View Full Version : How many watts for Quad ESL 57's
Wakefield Turntables
24-07-2011, 20:42
I have a Radford STAIII 25, which rather unsurprisingly pumps out 25 Watts. But how many watts are really needed to make these beasts sing and is it better to try going the old Monoblock route? Maybe Quad II's ?? The ESL's are great, they have just been freshly worked over by one thing audio. Looking forward for some suggestions as alternatives to the Radford (which I'm keeping!!)
Ali Tait
24-07-2011, 20:50
Should be fine. I used to run a pair with a Sugden A21 at 7 w/ch, and a pair of WAD monoblock 300b amps at 18w/ch. The Quads won't take too much power. Have yours still got the clamp boards fitted?
If the 57's have their own limiters inside (as OTA, or Quad about these), then within reason, you can use any good amp able to drive the load as long as the amps don't ring into capacitive loads. A good friend bought a pair of 57's in 1978 with a 405, which had its own limiters fitted. Eleven years later, the 405 was re-capped and new mk2 boards fitted minus limiters. The 57's had their own limiters put in and the sound was VERY much opened up we found. later, I took the 405-2 and my friend bought a 606, which drove the 57's without risk at semsible volumes. In fact, the rattling casework on one 57 is the main limiter and I suspect the whole setup (with 66 pre) will need fettling before too long. A lovely and endearing system this one...
Enjoy the Radford. The Quad II's are charming, but not in the same league IMO. You could possibly "upgrade" to a fettled 303 if you want to try summat different ;)
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 20:56
My Mum uses Quad 57 loudspeakes, yes really. And she had it from the horses mouth that they will take 50 watts.
StanleyB
24-07-2011, 21:05
The ESL has a crow bar limiter that comes in at 50Watts into 8 Ohms. It's best not to reach that point on your amp sine the ESL protection system is a very aggressive one.
Stan, isn't that the 63's. Forgive me if I'm incorrect here?
The Grand Wazoo
24-07-2011, 22:08
The Radford is as near a perfect match for your speakers as has ever been made - stick with it unless you can find a pair of Radford MA15's or some Mark Levinson ML2's.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
24-07-2011, 23:14
If the 57's have their own limiters inside (as OTA, or Quad about these), then within reason, you can use any good amp able to drive the load as long as the amps don't ring into capacitive loads. A good friend bought a pair of 57's in 1978 with a 405, which had its own limiters fitted. Eleven years later, the 405 was re-capped and new mk2 boards fitted minus limiters. The 57's had their own limiters put in and the sound was VERY much opened up we found. later, I took the 405-2 and my friend bought a 606, which drove the 57's without risk at semsible volumes. In fact, the rattling casework on one 57 is the main limiter and I suspect the whole setup (with 66 pre) will need fettling before too long. A lovely and endearing system this one...
Enjoy the Radford. The Quad II's are charming, but not in the same league IMO. You could possibly "upgrade" to a fettled 303 if you want to try summat different ;)
Quad 57 ESL's are not a capacitive load, why do you think they are?
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
24-07-2011, 23:22
The ESL has a crow bar limiter that comes in at 50Watts into 8 Ohms. It's best not to reach that point on your amp since the ESL protection system is a very aggressive one.
Too right that is why they call it a crowbar, it throws a dead short circuit across the amplifier terminals. Best to disable it. Designed for the 63 the 57 didn't have it, but ones sent back to Quad for service were fitted with it. Not only will it fry most solid state amps even if they have fuses (as it operates quicker than any fuse) but it also makes the speakers sound worse.
Quad 57 ESL's are not a capacitive load, why do you think they are?
63's were claimed not to be, but perceived wisdom from the times always claimed the 57's to be capacitive, which is why I believe amp test after amp test used a 2uF load to see how the amps performed, citing Quad 57's as the reason.
spendorman
25-07-2011, 08:26
I have a Radford STAIII 25, which rather unsurprisingly pumps out 25 Watts. But how many watts are really needed to make these beasts sing and is it better to try going the old Monoblock route? Maybe Quad II's ?? The ESL's are great, they have just been freshly worked over by one thing audio. Looking forward for some suggestions as alternatives to the Radford (which I'm keeping!!)
An good condition STA25 III can put out about 34.5 Watts RMS per channel at less than 0.1% THD into 8 Ohms, probably slightly more into 16 Ohms.
Ref. Hi Fi News Aug 1984
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-07-2011, 08:49
63's were claimed not to be, but perceived wisdom from the times always claimed the 57's to be capacitive, which is why I believe amp test after amp test used a 2uF load to see how the amps performed, citing Quad 57's as the reason.
So other people have told you they are a capacitive load.
So perhaps it should be explained to you. An Electrostatic speaker (in this case the Quad ESL57) is two plates which are polarised at a very high voltage to create the static charge (6000v on the bass panels and 1500v on the treble panels) which is mixed with the audio signal. Mains is used via a transformer to polarise the plates. The signal is brought to that voltage by a step up transformer (55 to 1 and 110 to 1 ratio on two secondary windings), so the amplifier is not driving the plates which are the capacitor, it is driving the primary side of a step up transformer, which being a coil is a resistive and inductive load. The secondary side of the step up transformer is driving the plates and so has the capacitive load. A small amount of that load bleed across to the primary but it is minimal and less than the capacitance in a complex passive crossover.
I produce an amplifier with no output filtering so if faced with a high capacitive load as provided by Litz speaker cable will overheat due to the fact that the capacitive load presents a virtual short circuit to the amplifier at above 30khz. That is a capacitive load! where as that very same amplifier will have no problem at all driving a pair of Quad ESL57 and I have many customers doing just that, once they get over lack of knowledge statements like the one that has prompted my reply.
It is just another audio forum folk law that just gets repeated by people on forums. Little knowledge, which as we all know is a dangerous thing :)
Nicked from Stereophile - and if you google around there's loads more concerning the 57's difficult impedance curve, it's possibly inductive low frequency loading and capacitive (and under 2 Ohm) high frequency performance -
"However, owning a pair of ESL-57s required dedication and a generous masochistic streak. The speaker had low power handling, high-frequency beaming, limited bass response, and widely fluctuating impedances. The driving amplifier had to be able to handle the '57's capacitive load, whose impedance fell to 1 ohm at high frequencies. This required an amplifier designed to swing low amounts of voltage while remaining stable; the Quad 303 and the Levinson ML-2 worked the best. "
To return to the Radford - should be perfect if it's working ok, as caps etc can go off, as mine were at 11 years old back in 1976 (little mountains of residue on top of them in my sample) - still sounded ok though, if not quite as it could have done...
The secondary side of the step up transformer is driving the plates and so has the capacitive load. A small amount of that load bleed across to the primary but it is minimal and less than the capacitance in a complex passive crossover.
