Quad Electrostatic models.
- Thread starter Eoin
- Start date
ToTo Man
the band not the dog
YMMV but I couldn't get 63s to work in my 4.2m x 3.8m x 3.25m listening room. Even with a metre of clear space behind them I couldn't avoid midbass cancellation that resulted in a loss of bass impact, which is a shame because they sounded gloriously satisfying when I sat ultra-nearfield and wore them like giant headphones by positioning them a matter of inches from my ears.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Dunno about under a grand. But I'd tend to rely on QUAD rather than anyone else for a refurbished pair. They are likely to ensure it really works 'as new'.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I've also found tilting or lifting up can help. But very room and speaker/listener position dependent!
robbyd
pfm Member
My 2p worth... or less
I have 57s and 63s. I could not live with either did I not use subs. Dipole subs.
The Gradients are the perfect match for 63s visually. I had a pair but ended up selling them (because I could), and making my own with scaled-up AE drivers, which I now use with stacked 57s.
Using subs with 63s would surely give you what all other later models do, since afaik they still use the same panels.
One massively important discovery for me was that removing the cloth/ sock, steel mesh and dust covers is a shocking improvement in sound quality. My 63s have been without dust covers for 5 yrs, and even with builders having been in the house, with associated dust etc, they still function perfectly.
Also google the Janis W1. It's a 15" driver in a tuned box that looks more like furniture with a separate active crossover/amp for the sub. Used as a pair. Designed for the 57 but works with the 63. Rarely come up used but there are some out there.
So, if you did go for subs you'd need the/an active adjustable crossover and additional stereo power amp. Maybe tubes for the quads and ss for the subs?
I have 57s and 63s. I could not live with either did I not use subs. Dipole subs.
The Gradients are the perfect match for 63s visually. I had a pair but ended up selling them (because I could), and making my own with scaled-up AE drivers, which I now use with stacked 57s.
Using subs with 63s would surely give you what all other later models do, since afaik they still use the same panels.
One massively important discovery for me was that removing the cloth/ sock, steel mesh and dust covers is a shocking improvement in sound quality. My 63s have been without dust covers for 5 yrs, and even with builders having been in the house, with associated dust etc, they still function perfectly.
Also google the Janis W1. It's a 15" driver in a tuned box that looks more like furniture with a separate active crossover/amp for the sub. Used as a pair. Designed for the 57 but works with the 63. Rarely come up used but there are some out there.
So, if you did go for subs you'd need the/an active adjustable crossover and additional stereo power amp. Maybe tubes for the quads and ss for the subs?
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Just a matter of subjective preference, Eion. I've always liked big spkrs and plenty of scale. a.k.a. 'wall of sound' and for that, you need that space in front to 'fill the room', as it were. This is why I found the 57s, which others love, lacking. If one is firing across a 12' room, I'd be tempted with looking at folded horns (Impulse and their succcessor, e.g.) or simply I.B. (sealed boxes) and possibly down-firing ports (ProAc, e.g.) rather than sth which requires rear space, like rear-ported spkrs and panels and even front ported.
irb
pfm Member
I've heard the 63s and 988s and 989s on a few occasions, although never for long, and never in my own system. I was never hugely impressed. They just didn't quite achieve the clarity I expected - and which the 57s (which I have owned) had in spades, to my ears. Heard the 2905s once and was blown away. The extra mechanical integrity transformed them for the better, to my ears. However they were a tad lean sounding in the mid and treble, I thought. From what I've read, the 2805 is better balanced (though I've never heard them).
Just my unreliable observations. Others may well disagree.
Just my unreliable observations. Others may well disagree.
mandryka
pfm Member
One thing I would say to anyone who fancies trying 63s is that they are unlike any other speaker I have heard in a real fundamental way: they project the image behind the speaker. Not far behind, but the sound isn't in your face as it were. I really like that - but I remember someone here saying he couldn't deal with it - he said it was like listening to the music through a letter box. I don't know if later incarnations of the 63 concept do the same.
I'm actually convinced that anyone who isn't impressed by 63s just hasn't heard them set up properly - and they're not hard to set up if you follow advice from experienced people and you have the space. You might not like them, but you have to be impressed surely! It could be that I have low expectations or bad ears of course.
I'm actually convinced that anyone who isn't impressed by 63s just hasn't heard them set up properly - and they're not hard to set up if you follow advice from experienced people and you have the space. You might not like them, but you have to be impressed surely! It could be that I have low expectations or bad ears of course.
les24preludes
pfm Member
Stacked 57s. End of story. No subs. You need a decent sized room, but in the right room they're jaw droppingly good.
i have to qualify this by saying that I took the fronts and backs off. This is NOT ADVISED due to high voltages but I was young and foolish.
i have to qualify this by saying that I took the fronts and backs off. This is NOT ADVISED due to high voltages but I was young and foolish.
vacuum_tubes
pfm Member
Was that Robin? heard those with the Mingda and some AR preamp and they sounded fantastic.
TBF he had something like a 35ft room so had 10ft behind them.
