Openness, musicality, transient response, sound stage

I'll try not to reapeat what others said. I got my first hifi, as home audio was called back then, in 1960. From then until the ESL-63, I upgraded speakers every four years, on average. I bought the ESL-63 in England two months after they first came on the market and have used them ever since, more than 15 years I think. I have never been tempeted to upgrade at any price. There is no upgrade.
Your listening room affcets placement and how they sound, keeping in mind they will never sounnd bad. Best is a room with an open doorway behind each speaker. In some rooms they are best with a stand, in others, best on the floor. How tall a stand to use also varries with the room. Experiment.
I think it is best to keep the center of the speaker lower than your ears to avoid getting them to sound to "clinical" By this rule, most stands made specifically for the ESL-63 are too high. ON the other hand, many people seed to think that clinical sound is best, but they are wrong. Concert hall realism is what to shoot for.
These are true dipole speakers, meaning there is no front or back to the speaker. Equal sound comes out both sides. Therefore, THEY HAVE TO BE AT LEAST FIVE FEET OUT FROM THE WALL BEHIND THEM.
ESL-63 stands for ElectroStatic Loudspeaker whose design work began in 1963, about 25 years before they went on the market. Quad originally called them FRED- Full Range Electrostatic Speaker, but that name never caught on.
High powered amps are not necessary. They are at their best with a Berning EA-230 (see Sterophile revievew on David Berning Company web site), a tube type 30 watt per channel amp (see Stereophile), although my highly tweeked one checks out at 45 watts. Next best: Mcintosh 6450, 75 watts/channel; then Adcom 365, 60 watts. Don't buy power, buy sound quality.
Their ability to throw the soundstage is amazing. Instruments appear to be located in thin air, six feet away from the speakers. I have them aginst the side walls in a room 15 ft wide. Main listening chair about 12 ft away centered between the speakers, but the sound heard from this optimal position is no better than from a chair aginst the side wall 12 feet directly in front of one speaker.
The common complaint that they are base thin is only partially true. They are "flat" to about 40 cps (opps! showing my age again. These are called Hz now, but Hz means Cycles Per Second), and few other speakers can match that. That covers most bass, but not all. Most imprtant, they produce bass with incredible transient response. Timpani snap, and I've never heard this equlled by any cone speaker. If you want to add a subwoofer to extend the bass, beware of all comercial subwoofers where you can't adjust the crossover. Most subwoofers cross over around 120 cps which is midbass, not true bass, and you don't want to trade away the Quad's benefits from 120 to 40 cps to the sake of a few more really deep bass notes.
If you can't find a subwoofer with the proper crossover frequency, either buy an outboard elecronic, adjustable crossover or build your own subwoofer. I built my own, with a 15" woofer from Radio Shack and a bedside stand (with lots of internal bracing and stuffed with wall insulation) from K-Mart for the speaker enclocsure. It beats any commercial product for use with these speakers. You will have to find a lesson in speaker design to learn how to build a crossover that terminates the frequencies above 40 cps. In other words, do not connect the Quads to the crossover. Anything inserted in the circut to the speakers is going to do more harm than good. You cannot improve on them by filtering their low frequency response (a crossover is essentiall a joint high and low filter centered at some particular frequency). Terminating the high frequencies at the Subwoofer instead of passing them on to the Quads, which [subwoofer] should be connected thru a processer circut or tape out to a separate power amp, removes any possibily of degrading the sound quality of the Quads. Rememebr, subwoofers usually REPLACE some of the sound otherwise produced by the main speakers. You cannot replace the Quad's sound. All you want to do is provide those few very deep bass notes they can't put out.
The hard part in building a proper subwoofer is making a choke coil that needs about 10 lbs. of copper wire. I solved this by going to a parts store and buying a spool of copper wire by weight. Since wire is wound on a spool with an open center, it is the same thing as a choke coil when power is sent thru the wire still on the spool. You can also calculate the number of feet of copper wire needed for the coil and buy a spool that way. THis is all easy to compute from directions on how to build a crossover.

Similar Products Used:

Similar!!? There ain't no such.

verisumilitude. A Recreation of part of the musical event well enough to reacreate a sense of the performers and/or sonic holograph of the reording space.

typical stats: bass (what's there is wonderful) and sheer DB's

Although I recently sold my Quad ESL-63's, I thought I'd share some of my oddessy with you, in the hopes of detailing some of the pleasures and pains of owning a product with the performance and requirements similar to what Ferrari owners must go through.


I owned a pair (in the eleven thousands- right before a major switch) that had had the Crosby modifcation installed by the previous owner.

I wasn't even in the market for high end audio, when I walked in to a computer/hifi store to pick up a printer cable. I inquired if those "shallow" speakers were stats, and since I had never heard one, asked for a demo. Even through a fairly modest rig of quad gear, I heard something that I didn't even know was possible if home reproduction. It was akin to real players performing in a real space. I knew somehow I had to have them, though I had no intention of spending the outrageous sum of $4000 they were asking for the US Monitors. The store had a reprint of the Absolute sound review, where I became hooked on the mag and learned of the Crosby Mod and how it improved on an already wonderful speaker.

Though there was no place in NY to listed to this ellusive modded speaker, I decide to look for a used pair, and actually found some older ESL 63's with the Crosby Mod for about $2500.

I set out to replicate the system Lyric Hifi was pushing at the time since I didn't yet know enough myself to put together a syngergistic combination with the right impedence. I pieced together a Spectral DMC10 and DMA 50 Amp with MIT shotgun cables through AUdiomart and The NY Times used section at much less than half what the rig would cost new. (this was well before the net proper)

Hearing the Crosby version of the speaker in my apartment was like rediscovering the ESL-63's for the first time. The soundstage was larger than the US monitors I had heard in quite a few showrooms and homes. I believe Harry Pearson or REG of Absolute Sound thought the non Crosby sounded a bit miniaturized in comparison and that the mod extended the window of authenticity an extra octave in either direction, and I heard exactly to what they were referring as well as numerous other strenghts.

I almost never heard a high end demo after that that made me ever want to change speakers or feel I wasn't listening to among the very best recreations of recorded music modern technology had to offer.

Over time I felt the Spectral gear to be a bit threadbare, and was ready to sell it when I heard of Bob Crump and his 1 man company, TG audio. I got 2 AC cords for the amp and pre and DC umbilical cord for the pre's power supply. It literally tamed the beast, and though the spectral balance didn't radically change, the system became more relaxed, musical, and listenable. I highly recommend this to Spectral owners (at least of that vintage gear) The next mod was a custom piece Bob did for a friend who was selling it. Tech lab dual volume pots for the DMC-10 bypassed with a pair of Vishays. It was the $200 upgrade from heaven, and my used preamp turns out was even pre drilled for the Tech labs (a previous owner obviously knew the value of this pot) A pair of Corion tops replaced the steel covers on the Spectrals, and The Quads were outfitted with Cardas hex 5 power cords and had led shot in bags placed on top. The acrcic's were loaded with Sand. I swear every little change became easy to hear with this setup. Just lifting the cables of the wood floor becase easily audible, and unplugging digital gear and appliances became de rigeur for any serious listening session.

After 2 years or so of satisafaction, I decided to try taking home a pair of used Atma Sphere MA1's to demo. The midrange and top was like nothing I had ever heard before, but the bass was too bloated and uncontrolled. I later learned of other people using this setup sucessfully amd I decided to take a chance on a different used pair.

Through numerous talks with Ralph Karsten at ATma, I was able to wire in some resisitors to the XLR shorting plug and get acceptable bass response. It was still a bit bloated for me, but in comparison to the spectral/quad aenemic version of bass, it was welcome. And did I meantion that mid and highs from heaven?

