Pining for lost love: the Quad ESL 57.
- Thread starter barneypooch
- Start date
andrewhockley
pfm Member
Full Range Ribbons. Not electrostatics. ESL57s always seemed to lacked dynamics and drama to me. Scintillas combine the transparency and midrange of the ESL57 with the dynamics and engagement that the Quads lack. They also do low bass at high volumes even in large rooms, AS LONG as the amplification is up to the job, and speaker positioning is correct. Most amps aren't up to the job. A big Krell is probably the cheapest way to get something that will do the job.
Jodet
pfm Member
I have a pair of fully refurbed Wayne Piquet 57's. Yes, the 57's are one of a kind. If I didn't have room for them I'd probably go with Harbeth P3ESR's and a small sub.
I'd love to hear the Stirling Broadcast modern version of the LS3/6. I think it would be a similar sound without the maintenance and limitation issues of the 57's.
I'd love to hear the Stirling Broadcast modern version of the LS3/6. I think it would be a similar sound without the maintenance and limitation issues of the 57's.
The sad truth is that no box speaker will sound like a great panel....different radiating patterns into the room for a start.
Jodet
pfm Member
Absolutely true. Best we can hope for is similar transparency, resolution and musicality giving us (hopefully) an equally rewarding listening experience.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Yes, I'm inclined to agree from the short time I had 57s. For me they didn't do scale. However, the 2905s most certainly do that, and throw in some drama to boot.
The Apogees sound like most cone speakers, then, where you've got to wind the wick up to get decent bass impact. The big Quads (and the 57s, from memory) give what bass they have at fairly low listening levels. Now whether that's a function of electrostatic design, I know not.
andrewhockley
pfm Member
Well, there are lots of Apogees so hard to generalise, but no, not really Mike. My Scintillas do live acoustic music at natural levels brilliantly. In fact, my wife hates them because of the creepy naturalness of the sound on good live stuff. And they also do studio rock at silly levels brilliantly. The drawbacks are practical rather than sonic; they are very hard to drive, very difficult to shift, very easy to break (mine have been boxed away since my children started to walk, and won't come out again until they are old enough to be sensible), stupidly expensive now and very domestically unacceptable. For me though, they are completely unsurpassed in terms of sound.
100% agree. Spot on. I have heard hundreds of speakers, and owned a lot too. That includes Quads, Maggies, Martin Logan, Sumo, Audiostatics, numerous boxes (none any good for me). Nothing, Nothing, begins to approach a Scintilla with great big Krell monoblocs. Once you have heard them for a good few days you are ruined for 'normal' speakers. When I read all the threads about ATCs and Epos and so on, I have to smile. For me, they fall so far short of what is possible that it isn't even funny.
Jodet
pfm Member
Check these out:
http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/product/model-1200/
Fascinating. First new stat I've seen in a long time that piqued my interest.
http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/product/model-1200/
Fascinating. First new stat I've seen in a long time that piqued my interest.
You can add Rogers Studio 2A's.
andrewhockley
pfm Member
He doesn't lie. I first heard Apogees at a Brighton HiFi show, maybe 1983?? I think they were probably Full Ranges. I remember just standing there, and realising that they were fundamentally different and better than anything else I had ever heard. It took me nearly 25 years before I finally could afford Scintillas, and I got the same hairs on the back of my neck feeling as soon as I heard them. Everyone should hear them at least once.
I have Kingsound Kings fullrange electrostatics and it would be very interesting to hear how they compare to the Scintillas. They too need a large room and a hefty amp (though they're not as hard to drive as the Scintillas). Unfortunately there don't seem to be many Kings about so very few comparisons except for the slew of excellent reviews when they were first released.
Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
I quite fancied listening to the Kingsound - weren't Icon Audio importing them?
Yes. My wife and I made the 4 hour return drive to Leicester one evening with my Avondale M2 monoblocks and Linn DS and were won over. I was originally interested in the Prince after reading the review in Hifi World but the King was even better. It took another 2 years and a house extension before we were able to buy them but at least my wife had heard them and understood what the fuss was all about!
Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
Hi-fi first, fit house around it. Nice!
I don't think I have the space for the big ones.
Did you think the smaller ones were better sounding that the newer Quads? I can see how the big ones should be better just be being huge - but if the smaller ones are also a step up and mean I don't need to get a builder in I may just pop into Leicester again myself. I was meaning to check out their new phono stage anyway.
Our listening room is 5 x 7 metres. So roomy but not gargantuan.
We never heard the Prince at its best because it is harder to drive than the King. The Avondales weren't quite up to the task and also, surprisingly, neither were any Icon Audio had available. Although I think there is a recent model with more power.
My guess is, given a good enough amp, that the main difference between the Prince and King is that the King goes louder and a little deeper.
Icon have been listing some of their Kingsound speakers on eBay (including the Prince) and the description states that they are not well suited to rock music. I strongly disagree (at least concerning the King), and suggest this will depend on what you use to drive them.
If you do make a visit I would be interested to hear how you get on
Mark
We never heard the Prince at its best because it is harder to drive than the King. The Avondales weren't quite up to the task and also, surprisingly, neither were any Icon Audio had available. Although I think there is a recent model with more power.
My guess is, given a good enough amp, that the main difference between the Prince and King is that the King goes louder and a little deeper.
Icon have been listing some of their Kingsound speakers on eBay (including the Prince) and the description states that they are not well suited to rock music. I strongly disagree (at least concerning the King), and suggest this will depend on what you use to drive them.
If you do make a visit I would be interested to hear how you get on
Mark
Jodet
pfm Member
I compared my 57's to P3ESR'S and LS50's the other day.
It was true then and it's true now: Either Quads are wrong and every other speaker is right or Quads are right and every other speaker is wrong.
I suspect the latter is true.
Why isn't someone making a modern version of THIS EXACT DESIGN? Only easier to take apart and put back together?
It was true then and it's true now: Either Quads are wrong and every other speaker is right or Quads are right and every other speaker is wrong.
I suspect the latter is true.
Why isn't someone making a modern version of THIS EXACT DESIGN? Only easier to take apart and put back together?
