Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
75.5.250.241
In Reply to: RE: ESL57 speaker protection- clampboard alternatives? posted by kentaja on June 26, 2014 at 07:02:38
There is no such thing as fully reliable protection for the Quad 57. My Quads suffered a failure when the amplifier was turned off. The design is not fundamentally robust. If you want ESLs and don't want to worry about playing them too loud try Sound Labs.
Follow Ups:
One might argue there is no such thing as a 100% reliable thing made on the planet! If it is made by made by man by definition it cannot be 100%.Putting that bit of philosophy aside the original Quad ESL is a quite robust and reliable design. What might happen in any particular situation, unfortunately, does not mean that a design is unreliable there are too many variables to account for. I had a tube fail in my amp, tube amps are not reliable better to stick with solid state amps, etc.
Edits: 06/26/14
kentaja said "...the original Quad ESL is a quite robust and reliable design."
You must be using new definitions of the words "robust" and "reliable" that I am unfamiliar with. :-)
I am trying to think of a speaker that is more fragile and prone to failure than Walker's Quad ESL... I'm thinking. Suggesting that a failed Quad is a statistical oddity can only be described as misguided if not absurd. The failure rate is so high that there is a cottage industry that does nothing but repairs or manufactures panels--as if you didn't know that.
The Quad ESL was among the best sounding speakers I have owned. Reliable? No way.
Again sorry to hear about your experience with the Quad. That does not make them unreliable it just means you had some sort of issue with the speakers. When the speakers were in production decades ago the typical failure mode was the owner using a completely inappropriate amp and destroying the tweeters. Nothing wrong with the design just means their owners had no idea what they were doing. Fortunately the protection clamp board solves this problem. But this was the major issue generations ago.If you like statistics, numbers, here are the numbers. You had a pair with some issues. One pair. Or maybe you had a couple pairs.
I have owned Quads for 30+ years. Serviced them for 30+ years. Rebuilt them for 20+ years. In that time I have seen literally hundreds if not approaching a thousand units. When I service or rebuild a Quad I offer a 3-year warranty. 3 years! On a speaker in some cases that is 40-50+ years old! Heck when they were brand new the factory only gave you a 1 year warranty.
After all these decades, literally hundreds of speakers, thousands of panels, do you know how many original Quads have come back? One bad panel in one speaker. That is it. One. I would say the numbers are overwhelmingly in my favor. Statistically speaking the numbers confirm my claims. I have a business to run, a reputation to maintain. I don't make claims, statements about the reliability of Quads lightly.
When we started this conversation you claimed the Quad is unreliable, based on your experience, and the SoundLab, based on your experience, is reliable. I have given you my experience with the original Quad. And I will give you my experience with the SoundLab.
Full disclosure I just became a SoundLab dealer. I purchased a pair of M-3PX as my demo speakers. Man I was excited to get the speakers. Love the things!!!! One was DOA. That's right, dead right out of the box. Do I now conclude, based on my experience with one pair of speakers, that they are an unreliable design?
Edits: 06/27/14 06/27/14
I am not sure why you are sorry for my experience with the Quad ESL I certainly am not. I enjoyed my time with my Quads and rank it among the best speakers I have owned. I had a bass panel fail for no apparent reason. I replaced it.
Are you sure that you want to take the position that this was an anomaly? If you do it makes me wonder if we are talking about the same speaker.
Magneplanar voice coils delaminate. Dahlquist woofer surrounds disintegrate. Quad panels fail. We love them all in spite of these idiosyncrasies. To deny these realities is, I think, misguided or deceitful.
You come across as an (extreme) apologist who cannot enjoy the speaker without denying its well known limitations. I am a fan of the Quad ESL in spite of its quirks. Your statistically insignificant (and pedantic) Sound Labs example is absurd as you indicated. My personal Quad sample size is much larger and is supported--admittedly anecdotally--by my observation of 30+ years of cottage industry repairs/modifications, and 20 years of personal experience with this wonderful and flawed speaker. Good DAY sir!