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Electrostatics seem to be like headphones.... no two people hear them the same way.
I have owned 57s, 988 and 2805. I can't be doing with the 57 at all nowadays..... for me they are a one trick pony, anything other than simplest acoustic music and it just falls apart in a smeary mess of sound.
2805 was by far the best of the three, the extra rigidity and weight of its construction really helps deepen and tighten the bass. Big Orchestral music is wonderful through them.
But choosing the right amp is a B**l-ache.... just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, many things sound merely "quite good" or "nice" including Quad's own amps, Sheer joy for me came with a Graaf 50 watt 6550/kt88 push-pull valve amp. They need lots of space behind them too - 1.5m from wall behind and then I had an incredible 3-d natural soundstage.
I gave up trying to integrate a small subwoofer - but I didn't get as far as any kind of DSP or active crossover.
However, one of my 2805s started arcing a few months ago and not sure I want to pay upwards of £1k to get them fully serviced, I didn't pay that much more from them in the first place as they had several minor cosmetic blemishes, though they gave me a few years of magnificent service.. If anyone wants a pair to get serviced or brave enough to DIY, maybe we can do a deal if you can pick up from Edinburgh.
I have owned 57s, 988 and 2805. I can't be doing with the 57 at all nowadays..... for me they are a one trick pony, anything other than simplest acoustic music and it just falls apart in a smeary mess of sound.
2805 was by far the best of the three, the extra rigidity and weight of its construction really helps deepen and tighten the bass. Big Orchestral music is wonderful through them.
But choosing the right amp is a B**l-ache.... just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, many things sound merely "quite good" or "nice" including Quad's own amps, Sheer joy for me came with a Graaf 50 watt 6550/kt88 push-pull valve amp. They need lots of space behind them too - 1.5m from wall behind and then I had an incredible 3-d natural soundstage.
I gave up trying to integrate a small subwoofer - but I didn't get as far as any kind of DSP or active crossover.
However, one of my 2805s started arcing a few months ago and not sure I want to pay upwards of £1k to get them fully serviced, I didn't pay that much more from them in the first place as they had several minor cosmetic blemishes, though they gave me a few years of magnificent service.. If anyone wants a pair to get serviced or brave enough to DIY, maybe we can do a deal if you can pick up from Edinburgh.
camverton
pfm Member
Very interesting as when my second pair of 63s were in a state of nothing much to lose I tried them without sock, mesh and dust covers. As you say the improvement in sound quality is very clear. I have found that sound from 2812s is much more similar to a nude 63 than a fully clothed one. In particular there is, to my ears, a greater clarity and “liveness“ about the sound, somewhat akin to Martin Logans but without the colouration. In essence I feel unclothed 63s and 2812s are a closer approach to the original sound.My 2p worth... or less
I have 57s and 63s. I could not live with either did I not use subs. Dipole subs.
The Gradients are the perfect match for 63s visually. I had a pair but ended up selling them (because I could), and making my own with scaled-up AE drivers, which I now use with stacked 57s.
Using subs with 63s would surely give you what all other later models do, since afaik they still use the same panels.
One massively important discovery for me was that removing the cloth/ sock, steel mesh and dust covers is a shocking improvement in sound quality. My 63s have been without dust covers for 5 yrs, and even with builders having been in the house, with associated dust etc, they still function perfectly.
Also google the Janis W1. It's a 15" driver in a tuned box that looks more like furniture with a separate active crossover/amp for the sub. Used as a pair. Designed for the 57 but works with the 63. Rarely come up used but there are some out there.
So, if you did go for subs you'd need the/an active adjustable crossover and additional stereo power amp. Maybe tubes for the quads and ss for the subs?
Yep, the 989s were Robins, I bought them when he got his 2905s. As you say, he has them in a 29x11 room, the ARC LS26 is now a Ref 3 and the amp is now a 50wpc Line Magnetic 508i integrated in power amp mode (direct in).
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I have used 57s with a Quad 520 and a Quad 303 and 63s with an Exposure XV Super.
The 57s sounded great, but had a tendency to sound a bit like an AM radio on busy rock music as the bass kind of gets lost. Weirdly, on classical organ they were magnificent. The vice like SweetSpot was why I ultimately gave them up.
The 63s were more even handed, everything sounded great and they went loud with ease, but they lacked the acoustic sparkle of the 57s.
I had both well over a metre from the back wall and listened to them at 3m+, so your room may be just big enough.
The 57s sounded great, but had a tendency to sound a bit like an AM radio on busy rock music as the bass kind of gets lost. Weirdly, on classical organ they were magnificent. The vice like SweetSpot was why I ultimately gave them up.
The 63s were more even handed, everything sounded great and they went loud with ease, but they lacked the acoustic sparkle of the 57s.
I had both well over a metre from the back wall and listened to them at 3m+, so your room may be just big enough.
les24preludes
pfm Member
My stacked 57s were in a room 4.5m long, so they were about 0.75m from the back wall and I listened to them from around 3m. It was a "you're right in front of a live band" experience! I never managed to recreate anything that good again.