|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.161.13.49
In Reply to: Quad Speakers posted by carpenter3 on April 25, 2007 at 06:36:20:
To begin with, Quad was a British company (not sure who owns them now) that marketed the first "full range" electrostatic speaker, now known as the ESL-57, which was actually first marketed in 1956, as well as a later model, the ESL-63, which was first marketed in 1983. Models since then have been based on the design of the ESL-63, with refinements in design (the 988 and 2805) or additional panels for more bass (the 989 and 2806).They all share a seamless, "of a piece" sound, very transparent and neutral, with the first model in particular having a "magical" midrange, while the later models were considered more neutral but not quite as "alive." They are also relatively limited in how loudly they will play, especially in the bass. The first model is the most limited, with the larger later models (989 and 2806) being least limited, but none will play at live rock levels. To be fair, even the first model will play at live classical orchestral levels as measured by an SPL meter, but many audiophiles don't believe that quite reproduces the impact of an orchestra at full bore, preferring louder than real levels to get that impact (IMHO). Nevertheless, sound producing capability is a major limitation of all the Quads. Certainly, there are many, more expensive speakers which will go lower, higher and much louder than the Quads and many cannot live with the Quad's limitations in those areas. However, within their limits, many audiophiles feel that Quad's slogan, "for the closest approach to the original sound" is more truth than hype.
They are also considered quite amplifier sensitive, especially the first model, which has been known to cause amplifiers to go into oscillation, damaging themselves as well as the speakers. Also, the ESL-57's treble panels will actually arc with an electrical spark if they are driven with too much power (maximum 100 watts peak into 8 ohms or around 32 volts peak) . The ESL-63 and later models actually have a built in protective circuit that will short circuit the amplifier if it tries to deliver too much power, which is not considered a friendly action by the amplifier. :-).
Below is a link to a Planar Speaker Asylum post on amplifiers for the ESL-57s. Note that the David Chesky mentioned in the post is one of the Chesky brothers of Chesky Records, a well known audiophile record company. Gary Krakow, who is also mentioned, writes a technology column for MSNBC and has also written reviews of audiophile equipment on MSNBC. He is also a Quad ESL-57 owner.
HTH.
Follow Ups:
The 57 is about 50 years old now and certainly one of the top 10 classic speaker designs of all time but I can't conceive how such a polite speaker with such limited dynamics(both macro and micro) could begin to sound live, very nice and detailed, yes but live ?
Without knowing under what circumstances that you heard the Quads I can't make a definite reply. Also you don't indicate what is important to you in giving the impression of live. Is it sheer volume? Tonality? What? IME they sound best when heard at fairly close distances - in my case my listening seat is about 7 feet away from the Quads.I find that the Quads are excellent at microdynamics (perhaps your definition is different from mine, but mine involves small expressive changes in dynamics such as accents and emphasis) and adequate at macrodynamics, i.e. how loud it can play.
At my listening distance I have measured 102 dB peak levels using a Heathkit spectrum analyzer. A long long time ago, in TAS, PHD took an Ivie Spectrum Analyzer into a live concert and reported "at no time during the N.C. Symphony performance of Bolero did the peak pressure levels exceed 96 dB." That suggests adequate macrodynamics, although, as I said, many audiophiles prefer louder than real levels and for that a Quad may not satisfy.
Certainly the Quads can sound polite if listened to at too far a distance (as can any speaker).
And as far as live, in the Planar Speaker Asylum post alluded to in my original post, David Chesky is quoted as saying that a pair of original Quads produced "the closest reproduction of his composed/performed/conducted/recorded works he has ever heard!!!" Sounds like close to live to me. Of course that's just his opinion.
I find that given a reasonably 'good' speaker and I don't want to go into the infinitely long discussion of what that means other than the classic low coloration and decent bandwidth and transients, the factors that seem to make a speaker sound live to me are linear changes in dynamics. The accuracy of the level changes is important to me. And there is the problem of the software. If it's compressed in any way like a lot of software is, it complicates judgements on the hardware. But I do feel that I get a sense of the dynamics from a good deal of the software. That means both macro and micro and I suspect the micro may be the more important of the two. Most speakers sound like wide bandwidth radios to me, they seem to compress everything even at low levels. Playing very loud tells very little. It may be loud but perhaps it should be even louder but how do you know when ones ears are already overloded.
And I'm still not convinced the Quads do very well at linear dynamics except at very low overall levels. I certainly respect David Chesky. The quality of his recordings can't really be questioned. But I stil have doubts about his statements. Experience and reputation increase the probability of ones statements being accurate; they don't guarantee it.
For what it's worth, I was a bit leary of writing my first comments. It's always dangerous to pick on a icon such as the Quads and especially perilous to pick on one that deserves to be an icon like the Quad. I do have tremendous respect for it. I have held back on many other audio icons for just that reason.
Well, in my view it is useless to argue about subjective impressions. What you hear is what you hear. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that to some extent perceptions of decreased or increased dynamics is related to linear frequency response - in other words, a slight boost in certain frequency ranges may lead to a perception of increased dynamics, and conversely a dip in the same range may lead to a perception of compressed dynamics. For example, horns, which tend to have relatively uneven frequency responses, are often touted as having great dynamics. Just a guess. Certainly, within its loudness limits, an electrostatic speaker should have very linear dynamics, objectively speaking.As to David Chesky, one of the reasons for quoting him is that, unlike most audiophiles, record producers actually HAVE listened to the original live sounds as well as the recording, and thus should have the best idea of what is on the record and what compromises have been made. Everybody else is just guessing.
