advertisement


ESL-57s vs ESL-63's -- sound difference?

Hello!

To follow up : would you expect there to be much of a sound difference between (fully functioning) ESL-57s and ESL-63's?

Thanks for yor thoughts!
 
Yes, quite different in capabilities and room requirements but both with the same quad magic.
 
I don’t much like the sound of Quad Electrostatics but a friend of my Dads does and I’m sure he moved from the 57 to 63 and having heard them I can tell you the difference between the two was quite remarkable.
 
I preferred the 57 to 63 in spite of its very narrow sweet spot, limited power handling and awkward size. I found the 57 made music appear much more realistic. By contrast the 63, whilst still a magnificent speaker, sounded relatively recessed; a case of “technically” better but the illusion of having musicians in front of me wasn’t so convincing. Listen to them without grilles, cloth and dust sheets (not recommended for safety and speaker life) and the sound comes alive. The later versions with the rear brace (2805 on) seem to have addressed the 63s sound quality issues and sound much more alive.

Even with the 63s shortcomings, to my ears, they still sound much more like listening to live music then most box speakers including the latest finest measuring speakers. For a single listener, particularly for classical, I found the 57 the most convincing. For anyone who puts measured response ahead of realistic sound then the 63s are arguably better.

The biggest problem with electrostatics is that once heard, depending a bit on genre of music, few other speakers will be acceptable. They also pull off that trick of reproducing every detail in the music without becoming fatiguing in the way that a monitor speaker can. Listening sessions always end up going on longer than intended.

In spite of my reservations about the 63 both Quad models are excellent speakers but are now long in the tooth and servicing costs need to be taken into account. The latest models certainly sound superb but again service life has to be taken into account. In the past year or so I compared them with speakers costing up to £30k and to my ears they bettered them all by a considerable margin.
 
63s are a much more complete solution but 57s are a bit like Linn Kans in that they don’t even attempt to do so much, that you are amazed by how well they do what they do.
 
In my experience, how recessed and how alive the 63 sounds is amplifier and DAC dependent. Now, for me, in my current setup, either it is lively and not recessed or I’ve just stopped noticing. I really like what I have now, but it took me 10 years to get there.

There’s a lot of discussion on a thread here about amps for 63, and quite rightly: it’s a problem which takes patience and £££££ to get right.

I didn’t know there was a sound difference between the later and earlier 63s and the vanilla and braced (USA market) models.

I’ve never heard 57, and I’m quite tempted to buy a pair and explore - next reasonably priced clean and serviced pair that comes up!




I preferred the 57 to 63 in spite of its very narrow sweet spot, limited power handling and awkward size. I found the 57 made music appear much more realistic. By contrast the 63, whilst still a magnificent speaker, sounded relatively recessed; a case of “technically” better but the illusion of having musicians in front of me wasn’t so convincing. Listen to them without grilles, cloth and dust sheets (not recommended for safety and speaker life) and the sound comes alive. The later versions with the rear brace (2805 on) seem to have addressed the 63s sound quality issues and sound much more alive.

Even with the 63s shortcomings, to my ears, they still sound much more like listening to live music then most box speakers including the latest finest measuring speakers. For a single listener, particularly for classical, I found the 57 the most convincing. For anyone who puts measured response ahead of realistic sound then the 63s are arguably better.

The biggest problem with electrostatics is that once heard, depending a bit on genre of music, few other speakers will be acceptable. They also pull off that trick of reproducing every detail in the music without becoming fatiguing in the way that a monitor speaker can. Listening sessions always end up going on longer than intended.

In spite of my reservations about the 63 both Quad models are excellent speakers but are now long in the tooth and servicing costs need to be taken into account. The latest models certainly sound superb but again service life has to be taken into account. In the past year or so I compared them with speakers costing up to £30k and to my ears they bettered them all by a considerable margin.
 
I used the term recessed as a relative term. Yes amps do make a big difference; I currently have a pair of 2812s and they sound much more “alive” with an MBL amp than a Hegel amp. Ironically my MBL speakers sound better with the Hegel amp! Measurists can look away now because there isn’t a blind bit of difference when measured at the listening position with REW but they do present the speakers in a different light to my perception.

Whilst I prefer the sound of the 57 on stands they are a blooming nuisance being so wide. One thing that might be worth pointing out is that at higher volumes the difference in sound quality, from a point of view of the 63s sounding a bit recessed, is much less. For anyone restricted to moderate volume the 57 could be the best buy. I found much the same when comparing a 63 alongside a Martin Logan Aerius i. The Logan’s at moderate volumes sounded much more alive. Whether this is due to all the layers that the sound has to go through on the Quad as compared with the simpler structure of the Logan or whether it is down to the frequency response or pane proportions I don’t know. Certainly, they are much closer matched at higher volumes.
 
