Do Quad ESL57 still stand up against modern speakers?

[Robert]

But in fact response falls off like a stone below 50 Hz, though there's a bit of a boost just at and above 50Hz - so there's certainly some bass at 40Hz, it's true... easier than describing it is to look at the frequency response curve which I'll put on my blog now:

http://stewartaxton.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/more-news-very-soon/

It does, and that has to be a limitation certainly with some music and to some tastes.

The bump in response a bit higher up is classic LS3/5a style response shaping to trick the ear into thinking the speaker goes lower than it actually does.
Works to a degree, but I prefer to run mine with 3db of plateau cut below 200Hz. Cleaner and less chesty sounding, especially if the room isn't large and you've got some room gain to deal with in that area.

Robert (above) has some definite ideas about the OT new ones vs refurb of your old ones for both bass and treble panels - and he's recently gone through it. I'm sure he'll be back in the morning.

Not keen on the OTECs though the bass panel rebuild in very good.
My 57 were full rebuilt by OT but I ended up sourcing some NOS Quad original treble panels and greatly prefer them.
There is also the OTEC T panel which is apparently closer in construction to the original but I've never tried them.

My OTECs had considerable treble droop while standard panels go pretty flat to 20kHz. I measured both and will dig out the plots later.
At first I thought perhaps it was a panel fault in the OTEC but both measured the same, so that's unlikely though I will try them again one day ( a fresh pair). They aren't expensive relative to the cost of the speaker - certainly if you look at what new 57 cost.......yes you can get new 57s

 

[James]

I have never heard ESL57s or 63s, but the 989s left me cold. To put my expectations in context, I think midrange clarity is the most important part of the audio spectrum to get right. However, the 989s I heard sounded plain ordinary.

Maybe they needed more running in at the shop.

James

 

[RHCD]

Also on reading on Stacked Quads the DQ-10 keeps cropping up as another speaker that benefited from stacking-anyone heard them?

Actually I used to have a pair, when I spent a year working in Toronto. You're very unlikely to find even one pair here let alone two, though if you keep watching eBay.ca they'll turn up - but shipping would cost you, they're very bloody heavy indeed. I had trouble selling mine after the year and took a hit financially. They're funny things, very complicated indeed, 5-way, conventional drivers, only shaped like that because John Dahlquist was a great admirer of the ESL-57.

I never really thought they were amazing, but I was driving them with a Dynaco ST70 and that isn't anywhere near enough power. Later they stayed at a friend's house, the guy with the Tannoys I mentioned a few posts ago, and he ran them with his huge SS amps and said they were tremendous, so I'm afraid that, irritatingly, I never heard them really doing their thing and therefore can't comment in any informed way on them. Later I heard they need at LEAST 100Wpc to sing. I never heard of anyone stacking them, but with a stack of Krells to do the work it would probably be stunning. However with all those different drivers all over the place you'd get pretty blurred imaging I'd have thought.

 

[RHCD]

I prefer to run mine with 3db of plateau cut below 200Hz. Cleaner and less chesty sounding, especially if the room isn't large and you've got some room gain to deal with in that area.

Interesting - what do you do that with?

My 57 were full rebuilt by OT but I ended up sourcing some NOS Quad original treble panels and greatly prefer them.
There is also the OTEC T panel which is apparently closer in construction to the original but I've never tried them.

There's a treble panel shootout somewhere on quadesl.org, where they came to the conclusion as I recall that best of all are the originals and Wayne Picquet of Florida's rebuilds, others including Quad Gmbh ones were not really up to standard. That might be a load of cobblers, I can't be bothered to reread it all but here it is:

http://quadesl.org/Album/InterviewsReviews/GangofFive/gangoffive.html

 

[Robert]

Interesting - what do you do that with?


There's a treble panel shootout somewhere on quadesl.org, where they came to the conclusion as I recall that best of all are the originals and Wayne Picquet of Florida's rebuilds, others including Quad Gmbh ones were not really up to standard. That might be a load of cobblers, I can't be bothered to reread it all but here it is:

http://quadesl.org/Album/InterviewsReviews/GangofFive/gangoffive.html

EQ is either done precisely using digital EQ, or just using the bass step function on a Quad pre will do it.

