advertisement


ESL-57s (newcomer Qs)

Oxford Dictionary of English:
The standard spelling is supersede rather than supercede. The word is derived from the Latin verb supersedere but has been influenced by the presence of other words in English spelled with a c, such as intercede and accede. The c spelling is recorded as early as the 16th century; although still generally regarded as incorrect, it is now entered without comment in some modern dictionaries.
 
misterdog said:
OTA Widget is the Capacitor/resistor fitted to the > ESL 63, stops the amplifier from seeing the near 0 Ohm impedance at 12.5 kHz IMO...

PHdjUDF5vgjv7etIjXWNBMg-2634cIJhHQtbH6AKWKsAcWc-kbm69kKD6s7xIp1qlI2nNPiq7bgGE09D0ElPpVvdzV0u


My 989 ESL's like the lowest distortion possible.
I use solid state with Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 0.00051% 1 kHz, 110 W, 4 ", 20 kHz BW

As one of the lowest distortion speakers available it makes sense to me. Though I have no experience with the 57's.
Click to expand...

Ahem. That ilustration looks curiously familiar to me desite being via a 'google' URL. :)
 
Listening here tonight and wondering if ever moving to 989's or the later models is worth the effort. The room is 15ft x15ft x 10ft Ceiling and the soundstage, scale, detail and clarity is fantastic (if I say so myself :)) Bass in my room is really solid and soulful.
 
Hello again,

Back to ESL-57's.

I told my friend everythign I had learned here and from speaking to Rob at Quad (service). He will go away to think about it.

What do PF people think of ESL-63's vs ESL-57's in terms of sound and value (including price)?

Thanks for your help!
 
The 63 is a rather different implementation of the the electrostatic system compared to the 57. More complex, and arguably an improvement.

On the other hand Quad continued to make 57s after the introduction of the 63, because some people prefer the old version.

I do know people who prefer the 63, and I prefer the 57. I cannot describe the sonic differences in a useful way, and the only way you are going to observe the alternative presentations is to audition both variants in controlled conditions, and with speakers all in good condition.

Perhaps you could take the time to audition the two types at OneThing or Classique at Leicester? Listening to two pairs of speakers in two different rooms is not going to convey the difference in a definitive way in my opinion.

Best wishes from George
 
Ultimately I preferred the 57s when I had both, but it’s compromises led me to selling them and keeping the 63s.

The sweet spot with 57s (in stereo mode George :)) is just too tiny. In an ideal world I’d have kept both, but didn’t have the space.
 
57s can astonish you with some music.
63s are less obvious but deeply impressive on a long term basis, and are more of an all rounder.

Ultimately it is a matter of taste.
 
Dowser said:
...

The sweet spot with 57s (in stereo mode George :)) is just too tiny. In an ideal world I’d have kept both, but didn’t have the space.
Click to expand...

You absolutely make a crucial point. In stereo the ESL57 has a difficulty in terms of there being a rather small [but ever so nice] sweet spot for stereo imaging. Enough for one person in the right place.

In mono this really ceases to be a problem at all. Of course the 57 really does beam the higher frequencies in a narrow arc straight out, so that off axis the sound does become softer in balance. In fact I find this useful as on an over bright recording all I do is move slightly off axis to correct. Otherwise I sit in the straight forward position.

Another aspect of the original 57 is that it is tilted back and sits low to the floor on its original three little feet. If you sit too low then the beam of higher frequencies may go right over you head [if you are far enough away], so the solutions may include raising the speaker on higher [aftermarket] stands, sitting on a higher listening chair, or tilting the speaker forward [more towards vertical] with something like a small coin, or cut down wine bottle cork [to make a sort of cork washer], and this brings down the beam to ear level.

I prefer to avoid raising the speaker as in doing so you reduce the floor re-inforcement of the lowest bass tones, which can bring a rather light-weight effect.

I used to have a cork prop on the back foot, but now I have a comfortable high chair, which is a good solution.