Now this is where my ride get bumpy. It seems within a year or so I began to get panel failures in 1 of the speakers. Did the Atma's precipitate it with their extra bass enegery? Who knows, and I have since heard of many Quad owners replacng panels regardless of amp used. I found a superb Quad repair guy named Doug Cassara in Westchester NY (914-698-5745 if anyone needs repairs) Even the importer, QS&D suggests going to this guy instead of shipping to them if you are in the NY area. They say his repair work is comparable or maybe even better)

I ended up putting 3 costly panels in that speaker over the next few years , and I've heard this is common as the speaker starts to get older. And I would consider NY to be a fairly dry climate, so it can't be blamed on humidity. Now that replacement panels are something like $400 before labor, it is definitley something to consider.

But all in all, I never heard a dynamic speaker that satisfied my acoustic sensibilities. Even Martin Logal CLS 2's of the time didn't cast the same musical spell for me.


Then one day I became friendly with a Soundlab A1 owner. I realized if you had the space and money, stats could indeed play with bass authority and with the SPL's of dynamic drivers. I still felt that my Crosby 63's captured a narrow band in the mids with a truth that even escaped the tweaked out A1's. Several years later, when I heard his new Soundlab U1's, (over 20 grand- but they do have smaller designs which are quite similar for substantially less)

Soundlabs seem to have very few dealers these days which makes it difficult to hear, but I will say that their current designs have all the strenghts of the best quads with none of the weaknesses. ALso I believe there is no deterioration in their panels over the years. I have not heard the new 988 or 989 Quads so I can't comment.

If I were given the choice today between getting a free Wilson x-1 or Grand Slam (at about $150 grand) or the SOundlab U1, there would be no contest. I beleive them to be the ultimate stat, and I one day dream of owning a smaller pair from their product line (and an apartment of appropriate size to match) as my version of sonic Nirvana.

Being a grossly under employed filmaker type, I chose to sell the QUads this time, rather than sink yet more money into them. The new buyer got a great deal, and is fully aware of the problems and joys that go along with owning older QUads.

I am awaiting delivery of my first high end dynamic speaker from a little known company called Source Technology (used to be Infinite Slope) that uses the Revelator tweeter.

As I said, I never heard a dynamic speaker I could live with, but at this juncture of my life with the savings in maintenance and space (our apartment now looks huge without those Quads on Arcici's 1/3rd of the way into the room) and the fact I can now fold my 2 channel and 5 channel into 1 system, I suspect I will be happy with sizzle and boom and merely Hifi audio as opposed to hearing back into the studio spaces of my favorite recordings. Even a musician friend playing a cassette dub of a mixdown from a major recording studio heard more detail (and too much reverb on his voice) on my QUads than in the control room off the master tape!!!

I will surely miss them, and I hope my saga enlightened at least a few readers as to these incredible products.

to me they are one of the world's most accurate reproducers of 'time' in every sense of the word. isn't that what music/sound is about? low harmonic and phase distortion; no audible intermodulation at moderate levels. i even can have my smoke without feeling sick and desorientated (when it stops it stops!) after 5 minutes. no other big time speaker could be more involving at lower listening levels (80dB down) where the real joy seems to be most present. not even stax headgear. but taste differs with people as the wise say.

delicate in construction: how long will the membranes last? addictive: what to do if someone breaks into my house and takes them ... going back to medium wave on a tube radio?

being someone who likes to experiment with psycho acoustical phenomena these tools to me are like the incision knife of a surgeon: precise and to the 'point'. the hear-through of these speakers is a necessary quality when trying to find out what's in a recording. i know how easily one is being fooled by tricks that they did with even the most expensive models that cost more than i would earn in 3 years. no matter how good or delicate they may seem: one can always notice the phase irregularities and coloring of a multi element system after having listened to a single element system for a while. this is the year 2000 and i know that loudspeaker technology is improving rapidly but no one could convince me untill now that the rules of nature can be succeeded. that's why the quads are so future proof and worth their money in every way. ofcourse one needs a musical sense of what it's about but once there: the icing on the cake!
sometimes i let them rise to 57.5 seconds (in phase!) without a fuss or headache.

my rather sober amps consist of revox b 252 and quad 306 which go together like they were made for eachother. i guess that they used the 63's when they designed the 252 and in reverse quad used the 252 designing the 306. well, at least in my dreams i would like it to be that way.

olé!

