KLH Nine/ESL63/ESL57 electrostatic "dilemma" :)

[Crestwood23]

I recently got a local deal on a beautiful set of KLH Nines that I couldn't pass up. I also recently got a deal on a set of Quad 63's with Arcici stands (my neighbor basically gave these to me). Currently my main speakers are restored Quad 57's, which I love dearly.

The 63's need to be restored (one is good but the other is hissing badly), and the Nines are unrestored as well although they are both functional.

I was wondering what the potential of the Nines might be and how they might compare to the Quads - and if they are worth investing in over the Quads.

So I could take $2500 and buy another set of restored 57's and stack them with my current pair. Or for $2500 I could restore
the 63's. OR for $2800 I could send the Nines to David Janszen for a full restore/upgrade. Looking at his site and the upgrades he offers it seems he could really bring them to another level of performance.

Some folks prefer a single set of 63's to a stacked set of 57's. Some prefer KLH Nines to Quads in general. My gut tells me a set of stacked Quads (restored) would beat a single pair of restored Nines or 63's.

 

[bimasta]

I've had stacked 57s, and I've had 63s. I preferred the 63s. They almost all the 57's virtues without their weaknesses. They have stronger bass, and deeper bass. A bigger "sweet spot". Much better protection.

I just woke up (8 am) and need coffee and exercise to clear the brain to give a more detailed reply. But I had experience with both and just want to weigh in, in case you must make a quick decision. I had both at the same time and was able to compare them, with the same amps, sources, etc. I loved the stacked 57s so much I thought it would be an easy choice — but after a couple of hours, using all types of music, I decided on the 63s.

More later...

PS: I've never heard the KLH Nines, so have no opinion. I hope someone who knows them, and knows the Quads, offers an opinion. Opinions without experience aren't worth much. Electrostatic fans tend to have tried several types. I've owned 57s, 63s, Martin Logan SL3s, and Acoustat 2+2s.

As a parting note, I know it's a difficult decision. But it's a decision between magnificent alternatives. You can't go wrong.

 

[Crestwood23]

I've had stacked 57s, and I've had 63s. I preferred the 63s. They almost all the 57's virtues without their weaknesses. They have stronger bass, and deeper bass. A bigger "sweet spot". Much better protection.

I just woke up (8 am) and need coffee and exercise to clear the brain to give a more detailed reply. But I had experience with both and just want to weigh in, in case you must make a quick decision. I had both at the same time and was able to compare them, with the same amps, sources, etc. I loved the stacked 57s so much I thought it would be an easy choice — but after a couple of hours, using all types of music, I decided on the 63s.

More later...

PS: I've never heard the KLH Nines, so have no opinion. I hope someone who knows them, and knows the Quads, offers an opinion. Opinions without experience aren't worth much. Electrostatic fans tend to have tried several types. I've owned 57s, 63s, Martin Logan SL3s, and Acoustat 2+2s.

As a parting note, I know it's a difficult decision. But it's a decision between magnificent alternatives. You can't go wrong.

This is great, thanks. Were your 57's restored at all? I've never heard unrestored original Quads, but from what I've read the Quads Unlimited restored versions are a different animal with more bass and protection installed as well. That's what makes me think they would be more competitive with the 63's. But then there is the question of coherence, and I would imagine a single speaker would be more coherent than a stack, and produce better imaging. I don't need to make a quick decision, thanks for any and all opinions, and I agree no matter what guess I can't really go wrong.

 

[JoeESP9]

We all should have such problems with speaker decisions!

 

[bimasta]

We all should have such problems with speaker decisions!

Yes indeed! However, there's still a $2,500 decision. For some of us, that's a serious consideration.

 

[sheltie dave]

I would hit with the two sets of 57s, they are more forgiving than the narrow window sweet spot the 9s offer. You already love the 57s, so doubling the love would be even more fun.

 

[trinhsman]

A reviewer I read once said the Nines were an experience he will never forget. I have never heard a set, but passed on a set for 500 dollars last year that had some sound issues. They were almost mint cosmetically, but I felt it could be a hole to deep to go down possibly. I wish you all the best.

 

[Crestwood23]

Yes indeed! However, there's still a $2,500 decision. For some of us, that's a serious consideration.

Yes $2500 definitely falls in the "serious consideration" category for me!

