Quad ESL 57 -- what am I missing?

[magiccarpetride]

I recently got a chance to audition those true hi fi unicorns -- Quad 57 speakers. I brought with me a selection of my LPs and CDs, and spent an afternoon listening to Quads.

On the first go, I found the volume too low, so the initial impressions were unfavourable. Then when we upped the volume, the speakers came to life. Overall, I felt as if I was listening to giant headphones. Amazing amount of detail, amazing resolution, somewhat disappointing bass (despite the added subwoofer). On the positive side, probably the best double bass sound I've ever heard.

I was honestly expecting to be absolutely blown away by those speakers, after hearing and reading so many rave reviews. But it did not happen, for some reason. Was I in a bad mood that day or something, or is it really that the reports regarding their ineffable magic are somewhat exaggerated?

[walpurgis]

Perhaps they were not best suited to the room?

[narabdela]

Quad 57s don't blow people away, they're much too subtle for that.

[mikeyb]

Ditto
I recently got a chance to audition those true hi fi unicorns -- Quad 57 speakers. I brought with me a selection of my LPs and CDs, and spent an afternoon listening to Quads.

On the first go, I found the volume too low, so the initial impressions were unfavourable. Then when we upped the volume, the speakers came to life. Overall, I felt as if I was listening to giant headphones. Amazing amount of detail, amazing resolution, somewhat disappointing bass (despite the added subwoofer). On the positive side, probably the best double bass sound I've ever heard.

I was honestly expecting to be absolutely blown away by those speakers, after hearing and reading so many rave reviews. But it did not happen, for some reason. Was I in a bad mood that day or something, or is it really that the reports regarding their ineffable magic are somewhat exaggerated?

[Macca]

You already have some panel or electrostatic speakers that are pretty good so I'm not surprised they didn't blow you away. Their main strength is the amount of low level detail that gets through, most/all? moving coil speakers can't do that degree of pin-drop 'quiet'. That's the thing that amazes people. Since you are used to that already, you were not amazed.

[Bigman80]

There are a few bits that have landed in that catagory for me. Decca Gold, Denon 103, Alphasson 100HRS and the Quad 57's plus more.

The speakers deliver on the soundstage front and micro detail as Macca points out but to me, they always sound a little soft or warm and cozy. I've had the opportunity to listen to a very nice pair on multiple occasions and I've never wanted a pair. I've much preferred the standard box speaker approach.

I'd have a pair of Magneplanar speakers though. The ones I heard (on the end of lesser Quality equipment) were fantastic. Still lack bass and impact though.

[walpurgis]

Get a listen to some proper Apogees. You'll be amazed! Panel speakers that do everything, big time.

[Bigman80]

Get a listen to some proper Apogees. You'll be amazed! Panel speakers that do everything, big time.Geoff, it's on my to-do list. I would EXPECT to be impressed.

[montesquieu]

Quad ESLs do some things superbly - that micro-detail, the left-right placement (though it's 2D ... they can't really do 3D), fine expression and accurate timbre. It's hard to get these elements at that quality elsewhere even if you spend a lot, lot more. I loved mine, my second pair in particular which were quite special in the improvements made to them. So sweet, so intimate, so pure.

However, it all fell apart when an old schoolfriend came round - a guy who was a close mate in the 70s, we went to our first concerts together (at the SNO Proms at the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow, when we were both in our mid-teens) but who I had hardly seen in 30 years. He was impressed at the look of the hifi and wanted to hear it .. I said go for it and he looked at my record collection and pulled out a Mahler symphony.

To be frank, it was underwhelming. And at that point I realised that my listening had shunk over the previous 2-3 years of having ESLs, to the point where I was only playing stuff that sounded good on them - string quartets, baroque trios, small jazz combos, Lieder. No big rock, big orchestras, no full monty piano music, no full-scale organ. Half my record collection was going unplayed - though because the other half was sounding lovely, I was reluctant to admit it.

I went back to Tannoys .. the wife loved their ability to fill the room, the fact that she could sit off to the side marking essays and exam papers and not lose the treble (ESLs beam badly and have a tiny sweet spot), that they sounded great from the next room too. It took me a few years, experimenting with cabs and crossovers and over 30 different amplifiers to breed out the Tannoy weak spots, but it **is** possible with a bit of effort. It's not possible to do that with ESLs because, to coin a phrase, ye cannae change the laws of physics.

If you are looking for Tannoy or JBL versatility and impact, then ESLs (or, frankly, most other panels with the exception of Apogees) will not get you excited. (And Apogees require serious amplification). I bought some ESLs not so long ago to try them again out of curiosity but I couldn't live with them now, despite re-experiencing their charms. They went again pretty sharpish.

So .. what are you missing? Depends what you are looking for in a speaker. Could be - not a lot.

[magiccarpetride]

You already have some panel or electrostatic speakers that are pretty good so I'm not surprised they didn't blow you away. Their main strength is the amount of low level detail that gets through, most/all? moving coil speakers can't do that degree of pin-drop 'quiet'. That's the thing that amazes people. Since you are used to that already, you were not amazed.

I think you nailed it. Vocalists over Quads didn't feel revelatory compared to how I'm hearing them on my Maggies. And apparently the way Quads handle vocals is one of their main selling points.

Bass delivered by Quads was positively underwhelming (despite being assisted by a sub). Many people might chime in now with "yeah, and same is with Maggies -- underwhelming bass!" But not so fast -- on my Maggies at least, I'm getting such strong bass that often times it is actually overwhelming (and no, I'm not using a sub). Of course, the dirty little secret with my Maggies is the room placement and carefully chosen listening position. Maggies have wide dispersion and are working the room. With a little luck and a decent size room, you can get them to pump some serious bass.

Quads soundstage felt like a doll house compared to my Maggies. Which may be a good or a bad thing, depending on one's perspective. I prefer the real life size soundstage myself.

[magiccarpetride]

Get a listen to some proper Apogees. You'll be amazed! Panel speakers that do everything, big time.

Another one on my 'must hear' list (Acoustats are on there too).

Trouble is, for some reason all the commercial demo rooms are so poorly set, that one cannot really get a proper impression of the chosen gear. The staff always manages to mismatch the components for some reason. So the only way to really hear some component is to sweet talk some buddies to talk to their friends and convince them to sacrifice half of their day to let you listen to their gear.

[magiccarpetride]

Perhaps they were not best suited to the room?

The way it was described to me, Quads were built in 1957 to accommodate rather small British living spaces. They are not supposed to be finicky with regards to listening rooms? True or false?

[magiccarpetride]

Quad 57s don't blow people away, they're much too subtle for that.

A few people whose views I value told me that once you hear Quad 57s, you cannot resist them and must get them. which pretty much denotes the end of the road regarding hi fi upgraditis.

I interpreted that as 'you will get blown away!' ;)

[magiccarpetride]

Quad ESLs do some things superbly - that micro-detail, the left-right placement (though it's 2D ... they can't really do 3D), fine expression and accurate timbre. It's hard to get these elements at that quality elsewhere even if you spend a lot, lot more. I loved mine, my second pair in particular which were quite special in the improvements made to them. So sweet, so intimate, so pure.

However, it all fell apart when an old schoolfriend came round - a guy who was a close mate in the 70s, we went to our first concerts together (at the SNO Proms at the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow, when we were both in our mid-teens) but who I had hardly seen in 30 years. He was impressed at the look of the hifi and wanted to hear it .. I said go for it and he looked at my record collection and pulled out a Mahler symphony.

To be frank, it was underwhelming. And at that point I realised that my listening had shunk over the previous 2-3 years of having ESLs, to the point where I was only playing stuff that sounded good on them - string quartets, baroque trios, small jazz combos, Lieder. No big rock, big orchestras, no full monty piano music, no full-scale organ. Half my record collection was going unplayed - though because the other half was sounding lovely, I was reluctant to admit it.