Similar Products Used:

impulse 'imp'; philips mfb 532/587; other crap

BASS IS ACCURATE, BASS DRUM,TYMPANI, BASS CLARINET, TUBA, CONTRA BASSOON, AND STRING BASS CAN BE EASILY IDENTIFIED WHEN ALL ARE PLAYING TOGETHER. THERE IS NO BOX SOUND AS WITH ANY P.M. SPEAKER. MID RANGE IS CLEAR- IT IS EASY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND ANOTHER, TO SAY NOTHING OF DIFFERENT SINGERS. HIGHS ARE STILL THE BEST I HAVE HEARD. THE CYMBALS SOUND NATURAL, I HAVE NEVER HEARD A P.M. SPEAKER APPROACH.

MOSTLY MINOR, THE SPEAKERS COULD BE A TOUCH MORE EFFICIENT.

THE SPEAKERS SOUND CLOSER TO THE REAL THING THAN ANY I HAVE YET HEARD. I WILL NOT USE ANY OF THE HIGH-FI TERMS LIKE SOUNDSTAGE OR PRESENCE OR OTHER TERMS THAT MOST REVIEWERS LIKE TO USE. THEY ARE BY AND LARGE MEANINGLESS TERMS. EITHER IT SOUNDS LIKE AN OBOE OR IT DOESN'T. GOOD FOR US, THANK GOD. THE QUAD DOES ITS JOB WELL. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE PHILHARMONIA REPLACED ITS PRINCIPAL TRUMPET, I RECOGNIZED THE DIFFERENCE IMMEDIATELY. ON PM SPEAKERS FORGET IT, THEY CANNOT RESOLVE THE SOUND WELL ENOUGH. S SYLLABLES ARE REPRODUCED NATURALLY AS ARE TONAL QUALITIES OF THE VOICE ITSELF WHETHER A SINGLE SINGER OR CHORAL. AS TO PERCUSSION, NOTHING IS MORE NATURAL. MY SPEAKERS PRODUCE 30CPS AS LOUD AS 50CPS AND THE SOUND SEEMS TO BE LOUDER AT 40CPS THAN AT 30 OR 50. THIS COULD BE CHALKED UP TO ROOM RESONANCE. EVERYTHING IS NATURAL FROM THESE FREQUENCIES UPWARD. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIKE TO PLAY BET TYPE MUSIC VERY LOUDLY. THE COMMENTS FROM THEM IS, IT IS THE BEST THEY HAVE HEARD.

Similar Products Used:

SOUND LAB-MARTIN LOGAN

The closest thing to real music as I've ever heard reproduced.

SPL in a big room, deep bass.

When compared to the real thing- live unamplified acoustic music produced in real space, the Quads are without competition.
Years ago, I drove straight home after attending a performance at the Metropolitan Opera, turned on my system, and listened to something approximating the real thing.
The fact that a pair can be had today for under $2500 makes them an astounding bargain.
I was fortunate enough to be working at a Quad dealer many years ago, and was offered a pair directly from the importer at $1400. brand new as part of a sales contest.
It was the last speaker purchase I will ever make.

Similar Products Used:

Magnepan MG3a, Apogee Caliper, Sound Lab A3, Sound Lab Pristine 3.

Veryacurate and musical transducer.

Very fragile and sensible to hygrometric changes that can provoque breakdown in elements and costly repairs.Better having a deshumidifier in the room to maintain stable hygrometric conditions.

My favourite speaker .
Exclusively for people who loves chamber music, baroque orchestras, jazz and human voice and piano. Excell in rendering all nuances, shades and emotions on Shubert or Morike lieders.
To be played without subwoofers and without stands.

Similar Products Used:

Quad ESL 57

Best speaker I have listened to yet.

A bit pricey.