Well, no, the capacitive reactance is transformed via the impedance ratio of the transformer, so the small capacitance of the plates look like a larger capacitance to the amplifier. There is also the inductive reactance of the transformer. If you look at the impedance curves you can see both, below about 100Hz, the load is inductive and falls with falling frequency, about 100Hz, the load becomes capacitive and falls with rising frequency.
As to if its more or less capacitive than a conventional speaker crossover I don't know, but most don't present a 2 ohm load at 20kHz AFAIK.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-07-2011, 09:36
I quote :-
Specific Amplifier Requirements
The amplifier should be capable of delivering at least 15 watts at low distortion when a resistive load is varied between 30 ohms and 7 ohms.
The amplifier must be statically and dynamically stable completely regardless of the resistance or reactance of the load. An inductance of up to 10,uH may be inserted in series with the load during these tests.
With a 30 ohm resistive load, the amplifier should at no time be capable of producing more than 35 peak volts across the loudspeaker terminals.
The source impedance of the amplifier should be not more than 2 ohms in the frequency range 100-5,000 c/s and not more than 6 ohms in the range 40-20,000 cls. Ideally this impedance should be equivalent to a 1-2 ohm resistor in series with a 40 uH inductance.
No mention of capacitance! So capacitance is not the problem with the load, it is inductance which is why Naim amplifiers don't like them. The only thing that gets a bit dodgy with most amps is the lowish resistive load at higher frequencies. But the inductance largely compensates for this in the case of NVA amps at least.
Source of quote :- http://www.f2s61092.f2s.com/review57/review57.html
And another source of good information especially if you ever need to repair them :- http://www.f2s61092.f2s.com/html/refurbish.html
Never said there was a problem. I was just trying to correct your statement that a capacitor on the secondary of a transformer didn't look like a capacitor to the primary.
The only thing that gets a bit dodgy with most amps is the lowish resistive load at higher frequencies.
Yes, and a falling load with frequencies is a capacitive load.
http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quadGraphics/quad_impedance_graph.jpg
TBH, I don't remember NVA amps being even considered for the OP to try with 57's (no need to be so nasty please, Richard), more the likes of Quad II's - or the suggested 303, which was almost universally used with them at one time from memory.
Good to know that what little capacitance IS there, isn't usually the problem though, more the very low impedance at HF, which may be difficult for some amps "possibly..."
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-07-2011, 10:23
Here we go again, more attempts to try and make conflict, it is like a disease.
*I* design and build NVA amplifiers, so my experience of Quad ESL is via NVA amplifiers and so I explain what is going on with reference to NVA amplifiers, how the hell can it be any other way!
Now back to reality - what happens *is* what happens no matter what the theory is. Referring to NVA amps is very relevant as if there was a capacitance problem then they would react, and they don't, but a *real* capacitive load as in Lizt or Goertz cable will get the amps to react - so as I say reality is.
As I say the major problem for some amps is the inductive element in the load, which no one seems to talk about, and that is why Naim amps wont work with them.
Here we go again, more attempts to try and make conflict, it is like a disease.
So PLEASE stop being so confrontational in attitude in your posts Richard. That way, we can ALL have a friendly discussion, exchanging points of view and ALL learning from the exchange. Good manners costs nothing and garners respect, don't you know :lolsign:
I don't wish to confront or have "conflict" with anyone, as those who know me well will attest to. What I cannot stand is having my personal experiences (not aluded third hand knowledge) constantly called into question at every turn. If I'm wrong, I take pains to edit and correct myself, as you should well know by now - and Marco certainly does as I've eaten plenty of humble pie at his hands in recent years yet lived to tell the tale :lol:.
What this vigorous discussion seems to have brought out is the fact that for whatever reason, the 57's are not the easiest load to drive and my own research earlier this morning confirmed what Lurcher and yourself have said regarding the awkward inductive nature of the loading in the bass and the very low impedance at very high frequencies which may or may not be an issue for some amps. This discussion should remain online for some time and hopefully others will pick up on it if they're intending to use 57's for themselves :)
Whatever - they're really nice speakers to live with if the room and musical tastes/playback volume allows this
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
25-07-2011, 10:47
So PLEASE stop being so confrontational in attitude in your posts Richard. That way, we can ALL have a friendly discussion, exchanging points of view and ALL learning from the exchange. Good manners costs nothing and garners respect, don't you know :lolsign:
This is simply astonishing. Please show me where I have tried to create conflict. I have given information, nothing more. YET, and I quote :-
"TBH, I don't remember NVA amps being even considered for the OP to try with 57's (no need to be so nasty please, Richard)"
i.e. fishing for conflict.
Even there a comment about me being nasty in this thread - please quote it, as it is fantasy.
It is so simple stop addressing me, or in other words address the subject of the thread or reply to the posters information and post not *AT* the poster.
Rare Bird
25-07-2011, 11:37
Stacking '57's makes things easier.The best '57's i ever heard were the RATA mods.
Wakefield Turntables
25-07-2011, 18:41
Thanks for the replies and its nice to know that the Radford is a good partner for the ESL 57's. I'm sure I have quite a few other questions about the 57's but i'll save those for another day. I dont want to be boring people with umpteen 57' questions. ;)
Hi ANdrew,
I believe that Barry has got some useful info to add, in reference to the Quads, which he'll likely contribute later :)
Marco.
From my previous forays with Quads and having run 63's, 57's and stacked 57's in the past i found that the more valve watts the better, i have also heard from different sources that a Radford and 57's are a match made in heaven, one of the best combos i have personely heard was a pair of rebuilt stacked 57's fed buy a OTL'S, with a much modded croft pre driven by a Garrard 401, but as always it's all subjective
Ali Tait
25-07-2011, 19:37
Blimey! I never had a thread locked before! Well, to get back on topic. Thanks for the replies and its nice to know that the Radford is a good partner for the ESL 57's. I'm sure I have quite a few other questions about the 57's but i'll save those for another day. I dont want to be boring people with umpteen 57' questions. ;)
Ask away Andrew, there's lots of peeps here with a lot of experience with these speakers.
Wakefield Turntables
25-07-2011, 20:24
Ask away Andrew, there's lots of peeps here with a lot of experience with these speakers.
ok, thanks, i'll not say no to that ;)
1. I have the 57's sitting on my floor, and they lean slightly backwards, is it
better to get them mounted on stands rather than having them sit on the
original legs?? I was told to try using a book under the posterior leg so the speakers where standing more upright.
2. Is there any consensus of speakers position i.e. firing straight down the room, slightly intoed, distance from rear, side wall etc??
3. Do the speakers benefit from being run through mains a mains conditioner? I have a Isotek GII Nova, and I was thinking off trying them through that.
OK, i think thats enough for now. Thanks in advance.
Ali Tait
25-07-2011, 20:38
As far as 2 is concerned, I've read that they should be one third of the way down the room towards your listening position, with the edges of the speakers up against the walls, and toed in so they are facing you,as they are very directional at the top end.