I went back to Tannoys .. the wife loved their ability to fill the room, the fact that she could sit off to the side marking essays and exam papers and not lose the treble (ESLs beam badly and have a tiny sweet spot), that they sounded great from the next room too. It took me a few years, experimenting with cabs and crossovers and over 30 different amplifiers to breed out the Tannoy weak spots, but it **is** possible with a bit of effort. It's not possible to do that with ESLs because, to coin a phrase, ye cannae change the laws of physics.

If you are looking for Tannoy or JBL versatility and impact, then ESLs (or, frankly, most other panels with the exception of Apogees) will not get you excited. (And Apogees require serious amplification). I bought some ESLs not so long ago to try them again out of curiosity but I couldn't live with them now, despite re-experiencing their charms. They went again pretty sharpish.

So .. what are you missing? Depends what you are looking for in a speaker. Could be - not a lot.

Interestingly, the sound I liked the best on Quads was the sound of big band. Which is counter-intuitive, because the dynamics and the scale weren't there, and yet...

[Macca]

A few people whose views I value told me that once you hear Quad 57s, you cannot resist them and must get them. which pretty much denotes the end of the road regarding hi fi upgraditis.

I interpreted that as 'you will get blown away!' ;)

It was mono back the so you only had one of them. They are pretty big speakers from a visual point of view plus you need space behind them ideally so I don't buy the 'designed for small living room' thing. They were way ahead for their time in 1957 but this is 2018, and if you have the money then you can do better. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

[Firebottle]

Tom I have to disagree with a couple of your points. My 75 s definitely do 3D but I guess you do need good quality amplification and good placement.
Like you with the Tannoys I have worked to overcome the limitations of the Quads, particularly the small sweet spot. I can play any genre of music and enjoy it.
Each to their own and forever shall that continue.

[montesquieu]

Interestingly, the sound I liked the best on Quads was the sound of big band. Which is counter-intuitive, because the dynamics and the scale weren't there, and yet...

Quads do timbre very well so big band can be very convincing even if it doesn’t have ultimate dynamics. The problem with orchestras and ESLs is compression of dynamic range, starting at ppp you simply run out of loudness to properly represent fff at the other end, big band does not require the same dynamic extremes. (Fun music though I used to play bass in a big band, it’s a kind of easy entry to jazz for a classical musician as it’s all - or nearly all barring the odd solo - written down!)

[jandl100]

It took me a few years, experimenting with cabs and crossovers and over 30 different amplifiers to breed out the Tannoy weak spots, but it **is** possible with a bit of effort.

Nope - it can't be done. :nono:
They still sound like Tannoys, which is good if you like the characteristic "Tannoy Sound" but nowhere near as good if you don't!

[montesquieu]

Nope - it can't be done. :nono:
They still sound like Tannoys, which is good if you like the characteristic "Tannoy Sound" but nowhere near as good if you don't!

You still haven’t heard these Jerry I will convince you in the end. Classical music day is planned after I get my STA100 back from Will which is in less than a fortnight now!

[jandl100]

You still haven’t heard these Jerry I will convince you in the end. Classical music day is planned after I get my STA100 back from Will which is in less than a fortnight now!

I've heard a near-identical RFC Tannoy at Paul RFC's place.
Yes, a lot of the Tannoy Nasties have gone or been substantially reduced, but enough remain to drive me batty after a fairly short while.
It's one of those Marmite things - either you can get on with Tannoy's particular failings or you can't.
It's weird, I can't think of any other speaker make that manages to irritate me so much .... mmmm, OK, maybe some (but not all) AN/E.

[montesquieu]

Tom I have to disagree with a couple of your points. My 75 s definitely do 3D but I guess you do need good quality amplification and good placement.
Like you with the Tannoys I have worked to overcome the limitations of the Quads, particularly the small sweet spot. I can play any genre of music and enjoy it.
Each to their own and forever shall that continue.

I thought we were taking about Quad ESLs - ‘57s’ as they are known. The bigger , newer models have more dynamic range and are more versatile, and beam less in the treble (though personally I neve quite warmed to them the same way).

