Quad Electrostatic models.

[lencotweaker]

I've enjoyed my time with 2805's because they have been a considerable improvement on most of the ESL's I've heard in the past because of their surprisingly capable bass. I have heard freshly serviced 57's (One Thing) sounding quite good but apart from a brand new set of 63's in the early 80's, I've always been disappointed with the 57's, 63's, 988's and 989's I've heard. A demo of 2805's with big REL subs many years ago was amazing though and one of the reasons why I specifically wanted 2805's. As I found out though, in my room, subs are not particularly necessary though I would experiment with them in time if I were keeping them.

The service experience at A Quad Thing Audio (Alan Bayliss in Banbury) was excellent though. He turned mine around in a week and replaced all of the panels with mint 2805 originals he'd been holding on to. The difference is like night and day from how they sounded prior to the service. I wouldn't touch a pair of Quads now unless they were either recently serviced or were so cheap and you were factoring in a service.

If you have the room to accommodate them, I'd highly recommend 2805's.

 

[Eoin]

Ok, just to correct any earlier misunderstanding. Just had an email from Quad. They charge : £75 per speaker fixed labour and £130 per panel. Plus vat and carriage.

So that’s £595 plus vat and postage maximum each speaker. £714 plus post then each for a 4 panel device.

 

[robbyd]

And you have new speakers!

 

[Mike Reed]

and carriage.

Whereas they used to do a carriage service, I was told they'd stopped it. Therefore, carriage is up to the individual. They told me that most people bring their spkrs in but whereas one big ESL could fit into a smaller car, two would be tricky as they need to lie face down. Packaging would be out of the question. 2805s and similar would obv. be easier but it's been the transport which as floored me until recently.

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

ElectroStatic Solutions

ElectroStatic Solutions is a company founded and dedicated to electrostatic loudspeakers. We are an authorized dealer for Soundlab and ENIGMACoustics electrostatic loudspeakers. We provide products and services for maintaining all models of Quad Electrostatic loudspeakers and the Stax F-81, F83...

estatsolution.com

I can vouch for Kent's work on 57s. I sent him my panels and he sent back refurbished ones. I also took the opportunity to order his new cross-over components, HV boards and protection clamp boards and I did all the fitting. IIRC, his price for doing all the work himself was not a huge addition over the parts cost but shipping the complete speakers both ways would have been expensive.

 

[mandryka]

Are all the post 63 models point source? Do they all project the sound image behind or are they more forward than the 63? Is the only differenece in presentation the bass response?

And a slightly off topic question - how does the sound of the 57 compare to LS3/5a or JR149 Mk 1?

 

[camverton]

Are all the post 63 models point source? Do they all project the sound image behind or are they more forward than the 63? Is the only differenece in presentation the bass response?

And a slightly off topic question - how does the sound of the 57 compare to LS3/5a or JR149 Mk 1?

Yes, sort of illusion of a point source achieved with delay lines and the inner zones a higher frequency response. The method in later models is the same but from 2805 the panels are in a much stiffer and heavier frame which imho greatly benefits the sound quality. afaik they also changed the grill to the benefit of the sound.

The models with six, as opposed to four, panels are capable of giving more bass volume but little improvement in bass extension. That does come, ime and imho, with a poorer overall presentation in that the sound is comparatively slightly muddled, albeit still an excellent speaker. My preference fwiw would be to use a four panel model crossed over to a good quality sub around the 60 Hz mark, subject to how they measure in the room.

Ideally the panel area would be small but the snag with stats is that the membrane can’t move back and forth much and so to get a decent volume the panels have to be large.

 

[Mike Reed]

The models with six, as opposed to four, panels are capable of giving more bass volume but little improvement in bass extension.

That's a puzzler. Surely if there's capacity for greater bass, there's capacity for hearing lower bass. I s'pose the spec's comparisons between, say, 2812s and 2912s would identify if the lower frequency limits are the same; I personally doubt it, as hearing is believing, as they say.