I followed this advice when I had mine and never got them sounding better.
As for stands, have a look here-
http://www.onethingaudio.net/OTA/9152-OTA-MAIN.htm
Never tried any, but I've read they make a worthwhile difference.
Mains conditioner? No idea, try it and let us know!
definitely need air behind them and sound better on stands mine were homemade metal ones, not heard the one about touching the walls but it's worth trying, i will have a look for a pic of mine on their stands
Ali Tait
25-07-2011, 21:05
Yeah, supposed to help with bass response.
Hello Andrew,
I have been meaning to reply to your OP, but was somewhat put-off by the acrimonious direction the thread was taking. Now that things have calmed down, I feel I can now reply.
Having used Quad 57s for the last 35 years with a variety of amplifiers I feel qualified to reply. To a large extent your original question: “But how many watts are really needed to make these beasts sing and is it better to try going the old monoblock route? Maybe Quad II's ??” has already been answered, namely: 15 - 25W.
My Quads have been used with all the Quad designs up to and including the Series 5 electronics, as well as power amplifiers from other manufacturers. I should also add that the speakers are un-modified and do not have the internal limiters fitted that I believe yours do.
Initially the 57s were used with a home-built replica of the power stages of the Sugden A21 amplifier (the components and circuit boards were obtained from Jim Sugden himself. How I got hold of these items – well, that’s another story). This design was pure class-A developing 12.5W into 8Ω. Despite favourable reports from Ali, I always found this combination to be underpowered, but it was all I had at the time. Matters improved when I upgraded to the A51 design, having double the power.
Next amplifier used was the Quad 405-1, which drove the speakers well. A lot of people don’t like the Mk.I version of the 405; describing it as ‘grey’ sounding. It certainly has a cool, slightly lean sound to it but I didn’t find it offensive. However I quickly fettled my amp to something approaching the 405-2. This was used with the voltage limiters in place; limiting the power to ~ 50W
During this time I acquired a (second) set of Quad II valve monoblocks. These have a maximum output of 15W and were of course designed to be used with the 57s. Wonderful midrange but curtailed at the frequency extremes. I enjoyed using them but felt no reason to keep them.
Also about this time I tried the Norwegian Electrocompaniet 25W/channel amplifier. I believe that this too operated in Class A mode up to about 12W. I absolutely loved that amplifier, however it ran hot and was not known for its reliability: something that is very important to me. Shame, as I have fond memories of that amplifier.
Later I acquired a pair of Quad 50E monoblocks and a Quad 303 amplifier. (I’m a bit of a Quad admirer and collector.) The Quad 50Es drove the 57s safely and easily using the 17V tappings on the output transformer (yes that’s right; the 50E is a solid state amplifier with an output transformer). The Quad 50E was one of the first of the solid-state designs made by Quad and although satisfactory their next design, the 303 is much, much better. Many would say that of Quad’s solid-state designs, the 303 is the best one to use with the 57s.
I now have a late version Quad 405-2, and am currently using that with my 57s. This amplifier has been lightly modified by me, but it still retains the amplifier protection circuitry. I had removed this from my original 405-1, and believe the sound improves without it.
So to summarise, ranking the amplifiers I have used with the Quad 57s into order of sonic preference, with the uppermost being the most preferred, it would be:
1 The Electrocompaniet “The Two Channel Power Amplifier” (25W/channel)
2 My heavily modified Quad 405-1 (50W/channel)
3/4 Quad 303 (45W/channel) and Quad 405-2 (50W/channel)
5 Quad II monoblocks (15W/channel)
6 Quad 50E monoblocks (50W/channel)
I’m not going to include the Sugden designs, as the A51 is hard to find nowadays and I believe the design is dated. I have no experience of the later P51 design.
I have, very briefly, used the professional Quad 520 amp (150W/channel). Since it has no provision for voltage limiting I only tried it for a short time. Based on my brief experience I was impressed by the sheer authority and control the amplifier had, but feel happier using it with more robust moving coil speakers.
But then you already have an excellent amplifier with which to power your 57s: namely the Radford STA25. I envy you; I have always wanted to hear that combination. Some people don’t like the sound of EL34s when used as pentodes, and would claim the Radford STA15, whereby the EL34s run in triode mode (as well as having a valve rectifier in the power supply as distinct from a solid-state rectifier of the STA25) is the better amp. I’m completely agnostic on this.
Jon, I’m completely envious of you running stacked Quad 57s. I tried this once as an experiment. Absolutely stunning! Many people comment on the increased bass, both in amplitude and extension, however what most impressed me was the sheer, palpable presence in the mid range. Unfortunately they are just too large for my listening/living room. Sigh!
I would concur: my Quads are about 1/3 of the way down the long dimension of the room; toed-in, so that if they were mirrors, I would see my reflection from my listening position, and adjacent to the side walls.
The speakers are ~3m from the end wall and are situated at the 'live' end of the room. My listening position, along with the audio gear, is some 5m from the speakers and is in the 'dead' end of the room.
According to acousticians this is the correct way to arrange matters - however in my case this was not by design, it was more a matter of practical necessity.
I do not have the Quads on stands, nor are they tilted forward. I have experimented with tilting, but have come to no firm conclusions. The room is carpeted, which may explain why I can't decide if I prefer tilting. For the same reason I suspect that raising them on stands will be inconclusive.
Experimentation with positioning is very important with all speakers, but especially so with dipole designs.
Ali Tait
26-07-2011, 00:01
Interesting you say that Barry, and I agree positioning was critical with the Quads, but I've found OB's to be less room dependent than other types of speaker, as long as they have a little space behind them. They can work really well in small rooms and in near field too, despite their size.
Rare Bird
26-07-2011, 00:06
My dream amp/speakers would be Pair of Lowther 'LL16' with stacked '57's :eyebrows:
Good write up Barry
My dream amp/speakers would be Pair of Lowther 'LL16' with stacked '57's :eyebrows:
Good write up Barry
Good choice André, but I would go for a pair of Lowther LL26 monoblocks.
The 25 watt Beam Echo monoblocks would be interesting to try as well.
Rare Bird
26-07-2011, 00:16
Good choice André, but I would go for a pair of Lowther LL26 monoblocks.
Aye a more juice on tap but not as nice looking imho..another fav i'd love a pair of W&N Audiomaster '11A's
Ali Tait
26-07-2011, 00:33
Good choice André, but I would go for a pair of Lowther LL26 monoblocks.
The 25 watt Beam Echo monoblocks would be interesting to try as well.
Heard a pair of those once. Pretty good.
:sofa:
Sincere thanks to all for putting this thread back on track :)
Barry, I can't remember if you're on the Yahoo Quad group, but I understand there's a sort-of parallel thread there about the 50e's being great for small PA into multiple speakers, but less wonderful as a "HiFi" amp, the 303 being preferred for this duty.
My friend las a small living room, well furnished i.e. not bare, and from memory (it's a few years since I last visited, due to our moving away), there were things a couple of feet behind the 57's. She did replace the original feet with some teracotta edging blocks which helped the treble not to "beam" in the wrong direction ;)
Wonderful, if flawed, old speakers, and if you ever go to an orchestral concert ('scuse clumsy words), you'll find the 57's "do" string tone like very few others, in my opinion of course. (they rock too as long as the volume's kept reasonable).
Stacked - yes please :lol:
:sofa:
Sincere thanks to all for putting this thread back on track :)
Barry, I can't remember if you're on the Yahoo Quad group, but I understand there's a sort-of parallel thread there about the 50e's being great for small PA into multiple speakers, but less wonderful as a "HiFi" amp, the 303 being preferred for this duty.
My friend las a small living room, well furnished i.e. not bare, and from memory (it's a few years since I last visited, due to our moving away), there were things a couple of feet behind the 57's. She did replace the original feet with some teracotta edging blocks which helped the treble not to "beam" in the wrong direction ;)
Wonderful, if flawed, old speakers, and if you ever go to an orchestral concert ('scuse clumsy words), you'll find the 57's "do" string tone like very few others, in my opinion of course. (they rock too as long as the volume's kept reasonable).
Stacked - yes please :lol:
Hi Dave,
Yes I am and I wrote that post.
I agree the Quads are flawed and nowhere near perfect - but then so too are all speakers. You have to choose the speaker that does well those aspects of sound reproduction that are important for you.
For me it is tonal purity, clarity, detail with the minimum of distortion (especially in the all-important mid range). I also look for focus and good soundstaging. I'm not conciously aware of PRAT, so I don't know if my speakers have it or not - it's not something I ever listen for when attending a live concert.
The Quad 57s do all that for me and do it so well that I can forgive and tolerate their shortcomings of restricted dynamics, lack of deep bass or the ability to play at high SPLs. None of the latter are that important to me.
They are not the most 'user friendly' speakers to use on account of their treble beaming; but having lived with them for coming up to forty years, I don't think I will be changing them.
Oh yes - to have room for a stacked pair, that would be my idea of heaven!
spendorman
26-07-2011, 09:56
So far, no one has mentioned that the Radford STA25 III has easily switch-able output impedance matching, 4, 8 and 16 Ohm. One could experiment to find the best position. I suppose with double stacked and paralleled ESL57's, 4 Ohm might be the position to use.
In the future, I might experiment as I have two pairs of ESL 57's. Also have some ESL63's, and of course, a Radford STA25 III.
Ali Tait
26-07-2011, 10:50
Said it before, but what statics do well, they do better than anything else IMHO.
One of my mates, Ian Walker, had a minty-mint pair of, fully serviced, One Thing Audio stacked 57s, on custom-made frames, and they sounded superb in all the areas Barry mentions, albeit ultimately lacking in the well-known areas of importance to me (scale, visceral impact, etc), compared to my Tannoy Lockwoods, although bass was, as they say, 'adequate'.
Unfortunately, he didn't keep them long enough to fully appreciate them, largely at the time I think because he was using them on the end of a full Naim system (CDS2/52/135s), and whilst they sounded superb, I can't help but think how amazing they'd sound now on the end of his TD Copper amp......
I suspect that a truly top-notch valve amp (or amps) would be the way to really make 57s sing!
I'll see if he's still got any pictures of his stacked Quads, and I'll post them here for everyone's perusal - the Quads were rather nice :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
26-07-2011, 11:58
I was just talking to Ian last night mate, never knew he had stacked Quads, I'd like to hear some sometime. I guess they would be similar to to my Acorns though, as they are two stacked panels per side, albeit vertically rather than horizontally.
camtwister
26-07-2011, 13:33
In the future, I might experiment as I have two pairs of ESL 57's. Also have some ESL63's, and of course, a Radford STA25 III.
I've never been the jealous type. However, after reading the above, I may have to appraise that.
:)
I've never been the jealous type. However, after reading the above, I may have to appraise that.
:)
I did start to type that this site doesn't approve of willy waving, then I just sat in a corner in a green-envied grump! :lol:
Hi Dave,
Yes I am and I wrote that post.
I agree the Quads are flawed and nowhere near perfect - but then so too are all speakers. You have to choose the speaker that does well those aspects of sound reproduction that are important for you.
For me it is tonal purity, clarity, detail with the minimum of distortion (especially in the all-important mid range). I also look for focus and good soundstaging. I'm not conciously aware of PRAT, so I don't know if my speakers have it or not - it's not something I ever listen for when attending a live concert.
The Quad 57s do all that for me and do it so well that I can forgive and tolerate their shortcomings of restricted dynamics, lack of deep bass or the ability to play at high SPLs. None of the latter are that important to me.
They are not the most 'user friendly' speakers to use on account of their treble beaming; but having lived with them for coming up to forty years, I don't think I will be changing them.
Oh yes - to have room for a stacked pair, that would be my idea of heaven!
Never a truer sentence uttered :)
One of my mates, Ian Walker, had a minty-mint pair of, fully serviced, One Thing Audio stacked 57s, on custom-made frames, and they sounded superb in all the areas Barry mentions, albeit ultimately lacking in the well-known areas of importance to me (scale, visceral impact, etc), compared to my Tannoy Lockwoods, although bass was, as they say, 'adequate'.
Unfortunately, he didn't keep them long enough to fully appreciate them, largely at the time I think because he was using them on the end of a full Naim system (CDS2/52/135s), and whilst they sounded superb, I can't help but think how amazing they'd sound now on the end of his TD Copper amp......
I suspect that a truly top-notch valve amp (or amps) would be the way to really make 57s sing!
I'll see if he's still got a picture of his stacked Quads, and I'll post it here for everyone's perusal - they were rather nice :)
Marco.
:eek: - I promise not to be too controversial, but 135's into Quad's - and STACKED as well????? I wonder how he wired them? Obviously it worked, so I shouldn't be surprised I suppose, but I must admit it wouldn't have been what I personally would have recommended - your Copper amp - indeed any good valve amp that's reasonably load tolerant (?) would have taken them tons further I think - just my current view, of course ;)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-07-2011, 13:47
Nobody so far has talked about modifications done to their ESL57's. Mine were in the early 80's and I removed all the felt and used wooden wedges to lock the panels in the frame.
spendorman
26-07-2011, 13:58
I've never been the jealous type. However, after reading the above, I may have to appraise that.
:)
I think noting of it, purchased decades ago, quite cheaply. except the 63's and that was in 1987, for £800 and included some special stands.
spendorman
26-07-2011, 14:02
Nobody so far has talked about modifications done to their ESL57's. Mine were in the early 80's and I removed all the felt and used wooden wedges to lock the panels in the frame.
I was happy enough to just have fully working ones! My two pairs needed some work, including two new treble panels. I should to get them out (been in storage for years), so that ears can be refreshed, that is, if they are still in working order.
Hi Alex,
Yep you’re right - no ‘willy waving’ allowed and Marco, no porn or links to porn (albeit of the non-corporeal kind)! :eyebrows:
However for those who you, who like me, simply cannot resist reading about and looking at such ‘Forbidden Fruit’, the following links might be of interest:
http://www.quadesl.com/articles/quad_stacking.html
http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/StackedQuads/stackedquads.html (and links therein)
It is amazing and somewhat frightening to read of the, at times, drastic lengths some people have gone to in order to improve the performance of the original Quad 57s. :stalks:
Richard,
Your comments on the removal of the rear felt damping panels are interesting. Some people who have also tried this report mixed results. It seems such a procedure is of benefit if the rear of the speakers is at least 1.5m away from a wall. Is that how you ran yours? Mine are about 3m away from the rear wall, but I’m afraid I lack the courage to perform such an invasive piece of surgery.
Regards
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
26-07-2011, 15:37
Richard,
Your comments on the removal of the rear felt damping panels are interesting. Some people who have also tried this report mixed results. It seems such a procedure is of benefit if the rear of the speakers is at least 1.5m away from a wall. Is that how you ran yours? Mine are about 3m away from the rear wall, but I’m afraid I lack the courage to perform such an invasive piece of surgery.
Regards
Well if you think the standard 57 has a mid range clarity to kill for you will probably die on the spot if you hear it without that gunk at the back. If you want that extra information sadly you will have to use an amp capable of supplying it and I haven't heard a valve amp ever capable of doing it.
Now, I know I know, this is controversial and there a many thing such as perceived tonality where a valve amp can be preferred but extreme levels of information retrieval is not one of them, and I am an information freak. But there again a lot of SS amps don't find it either, but some do.
So now to the wedges. Would you unscrew your bases drivers a bit in cone speaker so that they are a little loose in the cabinet ?? So why put up with it in the 57s and they do move as I was testing it back them. Now that difference in bass control improvement is even more than taking out the felt. Final one which I have spoken about before is to keep a fine rose spray handy to keep the speaker humid. For those that don't know my original circuit was created using these modified speakers for reference.
Hi Alex,
Yep you’re right - no ‘willy waving’ allowed and Marco, no porn or links to porn (albeit of the non-corporeal kind)! :eyebrows:
Ha - too late, my leetle flumpkin, stand by for some 'middle-leg' stimulation... :bum:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9444/dblsstacked57s002h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/dblsstacked57s002h.jpg/)
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/996/dblsstacked57s006.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/dblsstacked57s006.jpg/)
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8403/dblsstacked57s007.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/dblsstacked57s007.jpg/)
Oo-er, wossat little speaker-ette (DBL) doing lurking behind there? :eek: ;)
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3641/dblsstacked57s008.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/dblsstacked57s008.jpg/)
Gosh, there's another one!!
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8776/dblsstacked57s011.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/dblsstacked57s011.jpg/)
Before the daftee-boys discovered the joys of glowing bottles (I had the exact same system!)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8175/dblsstacked57s016.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/200/dblsstacked57s016.jpg/)
How Bazza should support his 57s!
Would you like some tissues now, Barry? :eyebrows: :eyebrows:
Marco.
P.S As an aside, in reference to the thread title, Nap135s were 75 WPC.
Wakefield Turntables
26-07-2011, 15:54
WOW! This thread certainly has come along! Firstly thanks to all the people that have imparted there knowledge. Now a few remarks. I bought the Quads for a secondary valve system that I intended to put together for jazz/blues/classical which I know the 57's excel at. So, I'm not bothered about modifications, I wanted an electrostatic that just gave me an openess that a box design cant, so as far as I'm concerned mods can go and bugger off. I'm happy to maybe play with with speaker position, try some homemade stands, look at the toe-in angle, maybe play around with some dampening material etc, all the simple stuff, but intrinsically, One thing Audio has fettled the hell out of them and I tend to trust what these guys say rather some dodgy modifications published on the various boards in t'internet!
Secondly, I'm glad to hear my Radford is a good match for the 57's. Currently i'm running a Sugden Masterclass PA4 phonostage, but i'm thinking of maybe getting a pure valve phonostage considering the pre and power amp are valve as well, and that should complete my "valve" system. Where the 57's lack in dynamics, slam, bass extension etc can be made up for with my ATC ASL50's which in some respects piss all over the 57's, but I bought the 57's knowing that this would be the case. I love thrash metal / heavy metal and whilst it's fun to listen to it through the 57's you can see why it sounds better through the ATC's :lol::lol:
Thirdly, i'm going to do a little willy waving now I have just seen the photo's Marco has posted!! :wanker:
Just found this on Naim and Quads.
Naim Audio NAP 250
Solid State
(1973 onwards )
Salisbury , England
This amp is still in production, though the contemporary production line probably sounds not as good as the original because of the odd consequences of the CE legislation (electromagnetic compatibility). Actually the NAP 250 was invented in the same time (1973) as the legendary Linn LP12 turntable, which too is still in production. Chairman Julian Vereker, who recently died because of cancer, was an admirer of the ESL-57 and owned a pair of Quads till his death.
The NAP 250 amp offers 70 watts, is stable into any load, as long as a dedicated Naim speaker cable is used - the NAP 250 omits the Zobel network and needs some inductive damping from the cable ( similar things are reported about the Bedini 25/25). The original NAP 250 and other relative designs like the NAP 160 and NAP 120 work quite well with the original Quad speaker though none of them are in the class of a superior valve amplifier.
Naim Audio also wanted to manufacture a special electrostatic speaker , following the design of the Quad ESL-57, but using better materials and a rigid frame. Unfortunately their French designer, Mr. Guy Lamotte, left the company without finalizing the ESL, and so the managers decide to build mediocre dynamic loudspeakers instead - what a shame !
Naim Audio NAIT
Solid State
(1983-93)
Because many customers asked for an integrated amplifier, Naim Audio manufactured such an item from 1983 onwards. The original NAIT (Naim Audio Integrated Amplifier) offers only 15 watts, but as it contains a rather stiff power supply (a Holden & Fisher transformer), it drives the Quads with ease.
Chris Beeching also praises the Nait in his "Quadfather" article. Actually this little integrated blows the Quad 405 away, because it can supply up to 10 amperes into awkward loads, whereas the 405 fails with its mediocre 3 amperes output. The Nait was also available as single power amp, this was called the NAP 90.
After the unexpected death of mastermind Julian Vereker due to cancer in early 2000, the production line was changed and the original NAIT amplifier ( and its successors ) are no longer available. The new line is a cheap affair, consisting merely of integrated circuits and is probably not in the class of its legendary forerunner, which was a mere discrete design and obtained a massive Holden & Fisher transformer.
Interesting! :)
Marco.
Those stands are the same as i knocked up in a few hours out of a few bits of 2" x 2", they worked well
Heres a picture of the first pair i bought on a pair of home made metal stands running from my 845 SETs', just could not do them justice in the lounge as i couldn't get enough air around them in my domestic enviroment without chucking the 3 piece suite out which didn't go down well :lol:
link to my original threads for those who havn't seen it all before :doh:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3134&highlight=weekend
Then i moved onto this ugly combo, it worked ok and a i had enjoyment out of them for sure, all sold now :(
Link to part 2
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3341&highlight=weekend
I did try the Rogers cadet 11 but it lacked the grunt to drive them, i did get good results using a valve pre and my Quad 405 mk2 thingy as this was built by a Quad engineer to run 63's, Valve pre amp and solid state power amp definitely a winning combo
Lol! Ian's stacked Quads look cool, don't they? :)
Marco.
Ha - too late, my leetle flumpkin, stand by for some 'middle-leg' stimulation... :bum:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9444/dblsstacked57s002h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/dblsstacked57s002h.jpg/)
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/996/dblsstacked57s006.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/dblsstacked57s006.jpg/)
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8403/dblsstacked57s007.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/dblsstacked57s007.jpg/)
Oo-er, wossat little speaker-ette (DBL) doing lurking behind there? :eek: ;)
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3641/dblsstacked57s008.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/dblsstacked57s008.jpg/)
Gosh, there's another one!!
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8776/dblsstacked57s011.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/dblsstacked57s011.jpg/)
Before the daftee-boys discovered the joys of glowing bottles (I had the exact same system!)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8175/dblsstacked57s016.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/200/dblsstacked57s016.jpg/)
How Bazza should support his 57s!
Would you like some tissues now, Barry? :eyebrows: :eyebrows:
Marco.
P.S As an aside, in reference to the thread title, Nap135s were 75 WPC.
That's roughly how stacked Quads would look like in my room. Sadly, despite the glorious sound, they are far too visually imposing. I really am envious of those who can use stacked pairs.
As to 'involuntary emissions', nah - it has to be something like this:
http://www.hautefidelite-hifi.com/upload/reportagelevinson/hqd2.jpg
Now we're talking! :eek:
Lol... Is that a sub at the back? If so, now we're talking... Boomshakalaka e booyakasha, brovva!! :fingers: :hairmetal:
Why care if they're visually imposing, as long as they sound fab? It's not as if you need to concern yourself with WAF!! ;)
Get 'em stacked and stop being a big girl's blouse! :booty:
Marco.
P.S Like me, Ian has a dedicated music room, which is where his stacked Quads lived.
Lol... Is that a sub at the back? If so, now we're talking... Boomshakalak e booyakasha!! :fingers: :hairmetal:
Why care if they're visually imposing, as long as they sound fab? It's not as if you need to concern yourself with WAF!! ;)
Marco.
P.S Like me, Ian has a dedicated music room.
Yes - a Hartley 24" driver in a 4' x 3' x 2' enclosure. There are two of them, one on each side.
Sadly I don't have a dedicate music room. Well that's not quite true; I have a second system in a spare bedroom. But it's about the same size as your listening room Marco and stacked Quads just wouldn't work in it.
WAF? Well no longer, but I do have some aesthetic requirements (BAF?) and there are LFAFs to consider. :rolleyes:
enclosure.
WAF? Well no longer, but I do have some aesthetic requirements (BAF?) and there are LFAFs to consider. :rolleyes:
BAF i get but LFAFs :scratch:
Lady-friend acceptance factor.
I'm sure Barry will be along to explain....
Barry, you see that's where you and I differ. If I lived on my own, I wouldn't give a monkey's bollocks what my lounge looked like (as long as it was clean and tidy).
The most important consideration would be maximising the sonic performance of my system, so if I wanted stacked Quads, I'd have the buggers, and care not a jot about how the room looked!!
I'd be too busy having the lads round for a sesh to care ;)
Each to his or her own, I guess :cool:
Marco.
Lady-friend acceptance factor.
Oh, I didn't know there was one? You've never mentioned her before!
Marco.
Analog Addict
26-07-2011, 21:02
I've read this thread with great interest (well most of it); 1st time I heard Quad ESLs was at a Quad demo back in the 70s and whilst I found them enchanting, my musical taste at the time definitely didn't suit, so I set about building Leak 2160 clones:lolsign:. So far the nearest I've got to speakers without box colouration is with a pair of Maggies that I've currently got hooked up to a Leak Stereo 20, bought after a demo through ESL 57s (don't think my Heart SET monoblocks are quite up to it). I still hanker after vintage audio gear and keep looking for a pair of ESLs and possibly some Quad IIs, but they rarely become available in or around the Cheshire area and with fuel costs don't want to travel too far; still I live in hope:)
how a bout a pair of Acoustats
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/post-8-1161543946.jpg
Or even these
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=mug&m=149818&VT=T
Wakefield Turntables
26-07-2011, 22:08
They are serious sized electrostatics, I think I could just about fit those in the back yard, let alone the listening room :lol:
Wakefield Turntables
26-07-2011, 22:10
I've read this thread with great interest (well most of it); 1st time I heard Quad ESLs was at a Quad demo back in the 70s and whilst I found them enchanting, my musical taste at the time definitely didn't suit, so I set about building Leak 2160 clones:lolsign:. So far the nearest I've got to speakers without box colouration is with a pair of Maggies that I've currently got hooked up to a Leak Stereo 20, bought after a demo through ESL 57s (don't think my Heart SET monoblocks are quite up to it). I still hanker after vintage audio gear and keep looking for a pair of ESLs and possibly some Quad IIs, but they rarely become available in or around the Cheshire area and with fuel costs don't want to travel too far; still I live in hope:)
Try classique audio mate they come heartily recommended as thats where I got mine and they are all fettled by one thing audio, they come with a guarantee and are excellently packed. As for your Quad II's you can get from there as well and they can modify them to your hearts (or wallets) desire :eyebrows:
Analog Addict
26-07-2011, 22:46
Try classique audio mate they come heartily recommended as thats where I got mine and they are all fettled by one thing audio, they come with a guarantee and are excellently packed. As for your Quad II's you can get from there as well and they can modify them to your hearts (or wallets) desire :eyebrows:
Thanks for the tip. My Stereo 20 has had the Classique magic worked on it and I regularly check his website to see what's available. Collecting old gear from my youth has become a bit of an obsession:)
Oh dear, he's got it bad :D
Join the club guv'nor. It'll be a costly journey, but Sooooooooo wonderful all the same :peace:
Rare Bird
27-07-2011, 13:23
Frank:
With Martin Taylors consent here's a section from his Homepage (http://www.mtc.me.uk/previous_hi-fi.htm)
You will notice half way down the page a Leak 'Stereo 20' with a pair of Ansar dual Polypropelyne capacitors on power supply duty, this was a superb upgrade, i regret selling my rebuilt amp..
anthonyTD
27-07-2011, 15:24
Well if you think the standard 57 has a mid range clarity to kill for you will probably die on the spot if you hear it without that gunk at the back. If you want that extra information sadly you will have to use an amp capable of supplying it and I haven't heard a valve amp ever capable of doing it.
Now, I know I know, this is controversial and there a many thing such as perceived tonality where a valve amp can be preferred but extreme levels of information retrieval is not one of them, and I am an information freak. But there again a lot of SS amps don't find it either, but some do.
So now to the wedges. Would you unscrew your bases drivers a bit in cone speaker so that they are a little loose in the cabinet ?? So why put up with it in the 57s and they do move as I was testing it back them. Now that difference in bass control improvement is even more than taking out the felt. Final one which I have spoken about before is to keep a fine rose spray handy to keep the speaker humid. For those that don't know my original circuit was created using these modified speakers for reference.
Controversial, yes, and something we will probably have to agree to disagree on!;)
Anthony,TD...
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-07-2011, 15:58
Controversial, yes, and something we will probably have to agree to disagree on!;)
Anthony,TD...
I can prove it any time you want to pop round Anthony ;)
I think he meant the bit about valve amps and detail, not the improvement to bass from rigid mounting.
anthonyTD
27-07-2011, 16:25
I think he meant the bit about valve amps and detail, not the improvement to bass from rigid mounting.
Correct!:)
A...
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-07-2011, 16:36
Correct!:)
A...
I don't have 57's now. As I said in the thread I used them as my development speaker in the early 80's.
So obviously I am talking about information, which incidentally is not just detail.
Now I have heard a hell of a lot of valve amps, but not yours. But why they should be any different I really don't know. For a start they still have that bloody great lump of iron plate with coils around it between the amp and the speaker, and that loses loads for a start. BUT I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until we get a chance to compare. So in future I will say some SS and maybe Anthonys copper thingy :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-07-2011, 16:51
I think he meant the bit about valve amps and detail, not the improvement to bass from rigid mounting.
Honestly try the wedging, it is well worth the effort. Report back if you think I am wrong.
Honestly try the wedging, it is well worth the effort. Report back if you think I am wrong.
I don't think you are wrong. But sadly I don't own a pair of 57's
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
27-07-2011, 17:08
I don't think you are wrong. But sadly I don't own a pair of 57's
Now I genuinely thought you did. Isn't it you involved in designing electrostatics and amps that are using the valves to directly drive the plates. An excellent and elegant design solution IMO as long as the user doesn't electrocute himself. I thought that was based on the 57.
No output transformers ;) and no input ones on the speaker either.
anthonyTD
27-07-2011, 17:42
I don't have 57's now. As I said in the thread I used them as my development speaker in the early 80's.
So obviously I am talking about information, which incidentally is not just detail.
Now I have heard a hell of a lot of valve amps, but not yours. But why they should be any different I really don't know. For a start they still have that bloody great lump of iron plate with coils around it between the amp and the speaker, and that loses loads for a start. BUT I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until we get a chance to compare. So in future I will say some SS and maybe Anthonys copper thingy :)
:lolsign:
Yep thats me, but its not for me (if you see what I mean). I originally was asked to produce a SET to drive large panel electrostatics, which ended with this.
http://www.longdogaudio.com/projects/GM70/gm70_front.jpg
The speakers which are from a kit by eraudio and now belong to Ali
http://www.eraudio.com.au/DIY_Speaker_Kits/a_Acorn_Construction_07502.jpg
are much harder loads that the 57 or 63. So I built a protype PP amp using 813's to drive them (center tapped choke, anodes cap coupled to stators of speakers) and it sounded good enough to take the design further. The restricted screen voltage on the 813 meant it was limited to less B+ in triode mode than we wanted to swing, so the next build will use gm70 instead. Its a big pile of bits on my workshop floor at the moment, but one day it will progress.
But I am very fond of the various quad ELS I have heard, I particually like 63's driven by a 211 and listening to Joni Mitchell, but that may say more about me than the speakers. :-)
anthonyTD
27-07-2011, 18:00
Personaly, i prefer the 57's to the 63's.
i will forgive them for their lack of deep bass in favour of their ultimate clarity, speed, and detail.
Anthony,TD...
Analog Addict
27-07-2011, 18:25
Frank:
With Martin Taylors consent here's a section from his Homepage (http://www.mtc.me.uk/previous_hi-fi.htm)
You will notice half way down the page a Leak 'Stereo 20' with a pair of Ansar dual Polypropelyne capacitors on power supply duty, this was a superb upgrade, i regret selling my rebuilt amp..
Thanks Andre, out of the three valve amps I have, I prefer the sound of the Leaks, despite the noise floor being a little more apparent than with the Heart SETs. I really want to pair up with some ESls though, even if it means getting a rough pair and rebuilding them; there is a chap near Manchester who provides a local restoration/repair service.
Personaly, i prefer the 57's to the 63's.
i will forgive them for their lack of deep bass in favour of their ultimate clarity, speed, and detail.
Anthony,TD...
Anthony, did you ever try 63's well off the floor and possibly angled back a touch (if the domestic version)? They really come to life used this way, as the over-protective metal grilles (behind the cloth) dispersed treble downwards I understand - the pro versions had an open style which wasn't as safe, but didn't suffer thus.. I do think that properly set up 63's can give a great performance with less of the "beaming" and "plastic-diaphragm" sound that 57's can give if one isn't careful - imo..
More importantly, and I think Barry can back me up on this, is that most if not all 63's now are suffering from failing adhesives as they age. There's been much talk about it on the Yahoo group recently and this ain't gonna be cheap to repair on these, although I believe panels are available...
Ali Tait
27-07-2011, 20:09
Yep thats me, but its not for me (if you see what I mean). I originally was asked to produce a SET to drive large panel electrostatics, which ended with this.
http://www.longdogaudio.com/projects/GM70/gm70_front.jpg
The speakers which are from a kit by eraudio and now belong to Ali
http://www.eraudio.com.au/DIY_Speaker_Kits/a_Acorn_Construction_07502.jpg
are much harder loads that the 57 or 63. So I built a protype PP amp using 813's to drive them (center tapped choke, anodes cap coupled to stators of speakers) and it sounded good enough to take the design further. The restricted screen voltage on the 813 meant it was limited to less B+ in triode mode than we wanted to swing, so the next build will use gm70 instead. Its a big pile of bits on my workshop floor at the moment, but one day it will progress.
But I am very fond of the various quad ELS I have heard, I particually like 63's driven by a 211 and listening to Joni Mitchell, but that may say more about me than the speakers. :-)
Yes, will become more boxes of bits once I get the rest of the money to Nick to get them finished.
Ali Tait
27-07-2011, 20:10
Soon I hope Nick!
