Have to agree use x2 303 for mine ...
Recently changed to x2 QMP and they thrive on a big amp.
Was recommended by a repairer, i know as that is what he uses with his stacked set up....
Quad Electrostatic models.
- Thread starter Eoin
- Start date
Recently changed to x2 QMP and they thrive on a big amp.
Was recommended by a repairer, i know as that is what he uses with his stacked set up....
Mike Reed
pfm Member
A hifi bake-off friend has stacked 57s in a pretty large attic-like room. He had single 57s before and the transition was noticeable by all the group. Unusually, he being an old school valve collector and expert on most things valved, powers them with a 1960s Sansui amplifier; quite rare in this country.
Interesting re. the comments of pros and cons of successive Quad ESLs but esp. what has been used to power them. I use EAR 100 W mono's for my 2905s; or did, and hope to again. The EARs are not lush in the remotest way; the 'valved equivalent of s/state', has often been bandied about. The late lamented T de P used 63s in the designing of these 509 mono's and much else. Surprisingly, perhaps, they also sound superb with my PMC floor-standers, which have to be diametrically opposed to the ESLs in presentation. Maybe these PMCs revel in the very slight valve effect whilst retaining all their detail, dynamics and soundstaging.
What puzzles me is that all or most comments above mention the smaller versions (988/2805/2812) of Quad's ESLs, but the footprint of these is identical to that of their bigger brethren. Why would you prefer the smaller one to the one giving that extra bass extension? Maybe cost? I dunno but if Quad did one even larger (with a wider frequ. response, of course), I'd be in the queue as height of a spkr is of no concern, surely; esp. in properties with older ceiling heights.
Interesting re. the comments of pros and cons of successive Quad ESLs but esp. what has been used to power them. I use EAR 100 W mono's for my 2905s; or did, and hope to again. The EARs are not lush in the remotest way; the 'valved equivalent of s/state', has often been bandied about. The late lamented T de P used 63s in the designing of these 509 mono's and much else. Surprisingly, perhaps, they also sound superb with my PMC floor-standers, which have to be diametrically opposed to the ESLs in presentation. Maybe these PMCs revel in the very slight valve effect whilst retaining all their detail, dynamics and soundstaging.
What puzzles me is that all or most comments above mention the smaller versions (988/2805/2812) of Quad's ESLs, but the footprint of these is identical to that of their bigger brethren. Why would you prefer the smaller one to the one giving that extra bass extension? Maybe cost? I dunno but if Quad did one even larger (with a wider frequ. response, of course), I'd be in the queue as height of a spkr is of no concern, surely; esp. in properties with older ceiling heights.
Last edited:
mandryka
pfm Member
With my 63s I found a good cheap amp is the Electrocompaniet ECI-2. But Quad themselves recommend their own 606. My own view is that the amplification is relatively secondary, they're pretty amp friendly speakers as long as the amp can deliver enough volts. The important thing is positioning -- if someone likes the presentation when they are well placed then they are free to explore amp options, subwoofer options, room treatment options., supertweeter options etc if they so wish. But all that is very much icing on the cake.
I have mine hooked up to a 200W monster amp at the moment, made by Conrad Johnson. In the past I've enjoyed a 50W Krell too. When I bought them I used Quads -- 520 and 606 - and enjoyed the results. Never tried valves with them -- I'm a bit reluctant to explore high powered valve amps. The Electrocompaniet seems to me very very good with it, and I may have been daft to change around.
I have mine hooked up to a 200W monster amp at the moment, made by Conrad Johnson. In the past I've enjoyed a 50W Krell too. When I bought them I used Quads -- 520 and 606 - and enjoyed the results. Never tried valves with them -- I'm a bit reluctant to explore high powered valve amps. The Electrocompaniet seems to me very very good with it, and I may have been daft to change around.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
I'm gradually realising that Quad ESLs (but not the 57s) are a maintenance/servicing item, and not the 'last forever' nature of most quality moving coil spkrs. It's been documented for years about panels arcing/needing replacement etc. but I no longer think that these incidents are random and that these ESLs tend to go in some aspect after 8 to 12 years.
I empathise, as I'm currently biting the bullet with my 2905, although both are going back. The shape, weight and heavy, multi-part packaging does not help in getting these back to Quad, as I'm finding out, but I'm not as strong as I used to be !
Last edited:
I've had Quad 57, stacked pairs, and 63x for many years. I've recently returned to cabinet speakers. ESLs do bass but they don't do bump-thump like a big cabinet. Subs are useful. I wouldn't choose them if your genre of choice were reggae, but the old line about "they're fine if you only listen to chamber music" is nonsense . They make stuff like Neil young and Springsteen sound amazing.
camverton
pfm Member
Generally speaking I’ve found Quad stats more agnostic of amp than most other speakers I have used. Having said that, the best I’ve heard the latest models is with Quads 40 watt valve amps which they brought out, iirc, about the same time as the 2805s. Curiously I didn’t much like those amps with other speakers.
Four panel versus six panel Quads? Personally I don’t particularly like the sound of the larger models, although they are still excellent speakers. Compared to the smaller, original size, they lose that precision of sound which brings one close to the original sound and they sound more muddled. They will give more bass volume but little extra extension as they are designed to give more bass volume rather than be able to reproduce lower frequencies. Basically, by sharing the bass with extra panels the membranes don’t have to move so far and, with the Quad design particularly, the limited room for membrane excursion can lead to bass played loudly being reigned back. If one wants to reproduce the bottom octave one will still need a sub. There may be a case for them if one plays bass heavy music very loud and/or values scale above precision. They do, of course, have the same footprint but they are way more visually dominating in a room than the smaller models, which let’s face it, are already visually dominant. Obviously, how visible one’s speakers are in the room is a matter of taste. IME the older models need raising on stands which does increase their visual dominance, although I have found the older, narrower models less dominant than the 2805 and 2812s. Fortunately the improvement in sound quality with the later models is a more than fair trade for the increase in girth and height, not to mention weight.
All down to personal taste of course but if anyone is considering the larger models I would advise careful comparison of the two to find which gives the best balance of attributes for one’s individual needs.
camverton
pfm Member
Too true. I once fitted a pair of 63s in the back of a Fiesta but the modern ones, particularly when boxed, need a van. I could easily move the old 63s about the house by myself. The 2812s are really a two man lift, as much for their bulk as their 35kg weight. There is a way to move to move them on one’s own, other than with a hand cart, and that is to remove the top wooden piece which reveals a steel flange which can be used to lift. Not sure that Quad would recommend that though!
Which reminds me, I must get around to installing a stair lift, not for me but getting my speakers up and down stairs!
brecklandboy
pfm Member
Although, I own ESL57s , I am not immune to the charms of the later models . My favourite 'new-generation' model electrostatic is the 2812, which I also feel, has a better integrated bass than the larger 6 panel 2912.
If you have a suitable room, then the larger Quad speakers could well fit the bill for a prospective buyer. If space is limited, however, then a 989 / 2095 or 2912 may not be the best choice .
If you have a suitable room, then the larger Quad speakers could well fit the bill for a prospective buyer. If space is limited, however, then a 989 / 2095 or 2912 may not be the best choice .
bencat
Amplifier Destroyer par excellence
Okay here is my take on this . I use 57,s in a much smaller room than you have . They are a good two feet away from side walls but only about 13 inches one side and 6 inches the other from the back wall . Now I was told for years that my room was too small for 57,s and that they just had to be at least 24 inches away from a back wall or they just would not work . Well I found that complete tosh . I have used my Quads about the right distance away and then changed the distance an inch at a time and the best sound was 13 inches away . Then after an experiment moving the Quads really close to the listening position say 2 feet away as a friend had this really amazing sound from moving coil speakers really close I found that Electrostatics do not act the same but that toe in worked with them . So then moved them back to 13 inches and did an inch by inch move on the toe in till I got things just right . Now I have to accept that I may just have cloth ears but anyone who has heard my system has yet to say it sounds awful . There is lots of myths about 57,s no bass , must be out in the room etc none of it is fully true . They were designed as mono speaker and had death that pointed them at the ceiling to add air . When another was added for stereo the tilt was not only not needed but detrimental . When used as a stereo pair they need to be 16/18 inches off the floor and tilted forward so they parallel to the listener . This increases bass and improved the treble beaming often mentioned. No they will never ever be a replacement for a club stack of large woofer coupled speakers . However the bass is really excellent and even has slam on occasions . Sub,s as has been mentioned are a personal choice I do not like it want them because all the sub,s I have heard to date are too slow and mess the integration up . No speaker is perfect all of them have some compromise you have to decide what suits you and for 57,s are my choice but you have to work to get your sound and experiment . The only thing I would say is essential is stands they have to be off the floor or they will not give their best .
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Note that with amps like the 303 that have an output capacitor you can get a bass 'ring' at LF which alters the response. I suspect PJW knew about this and made use of it.
les24preludes
pfm Member
13ft is short for planars of any kind. In that space I'd use a good box speaker with as large as possible ribbon tweeters. If I was throwing money at it I'd be looking for well priced used aluminium cabinets like Piega or Magico to keep the box out of it as much as possible. Piega do a nice ribbon mid-treble unit.
I agree with bencat that 57s are possible in your space, but it would be a listening room only and not much else, if that works for you.
I agree with bencat that 57s are possible in your space, but it would be a listening room only and not much else, if that works for you.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
The actual response is *very* room and location dependent, but excites room acoustic in a different way to conventional speakers. Thus be caureful about interpteting open-air types of response measurements. Personally, I had/have no real problem with getting bass OK from the 63-sized versions in either of the rooms here where I've used them, and still do. I did try adding a sub, but in the end decided that did more harm than good after a lot of experimenting.
However as per earlier comments, I tend to do things like a *rug* on the wall fore/aft - or heavy folded drape curtains - from a curtain rail that holds them well away from the wall. These give the speaker a better space to radiate into.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
FWIW I've mostly used my ESLs with my Armstrong 700-range (yes, 700) power amps ( > 200WPC). Works fine at sensible levels. But I'm also happy enough with using an old Cambridge Audio power amp! (use modified Quad pre amps with twiddled tone control profiles, etc.. Like their bass lift/cut behaviour.)
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Yes, they do 'wear out'. Rate may depend on use and humidity history. My experience is that I was able to arrange a 'swap' delivery of new speakers via a dealer arranged by QUAD. I couldn't/can't get out much or arrange myself to have them sent. Too old and frail - and that's me, not the speakers! 8-{
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Tempting. But when I decide to make the effort I'll probably put a 700 amp back on task.
More likely that sometime soon I'd decide to get the current '63-sized' version and part-exchange my older ones in the deal. These days I only use one pair. Probably do that this summer.LecsonQuad
pfm Member
I've had 57's 63's and now 2805's. The weakest performers were the 63's so either spend what it takes for something newer with service history or go somewhere nice on holiday with the £1K. The main weakness with the 63's was the poor build quality which has been sorted out in later models with a significant improvement in the sound.
I don't think you will have any problem with the room size after a bit of experimenting.
If you go for Quads start without subs and then make your own mind up.
I don't think you will have any problem with the room size after a bit of experimenting.
If you go for Quads start without subs and then make your own mind up.
bencat
Amplifier Destroyer par excellence
One other suggestion is fine a cheap set as has been said in your budget probably 57/62 the takes them to Andrew Jones of AQuadaudio he can service them and bring to as new , or better working condition . Please also note although I use mine in a music room the positions close to the back wall leaves lots of room for dolls house various Barbies and large craft box for the use of the grand children .