Well then in reference to Chesky because he does recording, I suspect Gordon Holt would not be in total agreement with him. Gordon recorded the Boulder Symphony for over ten years and finally felt he got accurate reproduction(sounding like the live performances he recorded) when he finally got a set of ATC 50 powered monitors and they sound nothing like a Quad 57.
I have a lot of respect for both Chesky and Holt, as I'm sure you do. One reason why I used to pay more attention to Holt was that, unlike most reviewers, he used his own source material as references, which I felt made him more reliable as a reviewer. I've never heard the ATCs so have no comment on their sound. As I said before there's no arguing subjective impressions, and certainly no arguing subjective preferences.
It isn't frequency response because I get the same reaction to a dynamic speaker versus a non-dynamic one when I'm out of the room and frequency response is certainly different then.
Actually the whole question of what makes something sound live from the next room is a very interesting one, and most people have had the experience of hearing something in another room and knowing immediately it's live and not recorded. Most of the traditional speaker parameters - frequency response, dispersion, etc. would seem to be screwed up by the trip the sound wave takes from one room to the next. Maybe time coherence and lack of dynamic compression of the first arrival sound has something to do with it. Then there are the speakers that some say sound MORE live from the next room than when you're in the same room. I have NO idea what's going on there!
I've felt the reason a speaker sounds 'live' from out of the room is correct change in level(dynamics both macro AND micro) because that probably isn't screwed up by leaving the room like frequency response, etc. I've discussed this with Gordon Holt and he agrees.
Just to throw in my two cents worth. I had a pair of ESL-57 for many years while I was living in a small apartment with an untreated living room. The Quads were perfect for such an environment, as dipole radiators have reduced side wall reflections, and I could place them a long way from the back wall. I changed all the panels to One Thing Audio panels, and upgraded the EHT units as well. The sound was very transparent and microdynamics (or what you might call musicality) were excellent.
I then moved into a bigger place, with a properly designed listening room. The room has no parallel walls, a sloping ceiling, a built-in tuneable bass trap and the walls are lined with acoustic wood and fibreform for absorption/diffusion. The reverberation time is <0.5s, and there is no standing wave. Here, the Quads actually do less well. I was not able to get the listening volume up to realistic levels ( and this is with just two-year-old panels and EHT). When placed further apart then before (now about 9 - 10 ft apart), the imaging suffers unless I am seated dead in the middle. The bass has also become deficient without the help of the room.
So is it possible to retain the lovely midrange of the Quads while gaining better extension and SPL ? It is indeed possible. I put together a 3-way horn system using EV T350 tweeters, JBL 2450 midrange with wood horns and Altec 515E bass in a reflex cab. The crossover is active, the amps used for the Quads are now driving the midrange. On AB comparison, the midrange is easily the equal of the Quads, but with more dynamics and a slightly more upfront presentation, but the treble and the bass is a huge step forward., and needless to say the macrodynamics is beyond comparison.
I used to believe that there is nothing better than the Quad midrange and "speed", but now I know that this is absolutely untrue. Given the right room and a tight budget, the Quads are still hard to beat though.
If you're able to put the Quads 10 feet apart it's possible that the room is just too big, and/or you're sitting too far away, which would also explain why you can't achieve realistic levels. Remember Quads were designed for the average British home, which has relatively small rooms. I've used Quads in rooms that are less than 20 feet in biggest dimension, and in a roughly equilateral triangle with the listening seat about 7 feet from the speakers.
" then moved into a bigger place, with a properly designed listening room. The room has no parallel walls, a sloping ceiling, a built-in tuneable bass trap and the walls are lined with acoustic wood and fibreform for absorption/diffusion. The reverberation time is <0.5s, and there is no standing wave. Here, the Quads actually do less well. I was not able to get the listening volume up to realistic levels ( and this is with just two-year-old panels and EHT). When placed further apart then before (now about 9 - 10 ft apart), the imaging suffers unless I am seated dead in the middle. The bass has also become deficient without the help of the room."Looks to me that you have some issues with the room, except if the room is exceedingly large there will always be standing waves, dips and notches, non-parrallel walls not withstanding, did you take any measurements in your new room? The issue of realistic volumes is probably valid, but issues with imaging, seem to be room induced.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Absolutely. The room has been measured. While there must be standing waves, the specturm is spread out so that there are no obvious peaks.
My old room had a peak in the mid-bass region, which seemed to suit the Quads well. Could even sound boomy if not careful. With a "flat" room, the bass seemed to roll off much earlier.
My new room is very absorptive, and is obviously too large for the Quads. It measures almost 600 square feet. I had to turn the volume much higher than before I moved, and the Quads were obviously compressing the dynamics when compared to the horns. I was driving them with my DIY 25W F2a11 push pull amps.
"The 57 is about 50 years old now and certainly one of the top 10 classic speaker designs of all time but I can't conceive how such a polite speaker with such limited dynamics(both macro and micro) could begin to sound live, very nice and detailed, yes but live ?"The ESL sounds live with one of the most dynamic instruments of all, the piano. And thinking it, the ESL does not really sound detailed:-^
I think detail depends largely on the amp - I've found tube amps to conceal a lot of detail (although I've never had a top notch modern tube amp) - but my Quad 303 is scintillatingly (word?) detailed albeit without losing the coherence of the "big picture"...
/
.
Dang! Punctuation, capital letters, clear syntax,and, What's this?—paragraphs! Give me more.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: