What vintage speaker might you use today

Douglas_Schroeder

And it sounds like it's coming from an orchestra pit, the speaker is so lowered.

If you do not like the balcony presentation all you have to do is put a 2 x 4 piece of wood under the rear leg. It will raise the presentation - as high as you want. Anyone that has "actually" owned the 57 speaker knows this.

So, if you wish to judge my conclusion based on the gear I have owned, feel free.

I didn't ask you for a list of gear. It tells me nothing. When I ask questions its because I want to learn. The only way for me to learn with Audio is to be able to picture the room the guy is talking about.
I asked you for;

Room dimensions, Speakers, how driven, and what the SOURCE was.

For the two best vintage systems you have put together. If no pictures, and this is too difficult a request forget-about-it.

 

Hi Larryi
re: Quad 57
If I can comment on some of your observations as one of my audio "projects" from the last few years, and specifically the last few months have focused on addressing a number of the constraints you pointed out with the 57. I have uploaded to my system link a current pic of my Quad 57 setup in Room B for reference. Excuse the mess and paraphernalia.

Larryi - I totally agree that the Quad 57 remains a top competitor, provided that attaining extremely high volume and deep bass is not a major priority.

oops this post went long - sorry

The room/space is irregular 20 ' wide by 24 '. It is adjacent to my Music Room A. There is a staircase going up. That plus if I leave the door to Music Room A open creates much more volume. The space I use is the top of the backwards 7 and it is sectioned off by the heavy curtain. Its an in progress build out that unfortunately due to being away and listening in it; finishing touches have been delayed. I say this from a cosmetic point of view, not a sound waves one. The Quad 57 needs a live room. The mid-panel of the 57 speakers are 42 inches high. They are 7 feet in from the front wall. This placement does a few things. It eliminates the head in the vice constraint. You can actually stand up. It places the performers on a 2 foot platform stage which I like.

Now not sure what you mean by extremely high volume. I care about my ears. I am about to turn 54 in a few months, I can still hear to 17k on good days. I am using sub/s - more on this in a bit - and I play at 80-90db averages with 100 db + peaks . One can go much louder. I listen around 80-85 db average.

I went through external tweeters until I realized it was my amp (in my own language) what seemed like choking on the high ohms bass requirement to the point they had nothing left to produce the highs properly. Maybe Almarg can provide a technical description. Saturated or oscillating transformers? Anyway I did research. I owned a modded Music Reference RM9 for many years; This research led me to Roger Modjeski, his 57's, and his Music Reference Rm10 designed for the 57's. I acquired an Rm10, No more external tweeters and no fear of arching.

Fully functional 57 speakers are rated 45k - 18khz. Rate of attenuation outside of the band asymtotic to 18 db/8ve. So properly functioning Quads are good for me on their HF when positioned properly in the room. Now the bass... and it helps to reference the pic loaded on my system page which shows sub locations tried.

Not much I have heard can compete to my ears with the quick start stop of an ESL's bass. But the problem with ESL bass for me, has always been trying to match the visceral in your chest impact of cones. Pressurization of the room is needed for me with full scale Classical, Double bass Jazz, and being the age I am; the Classic Rock I grew up with. Room pressurization at say 85db levels, gets the endorphins flowing for me. But even more so human voice harmonies is still my biggest personal endorphins trigger, and this is why I have been stubborn and enduring with the 57's. The 57's bass is the quickest of the ESL's I have owned. 63's do not have the same magic for me. And double stacked quads are not a linear upgrade.

Re: Stacked Quads - Peter Walker said in the interview that the stacked setup gives 6db more in the bass - and 3 db more everywhere else.
So...They don't play any lower, and it is not a straight linear upgrade to the original single 57 output. The one double setup I heard had too many variables, maybe a bad panel. The magic was not there. So how does one integrate subs for the lowest octave ?

I experimented in my room and I came up with an option that worked for me. The arrows on the system pic point to the locations tried. I discovered that any good sub thats goes down to 20 hz, with crossover and phase control will work. The key is to sync up bass waves and the one way to do this IMO with the 57 is nearfield. What ends up happening is the sub is not asked to perform very hard. On a typical Sub the db dial of 1- 10, I am using "1" with the crossover set up at 50hz. I have had folks over and no one can tell me where the sub is located. They can only say when I ask, that the 57 speakers in front of them are producing it. When I show them the camouflaged nearfield sub - they are in disbelief. Currently looking at selling off some audio items to bring two new subs in - nearfield. I have had two subs on loan in the past, but this was before I acquired the RM10 amplifier. Anyway that's how this project is shaping up. I am really excited about it and if anyone is in the GTA - Greater Toronto Area, and would like to hear the setup let me know - my email is on my systems page.
Cheers

I currently use a pair of Infinity IRS epsilons, I thought of selling them a while back only because they are 20 years old and Infinity no longer has any parts available for them but after listening to many new OVER PRICED speakers I gave up as I didn't want to have to spend upwards of $40,000 to best the sound of the epsilons.

 Snell A III's were, and in my opinion, still are wonderful speakers. 

Hi ct0517,

It appears that your Quad 57 setup is extremely well thought out and executed.  While the 57 is a speaker that is fairly "easy" to set up and will deliver good sound under most conditions, I am sure that going the extra mile as you have will make them extraordinary.  I place a very high priority on speakers sounding harmonically saturated and complete, and lively, when played at low volume levels.  The 57s and many horn-based systems are very good in that respect.  I don't care much that the 57s, or my horn system, do not work as well at the extremely high volume levels that others think is important.  

I also agree with you that the bass tonality and speed of the 57 is extremely good and I see you have addressed the extremely low bass and "impact" issue with a subwoofer.  Done correctly, subwoofers will add those elements of performance without detracting from performance.  The best implementation of subwoofers I have heard involved using them at very low levels, setting the crossover point quite low, and using multiple subwoofers (easier to get smoother and uniform bass coverage).  I think you are going in the right direction.  

I totally agree with you that the 63 does not have the same magic as the 57, it sounds analytical and "cold" by comparison.  As for stacked quads, I have heard both simple double 57 and the Levinson setup with the supertweeter between the top and bottom panels.  I like the stacked 57s for the added sense of scale, but, I have not heard them enough to know what that setup might give up (every difference involves compromises).

I particularly like the approach you have taken to getting the sound you desire.  You started with something that delivers the essential "magic" (whatever that is to you, I am sure it differs for each listener) and then found ways to improve and refine the sound.  That makes more sense to me than jumping around and constantly replacing one speaker with another totally different speaker and expecting the latest "technological breakthrough" to deliver the magic.