I would hit with the two sets of 57s, they are more forgiving than the narrow window sweet spot the 9s offer. You already love the 57s, so doubling the love would be even more fun.

So the 9s have an even narrower sweetspot than the 57's? I didn't think that was possible! I do love the 57's, which is why the idea of doubling that fun is very appealing.

A reviewer I read once said the Nines were an experience he will never forget. I have never heard a set, but passed on a set for 500 dollars last year that had some sound issues. They were almost mint cosmetically, but I felt it could be a hole to deep to go down possibly. I wish you all the best.

Thanks! The Nines I have are also close to mint and really beautiful to behold. Seems like a lot of potential with the available upgrades - anyone in the NYC tri state area happen have a set of Janszen-pimped 9s I could listen to?

 

[moray james]

I recently got a local deal on a beautiful set of KLH Nines that I couldn't pass up. I also recently got a deal on a set of Quad 63's with Arcici stands (my neighbor basically gave these to me). Currently my main speakers are restored Quad 57's, which I love dearly.

The 63's need to be restored (one is good but the other is hissing badly), and the Nines are unrestored as well although they are both functional.

I was wondering what the potential of the Nines might be and how they might compare to the Quads - and if they are worth investing in over the Quads.

So I could take $2500 and buy another set of restored 57's and stack them with my current pair. Or for $2500 I could restore
the 63's. OR for $2800 I could send the Nines to David Janszen for a full restore/upgrade. Looking at his site and the upgrades he offers it seems he could really bring them to another level of performance.

Some folks prefer a single set of 63's to a stacked set of 57's. Some prefer KLH Nines to Quads in general. My gut tells me a set of stacked Quads (restored) would beat a single pair of restored Nines or 63's.

I spent almost 25 years running electrostats. Given the options that you stated I would purchase a second set of 57 and have them restore and then stack them with your existing set. no contest. If you want big panels learn how to build your own new wire stator panels on acrylic grids and buy a used set of Acoustat MK121 interfaces and run either 1+1 with subs or a set of 2+2 without subs. This would be a lot less expensive than any of your existing options.

 

[bimasta]

Were your 57's restored at all?

No, only by me — replaced bad treble panels, but no modifications, upgrades or protection circuits. However, each panel was driven by its own Quad II valve power amp, so over-driving them wasn't a danger. And to say those amps and speakers were perfect partners is no lie.

 

[frommerstop]

Hey Tyler,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner to your PM, but since you've posted the same question here, I get a second chance.

I've actually gone from doubled '57s in the seventies, to '63s when they came out in the early 80s. And I happen to have KLH Nines as well, so at least I have a similar frame of reference. All I can say is the change to 63s was a "no brainier". The 63s are better in every respect, they image better, handle more power, go lower, and higher than the 57s... Just as Mr Walker said, they are the speakers he would have made first, if he knew then what he knew decades later.

KLH9s are very good, with better detail & Dynamics than you get from '57s, but they're a bit lean, and can sound almost strident with the wrong amp, or source. Frankly, KLH Nines are closer to Martin Logan ClSs than Quads.

Your choice is not simple, as all three are very good, but for me at least, now that I've lived with all of them, it would take me little time. IMO the esl63s are the best over all speaker, and well worth the investment to sort them out properly.... Once fixed, they will work well for decades, assuming you use them like an adult. I'm still using a pair bought in the early eighties without any service - try that with your typical cone speaker!

 

[Ohighway]

I've had stacked 57s, and I've had 63s. I preferred the 63s. They almost all the 57's virtues without their weaknesses. They have stronger bass, and deeper bass. A bigger "sweet spot".

PS: I've never heard the KLH Nines, so have no opinion.

In a similar manner , I've HEARD professionally rebuilt stacked 57s and have heard professionally rebuilt 63s. IMO no contest....... I'd pick the 63s. Stacked 57s sounded "big" but didn't have anywhere near the imaging and detail of the 63s.

Also ..... I've not heard the KLH Nine so...... no opinion to offer.

 

[Crestwood23]

Hey Tyler,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner to your PM, but since you've posted the same question here, I get a second chance.

I've actually gone from doubled '57s in the seventies, to '63s when they came out in the early 80s. And I happen to have KLH Nines as well, so at least I have a similar frame of reference. All I can say is the change to 63s was a "no brainier". The 63s are better in every respect, they image better, handle more power, go lower, and higher than the 57s... Just as Mr Walker said, they are the speakers he would have made first, if he knew then what he knew decades later.