On the panels, my experience tallies with the findings in that test, though I thought the top end roll-off pretty severe.

 

[Yank]

The DQ10s look like Quad 57s but are moving coils, with lots of drivers in a "phased array". I remember one review describing the build quality as very poor for the money.

The woofer is in a rather crude flat-black painted particle board box, the mids and tweeters are mounted on raw Masonite baffles held up with rather basic metal brackets. There's a piece of thick felt over the back of the Philips 5" cone midrange. Then it's all covered up with cloth over a wooden frame that looks like a fake Quad 57. The crossover is on a sheet of Masonite with eyelets (like a Fender guitar amp) for the connections.

 

[PsB]

I have never heard ESL57s or 63s, but the 989s left me cold. To put my expectations in context, I think midrange clarity is the most important part of the audio spectrum to get right. However, the 989s I heard sounded plain ordinary.

Maybe they needed more running in at the shop.

James

My feelings exactly the one time I listened to them, but maybe the source/amps/room were at fault because nothing sounded good in that room that day.

 

[scuba8]

I normaly listen to rock and jazz music. I have 989's and have no problem with sound quality, bass or loudness. They are superb speakers and replaced Spendor SP1/2. No contest. I have also had Yamaha NS1000m speakers in the house. They are great speakers with excellent bass and treble. However they are not as good as the Quads for overall musical enjoyment.
I have also heard the 57's which are brilliant, and started my interest in Hi Fi. I have also enjoyed stacked quads which were awsome.
By the way I use a GamuT D200mk111 amp which works perfectly with the 989's. The GamuT replaced Croft series 5's monoblocked and was a big improvement.

I would have no hesitation in recommending any of the quad speakers.

 

[Werner]

After graduating in 1993 I treated myself on a pair of SMGbs and was very
happy/proud/.... Rock and pop, mostly.

Then in 1995 someone offered me a near-mint pair of ESL57s. I bought them
for laughs, expecting to use them once in a while, and the Magnepans for
the serious stuff.

Just three bars of music and the Maggies were buried under the bed,
only resurfacing when I put them up for sale.

Then in 2003 or so I replaced the 57s with 63 and was even happier.


Here is an in-room measurement of those 57s back then:

Oh, and this here with an early SigTech digital room equalizer ;-)

 

[Dowser]

I've been lucky enough to get a cheap pair of 57s (that needed EHT unit rebuilds - easy DIY), and then a pair of 63s popped up. I bought them thinking one pair would go - not sure I will ever sell either, although I recently added stands to my 63s and this has really removed any reservations I had about muddy bass with them. I completely agree with Jonathan's description - I think the 57s excel in mid-range, where-as the 63s give more over the entire range. I reckon the superb mid-range is still there.

In spring I will be selling my 57s I guess - a bit more listening to do between now and then

Richard

 

[bob atherton]

The first time that I heard a paid of Quads was at Radford Hi-Fi, Bristol, in 1973. I listened to the first track of Larks Tongues In Aspic by King Crimson. Jamie Muir is doing all that amazing percussive build up etc.

I was 16 years old and my top frequency hearing was at its peak. Even the thought of that track back then brings the hairs up on the back of my neck. Probably the best hi-fi experience of my life.

 

[gdowling]

I have a couple of friends who have modified DQ10s - they sound pretty stunning - but not like ESLs. The DQ10s don't have the amazing midrange purity - but they do have fantastic dynamics and bass punch that ESLs struggle to match.

 

[smithy]

http://[/IMG]
One of my Dahlquists when I was experimenting with an Audax bass unit while the originals are being rebuilt.

 

[Norman Green]

Many moons ago I briefly heard the ESL’57s when visiting Studio 99 to hear the then latest Linn Sara. I was impressed with the pounding delivery of the music played. The Quads were also very good although a bit monochrome. The dealer said something like ‘… you’ll still be on the same old treadmill with those…’. I think he was referring to the blandness of the Quads in comparison to the Saras.

The in- room frequency response diagram above looks like a cross section of the Alps . In perspective, viewed from a great distance, l suppose it is in fact ‘very flat’ indeed.

 

[Stevie A]

I must admit i have a soft spot for quad speakers,from a single 57 to a pair of Quads finest 2905's
For many 57's have no equal,as many have commented,at what they do well is amazing,however they do have their flaws.
Personaly i prefer a pair of 63's with a decent sub to a stacked pair of 57's,the overall balance just wins out.
To quote mr kessler though "Time to throw out those 57's boys-the 2905's are the worlds best-Maybe,just maybe!!!!!!!

 

[gilbodavid]

I have owned 63's 57's one thing audio 57's and stacked 57's (one being ota). I dont like 63's because they dont have the 57's glorious midrange. One thing audio'd 57's with new trble panels increase clarity and sharpness of imaging and transients, improve dynamics a bit and sound absolutely wonderful. the best radiohead paranoid android i have ever heard was my ota 57's in a small room fed by leak tl12+'s. 57's are in my top 3 speakers i have ever heard. for absolute best imaging and clarity with all music they have to be mm perfect in placement, you are tuning their diploes to the room. i used to spend hrs positioning them, but when u hit the sweet spot it is worth it! i have never done the long room thing, but have had stacked quads in an 8'x8' room with rather good results 2' from rear walls, but they sing best 3' or more from the rear walls, tipped in, and vertical rather than leaning back. I miss mine, like i now miss my lowthers. Speakers and the room they're in are the most important part of the audio chain by far for me! one of the top 3 systems i ever heard had the cheapest grottiest sony 80's amp, a grotty 80's cd player, interconnects of no particular note, a single strand of cat5 for speaker cable, and MINDBLOWING musical nuance and power.

 

[Simonms]

Well, I think its fair to say that the ESL 57's have a 99% endorsement, which I did not expect even after recognising that they were a good speaker despite their age. I'm working for a musician at the minute and I mentioned my plan and she said she once had a boyfriend with stacked Quads and has never forgotten listening to J. Mitchell on them but also remembered him constantly re- positioning and tilting them for the best sound.
I am considering, after reading a bit more and seeing a few more pictures on the web, refurbing them myself which should see me through xmas without noticing so Ta.
Interesting that you can still buy 57's new!

Si

 

[James]

The DQ10s don't have the amazing midrange purity ...

I'm not the least surprised given the baffle discontinuities and general dog's breakfast arrangement of four drivers.

James

 

[Audio Images]

the mid range of the ns1000 can run the esl 57 incredibly close but you need to be dead on axis with it 30cm above gives a 9 or so db dip and sounds all wrong get it right though and they are very very good!

 

[Robert]

A number of box designs get close the 57 mid performance, at least in terms of tonality but they all 'just' fall short on ultimate transparency IMO. The classic Rogers/Chartwell/Spendor 3-ways based on the LS3/6 give most of the magic.

Comparing my restored 57s with a Rogers Export (so close to the LS3/6 it contains the BBC crossover) I'd say that the Quad wins on transparency - that ability to put a vocalist immediately behind the speaker grill and create the impression that a real person is singing, literally, a few feet in front of you. This ability defies most loudspeakers and really can induce the spine tingling. I once said it was like having someone whispering into your ears and tickling them

The Rogers cannot manage that but then I've yet to hear anything else do it either.
They get most of the way there but just fall short.

Bass end is where the big differences are found.
The 57 has no low bass, simple physics dictates the rules here and they cannot be broken.
The Rogers go low enough to make music that demands scale, weight and pure extension sound real enough. In this area they are clearly in front, though they can also excite the room a little more so positioning needs just as much care as with the 57.

The Quad also wins on coherence. It sounds like a single driver loudspeaker and has no crossover in the range where the ear is most sensitive to such things. What are often called treble panels aren't, strictly - they reach down to about 500Hz and roll gently. Hearing real coherence from a loudspeaker is wonderful and it will really highlight where many multi-driver systems are lacking.

I alternate between the two at home spending a few months with each because they are fundamentally similar in overall performance though the Rogers are better if there is more than one listener.

On EQ as mentioned by Werner, a good pair of 57s is flat enough in room through the mid and top be be left alone in that region, but you can usefully pull down the 90-100Hz peak (all Quad statics have this). Don't be tempted to boost sub 50Hz - the nature of the design means that massive boost is needed and you'll just saturate the input transformer and throw away the superb low distortion performance of the 57.