 

[brecklandboy]

Quad's specifications for the two speakers do indeed indicate that the 2912 goes deeper in the bass frequencies but only marginally so..

I have a vague recollection of reading an American review of either the 2905 or 2912 which exhibited a bass 'hump' around 50 Hz on test, in the laboratory / technical evaluation section of the article. Possibly, this has a bearing on how the two speakers present to a listener when auditioning and why some owners, like Camverton, have a preference for the smaller model.

 

[martin clark]

Yep, larger panels, do go deeper - consequence of dipole face area vs rolloff. About 1/2 octave extension just from the face area increase.

I've 989s; in room they get good level right down into the high 20s, and more-even, in-room bass presentation, than my Impulse H2s (which they cream for precision and LF detail). Otherwise, the presentation is really not that different, not bandwidth - Impuls do 'they are Here!'; teh 989s do you.are.there, in a way that is rare. They also - for me - do a thing I've never heard before - they can overlay the ambience of the live recording and its venue, on my room. That takes... exceptional.

The mint service ESL57s I had got nowhere near either.

... I'm not decrying otehr;s experience - I think what these posts taken together show, should be no surpirse - it's still the room, and the set-out you can live with, that will make the biggest difference.


PS:

All the above when driven by the same SS amp set-up.
Comparison trially valve amps - did not not work for me. Except for being leant a mint AI500 with border partol SU: into the ESL57s - my god, if all I wanted to listen to was anything on Impulse!, Verv, Riverside and maybe BlueNote 1948-1965 - stop right there. Unfortunately - that pairing was equally dissapointing with any other genre. very odd!

 

[camverton]

Yep, larger panels, do go deeper - consequence of dipole face area vs rolloff. About 1/2 octave extension just from the face area increase.

I've 989s; in room they get good level right down into the high 20s, and more-even, in-room bass presentation, than my Impulse H2s (which they cream for precision and LF detail). Otherwise, the presentation is really not that different, not bandwidth - Impuls do 'they are Here!'; teh 989s do you.are.there, in a way that is rare. They also - for me - do a thing I've never heard before - they can overlay the ambience of the live recording and its venue, on my room. That takes... exceptional.

The mint service ESL57s I had got nowhere near either.

... I'm not decrying otehr;s experience - I think what these posts taken together show, should be no surpirse - it's still the room, and the set-out you can live with, that will make the biggest difference.


PS:

All the above when driven by the same SS amp set-up.
Comparison trially valve amps - did not not work for me. Except for being leant a mint AI500 with border partol SU: into the ESL57s - my god, if all I wanted to listen to was anything on Impulse!, Verv, Riverside and maybe BlueNote 1948-1965 - stop right there. Unfortunately - that pairing was equally dissapointing with any other genre. very odd!

Six panel Quads go 5 Hz lower than four panel Quads (according to the specs), so not a lot! The main advantage is that, by virtue of larger membrane area, they don’t have to move so much for a given volume. More to the point they don’t self limit so early as the volume goes up. I don’t disagree that they might appear to give more bass, as in volume, but not 1/2 octave frequency extension. In practice the bass extension is likely to be limited by room and placement in room.

As to which sounds best, that is down to preference. I’ve listened mainly to classical (acoustic) where taut presentation of detail is, for me, helpful in recreating the illusion of the original sound, and in that respect the smaller Quads work better for me. I can quite understand other folk preferring the larger Quads, especially if wall of sound, scale is better for them. Maybe the larger models are better suited to a larger room where one might sit further away?

Whilst not the lowest bass of speakers I’ve owned, if set up well, one of the best where quality counts for more than volume.

 

[Mike Reed]

......understand other folk preferring the larger Quads, especially if wall of sound, scale is better for them. Maybe the larger models are better suited to a larger room where one might sit further away?

Yup! That's me, my taste and domestic situation. Besides, a fishie should have scale ! Once had Briks; warts 'n' all but they did scale and wall of sound (if not much else apart from that bass).