Well set up with plenty of space behind the 57, and it not radiating perpendicular the wall behind, I still believe the 57 is the best mono speaker ever made. The 63 is not a satisfactory mono speaker, because of the idealised point source system in the panels. This leads to a terrible small mono image, whereas the 57 is not a point source design and radiates a very natural and easily enjoyed "wide" mono presentation.

The very fact of the 63 idealised point source design is that it works very much better for stereo over a bigger sweet spot, so that two people can sit beside each other and still get a good stereo effect, which is nigh impossible with a pair of 57s.

Hope that these observations help.

Best wishes from George
 
Thanks George - Agree with everything...except the height - I ran my 57s on very long legs and tilted to be vertical, and found this setup best for me (in a very big room). Indeed, I just got a second set of stands for my 63s to increase their height similarly.
 
First two pictures on my Flickr page.

This is a lovely old rocking chair with the comfort of a Volvo 240 seat - all the support for hours of good posture!

First shows it in the wood and the other shows my softening with two Buchanan thick wool blankets, and Soway sheepskin ... also good for warmth in winter when I refuse to heat the room! The only heating is the Quad II Forty, and makes almost no difference. I am quite thin, and the softening of wooden rugs and the sheepskin retains support without the immediate hardness of the wooden structure. I cannot sit on cushions or a deeply upholstered chair, or else I am in agony [in my lower back] in a few minutes. I often listen crouched on the carpet with my heels against my bottom and then listen quiet near-field on axis to the ESL. This works well for quieter listening ...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146183770@N06/?

Best wishes from George

PS: All the picture are nice, Bikes, horses, dogs, even my self made clock, and also the ESL and Leak Tough Line further down.
 
I know naff all about 57's save for the fact that today I was treated to my friend's stacked pairs , driven by Meridian amps and digital signals from a Macbook thru an audiolab M-dac. Absolutely lovely. He did say the sweet spot is small but I had that spot - the imaging and holographic presentation was just other-worldly.
 
ESL57s are some of the best speakers I’ve heard full stop... perfect? No, but they get everything that matters to me right, sonically at least, chief among those things, is fast bass, I get that they’re bandwidth limited but there just absolutely no semblance of overhang at all... then there’s that sumptuous and spacious mid range and treble, no sense that anything is being forced, and scale, they do that like little else. The only downfall, I’ve never had a suitable room for them. I’ve never been so convinced by any other ESL I’ve heard.
 
ESL57s are some of the best speakers I’ve heard full stop... perfect? No, but they get everything that matters to me right, sonically at least, chief among those things, is fast bass, I get that they’re bandwidth limited but there just absolutely no semblance of overhang at all... then there’s that sumptuous and spacious mid range and treble, no sense that anything is being forced, and scale, they do that like little else. The only downfall, I’ve never had a suitable room for them. I’ve never been so convinced by any other ESL I’ve heard.
 
ESL57s are some of the best speakers I’ve heard full stop... perfect? No, but they get everything that matters to me right, sonically at least, chief among those things, is fast bass, I get that they’re bandwidth limited but there just absolutely no semblance of overhang at all... then there’s that sumptuous and spacious mid range and treble, no sense that anything is being forced, and scale, they do that like little else. The only downfall, I’ve never had a suitable room for them. I’ve never been so convinced by any other ESL I’ve heard.
 
ESL57s are some of the best speakers I’ve heard full stop... perfect? No, but they get everything that matters to me right, sonically at least, chief among those things, is fast bass, I get that they’re bandwidth limited but there just absolutely no semblance of overhang at all... then there’s that sumptuous and spacious mid range and treble, no sense that anything is being forced, and scale, they do that like little else. The only downfall, I’ve never had a suitable room for them. I’ve never been so convinced by any other ESL I’ve heard.
 
ESL57s are some of the best speakers I’ve heard full stop... perfect? No, but they get everything that matters to me right, sonically at least, chief among those things, is fast bass, I get that they’re bandwidth limited but there just absolutely no semblance of overhang at all... then there’s that sumptuous and spacious mid range and treble, no sense that anything is being forced, and scale, they do that like little else. The only downfall, I’ve never had a suitable room for them. I’ve never been so convinced by any other ESL I’ve heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top