I have been listening to 63s and 57s for the last few months, both used with Gradient sw63 subs (couldn't live without them).

Neither 63s or 57s have ever been serviced, so I don't know how they sound compared to when they were new, but then again, neither shows any signs of failing; buzzing, popping etc.

I just keep going back to the 57s, which to my ears leave the 63s behind - they just sound more natural. But you do need the subs in my opinion.
 
Man, I can agree with every word of all previous comments!

I formerly had 57s (with Koval mods installed) and now have 63s. Back then the the 57 treble panels were easily damaged, even if you were careful with using low amplification- in fact I may have only heard panels that were arced. With the screens off, using good electronics, your ears in the small sweet spot, and your brain not missing the bottom octave of the music spectrum, there is nothing like them.

Now I love my rebuilt 63s, especially with the addition of the Gradient subs. The 63s require more power than the 57s, but also a power amp that can properly navigate the impedance changes presented. The Zero Impedance Autoformer by Anticables can transform any amp to be able to tame the Quad 63 impedance challenge by presenting the amp with a higher and more level impedance. OR you can just give the Quads more power. I've found that some OLD amps drive the 63s very well, the McIntosh 2100 and the APT Holman, both 100 watt/channel solid state amps. I love how tubes sound but high tube power is expensive. I tried the Atma-Sphere OTL amps and couldn't get them to be my best solution for the 63s, but God, they sound awesome with non-electrostatics!
 
Ah yes, I forgot about valve amps. I used a II forty for a while and it did wonders for Quad stats although they were less convincing with Logan’s and BKS107s.
 
As I've often said on similar threads, I found my 63s really thrived with powerful hybrid amps: in my case the Unison Research Unico Pre/DM. These gave just the right mixture of scale, dynamics and texture. Like others, I found that when I sadly decided to part with my 63s (for room related reasons), it was tortuous finding any satisfaction with box speakers: I almost had to forget how the Quads sounded.

I've currently got some Eclipse TD510z Mk2 in for review; a very interesting full range driver speaker. I was previously skeptical about single drivers, but the combination of richness and clarity these acheive has surprised me: in some ways they are coming close to that coveted quality of being 'mini-Quads'. As with the Quads, attention needs to be paid to amplification and system synergy to get the best of them.
 
I prefer 57 and one can get away with a cheap 303/34 amp with good results.
Not my first speaker-choice if LOUD spl needed
 
I've lived with both for a while. 57's have an airy mid range with amazing reproduction of the dynamics of recording space. They do acoustic instruments better than any other speaker I've heard, especially pipe organ and plucked double bass, but sound a bit thin on a lot of rock music, where a lot of the energy is in the lower mid range area. 63's move a lot more air and are great rock speakers, although they obviously won't go as loud as a pair of big Kef reference monitors, but they lose a little of the airy spatial magic of the '57 by way of compromise.

Most importantly, 63's are far less directional than 57's and you don't have to sit clamped in one spot or listen standing up to get the best out of them, like you do with 57's.

If I wasn't so wedded to the spectacular spl's of my Kefs, 63s would be on my list. 989s are supposed to be even better, but I've never tried them simply because I have read a lot about issues with reliability and build quality.

I couldn't tell the difference between a 520 and a 303 with the 57's and used the 63's with an unmodded Exposure Super XV integrated with great results.
 
Yep
Looking from perspective its a bit misleading the value of a 303 vs Quad II, maybe the 303 were made in much higher numbers.

My 303 were serviced by Quad in UK at very reasonable cost, many third-party modification, if that option float your boat.
 
Yep
Looking from perspective its a bit misleading the value of a 303 vs Quad II, maybe the 303 were made in much higher numbers.

My 303 were serviced by Quad in UK at very reasonable cost, many third-party modification, if that option float your boat.

I had a 303 with the Dada component set fitted. Sounded exactly the same as a well sorted stock 520, just not as loud.

If I were building a stereo 57 system, a well sorted 303 would be top of my list. There are more transparent pre-amps out there than those from Quad, but the 34 is very tidy and they have lovely tone controls.
 
Exactly what I use at home, albeit with a completely restored 33 – or a 34, or a 405, or a 306 of late. Any combination sounds just fine: 33/303, 33/405, 34/303, 34/405, 33/306, 34/306.
The 33 is a nice little thing after a bit of TLC. It actually sounds a bit brighter than my two restored 34’s.
No Dada kits here, no mods whatsoever apart from a couple of resistors and caps on each phonostage.
 
A couple of months ago I serviced all four of my 303's, new electrolytic capacitors on all the driver boards, some of the large power supply/output capacitors, will probably outlast me now.
 


advertisement


Back
Top