[Sherwood]

There are a few bits that have landed in that catagory for me. Decca Gold, Denon 103, Alphasson 100HRS and the Quad 57's plus more.

The speakers deliver on the soundstage front and micro detail as Macca points out but to me, they always sound a little soft or warm and cozy. I've had the opportunity to listen to a very nice pair on multiple occasions and I've never wanted a pair. I've much preferred the standard box speaker approach.

I'd have a pair of Magneplanar speakers though. The ones I heard (on the end of lesser Quality equipment) were fantastic. Still lack bass and impact though.

I have a pair of Magneplanar 1.7 speakers. Whilst they will not compete with a 12" plus box speaker for bass, they are capable of very good bass. Problem is that most users don't drive them with the right amps. They are a real PITA to drive, but when done properly all notions of insufficient bass disappear.

Geoff

[nickbaba]

Yes, a lot of the Tannoy Nasties have gone or been substantially reduced, but enough remain to drive me batty after a fairly short while.

I know this is a Quad thread but as an owner of RFC Tannoys I'd be interested to know what you feel those batty-making nasties to be? We could take it to another thread if needed?

[Firebottle]

I thought we were taking about Quad ESLs - ‘57s’ as they are known. The bigger , newer models have more dynamic range and are more versatile, and beam less in the treble (though personally I neve quite warmed to them the same way).

I meant 57s, yee old finger trouble.

[walpurgis]

I know this is a Quad thread but as an owner of RFC Tannoys I'd be interested to know what you feel those batty-making nasties to be? We could take it to another thread if needed?

I know what it is. Some people are sensitive to the tonal character of the horn compression driver. I have found that it is less noticeable with the non-alnico, ceramic magnet pepperpot drivers. I think this is due to the shorter and more steeply flared horn. My speakers use the 12 inch 3128 driver that superseded the HPD and to my ears is superior (and superior to the Monitor Gold).

[nickbaba]

Interesting... can you describe that 'tonal character' (or what people generally consider it to be)? I find my HPD315s (with RFC Xovers) incredibly natural sounding. In fact the most natural sound I've yet heard from a loudspeaker. Maybe I just have complementary ears (or the right kind of hearing loss!).

Mods - I don't mean to hijack this Quad thread. I'll start a new thread if this becomes a separate discussion.

[walpurgis]

Horn tweeters do tend to have a 'character', a colouration I guess may be a better term. It will vary according to the shape and size of the horn. This characteristic can be heard if you feed white noise through say a regular dome tweeter and then a horn tweeter and compare the sound from each. Some may describe it as a mild 'megaphone' type of colouration. I don't find it unpleasant, but some do. If you connect a Tannoy driver so that just the tweeter is working this can be heard.

[montesquieu]

Interesting... can you describe that 'tonal character' (or what people generally consider it to be)? I find my HPD315s (with RFC Xovers) incredibly natural sounding. In fact the most natural sound I've yet heard from a loudspeaker. Maybe I just have complementary ears (or the right kind of hearing loss!).

Mods - I don't mean to hijack this Quad thread. I'll start a new thread if this becomes a separate discussion.

Nick, Geoff's entitled to his view (and he states it often :D ) but it's contrary to what most people consider to be the case, the Monitor series Alnico drivers from throughout their evolution (Black, Red, Silver, Gold, HPD) are considered by most to be the most desirable of all Tannoy drivers as reflected in market demand. As prices go up and up for the older drivers, the later pepperpot / ceramic ones are being used more and more often for DIY projects but I for one wouldn't be prepared to swap under any circumstances, not even for the supposedly latest and greatest Prestige GR range. (And I'm not criticising the 3128 and similar, these drivers do indeed sound good, just not **as** good, to my ears, as the Alnico ones).

The supposed Tannoy 'honk' in my view is largely a function of the original in-built crossovers - cheap (and by now, quite old) components, more than likely often exacerbated by the smaller factory cabinets that limit low bass response and thereby emphasise the midrange, in particular making the 'step' above the crossover point more prominent. It can be bred out with properly-tuned cabinets and quality crossovers (as you and I know Paul has really worked some magic on this).

