• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Quad ESL 57

Crestwood23 said:
Would love to try them without the burlap to see what happens, but It seems like a PITA to take them apart, and I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to get the burlap back in if i didn’t like it - I would think 60 year old burlap would turn to dust if I so much as looked at it the wrong way.
Click to expand...
I was speaking more about the thick heavy felt than the burlap. And you're no doubt right the burlap would turn to dust — but if it's that dry and brittle, what kind of "damping" is it doing? If a capacitor dries out at 30 years, there's no hesitation replacing it. There's nothing sacred about old Quad burlap. Burlap is burlap. It should probably be replaced with new anyway — after all, it was new when Quad put it in there.

It puzzles me to learn that American Quad users, at least on this thread, seem to stick so firmly to the original design — possibly a heightened respect for British prowess — but the Brits themselves have departed from that design for the last 30+ years, by removing the felt throw rugs and burlap sacks, placing the speakers in space instead of against the wall, and enjoying a far more wide open sound. Didn't the news cross the Atlantic? Why take a speaker that radiates equally to both front and rear just as live music does, and kill the rear emanations by stuffing it full of rags? What other electrostatic speakers do this? Even Quad only did it to this one model, so it would work in tiny postwar rooms in the 1950s — they stopped doing it with their very next model, the 63, and all models since.

I'm only going on what my UK friends (and many others) have done with their 57s since the early '80s. It's possible other Brits stuck with the 60-year old design, and put it against a wall. And I'm also only going on this thread, which may not be representative of US audiophile practice. But stick with what you know if you must, don't experiment even though the experiment was done decades ago and works brilliantly, don't try something new, even though it's far from new.
 
bimasta said:
I was speaking more about the thick heavy felt than the burlap. And you're no doubt right the burlap would turn to dust — but if it's that dry and brittle, what kind of "damping" is it doing? If a capacitor dries out at 30 years, there's no hesitation replacing it. There's nothing sacred about old Quad burlap. Burlap is burlap. It should probably be replaced with new anyway — after all, it was new when Quad put it in there.

It puzzles me to learn that American Quad users, at least on this thread, seem to stick so firmly to the original design — possibly a heightened respect for British prowess — but the Brits themselves have departed from that design for the last 30+ years, by removing the felt throw rugs and burlap sacks, placing the speakers in space instead of against the wall, and enjoying a far more wide open sound. Didn't the news cross the Atlantic? Why take a speaker that radiates equally to both front and rear just as live music does, and kill the rear emanations by stuffing it full of rags? What other electrostatic speakers do this? Even Quad only did it to this one model, so it would work in tiny postwar rooms in the 1950s — they stopped doing it with their very next model, the 63, and all models since.

I'm only going on what my UK friends (and many others) have done with their 57s since the early '80s. It's possible other Brits stuck with the 60-year old design, and put it against a wall. And I'm also only going on this thread, which may not be representative of US audiophile practice. But stick with what you know if you must, don't experiment even though the experiment was done decades ago and works brilliantly, don't try something new, even though it's far from new.
Click to expand...

Yup all of this makes sense, I don’t disagree. I just think I’m at that point where I’m 90% “there” with my setup, and I’m a bit gun shy to make any changes. I find the tinyest of tweaks with the 57s can have a big effect, so i suppose I’m just nervous that a larger change (like removing big pieces of material that the original designer included) could drastically alter the character of the sound. Like you say, it would most likely be altered in a good way, but things just sound so good the way they are that I’m loathe to grab a screwdriver and crack into them.
 
bimasta said:
Why take a speaker that radiates equally to both front and rear just as live music does, and kill the rear emanations by stuffing it full of rags? What other electrostatic speakers do this?
Click to expand...

There have been monopolar electrostats, the Beveridge and the current Janzsens for instance. Not all live music radiates equally front and rear as many musical instruments are monopoles, trumpets come to mind. And those using loudspeakers--electric guitars and pianos and such.
 
BLENDING SUBWOOFERS WITH QUAD ESL 57s

Bearing in mind, I already admitted this can't be done, and nobody ever really can make them blend... but the best subwoofer blend I was able to achieve with my Quads:

1. First build a "boxless" straight-shot transmission line subwoofer (or two) built around a 12" woofer with an Fs at 16Hz. TLs don't make any boomy resonance, and are free to radiate off the front and back of the woofer, like the ESL... and they move twice as much air because of how the TL design works. Use stuffing to slow down the speed of sound inside the TL (software can calculate that) to keep the length down to 8 feet and ¼ wavelength at Fs 16Hz.

2. Use an electronic crossover, and cross the subs to cutoff at 40Hz.

3. Place them in the far back corners of the room, vertically, so the woofer loads in the bottom corner, and the open end of the TL loads in the upper corner of the room.

4. Place the quads far enough away from the subwoofers that they are at least ¼ wavelength of your crossover point of 40Hz.

5. Run the subs reverse phase, so the subs' sound is cancelled out by the back wave of the Quads, and you can't hear the subs.

6. Turn your volume down on the subs so that you cannot hear them.

Presto... they will cancel out the back wave of the quads, and you'll hear the illusion that the Quads are playing down to 16Hz.

This was the Okayest bass I had ever experienced on my Quads!
 
