Quad ESL 63's

[62sunbeam]

So both of the sets spoken of here need work. What typically goes wrong and how do you fix them?

Thanks

Eric

 

[chicks]

This is a problem. :scratch2:

The first major difference between the old and new Quad speakers is the dipolar radiation pattern chosen for FRED. The ESL-57 was designed to radiate only from the front, and this makes it quite easy to set up in confined quarters. A true dipole has sonic advantages and will sound more spacious and airy, particularly in the lowest octave, but it needs more room to breathe. Many people think that ESL-63s are bass shy. The speakers are in fact, capable of prodigious bass. They must be positioned five feet or more from the back wall so that the rear wave does not have a canceling effect on the front wave at low frequencies.

The room these would go in simply won't allow for this. :sigh:

 

[JohnVF]

Mine have worked out fine closer to the wall than that. It's not ideal but here it has seemed room dependent. What doesn't work close to the wall in my big room is fine in my smaller room. The rear-wave is by nature out of phase with the front and it seems to interact differently at each distance. But currently mine are 2 1/2- 3' from the wall and working fine, which didn't work out in another room so well, where a bit more than 3' was ideal for the best bass and imaging. You certainly can't shove them directly against the wall. They're easy to move if you need to pull them out when listening and then push them back a bit.

They don't mind side walls being close.

 

[frommerstop]

Peter Walker suggested the '63s should be no closer than a foot from the back wall. I think he was, not surprisingly, correct. I generally have mine between 2 & 3 feet into the room, and at least as far from the side walls. Bringing them way out into the room doesn't seem to improve their imaging, or stage depth, and usually makes them sound a little less "full"...I like them to sound a little "lush", or "warm" - choose your own adjectives. Quads seem to be very good at sounding warm, without seeming too bloated. A similarly warm sound from most box speakers tends to sound dull & muddy to me.
I should point out however, that I do tend to set up relatively "live" rooms, often hardwood floors & Mission style furnishing. If you have a dead room with overstuffed furniture, and wall to wall carpeting, you might want them pulled out further... or redecorate!

 

[frommerstop]

Sounds like you're painting yourself into the inevitable corner with only one option...Do it!



heh, busted!

According to this article in Stereophile, they were introduced in 1983 after a roughly 18 year development cycle. So that makes them 30 years old or so, plenty old to be considered vintage, even if rebuilt. And the next article on patents clearly shows it the concepts to be built on the work of Kellogg from 1929 and Donovan D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC in 1941. (Shorter was also instrumental in the fundamental acoustical research which led to the LS series of loudspeaker development at the BBC from the 60's through the 70's). Truly a vintage idea, later developed and harnessed through solid engineering and physics by true innovators.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/416

http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/ESL63History/esl63history.html

Thanks for posting that Stereophile review link. When I bought my first pair, within a month of first hearing them at my local dealer, I wasn't subscribing to Stereophile yet, so I never read that before! I had been using Quads for about 5 years before the '63s came out. I didn't think they could be improved upon for their volume levels, and I'd bought AR9s for "big" sound. When I heard the '63s, I immediately traded in the (latter to be called) '57s, and I've never regretted it. I had tried doubled '57s, but I really think two '63s not only image better, but were more dynamic sounding that even four '57s.

 

[2tumsup]

Thanks for posting that Stereophile review link. When I bought my first pair, within a month of first hearing them at my local dealer, I wasn't subscribing to Stereophile yet, so I never read that before! I had been using Quads for about 5 years before the '63s came out. I didn't think they could be improved upon for their volume levels, and I'd bought AR9s for "big" sound. When I heard the '63s, I immediately traded in the (latter to be called) '57s, and I've never regretted it. I had tried doubled '57s, but I really think two '63s not only image better, but were more dynamic sounding that even four '57s.

Well...... if you're serious about the quad's and you liked that article, you're probably gonna really like this one -

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/the-25-ultimate-audiophile-speakers-of-all-time.html

I would say somewhat subjective but they're in pretty fine company there

 

[JohnVF]

I've heard stacked '57s as well and prefer a single pair of '63. They're the closest thing I've heard to a speaker that's perfect for my taste. My SHL-5s sound similar but they're only in my main system because they are easier to live with/integrate into my living room. I'm not going to pretend my pro-63s are beauty queens.

