advertisement


QUAD ESL 57 - which builder, which amp?

$250 would buy him an old 8000a
No idea if this would work
Respected amp decades ago
Perhaps a Creek
 
PerF said:
Fwiw I've got a Quad (UK) serviced, near mint 303 last year.
Unfortunately a pair Quad 303 Netaudio modified mono's came up for grabs at the same time, couldn't resist.
So basically I have 3x303 but No esl57 at the moment.
I have played on various LS3/5a types and the 303's do a wonderfull job on these.
I paid what equals around EUR 400 for the single serviced 303, would choose it anyday over costly valveamp for that particular job.
Its a steal
Notice special requirements for preamp

Good luck with the 57, they are amazing
Click to expand...

Are the modified mono-blocks not better than the single 303 into the monitors?
 
Tony L said:
Fine, chances are we listen to very different music and have hugely different systems and priorities. As I state upthread I’d really not recommend the 303 in certain contexts and fully acknowledge it is awful into little modern 4 Ohm squawk-boxes, but I choose to use one as it matches the sort of speakers I like surprisingly well. I get to hear a heck of a lot of amps etc given what I do running this place and I’m lucky enough to be able to afford pretty much anything I may want within reason, yet the humble 303 remains connected to my Tannoys, albeit with a high-end tube preamp upstream. Go figure!

I’m also not stating that the 303 should be the OPs final port of call with the Quad 57s, but given limited resources and experience I’d certainly pick the amp Peter Walker designed for the things over anything various self-apointed internet experts suggest! It is within budget and will work very, very well, just as it has for generations of music lovers. It is a classic system in every sense of the words.
Click to expand...

As a designer of high end amps and repairer of hi fi I get to hear rather a lot of amps myself and well know the sound of the 303. It sounds soft and diffuse. Not quite in focus or capable of modern standards in virtually any characteristic. It's certainly not awful and sounds fine in its own context until you try a better amp and realise what was missing. Many people don't like or want accurate reproduction... they find the sound of reality a bit "in yer face", and I suspect the 303 is especially popular with such listeners. It certainly gives that "pipe and slippers" sound!
 
George J said:
I have yet to figure why people still want an exotic rebuild when Quad at Huntingdon support and service the ESL 57.
Click to expand...
IIUC Quad use Quad Musikwiedergabe parts. So not exotic rebuilds but original quality replacements, for just about the entire speaker.

unless you want PA levels.
Click to expand...
We, or at least I, am not talking about PA levels. I have a preference for being able to present the full dynamic range of a recording, a 57 can do this, but only if driven appropriately. If you have a very small room and you listen at very close range, probably less important.

Given I have a pair of Quad II in my loft and 8 57s in my office I just need a functioning oscilloscope to find out what actually happens. Maybe later this year.
 
Lets assume that all amps sound the same if they are used within specs, i. e. within a range where they have low distortion and don't clip. I know, I know, many of you probably don't agree with this. But for now, lets assume they did. With leaving tonality aside, which sub 250$ amps can drive the ESL 57 within specs? Meaning no clipping, no shorting, no arcing, producing a sensible SPL range (85 to 90db would be plenty for me). So far the Quad 303 seems to be the only one. But certainly there must be more? I've looked into valve amps, but generally they look to be much more expensive than class d/class t counterparts, so maybe not the most obvious choice given my limited budget.

Maybe the Amptastic is yet an option. Thanks @Tony L for your hint about the optimistic specs of class t amps. That definitely seems to be the case. Your estimation for the Amptastic seems to be exactly right. According to these measurements they have about 6 Vrms available:

https://www.avforums.com/threads/mini-t-2020-20w-class-t-amplifier.1398037/page-2

With the ESL 63 that produced 93db at 1m. That would be plenty for me. If the ESL 57 have a similar sensitivity, that is.
 
goodkeys said:
Maybe the Amptastic is yet an option. Thanks @Tony L for your hint about the optimistic specs of class t amps. That definitely seems to be the case. Your estimation for the Amptastic seems to be exactly right. According to these measurements they have about 6 Vrms available:

https://www.avforums.com/threads/mini-t-2020-20w-class-t-amplifier.1398037/page-2

With the ESL 63 that produced 93db at 1m. That would be plenty for me. If the ESL 57 have a similar sensitivity, that is.
Click to expand...