Match these to the right amp and sources and I'm personally in heaven. I am looking forward to when Jerry finally gets here as I'm pretty confident he'll change his tune!

[nickbaba]

Thanks Tom, and Geoff, for your posts.
My Cheviots went off to Paul C last summer for a complete overhaul and came back with re-braced and damped cabinets and his top-of-the-range external crossovers and I have to say I think he has done a magnificent job on them. I don't detect any trace of HF distortion or honk from them, and in my years as a professional recording engineer I'm very accustomed to forensic-level listening across the frequency spectrum, on studio monitors with very neutral presentation.
I can't speak for the sound of un-modded 315s but I know the original xovers used with the pepperpot waveguides had more HF distortion than the later 3128s- perhaps that's the 'megaphone' sound Geoff refers to? But I do think Paul C has found a way to mitigate this.
I remember Paul and I had long discussions about the relative merits of various Tannoy drivers and cab models before settling on the 12" HPDs as a sweet-spot (I previously had 15" HPD Ardens which I also liked but they weren't quite so nimble in response).
I'm always curious when someone offers up a 'superior' sound to something I feel is already pretty great. Guess I'll just continue to enjoy my Chevys : )

[Barry]

Back to The Quad 57s.

I can understand the disappointment felt by some when listening to '57s as they do come with a lot of 'baggage', justifiably earnt in the 10 or so years after they were introduced. At the time they were a revelation and it is this that has imparted a 'certain mystique' to the design. But like all speakers they cannot do everything well. Like all speakers they have their shortcomings, which depending on taste may be regarded as faliures.

For the 57s these shortcomings are:

[1] They have a sensitivity of 83dB/W and they will be damaged if fed with a signal with a peak voltage of more than 30V. This implies a maximum power of around 50W, or 17dBW, hence the maximum acoustic output will be no more than 99-100dB. Pretty loud, but not loud enough to capture orchestral tuttis, or to play rock music at ear-bleeding levels. Thus a sense of dynamics can be lost.

[2] Their frequency response is curtailed: 40Hz - 10kHz, falling off asymptotically at 18dB/octave. This means they don't really 'do' bass with the weight or impact that moving coil speakers can do. So if you are a fan or organ music don't expect them to fully reproduce the 32Hz note at the start of 'Also Spracht Zarthustra', or expect the stomach-thumping bass of Jaco Pastorius.

[3] Owing to the effective line source of the treble panel, the 57s have a poor vertical dispersion: only 15 degree in angle. So they sound different if you stand up to when you sit down. The dispersion is the horizontal plane is much better at 70 degrees, so you can listen off-axis, but for many the 'letter box' presentation is unsatisfactory.

[4] Room placement - being dipole speaker, despite some rudimentary absorbtion fitted behind the panels, the 57s really need a couple of metres (say 6') of unimpeded space behind them. They can be placed near a side wall, but not a rear wall, unless some sound absorption material is fitted.

There is another problem with the positioning of the speakers. The 57s were designed in the days where the seating level of chairs was higher than it is today. Thus the treble 'beam' (owing to the poor dispersion mentioned above) will shoot over the head of listeners sat on modern chairs and sofas. To get around this the speakers need to be tilted forward by placing a block under the rear leg of the speaker; but at the risk of the speaker being tipped to far forward and toppling over! ( Some suggest removing the feet and placing the speakers on stands, approx 10" high.)

[5] The wooden frame used to mount the driver panels is not as rigid as it could be: displaying a resonance between 7 - 10kHz.


After all that, it is not surprising that these are reasons enough for some (many?) listeners to reject them. But if you can put up with, ignore these shortcomings, or find that they are not important to you, you will have in the 57s a set of speakers that can hold their own with the best of them:

A sound virtually free of colouration, clean and accurate tonal purity, avoidance of cabinet or horn colourations that affect other speaker designs. A sense of transparancy, detail and clarity in the midrange (where most of the music resides, as does the human voice) virtually unequalled elsewhere.