KLH9s are very good, with better detail & Dynamics than you get from '57s, but they're a bit lean, and can sound almost strident with the wrong amp, or source. Frankly, KLH Nines are closer to Martin Logan ClSs than Quads.

Your choice is not simple, as all three are very good, but for me at least, now that I've lived with all of them, it would take me little time. IMO the esl63s are the best over all speaker, and well worth the investment to sort them out properly.... Once fixed, they will work well for decades, assuming you use them like an adult. I'm still using a pair bought in the early eighties without any service - try that with your typical cone speaker!

Thanks for the input frommer, and your perspective on the 9s. "Lean, strident and Martin Logan" are sort of the opposite of what I'm after, so that concerns me. I will be using my Marantz 8b with a vinyl source which has never been lean or strident on the 57's. I need to source another power cord for the 9s I have, then I can fire them up and get a feel for their character.

Seems like there a lot of love for the 63's! I have read they are less efficient than the 57's, I think the 57s are just about a perfect mate with my 8b, so hopefully the 63's are as well as I'd prefer not to change amplifiers.

 

[mazur]

Yes $2500 definitely falls in the "serious consideration" category for me!



So the 9s have an even narrower sweetspot than the 57's? I didn't think that was possible! I do love the 57's, which is why the idea of doubling that fun is very appealing.



Thanks! The Nines I have are also close to mint and really beautiful to behold. Seems like a lot of potential with the available upgrades - anyone in the NYC tri state area happen have a set of Janszen-pimped 9s I could listen to?

I have a double pair of Nines. I restored and "pimped" them myself Most painful thing is to melt that wax and replace the selenium diodes. But after it was all done.. man! Amazing sound. I never heard the Quads but the bass of the Nines, specially double Nines, is incredible. I'm in the Washington, DC area so if you're in the neighborhood you can stop by and have a listen.

 

[Crestwood23]

I have a double pair of Nines. I restored and "pimped" them myself Most painful thing is to melt that wax and replace the selenium diodes. But after it was all done.. man! Amazing sound. I never heard the Quads but the bass of the Nines, specially double Nines, is incredible. I'm in the Washington, DC area so if you're in the neighborhood you can stop by and have a listen.

Thanks for the offer - I’ll definitely take you up on that next time I’m in DC! What amp are you using with them? Did you have to do anything to the panels themselves on either pair?

 

[mazur]

Thanks for the offer - I’ll definitely take you up on that next time I’m in DC! What amp are you using with them? Did you have to do anything to the panels themselves on either pair?

One of the pairs had bad tweeter panels. I removed them and David Janszen suggested a fixed that would have worked if I hadn't messed it up . It had to do with the contact between the power supply and the membrane. I ended up finding a homemade solution with aluminum foil that worked fine. I recently bought some tweeter panels and will eventually replace them.

Regarding amps, here my post from another forum to someone asking about using SS amps with the Nines:

"I restored a double pair of Nines about 10 months ago and I can attest they are amazing. The absolute cleanest bass I have ever heard. I have been communicating with David Jensen (invaluable help to my restoration efforts and overall great guy) and I also have the original documentation from KLH. One of the myths about the Nines, as far as I can tell, is the fear of very low impedance at high frequencies and possibly destroying less capable amps. The documentation clearly states that the Nines are mostly 16 ohms through most of the spectrum and increasing to about 30 ohms at the low end. Interestingly, that is the reason while tubes sound good with Nines, the impedance is benign to tubes which relies on transformers to match them, not because it can handle low impedance better. It is also a very benign impedance to SS amps.

After the restoration I tried mine on a Fisher X-202-B and eventually restored a 100 W/channel Bogen MO-100 with a pair of brand new 6550 tubes on each. They did sound great but I must acknowledge that at least for my ears a good SS amp is a much better choice. The bass is way cleaner and well defined, the mids sound great and the highs are crystal clear. The tube amps always sounded a bit muddy compared to the SS. Whether we like it or not, you have an output transformer at the amp driving a step-up transformer at the Nines. Saturation at low frequencies can be an issue and attenuation and distortion at the higher end can also limit things. I don't have upwards of $40,000 at the moment to get 4 Marantz 9s , but the physics are the same.