 

[chicks]

Will be listening to them on Saturday. Both are now "scratchy", so price reduced considerably. Disconcerting that the nearest repair depot is in the Midwest. Will have to dump $2K - $3K, maybe more, into these to get them up to spec, so still undecided. That's a lot of scratch. Even after repairs, they can fail again, from what I've been reading. Not so easy to DIY repair, unlike my vintage AR's, etc. Lots to consider. I never jump into things blindly, always do my homework (well, except for all those no-brainer GW purchases for re-sale).

This is why people buy Bozo Wave radios - so much simpler.

 

[chicks]

Aha! Just discovered a place within a two-hour drive that can redo these.

http://tsound.com/services.html

 

[JohnVF]

Aha! Just discovered a place within a two-hour drive that can redo these.

http://tsound.com/services.html

If you can get these for even lower than the first listing than it looks like you could be into a good deal on these. They tend to hold their value from what I can tell- I could sell mine for around what I bought them for 2 years ago. Dabbling in iconic audio products is a pretty safe financial bet if you're not in too deep going in. But first you'll have to figure out if you like them. Hopefully they're functioning enough to give a clue. Good luck whatever you decide. They don't do everything but some things they do well, I've not heard anything do better.

 

[frommerstop]

Well...... if you're serious about the quad's and you liked that article, you're probably gonna really like this one -

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/the-25-ultimate-audiophile-speakers-of-all-time.html

I would say somewhat subjective but they're in pretty fine company there

No, I've seen too many of those "greatest design" audio comparisons. Besides, they have Martin Logan CLSs @ #9, and Quad ESL63s @ #25...WTF!?! I prefer the ones that put '63s way up on top!

I have both, and there's NO comparison, '63s are an all round better speaker. The CLSs might win a beauty contest, but if you want to hear music as it was meant to be played, the Quads walk all over the CLSs.

 

[frommerstop]

Frommer, you never stop amazing me... Quads uhhh? :scratch2:

I guess the Quest never does end!

The fun is in the hunt! Don't worry, the KEFs are safe, I've had them since new, and still think they're about as good as any box speakers I can afford. ESLs are my first, and lasting love though, and the '63s are at the top of my panel speaker collection. One system type just won't do. :nono:

 

[chicks]

Jolly good. Believe I'll have me a spot of tea and crumpets before retrieving the rest of the bounty from the auto's boot. Well under a liter of petrol used, and a pair of Benjamins exchanged hands in this latest escapade.

 

[Cadillac Kid]

Very cool. Glad you got them.

 

[gogofast]

congrats!
one of the best speakers i have ever heard. good luck with the rebuild.

 

[chicks]

Tried them out on a couple of sides of Mel Torme, live at a winery. Even through the static and squealing, it's easy to hear that these are very natural in their presentation. Mel's voice isn't coming from a couple of boxes, he's right here in the room. Quite amazing, and a testament to Peter Walker's years of research and design.

Warning to purists: Despite certain qualities about Quad's ESL-63 loudspeakers that you will probably like, Quad equipment is not designed primarily for audiophiles, but for serious-music (call that "classical") listeners who play records more for musical enjoyment than for the sound.

J. Gordon Holt

Exactly

 

[JohnVF]

You're in for a treat! And you got an EXCELLENT price if you're going to have them rebuilt anyways. Truly an iconic speaker. This will be a fun journey to watch unfold.

 

[chicks]

Interesting to find a Quad repair place 12 miles from my house. Email sent, hope they're still in business...

http://www.proaudiomagazine.com/elstatr.htm

 

[SimplySound]

Good for you Chicks... congrates on the scroe and look forward to what you think after the repairs! :thmbsp:

 

[chicks]

Mine were totally rebuilt by a place called Electrostatic Solutions, prior to my purchase of them.

They also sell parts, and I think some other places do the work as well.

http://www.estatsolution.com/index.php?bod=6

A mint pair that has been completely rebuilt is about what is quoted in the ad, I think. I paid around that for mine because they were essentially brand-new, and actual new Quads that are equivalent but modified designs (Quad 2805), are around $10,000.

The local option was a dead-end, and the semi-local option doesn't actually repair them, so have contacted two of the four non-local options found on the web. Of them, the one John linked to makes it real easy. He will ship out boxes, arrange pickup, completely refurb them, and offers a 3-year warranty. He says they should be good for another 15-20 years after he's gone through them.

Gonna empty the audio cookie jar, but for the music I most enjoy, nothing else compares to what I've heard emanating from these, even in their current condition. The current Quad equivalents are $10K - $12K, so I'm looking at this as a bargain.

I did look at the DIY options, but I'm not going there. Electronics DIY, yes. This, no way.

Thanks, John!