Provide care is taken with positioning, a near holgraphic presentation with pin-point imaging. The performers appear real and solid with space around them. When listening to an ochestral performance recorded in a concert hall, one can 'hear' the walls of the hall which will appear beyond the walls of the listening room.

Superb attack, decay and speed due to the panel membranes having a very, very low mass. This lack of overhang gives a sense or 'air' and atmosphere to the sound.


So try to give them another audition - insisting they be demonstrated properly. They still might not be for you, which is perfectly reasonable, but having owned a pair of 57s for the last forty years or more I have no inclination to change them (and I have absurdly wide tastes in music).

[jandl100]

I know this is a Quad thread but as an owner of RFC Tannoys I'd be interested to know what you feel those batty-making nasties to be? We could take it to another thread if needed?

I sent you a PM earlier, Nick, not wanting to take the thread further off topic.

[Audio Al]

Mmm , not sure how to answer this :hmm:

Did you want to get it ?

I have 57's available in my system and with my Quad 11 valve amps and a Croft valve pre amp along with a vinyl front end , posh cart posh SUT etc , when you get the sweet spot , my oh my they sound lovely , mids top vocals brass all lovely however they dont do banging bass , some users add a sub but not me :nono:

I get it and love the sound they produce :)

[magiccarpetride]

Mmm , not sure how to answer this :hmm:

Did you want to get it ?

I have 57's available in my system and with my Quad 11 valve amps and a Croft valve pre amp along with a vinyl front end , posh cart posh SUT etc , when you get the sweet spot , my oh my they sound lovely , mids top vocals brass all lovely however they dont do banging bass , some users add a sub but not me :nono:

I get it and love the sound they produce :)

Yes, I think I'll get them, eventually. They are much smaller than my Maggies, and also seem to not lose their liveliness when played at low volume. Maggies seem to really come to life at higher volumes -- turn the volume down, and Maggies collapse.

My puzzlement over Quad 57s is mostly around not noticing that much improvement in the midrange compared to my Maggies. I was expecting the vocals to be a notch more realistic, but I guess my Maggies are already giving me plenty of realism and absence of colouration. The only noticeable difference was the intimacy level -- Quads are much more intimate sounding than Maggies. Again, it's like listening to giant headphones when listening to Quads. Maggies seem to work the room more than Quads, so I'm getting much more impressive bass on the Maggies.

But Quads are perfect for late night listening when keeping the volume down is necessary.

[montesquieu]

But Quads are perfect for late night listening when keeping the volume down is necessary.

Agreed - no better speaker for late night listening.

[walpurgis]

Agreed - no better speaker for late night listening.

Lowthers work well at low levels. Unfortunately, they are horrible on every other level! :eek:

[Mike Reed]

Well now, I hesitate to describe the pros and cons of the ESLs (or 57s as they're now called). All I know is, after living with gigantic ProAc Response Fours for some years, I wanted to taste the electrostatic presentation, so picked up a good 60s pair of 57s locally. I could understand the allure when powered with my E.A.R. monoblocs, but they simply lacked the scale I was used to in my reasonably sized (23' X 9' X 15' widest) through lounge. Rather good headphones, I thought, with lovely transparent mid-range, but not a loudspeaker for full-blooded orchestral or R & R.

I bought 2905s (which surely indicated my initial appreciation of electrostatics), and these encompassed the virtues I'd heard in the 57s but this time filled the room, went deeper, gave much better scale and was wholly believable. Frankly, I didn't notice any reduction in the sonic benefits afforded by the 57s, just improvements on all fronts. After 6 months, the ProAcs went.

My friend has similar (but integrated) E.A.R. amplification but with 63s and was impressed by the improvements wrought by my 2905s. Later, he substituted my monoblocs for his integrated but the overall results were the same. With my very limited experience of ESLs, I think Quad have come a long way. I understand that the 2912s are a marginal improvement, so evolvement is still in being, it seems.