Assuming that 93dB/1m produced by 6Vrms is a transient peak and not sustained average with additional headroom available above that, I'd be very surprised if a t-amp producing 6Vrms would drive ESLs cleanly with minimal THD and never ever go into clipping.
 
The 6Vrms are actually the Voltage available before clipping. At least that is what Alan on the linked forum measured.
 
Thank you all, I appreciate the suggestions. However, a valve amp in good working order for 250$ doesn't seem to be realistic.

I'm going with Peter Walker's point of view that all reasonable amps sound the same before clipping. So I'm looking for is an amp that can drive the ESL 57 without damaging them, or going up in smoke itself. 90 or 95db at 1m before clipping would be more level than I need. Now I'm trying to find out which specs ensure that. Once that is clear to me it should be possibleto assess my options.
 
Thank you for the link. Interesting that the Quad 303. It seems to be well matched to smoothen the ESL's perceived 'flaws'. If I can't find a 303 in my vicinity in good condition and for a reasonable price I will be looking at class T amps with 20 to 50 Watts per channel and a post filter to cut off high frequency ringing. There's a variety of diy boards meeting these criteria. I hope I can find some finished models as well.
 
I don't really like the 303 but that's more to do with looks (pig ugly IMO unlike most Quad gear, but then it was often inside a cabinet). It makes sense for use with a 57 though and the capacitor coupling arguably makes the 57 sound a little better - certainly a little different. It's a safe bet. A well functioning 303 will also likely outlive it's owner, given most will be 50+ ;)
 
4635010791_26818fd676_z.jpg


A true design classic IMHO! IIRC it won a Design Council award and I know it and the matching 33 are amongst very little audio kit in the Museum Of Modern Art collection. An exceptionally logical form-factor as it is so narrow it doesn’t take up much shelf space, it puts the heatsinks where they are most effective and parades them as the beautiful bespoke casting they are. A design so icnic it doesn’t even need any visible branding! As with all classic kit you do need an absolutely mint one to really form an opinion on the aesthetic design - tatty examples of anything just look tatty, and Quads being so well made and long-lasting do turn up with awful battle scars but still perfectly functional. I love the look of the thing, as I do all Walker-era Quad kit.
 
It's the 33 that's in MOMA not the 303, and aesthetically they don't seem to me to be close enough to be called "matching" -- I think if they'd have put a bit of orange on the 303 it would have been a good idea from a visual point of view.
 
Tony L said:
4635010791_26818fd676_z.jpg


A true design classic IMHO! IIRC it won a Design Council award and I know it and the matching 33 are amongst very little audio kit in the Museum Of Modern Art collection. An exceptionally logical form-factor as it is so narrow it doesn’t take up much shelf space, it puts the heatsinks where they are most effective and parades them as the beautiful bespoke casting they are. A design so icnic it doesn’t even need any visible branding! As with all classic kit you do need an absolutely mint one to really form an opinion on the aesthetic design - tatty examples of anything just look tatty, and Quads being so well made and long-lasting do turn up with awful battle scars but still perfectly functional. I love the look of the thing, as I do all Walker-era Quad kit.
Click to expand...

Design Council award or not, it still looks like it belongs on a test bench, or a 1960s London Underground control room ;)
 
If you want the ‘lab aesthetic’ its a Sugden A51 you need (link)! A superb amp, a friend has one and I like it a lot.
 
goodkeys said:
Thank you for the link. Interesting that the Quad 303. It seems to be well matched to smoothen the ESL's perceived 'flaws'. If I can't find a 303 in my vicinity in good condition and for a reasonable price I will be looking at class T amps with 20 to 50 Watts per channel and a post filter to cut off high frequency ringing. There's a variety of diy boards meeting these criteria. I hope I can find some finished models as well.
Click to expand...

Old thread reawakened alert - thought it worth to report my findings in relation to the OP's query.

What did you get in the end?

I bought my first pair of 57's in January. They're fitted with clamp boards, so using them with my Quad 520 (£270 for amp and service), which is a considerably more brutal (100 wpc into 8 ohms) device than is usually reccomended and BK sub tapped off the speaker terminals was my first port of call.

They sound, once fully warmed up, supernaturally good, with way more bass and volume than I had been led to believe these speakers were capable of. Even this pretty meaty amp, incidentally, still runs a bit warm with these.

My understanding is that the 57's drop to 2 ohms at some frequencies and therefore can be a bit of a liability with less robust power amplifiers, although I stand to be corrected by those with greater technical knowledge than I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top