Opinions of Quad ESL 57's

RDSChicago said:
People swear by these speakers, particularly if restored. The restored versions have protection circuits which do away with the common problem of arcing the panels.

Anyone have a pair? I'd love to hear opinions especially in comparison to modern speakers, electrostatic or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I just sold my Quad 57's. I took good care of it and didn't play it too hard, was in pristine condition. It took about one day to sell and I got twice as much as I paid for them. This was the first time this has ever happened. Maybe a Leica camera or a Steinway piano could do this but not audio equipment. So, apparently, they are in still in demand. The problem I had with it is I was afraid to play it too loudly and the sweet spot was too narrow to get the full appreciation of the music you are playing, otherwise, it was heavenly. I had a VTL tiny triode monoblocks on in with a Reference Line passive preamp. I have a used pair Spendor S9's with the same amp. set up. When I bought the Spendors I still had money left from the sale of my Quads. I would say that the Quad's are best in a small listening room, playing jazz, piano, solo instruments or small chamber orchestras. For goodness sake, don't play Saint-Saens's Organ Symphony #3 on Telarc records!!!!!!:D
 
So I've had my pair for around a month now. They were fully restored by Kent McCullom of Electrostatic Solutions. They sound heavenly. I first tried them with a 300b amp and found the low bass notes were a little congested and distorted. I switched to some Quicksilver KT150 monoblocks and there has been no turning back to any of my other speakers since. You are completely enveloped by the music. And for those who say there is not sufficient bass, all I can guess is that you haven't heard a well-restored pair with the protection circuit, which allows one to feed them with lots of good power. I agree their strong point is acoustic jazz, chamber music and vocals. The midrange is so sweet. Rock and large orchestral pieces sound better with other speakers. Highly recommended!
 
RDSChicago said:
So I've had my pair for around a month now. They were fully restored by Kent McCullom of Electrostatic Solutions. They sound heavenly. I first tried them with a 300b amp and found the low bass notes were a little congested and distorted. I switched to some Quicksilver KT150 monoblocks and there has been no turning back to any of my other speakers since. You are completely enveloped by the music. And for those who say there is not sufficient bass, all I can guess is that you haven't heard a well-restored pair with the protection circuit, which allows one to feed them with lots of good power. I agree their strong point is acoustic jazz, chamber music and vocals. The midrange is so sweet. Rock and large orchestral pieces sound better with other speakers. Highly recommended!
Click to expand...

Congrats! I know when we spoke you had several amp options to experiment with I sorta guessed your Melody amp would be less than ideal. Ive found that a good ol' push pull and transformer coupled tube amp (el34 & el84 esp) works best with 57s. Ive tried two OTLs the Graaf and Joule Electra and prefered transformer coupled amps. Ralph of Atma-sphere even suggested using a Speltz Autoformer with his amp when driving 57s

btw, did you find the Arcici stand or are you using the stock legs?
 
I'm still using the stock legs. I saw a pair of Arcici stands for sale but a friend in Philly says they are known to scratch the wooden side panels. He bought a wood pair from Quad in Germany. Any suggestions?
puroagave said:
Congrats! I know when we spoke you had several amp options to experiment with I sorta guessed your Melody amp would be less than ideal. Ive found that a good ol' push pull and transformer coupled tube amp (el34 & el84 esp) works best with 57s. Ive tried two OTLs the Graaf and Joule Electra and prefered transformer coupled amps. Ralph of Atma-sphere even suggested using a Speltz Autoformer with his amp when driving 57s

btw, did you find the Arcici stand or are you using the stock legs?
Click to expand...
 
The Quicksilver's seem to have plenty of power, around 90 watts. Why would the Music Reference perform any better with the '57's?
Jack said:
A Music Reference RM-9 might be a good choice or even an RM-10 if that has enough power for your room.
Click to expand...
 
The RM9 is a special amp (I've owned a Mk I) and Roger's RM10 using el84s were purpose made for 57s. what Jack said, they will be different and maybe better, what works well are amps with a low output impedance which is one reason the Quad II are so good with them.

If you're handy with wood or know someone who is, you can download sheldon stokes' design for wood stands off his website. I have those stands built by him and they raise the speaker 18" and tilts them forward at the best angle to retain all the highs the speaker is capable of. by now you've experienced the "venetian blind" effect just from sitting too high or with your ears too low, IMO Sheldon's stands gives you the best of all worlds but they're not particularly attractive.
 