No rush Ali, I have many boxes of bits waiting to become something :-)
and I am an information freak.
As am I! Other than for enjoying music, it is the very raison d'être for my owning a top-notch hi-fi system. Quite simply, the more information that is reproduced from recordings (the closest facsimile to the sound that left the studio one can create with a system), the more music the listener has to enjoy! :)
My whole system has been built/voiced with the goal of achieving absolute information retrieval and highest possible fidelity to the source sound (what left the studio), and experience has shown me that good valve amps allow the realisation of that goal more than any SS amps I've heard to date.
My TD Copper amp was originally designed to be used for monitoring purposes in a (specialist) recording studio in London, therefore it was voiced to be as 'accurate', or as faithful to the music signal, as possible, and indeed this becomes immediately obvious when one listens to it, as it has no overt sonic signature. It simply allows music to 'breathe', and flow naturally.
Now I have heard a hell of a lot of valve amps, but not yours. But why they should be any different I really don't know. For a start they still have that bloody great lump of iron plate with coils around it between the amp and the speaker, and that loses loads for a start.
There is a danger of absolutist thinking there....
Always remember that the sonic performance of any piece of audio equipment is reflected in the SUM OF ITS PARTS, and not in the effect of any of individual component, or components, used.
Therefore, a 'mediocre' amplifier, with no output transformers, valve or SS, will always sound, well, mediocre, compared to a top-notch, well thought-out design, WITH (high-quality) output transformers. Indeed, there are output transformers and output transformers! Bespoke, top-quality hand-wound ones (such as those used in the Copper amp), negate much of the detrimental sonic effect of their inferior 'bog standard' counterparts; to the extent that it becomes virtually a non-issue.
One of the best ways of telling whether a valve amp is likely to sound any good or not, is to lift it up! If it weighs a ton (then a decent amount of iron has been used for the trannies), and so it stands a good chance of sounding good!
Unfortunately the type of transformers I'm referring to are very expensive to produce, and so due to cost restraints, most 'affordable', commercially produced valve amps today, simply cannot accommodate their use, and therefore this is reflected in their rather mediocre sonic performance, and as a result, the bad name often given to the breed.
The simple fact is, all valve amps are NOT created equal. Their sonic efficacy is governed by the design judiciousness of their maker and his or her available design budget, just as it is with SS amps! ;)
BUT I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until we get a chance to compare. So in future I will say some SS and maybe Anthonys copper thingy
Top man (and indeed you will soon hear one for yourself). If I were you, however, I'd also include Nick's designs in that, as trust me, his are on a par with Anthony's :)
Marco.
Top man (and indeed you will soon hear one for yourself). If I were you, however, I'd also include Nick's designs in that, as trust me, his are on a par with Anthony's
You say the nicest things. But its not magic, use as few components as are necessary, and the ones that are used pick the ones that do as little damage to the sound as possible. (See, Dr B, I think we agree on many such things :-)).
Credit where credit is due, oh great one! ;)
Marco.
anthonyTD
28-07-2011, 17:07
You say the nicest things. But its not magic, use as few components as are necessary, and the ones that are used pick the ones that do as little damage to the sound as possible. (See, Dr B, I think we agree on many such things :-)).
Thats the Three of us agreeing on something then, what ever next!:eek::lol:
Anthony,TD...
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
28-07-2011, 22:23
Thats the Three of us agreeing on something then, what ever next!:eek::lol:
Anthony,TD...
Finding who is leader of the pack :gig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf5_2ibBuw8&playnext=1&list=PLA2D2DE92BE75FE2A
Well, I know who is the biggest daftee.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sYY7SVMqBA
anthonyTD
29-07-2011, 08:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sYY7SVMqBA
:D:D:D
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
29-07-2011, 08:46
:D:D:D
Yuk! the original is a million times better (as thoroughly scientifically measured a la Avi) and more funny.
The Black Adder
16-08-2011, 20:27
I have a Radford STAIII 25, which rather unsurprisingly pumps out 25 Watts. But how many watts are really needed to make these beasts sing and is it better to try going the old Monoblock route? Maybe Quad II's ?? The ESL's are great, they have just been freshly worked over by one thing audio. Looking forward for some suggestions as alternatives to the Radford (which I'm keeping!!)
Hi andrew... Your Radford pumps out around 35wpc as it's the R version but they still called it 25.
spendorman
16-08-2011, 20:44
Hi andrew... Your Radford pumps out around 35wpc as it's the R version but they still called it 25.
All STA25's put out about this figure, see post 11
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12491&page=2
Wakefield Turntables
16-08-2011, 22:12
Hi andrew... Your Radford pumps out around 35wpc as it's the R version but they still called it 25.
Great an extra 10wpc! :lol: Man these sound good!
macvisual
28-08-2011, 11:34
I'm listening as I type this to my pair of Quad ESL 57's powered by Quad 11's (15 watts), I've had this set-up for 4/5 years and it's truly magical let me tell you!
Last year I bought two McIntosh MC-275's (75 watts each) and bi-amped them into the 57's hoping it would trounce my Quad 11's, but no it didn't, so sold them both and still use the fabulous Quad 11's every day, utterly superb!!
Wakefield Turntables
01-12-2011, 15:19
I'm listening as I type this to my pair of Quad ESL 57's powered by Quad 11's (15 watts), I've had this set-up for 4/5 years and it's truly magical let me tell you!
Last year I bought two McIntosh MC-275's (75 watts each) and bi-amped them into the 57's hoping it would trounce my Quad 11's, but no it didn't, so sold them both and still use the fabulous Quad 11's every day, utterly superb!!
I've got my Radford amp to power the 57's but I've often thought about getting a pair of croft modified Quad II's, but like most things its about the wonga. I could afford a pair but where the hell would I put them alongside all the other crap i own :scratch: :lol:
thebeathunters
20-09-2013, 08:20
just my cheap 2 cents to that thread:
ESL57 are definitely a tremendous pick in their range of price (refurbished). of course, quad IIs sound great but to whom won't/can't invest in them+restauration+costly GECs (btw the cheap gold lion kt66 are awesome too!) a classic restaured/unmodded 303 is plenty perfect.
the more i listen to them in that TR set-up, the more they stand up as my def "keep it simple" studio system. and i found very nice OG bronze grilles that transcend them visually
i still have to try my 8B (by the way 8 or 16 ohms? i'd say 16 but the masters know better) undoubtely great but honestly, i'd be perfectly musically happy with a 303/57 combo.
10597 10598
Wakefield Turntables
20-09-2013, 08:24
Thanks for the additional info. I now have even more stuff, suck as an old Sansui AU717 setup and some Tannoy Monitor 15" golds, I may have a surprise pair of Monoblocks to try on my ESL's, watch this space!
thebeathunters
20-09-2013, 11:35
props for the golds 15"! i need to read that
frankly, 303+ESL is amazing:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.