keywood designed a dipol sub-woofer for this very combination. It was featured in the WAD DIY supplement and should be on the gold or platinum WD CD which I believe you have.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Oct 28, 2016 20:09:28 GMT
Thanks Greg.
Coincidence, but I was sorting through my paper DIY supplements today, trying to help an Audio Talk member with a circuit diagram copy, when I came across that very same Quad subwoofer article.
|
|
|
Post by liffy99 on Nov 14, 2016 23:00:08 GMT
I've owned several stats (I do like panel speakers), as well as some Maggies and Perigee ribbon hybrids. I find their rendition of micro dynamics, detail and clarity just open a window you don't get with boxes. But sure, they have limitations, even the more recent and larger models. i started with 57s on Quadropod stands (essential to get them off the floor) but needed more bass. Moved onto Magneplar 2.5r ribbons which were a lovely speaker (but needed power). Next up were some Cadence Anina electrostatic hybrids (not good, sounded like two completely different speakers fighting each other) and then what have probably been the most transparent stat I've ever had - Audiostatic Wings. But these again had limited dynamics and bass (but a little better than the 57s). After that, Martin Logan Prodigies - not too shabby at all but had to go as just too big for the room. Perigee ribbons followed ( a great box speaker) and now a pair of slightly upgraded Final 400s with a pair of Lyngdorf passive bass units. I cross these over actively at 270hz so the stats (which are a little small to be full range) are not troubled by low bass at all. I'd like to try a pair of Quad 2905s but couldn't accommodate them in my room at the moment. Other speakers I'd love - rebuilt Apogee Duetta Signatures - virtual stat clarity with real slam. I just need a bigger room . . . . Having room correction software courtesy of my Lyngdorf Amos helps enormously with placement. I get away with the stars just 15" from the wall.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Nov 14, 2016 23:38:31 GMT
Gosh, that's quite a trick to pull off! Nothing absorbant behind them?
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 15, 2016 6:06:50 GMT
I've heard good things about the Finals. The Apogees are magnificent, but you will need Krell-like current delivery.
|
|
|
Post by liffy99 on Nov 15, 2016 8:29:54 GMT
I think the fact that the Finals are not producing longer bass wavelengths helps. I did try putting pyramidial foam sheets behind them but it didn't seem to make much difference and the wife hated that ! If anyone out there has Finals (or some other stats), Twinstatic Audio in Holland did a great job in fitting slightly improved panels to mine (apparently the originals were prone to failure of the conductive coating). Must admit the Final range (and the Audiostatics) are much more room friendly being tall and narrow (400s are 4' x 12", the Wings 6' x 15") but neither (or even the Final 600s) could be classed as full range (unless you just like female vocals, violins and acoustic guitars). I did run a Final sub with the Audiostatics - didn't blend at all.
|
|
|
Post by liffy99 on Nov 15, 2016 8:44:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Nov 15, 2016 9:33:45 GMT
So many owner-experts on Quads here, but here goes... An old now deceased friend had 57's with limiters, driven by a 66/606 in a small cottage sitting room. they sounded fabulous and the slightly nasal 'plastic diaphragm' colouration they have was soon heard through. the beaming hf is an issue though, as a slight movement from side to side as well as up and down, caused the treble to come and go. In a larger room it may not be an issue. Lovely sound though and original owners used to keep and enjoy them for life. 63's for me got off to a bad start. Demo'd by Quad at shows on launch, sitting on the floor and with the hf filters in use on the Quad preamp, they sounded truly horrible and the mesh they used behind the grille-cloths on the domestic models didn't help either. It was some years before I heard them properly set up, on stands either set high on Arcici stands and/or angled back a bit (the Quadropod stands helped a lot here), they are *potentially* actually rather better than 57's in my experience. HOWEVER, 63's now have adhesive issues and they all now seem to be falling apart to varying degrees, sadly. As for servicing 57's, the replacement panels aren't quite the same as original ones, so tonal balance will be different and is according to reviews on the OTA rebuilt models. I used to like my music louder than either Quad could manage and never had the room to exploit them. Today, anyone lucky or brave enough to take them on, should treat them as one would a delicate vintage car, with much respect and lots of love
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Nov 15, 2016 10:54:16 GMT
I would say that was spot on Dave. The 63's are serviceable - although if they need major surgery it can be expensive. Actually - let me qualify that. If you can pick a pair of 63's up for £500 or so and pay £1500 for a comprehensive service you have a £2000 pair of speakers. They are certainly that good in my opinion.
But I completely agree about 63's on the floor fed by Quad 34 or 44 preamps were doing them no justice at all.
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Nov 15, 2016 17:46:12 GMT
I mentioned this on their launch because a year or two before, Quad had a room with probably the same TD160 turntable, 33/405 no doubt and 57's set up on trestle tables, so kind-of ear level for the people sitting down in a medium sized hotel room (small conference room I reckon). The sound from these was memorable and superb. You could enter this room frazzled out from the din in the other audio rooms and bustling corridor, and just sit and relax for a while, the sound so good in a musical sense, yet not loud 'HIFI' as everywhere else. So yep, whatever I said above, a good set of 57's set up as carefully as possible, can make some musical magic on not-heavy musical material. Other speakers can do it too and with more consistent results*, but that's missing the point here..
* I directly compared my BC1's in the late 70's to my friend's 57's (44/405mk1 amp) and also years later, my 1992 vintage ATC20's (pre 'SL' magnets and with 66/606 amp) and both were perfectly comparable at moderate volumes, neither being shown up and actually sounding better up top I thought, because they weren't 'beaming' the treble to your ears.
|
|
|
Post by tony on Nov 19, 2016 16:36:22 GMT
My 57s are selfish beasts. When set up they beam at the listening position like nothing else I have heard but very similar to great headphones sonically. Not everyone's cup of tea but entirely captivating. A night listening to music is just a sheer pleasure.
OTA may well get my money for a complete overhaul of the 63s some time in the future...
|
|
|
Post by tony on Dec 24, 2016 17:14:06 GMT
Has anyone tried a ONE THING AUDIO external widget for the 57s? Just wondering what they do sonically and if I was to go down the stacked route they would help give my amp an easier time.
|
|
|
Post by Firebottle on Dec 27, 2016 22:30:06 GMT
Apart from Pinky, does anyone here currently use Quad ESL speakers, 57s or 63s.
Ideally, I'd like to listen to a pair.
I've read that good 57s (like one thing modified) can sound better than 63s, but as I've never heard either I can't comment. If you are ever in the West Midlands you would be more than welcome to hear my '57s. I am now near Dudley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 22:54:02 GMT
Philip, if you are still considering Quad ESL's, but remain concerned about the lack of bass extension, just a reminder that several years ago, Noel Keywood designed a dipol sub-woofer for this very combination. It was featured in the WAD DIY supplement and should be on the gold or platinum WD CD which I believe you have. There was the finnish Gradient sub, i think you could use the old Celestion '6000' Di Pole subs
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Dec 28, 2016 1:01:29 GMT
From vague memory and without checking, I think it was the Celestion 6000 Noel Keywood used in his design. Knowing Phil (personally) I have little doubt that we're he to go down the Quad ESL route, I have little doubt that he would settle for the Noel Keywood design, unless some of our other speaker designing friends cam up with something viably different.
|
|