I would highly recommend any of Roger's original three amps if you can pick them up at a "fair" price. You won't lose money if it is not what you expected. My mint RM-10 is worth almost ten times what I paid for it on the used market 15 years ago but I won't sell it because it is that good. Like Mike, Roger's amps are classics.
 
I just found an RM-9 MKii that was totally restored and upgraded by Roger himself this past January. Based on Jack and Rob's glowing endorsement of this amp, particularly with the ESL's, I pulled the trigger! Can't wait to compare it to the Quicksilver's. I'll report back when I have the amp in house in a few weeks. A friend of mine going to St. Louis is picking it up for me when he drops off his son at Washington University. Should be fun!
Jack said:
I would highly recommend any of Roger's original three amps if you can pick them up at a "fair" price. You won't lose money if it is not what you expected. My mint RM-10 is worth almost ten times what I paid for it on the used market 15 years ago but I won't sell it because it is that good. Like Mike, Roger's amps are classics.
Click to expand...
 
Congrats on the new amp. I hope you agree with us. But if not it would sound great with Joe's Strad's. :exciting:
 
+1

Huge congratulations. Roger makes awesome gear. Can't wait for your opinion.


Jack said:
Congrats on the new amp. I hope you agree with us. But if not it would sound great with Joe's Strad's. :exciting:
Click to expand...
 
Reviving an old thread. I'm missing those QUicksilver's on my Quad 57's!! Although I have this inexpensive Melody SP3 integrated 38 wpc push-pull tube amp driving them while I'm contemplating a replacement amp (the Music Reference RM-9 mkii I bought was defective and returned to the seller) and they are being driven and sounding surprisingly quite good! I have a 40wpc Bel Canto SET40 845 tube amp but I was told SET amps don't match well with the Auad's. Any thoughts?
 
RDSChicago said:
Reviving an old thread. I'm missing those QUicksilver's on my Quad 57's!! Although I have this inexpensive Melody SP3 integrated 38 wpc push-pull tube amp driving them while I'm contemplating a replacement amp (the Music Reference RM-9 mkii I bought was defective and returned to the seller) and they are being driven and sounding surprisingly quite good! I have a 40wpc Bel Canto SET40 845 tube amp but I was told SET amps don't match well with the Auad's. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My thoughts? Buy my ARC Ref75. It was great on my ESL-2805s.

Did I misunderstand your question? Do you have BCs but have not tried them on the Quads yet? Inquiring minds need to know.
 
RDSChicago said:
Reviving an old thread. I'm missing those QUicksilver's on my Quad 57's!! Although I have this inexpensive Melody SP3 integrated 38 wpc push-pull tube amp driving them while I'm contemplating a replacement amp (the Music Reference RM-9 mkii I bought was defective and returned to the seller) and they are being driven and sounding surprisingly quite good! I have a 40wpc Bel Canto SET40 845 tube amp but I was told SET amps don't match well with the Auad's. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My fall-back position for 57s has been PP amps based on the EL34/EL84 pentode. I like SETs (esp on horns) but not for 'stats because of the disparity between the low impedance/reactive nature of the 57 and high output impedance of a SET amp. I have used the airtight ATM211 on the 57s and it was kinda meh, same for the highly regarded Graaf GM20 OTL.
 
I read somewhere that quad 57’s and 845 SET amps were incompatible, so I never bothered to try the Quad’s with a just-restored Bel Canto SET 40 power amp I have until yesterday. Well, using my Pass XP20 preamp with the 845 tube amp sounds wonderful with the Quad’s. I was using Shuguang 845 tubes and today switched to a pair of 845b Shuguang’s. They seem to separate and make more distinct the various instruments and voices a bit more than the plain 845’s.

Has anyone experienced 845’s with the Quad’s and if so compared these two 845 tube variants? Would love to hear other opinions and experiences.
 
Rob, We talked off line before about the Bel canto, John Stonczer is a tube guy at heart and only builds class D amps to pay the bills. Im not surprised you like the SET40 its a special amp, regardless... (its on my proverbial want list :)). that said, to my ears a good ol' PP tube amp sounds better but you probably have more recent experience with more tube amps on 57s than I have (my 57s are in storage). When I heard ATM211s on 57s it was middle of the road--sonically speaking. YMMV and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top