2. speakers
  3. 1192049267

Is Quad ESL57 most amazing speaker of all time?

Just had to try one of these as i had heard so much about it. Enjoyed a lot of old Quad stuff so thought must be good. Recently in my room passed the following speakers, Spendor BC1 spendor SP1, Harbeth 30 and 40's. Reynaud offrandes, audio physic avanti, Audio note ANE spx, Avantagrde duo's(modified subwoofers), tANNOY GOLD DUAL CONCENTRICS, ETC ETC ETC.

Within minutes i heard more from a recording than i ever had with any other speaker I have knowm. The realism and detail due to the fast transients are absolutely astonishing. Ok will not go loud bass a little monochrome, but how could you live without that midrange?? It is that good. I was using jadis JPL pre and a good old cheap Quad 606. I didnot even have the chance to drag out the megabucks Audio Note signature 300b mono's before I blew the treble on one unit. Apparently very common. Only the Audio Note speaker approaches the Quad for sound quality although the audio note gets the emotional aspects spot on, the Quad as good as it is in communicating the emotion is just so scarily intimately accurate. Accurate to the point that it is unrealistic. By that I mean that you are so intimate with the musician or vocalist its as if you got up on the stage and sat beside them to hear details you never would if you were in the audience.

Is there any body else out there who can see where i am coming from??? Or is this just a one night stand??
audiojoy4
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Luke,

What you report about the Quad mid range sounds accurate to me. I suspect you may tire of the deficiencies in the bass and lack of dynamics eventually, not a one night stand however, but give it a few months and you may be pinning for some realistic sound levels.

If you are enamoured with mid range then I am curious if you have considered ATC's? They will not be as perfect in the mid range as the Quad but the little you lose in mid range perfection you stand to gain in bass, dynamics and a much larger listening sweetspot. (all round performance that might be enough to stop your penchant for short affairs...)
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Luke you said
Within minutes i heard more from a recording than i ever had with any other speaker I have knowm.

Here is a review of the Quad ESL63 by J Gordon Holt.

He states "First of all, these speakers have inner detail like nothing I have ever heard!" and "this is one of the smoothest [frequency response] through the midrange that I have ever measured."

That kind of praise coming from Holt means they are indeed amazing! No doubt about it.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
the audionote is not in the same class as the quad 57. as far as timbre is concerned the quad is as good as it gets.

no cone speaker can compete with the quads.

i owned stacked quads for 7 years. i was in audio heaven.

all other speakers, including panels are more inaccurate the quad 57s, in their range.
newbee
4,792 posts
 
Shadrone, Gordon was right - at the time at least. Anyone want to buy mine! :-)
whart's avatar
whart
3,106 posts
 
I have both the 57 (although they are moldering in my basement) and the 63 (a Crosby modded pair), and let me tell you, to paraphrase something similar, I know the 57 and the 63 (even Crosby modded) ain't no 57.
THe 63 will play deeper, louder, is more dynamic and less beamy, but it is not as coherent as the 57. That said, the 57 does suffer from severe limitations. It is, though, so spot on with what it does right that it often makes you forget that it is like a painting in miniature. I have promised myself to get mine restored, and would love to try them with my Lamm ML 2s and my current front end, which is slightly more resolving than my turntable/preamp/amp system from the early seventies.
More to discover