I'll add my two cents here.
I have listened to the same pair of Quad 57s since I bought them new in 1976. They have been very reliable. I had the tweeter panels refurbished in 1991, because I used them without clamp boards and became a bit too enthusiastic with some amps I was auditioning. My fault entirely. I had them completely refurbished 23 years later in 2013 by Kentaja. They sound superb. So I've used these speakers for over 37 years with what I regard as reasonable maintenance. I call that very reliable. Rock on! Or Jazz on!
Actually I see probably 3 or 4 pairs like this every year. Well maintained in most cases all original never been serviced since they left the factory. I would guess that even after all these decades there are still tens-of-thousands out there still working nicely and giving their owner lots of listening pleasure.
These speakers still work and sound great but as you found out not quite like they once did.
Hate to bust the legend around Quads being fragile and unreliable. They are not. In most cases they were misused by their owner causing panel failure. Your experience with the tweeters panels is a good example. Or folks just buy a tired, worn out example and then jump to the conclusion they must be junk. Sound great but basically unreliable.
The funny thing is a Quad not working quite right still sounds better than most speakers one will ever hear. The reason some find these tired examples nice sounding but are having constant problems. Get them working correctly. Not only will they sound much better but there will be NO reliability issues.
And you, SIR, come across as a smug prick.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
I have no need to apologize for anything in this life and most certainly no need to apologize for the Quad.
Sure stuff fails. Everything has a service life. And no matter how well a thing is designed, engineered and built a certain number will fail. Nothing is perfect.
I have never denied in this thread, or any comments you might find of mine, that Quads never fail. They do, like anything else. What I have always taken exception with, and will continue to do so, is the notion that Quads are terribly unreliable devices. Quite the opposite actually. Generally the problems were simply a function of the owner having no idea what they were doing with the speakers.
Yes my SoundLab comment was silly was meant to be and it made my point. My experience and problem with the SoundLab is irrelevant at this point. Not enough data points yet. And your comments are just as silly about the Quad like it or not and largely irrelevant in terms of determining the designs reliability. But instead of going on-line and making silly, meaningless comment about my experience I simply chalked up my experience to bad luck. Stuff happens.
Sure we see lots of Quad failures these days and with over 55,000 units produced that is a lot of failure any more. The youngest ESL will now be 30 years old the majority of them being 40-50 years old. They are all past their service life but many still soldier on giving great service. Actually an amazing fact. But for some strange reason there are certain number of people that seem to think a thing should last forever.
Same thing with a Magnepan. There is a service life. Once you exceed their service life you will begin to have failures. And with what 400,000+ Magnepans in the world there will be at any given moment a lot of them out there that are broken. Is the design unreliable? I don't hardly thing so. The design is robost and reliable. Ditto vacuum tubes, phono cartridges, I could go on.
Nicely written Kentaja!
Factual and appropriate information.
Cheers!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
My speakers are 40 years old. And yes, they have been refurbished but they are still going strong. I expect to get another 20 years out of them.
SO MANY Quad stories like that. They just go on and on... FOR DECADES.
Sure, if you're an idiot you can blow them up.
But it is a very reliable design. Name another design from fifty seven years ago that is still widely in use and is still considered a reference.
Yeah, didn't think so.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
Off the top of my head...Infinity Servo Statik
AR 3
Dynaco A-25
Stax F81
Larger Advent
Klipschorn
JBL Paragon
KLH9
Lowther
Strathern
Rogers LS3/5a
Tannoy concentric
Tympani T-1U
Fulton J
Martin Logan CLSAll all mature designs that are legitimately viewed as reference designs by passionate audiophiles.
I've been fortunate to have owned several speakers from this list. I would rank my Quad ESL near the top. I experienced a leaking bass panel that failed (audibly) while my amp was turned off. I will likely own them again.
Edits: 06/27/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: