Quad ESL 57 -- what am I missing?

[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

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

I get it and love the sound they produce

[magiccarpetride]

Mmm , not sure how to answer this

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

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!

[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.