2. speakers
  3. 1111355071

After Quad ESL's?

I am enjoying listening to Quad esl-63's and to the 57's (which I prefer). And though my wife has enjoyed them also, she informs me that her heretofore acceptance of the visual impact on our living room has been "only out of love." Her valiant endurance of my Quad-love has come to an end, period.

It has been six years.

So, now the time has come:
Speak, Quad owners (and former Quad owners), about what else has worked for you.

I would like a smaller, (than the quad) used speaker that images better than the Quad's. These are some of the directions I am thinking about:
The Vandersteen 2c Signatures are on the large side.
Perhaps a Dynaudio monitor, B&W 802 Matrix Series III, Proac (are there any that aren't excessively bright?). Are Lowthers a possibility, or too hopelessly colored?

I am attracted to ATC and Merlin, My taste runs expensive, but my pocket book (I work as a concert piano technician) runs shallow.

$1500 a pair or less would work best.

I also welcome your synergistic amplification suggestions. So far, I have prefered the sound of tubed equipmnet in the under $1500 per component range. I have recently been captivated by the idea of TVC (transformer volume control) Bent Audio NOH, etc. with a SET. But, the TacT M2150 (integrated without room correction) also intrigues me. Does anyone know how it sounds?

Acutal experience prefered to conjecture. Let it rip, and I thank you in advance for your thoughts and replies.
earthpulse
earthpulse OP
58 posts
 
I listened to the Gallo Ref 3's at Marin dealer yesterday... If I were willing to spend it, I would pay $2500 for that quality of sound: very fast, and extended. Well intergrated, to these ears.
gilbodavid
62 posts
 
hi earthpulse. i own 2 pairs of esl57's and have owned 63's and the baby brother of the gradient revolution. the 57's are my faves, especially with rebuilt treble pannels. am on the same quest. would not recommend the gradient, as while its very good, it just doesnt have the midrange magic of the 57's, or the depth and presence and imaging, and musicians in the room feel. i fear that david price of hi fi world may be right in that the 57's (and 989's) are almost impossible to beat at what they do, as electrostatics they are! i'm going to research the harbeths and omegas. thanks dor the info guys
matsukawags
4 posts
 
I have Quad57s and a highly tweaked Hammer Dynamics speaker. I've had the Quads for years and even built some home made electrostatics back in the early 80's. So as you can see I am a Quad lover. However, I don't think the Quads are really neutral speakers. They have a bump in the mid bass and definitely are rolled off in the highs but have a gorgeous mid range and the mid bass bump sounds nice too. I play my Quads pretty loud but they tend to buzz or resonate when played too loud at certain resonant frequencies. Therefore I used my Quads primarily for female vocals and acoustical music. Other than female vocals I find the Hammer Dynamics to be a better all around speaker since they are very detailed and can play very loud, not to say that they sound bad on female vocals but no speaker can beat the Quads in this area. They are also 97db and mate well with my 45 SET amp. Even with the 45 SET amp, I can feel the bass on some music and I feel they play as low as my sub but not quite as loud. The Quads do take a lot of room and that's why I have them against the wall when I am not playing them, my Hammer's are my every day speakers. See my system for pictures.
matsukawags
4 posts
 
Sorry I forgot to mention that the Hammer's image like crazy. They image as well as mini monitors and especially with my Lenco Turntable some music seem to extend past the walls and the low bass envelopes me like no other speaker I've had before. The bass is tighter and more pin point than the Quads. I had a Lowther Medallion owner over who was caught by suprise and was totally amazed with the imaging of the Hammers.

The Quad's do however have a larger image and sound great on live concerts with a lot of ambience. Lot of this is probably due to the Quads being dipoles and all the late reflections which make them sound larger with a lot of ambience. The Hammers are not bad in this area also but everything seems to be highly focused with the images being more pin point but not as full sounding as the Quads. The Hammers really shines on great recordings but are not as forgiving on bad recordings like the Quads. I highly recommend the Hammers if you don't mind building your own.
portlandlay
62 posts
 
If you can live with less bass or would use a sub the newest "V2" LS3/5a put out by stirling broadcast (order only from the UK) is very good in the same sort of way the 57's are. They improve on the normal LS3/5a with better bass texture, better freq. extension and play louder without strain. Many of the folks who have these also have quads and use these instead. Not that they are better than 57's but the WAF is so much higher and they feel they lose very little if at all.

I have a set an really like them.

Stephen
More to discover