Most importantly, as Mr Janszen and the documentation emphasizes, the real danger is to drive the speakers at voltages higher than about 26 volts, which translate to about 90 to 100 Watts for an 8 ohms load (a pair of Nines). Any higher and the bass panels may arc and cause damage to the membrane."

So, I did try a few SS amps and eventually settled on the Parlando from Audire. It's a 100W true class A monster (~90 lbs). The combination sounds very nice.

 

[Crestwood23]

One of the pairs had bad tweeter panels. I removed them and David Janszen suggested a fixed that would have worked if I hadn't messed it up . It had to do with the contact between the power supply and the membrane. I ended up finding a homemade solution with aluminum foil that worked fine. I recently bought some tweeter panels and will eventually replace them.

Regarding amps, here my post from another forum to someone asking about using SS amps with the Nines:

"I restored a double pair of Nines about 10 months ago and I can attest they are amazing. The absolute cleanest bass I have ever heard. I have been communicating with David Jensen (invaluable help to my restoration efforts and overall great guy) and I also have the original documentation from KLH. One of the myths about the Nines, as far as I can tell, is the fear of very low impedance at high frequencies and possibly destroying less capable amps. The documentation clearly states that the Nines are mostly 16 ohms through most of the spectrum and increasing to about 30 ohms at the low end. Interestingly, that is the reason while tubes sound good with Nines, the impedance is benign to tubes which relies on transformers to match them, not because it can handle low impedance better. It is also a very benign impedance to SS amps.

After the restoration I tried mine on a Fisher X-202-B and eventually restored a 100 W/channel Bogen MO-100 with a pair of brand new 6550 tubes on each. They did sound great but I must acknowledge that at least for my ears a good SS amp is a much better choice. The bass is way cleaner and well defined, the mids sound great and the highs are crystal clear. The tube amps always sounded a bit muddy compared to the SS. Whether we like it or not, you have an output transformer at the amp driving a step-up transformer at the Nines. Saturation at low frequencies can be an issue and attenuation and distortion at the higher end can also limit things. I don't have upwards of $40,000 at the moment to get 4 Marantz 9s , but the physics are the same.

Most importantly, as Mr Janszen and the documentation emphasizes, the real danger is to drive the speakers at voltages higher than about 26 volts, which translate to about 90 to 100 Watts for an 8 ohms load (a pair of Nines). Any higher and the bass panels may arc and cause damage to the membrane."

So, I did try a few SS amps and eventually settled on the Parlando from Audire. It's a 100W true class A monster (~90 lbs). The combination sounds very nice.

This is great info, thanks. That’s really cool that David Janszen himself has been so helpful, and carrying on the legacy of his fathers work. I admit I find working on estats intimidating - I’ve recapped a bunch of “regular” speakers, but this world of repair scares me a bit - lethal voltages and all! I may send you a PM for a tip or two if/when I dig into the 9’s.

Interesting that you prefer SS on these, think I could get away with my Mac 2105 (probably just over 100wpc SS)? Or, I could use my Marantz 8b (EL34 tubes at 35wpc).

 

[mazur]

This is great info, thanks. That’s really cool that David Janszen himself has been so helpful, and carrying on the legacy of his fathers work. I admit I find working on estats intimidating - I’ve recapped a bunch of “regular” speakers, but this world of repair scares me a bit - lethal voltages and all! I may send you a PM for a tip or two if/when I dig into the 9’s.

Interesting that you prefer SS on these, think I could get away with my Mac 2105 (probably just over 100wpc SS)? Or, I could use my Marantz 8b (EL34 tubes at 35wpc).

Sure, I'll be glad to give you some tips. There are a few articles floating around the net on replacing the diodes on the Nines. Whenever you're ready to dig into it let me know.

As it relates to power to drive the Nines, the following rule applies: avoid amps that could put more than 26 Volts on the panels. So, Power = Voltage square / Resistance

for a single pair: 16 ohms per channel, P = 26*26/16 = 42.25 Watts
for a double pair: 8 ohms per channel. P = 26*26/8 = 84.5 Watts.

If you only have a pair, the 16 ohms tap on the Marantz 8b should be good enough. If you have a double pair at 8 ohms per pair I think the 8b will not have enough power to drive them without distortion on louder passages. Be careful using the 2150 on a single pair. Should work fine on a double pair.