This is the most natural speaker I have listened to. Wide
soundstage and lively dynamics. Unlike other speakers
listened to the bass has pitch. One very bad thing happened, I had to send the speakers off to be repaired,
and they were repair with German remanufactored units. Do
not do this. These panels produce a dull sound. No volume,
and they start giving trouble within a years time, sparks.
The coating is burned off within a short while and the
speaker does not sound right even with a "new" remanufactored element. Right out of the box it was bad.
I have heard other 63s with these units and they sounded
just as bad as mine did. Either use English Quad panels or
those made by Sheldon, or the Electrostatic Doc.

Similar Products Used:

merlin,
Merlin, B&W

Delivers the most natural reproduction of the human voice that I have ever heard, does not tend to decrease the dynamics and details of the program material(at low/moderate volume). Very large soundstage, perfect stereo image. Cheap bought at the 2.hand used market.

Mecanical veak, have sufferd form "cold" solderings, but no problems in getting them fixed. Spareparts hard/impossible to get hold on, as speaker is no longer in production.
Optimal placing in the room is hard to obtain, but never the less they will sound great almost anyway you place them.
Bass - it is there, it is very clean, not boomy, correct you may put it, but most people does not find it satisfying, perhaps due to the lack of distortion that we have become used to from "normal" speakers(this is said to be typical more than 10% in the 40-100Hz range, where the Quads hold themselves below 1%.

Maybe the best speaker availeble if your taste of music is focused on acoustic instruments, such as classical or folk, but they will play absolutley anything with remarkeble drive and enthusiasm, it just does not have the power to make rythmic music seem real. It's playingstyle is at bit to "arrogant", or "cool" for rythmic music such as techno and heavyrock, maybe due to its quickness and low distortion.
I have tried many amplifires, both cheap and expensive ones, class A/B, class A and tubes. What I ended up with was an integrated tubeamp, delivering 50W per channel in class A. Not much on the paper, but it drives the Quads With power and exelence.
This combination can easy match some VERY expensive new "up to date technolegy" combinations that I have heard, at least in the middle and high range that is. The new combination can play louder, and with more powerfull bass.
So as I se it , it all comes down to ones taste of music - either it is the best, or just very damn good.

My only concern goes to the lack of spareparts.

Transparency, quickness, detail

Placement, trying to blend with Sub

After my 15+ year old Magnepan MGI's bit the dust I decided to purchase new speakers. After much online review and some listening to other speakers (B&W, ProAc, Vandersteen), I saw a pair of used Quad ESL 63's on ebay through a reputable dealer (Qsandd). I purchased and have been pleasently surprised by these speakers. Very nice detail, transparency and imaging. I was not impressed with the volume I could get out of these speakers until I upgraded my amp from a Audio Research CA50 Integrated Amp to a VAC PA100100 tube Amp. I am now very happy with the Quad's. I bought a M&B sub-woofer for HT use and tried to integrate with the Quad's for music but didn't like the sound. From what I read it is very difficult to integrate a sub but I'm not concerned. The bass is very good without a sub. I added DIY Jon Risch absorbtion panels behind the speakers and the sound improved somewhat. I will add Arcici stands soon.

Equipment:
VAC PA 100100 Tube Amp
Creek OBH-12 Passive Pre-amp
Marantz 63se CD
MSB Link DAC III with PSU
Rega Planar II with Rega Elys cert.
Rotel Phono Pre-amp
Kimber Hero and 4VS cables

Similar Products Used:

Magnepan MGI

Clarity and realism of sound; soundstage.

None to speak of, although they are a bit shy in the deepest part of the bass register (not much music down there)

After having used Quad ESL 57s for about 30 years, I bought the ESL 63s used about two years ago. After I fair amount of comparative listening (I still have the 57s) I have concluded that although the 57s may appear to have a bit more clarity in the midrange, I'm not sure that is correct, but the overall performance of the 63s (frequency and soundstage) is superior. I cannot understand the prior review, unless the speakers purchased were defective. If a good pair can be purchased for less than $1,500, they are a bargain.

Similar Products Used:

Quad ESL 57