Interesting relevant info... from The Absolute Sound's list of the most influential loudspeakers ever made. #1 on the list:

"1. Quad ESL-57

There was of course never any such moniker as “ESL-57,” except in retrospect, to distinguish it from its distinguished successor the ESL-63. Designed by the legendary Peter Walker and actually introduced in 1956, it was called simply the Quad ESL, but soon became known as “Walker’s little wonder.” Little wonder: For top-to-bottom clarity, coherence, transparency, resolution, openness, naturalness, and a disappearing act that still inspires awe, the ESL established and remains to this day (even though production ceased over a quarter century ago) a reference standard among countless designers and reviewers (including the undersigned) across the globe. Despite undeniable limitations—inability to play very loud, lack of deep bass, quite directional highs—it tops virtually every list of the best, the greatest, the most significant—supply your own category—audio products ever made. Why? Because at the dawn of the stereo era this “little” wonder demonstrated what was possible in most of the essential areas of speaker performance so validly that from a certain point of view the subsequent history of speaker design has been catch-up. Paul Seydor"
 
bollox-1 said:
I've never heard the legendary HQD system
Click to expand...
Did once back in '77 or so. My audio reviewer friend got a call from the owner who asked if he wanted to hear them. I was able to tag along for the experience.

Stacking Quads improved image size, but I still preferred JWC's Dayton-Wrights which were the speakers turned me onto electrostatics. As a coherency freak, I've yet to hear subs that truly blend seamlessly with full range electrostats.
 
sub_rotated_(1)001_1514649666251.jpg
bollox-1 said:
I've never heard the legendary HQD system. :oops:

Pics of your infinite baffle sub? Details? :lurk:
Click to expand...
It wasn't much to look at, but it had virtually no sound of its own, which is key IMO. I used a DCX 2496 with a low crossover and a steep slope and had it turned down lower than I would with regular speakers. Mark Levinson's setup, with the ridiculously (some would say, not I!) huge cabinets and virtually no driver movement (he used 24inch Hartley's) behaved like a portable infinite baffle IMO. The key to blending with Quads, or any electrostatic speaker is no sound character to the sub, (low or no box or port sound) and keeping the level down. The reason being the Quads have so little character of their own. If not, you will simply hear the sub as a separate entity. The bass won't measure flat with the reduced level, but it works, and sounds better than without a sub. You still have to keep your head in a vice without the Deccas, but if you don't need realistic levels it's hard to beat at any price.
I owned Martín Logan Aerius i's for a while and they are a perfect example of how NOT to do it; a 10 inch pumping away in a little box.
I still think Quads 57's sound more real than just about anything I've ever heard and often miss mine dearly. I'm sure I will own a third pair some day, despite their well known limitations.
 
bollox-1 said:
Rick how bout an update? Many of us are living vicariously through you here :)
Click to expand...
Hi guys. I have not purchased the Quads mainly do to the expense. The seller is asking $3200 and this time of year I find it is tough to make a large (for me) purchase. Also I am finding the sound of my Cornwalls to be quite satisfying with some changes to my DAC and other tweaks here and there. In the Quads stead I bought a couple of pieces for digital listening, The Bluesound Node 2 and The Bluesound Flex 2. While the Flex 2 is not really suited for "critical" listening it does what it does well and I am happy with it. The Node 2 is a great piece with a nice sound. My business generally picks up in the Spring so maybe I will revisit the Quads then. Sorry for the let down. lol

Regards,
RIck
 
I know we're not supposed to discuss price here, but wow, that sounds awfully high. Keep up the hunt, they are worth it. Everybody should own a pair at one point in their never-ending quest for audiophile nirvana.
 
I had a set of Klipsch Heresy II's I was using at the time I switched over the the Quads. It was one heck of a change! I went from highly efficient to much more quiet... I didn't mind. It probably saved my hearing.

I got my Quads in "fried" condition, with good transformers. I replaced the spacers, rebuilt the panels, etc. I think I paid $300 for them. If you're up for a restoration project, that's a great way to join the cult of the Quad ESL.
 
What's better than a pair of Quads? A second pair of Quads! Which is what I have now! This gives me the option of stacking or using pair no. 2 in another room! My ownership history goes back to 1982, when I bought my first pair (subsequently sold in 2001). Yes, they are addictive!
 
Yes, audiomagnate, you are totally spot on about how to integrate a sub with the 57s. Way back when in 1980, a stereo buddy of mine and I lived together for awhile. We combined our systems then. He owned the pair of Quads and he did the research and decided to buy a Hartley 24" driver. We built a very large cabinet with internal dimensions of 2' x 3' x 5' made from high density 3/4" MDF glued and screwed together for a thicknes of 1 1/2". It was butt joined with glue and many screws, corner braces were 2x4s edgewise every foot, with 3/8" threaded rod front/back and side/side. The cabinet weighed approx. 550 lbs. so we put it on casters.

We crossed it over at 100hz with a 4th order slope. That driver hardly moved. It was what some would call "fast" bass. We drove it with a single channel from my Van Alstine modded Double Dyna 400, so about 240 watts. Supposedly when crossed over that way, the Quad/Hartely system could put out 100dB peaks. As yes, we did play rock through that system. It sounded great.

To the OP, I'm also in agreement that the seller is asking way too much for that pair of Quads. But, don't be deterred, you will find another pair out there. They really are magical. Plus, there are so many more and wonderful amps one can use to drive them now than were available back in 1980 (not talking about the Levinson ML-2s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom