Quad ESL

[Diapason]

I wanted to write a few comments on my newly-acquired ESLs but as usual got a bit out of control, so I'm posting the whole thing here as a standalone review.

-------------

It's amazing the array of comments I got when I decided to buy a pair of Quad ESL 57s. They ranged from scathing ("next stop pipe and slippers"), through bewildered ("what the hell are you up to?") and on to glowing ("you may end up selling your Kharmas"), and that was just from my audiophile friends. On seeing a photo of them in my room, most of my muggle friends started laughing, often heartily, and shook their heads at the ridiculousness of it all. "Solar panels are meant to go outside" said one, "They look like Super Sers" pointed out my wife, "You need planning permission for something that big" opined another friend, and so it went on. All that derision before I even explained that these things were designed in the 50s, wouldn't play loud despite their size, and really couldn't produce a huge amount of bass. "So what's the point then?" Hmmm...

Well, in reality I didn't know. I'd heard the 57s on a few occasions in the past, had fairly quickly decided they were fine but weren't my cup of tea, and had moved on without really thinking about them. They're stubborn things though, those Quads, and they're hard to avoid on the magical world of the interweb. People just keep listening to them and enjoying them, people who know their hifi, people I trust, people indeed who sell hifi for a living. So what was I missing? Was their legendary status justified? Could they *really* be better than my beloved Kharma CRM 3.2FE? When a fellow forum member put his 57s up for sale at a good price, I decided it was time to find out.

Reading about the ESLs online it was striking that even their most ardent fanciers were quick with the caveats:
1) They won't play loud. Give them too much juice and you'll arc the panels and kill them.
2) You need to use valves with them. If you use a solid state amp with them, they might kill it.
3) They're hard to position. They need to be quite far from the front wall, and millimetres can make a difference in getting the sound exactly right.
4) They're a very selfish speaker. Only one person can get the full effect at the sweet spot.
Ironically enough, these "negatives" are all positives for me. With a young baby at home, I'm looking for something that sounds best at low levels. I have a pair of valve monos that are meant to be excellent with Quads. I have a dedicated room that's long and narrow. There's exactly one seat in that room. All good so far, but what I hadn't really twigged is how BIG these things are. Okay, they were designed in the mono era, but fitting two of them far enough apart to generate a stereo image in a modern city home is not easy. They use bananas rather than spades (cue a raiding of speaker cable from my second system) and of course, being electrostatic they need to be plugged in, so proximity to a power source is important. Oh, and once they've been discharged they probably take 24 hours to settle down once they're plugged in again. On the first night that the Quads graced the mancave, I could confirm that they did indeed generate sound, but I certainly couldn't comment on the quality.

The following day saw a bit of experimentation with positioning, and guided by Fran's expertise, I found a location I was happy with pretty quickly. Once they were far enough from the front wall, I found the major sonic differences came from the angle the speakers were at to the listening seat. In the end, firing them straight at my ears seemed to give the best combination of imaging and tonal balance, and since my room is treated with quite a lot of absorption, I didn't really have a problem with reflections generated by the dipole nature of the speaker. I accept that these aren't speakers you can just stick either side of the fireplace, but despite the warnings I didn't find them especially difficult to position -- if anything the Kharmas are fussier.

So enough stalling, how did they sound?

Well it's hard to say. Early on I realised that I needed to change the way I listened when it came to the ESLs, because my initial response was to be somewhat...underwhelmed. I decided to kick things off with Shelby Lynne's Just a little lovin', a track I've heard on a variety of speakers, including Quads, but that I know best played on my own system in my own room. Moving from Kharmas to Quads I was immediately struck by the loss of impact, the loss of scale, the loss of bass, the loss of sparkle, even, to my utter surprise, the loss of perceived midrange clarity. The ESLs seemed rolled off in both bass and treble, seemed recessed, bland even, there seemed to be so many things that these speakers couldn't do, so many sacrifices, so many aspects of hifi sound that just weren't there. I nearly returned immediately to my default position of not "getting" Quads, and I fleetingly wondered how annoyed the original seller would be if he saw them back for sale so soon after I'd bought them.

Then I told myself to cop on.

I've said before that I love this hobby as much for the toys as for the music. I accept that this is a sacreligious thing to say in some circles because the audiophile party line is that the music is first and foremost, but I'm happy to admit that I'm also interested in sound reproduction for its own sake. I borrow a lot of gear to sample at home, and I'm a regular visitor to Cloney Audio just to listen to whatever they've got in and to sample the latest and greatest. So? Well, I'm blaming this for my dreadful habit of listening to what equipment *doesn't* do, picking apart its flaws, always looking for the chink in the armour, rather than listening to what it does well. With lots of components, this approach works as a way of measuring ability. After all, it's not uncommon to hear items described by their deviation from "perfection": a bit bright, a bit rolled-off, needs to be played loud, etc. In my view, however, it's pointless to do this with the Quads . You just can't think of them in terms of what they don't and can't do, and it's folly to judge them by their failings. I needed to retune my ears to listen out for what was right, to listen out for the magic. In short, it was time to sit back, relax, clear my expectations and start again.

And then I began to get it.

Let's start with the lack of boxiness. It's a truism, but we're so used to hearing music coming from cones in boxes that the ESLs are initially a little disconcerting in their presentation. There's no fuss, no fanfare, music just arrives in the air and hangs there, inviting you in. Imaging happens differently, it's not pinpoint, but there's a realistic sense of depth and width that's very beguiling. The tremendous coherence through the frequency range really deserves its legendary status, and I think it's the ESL's single most impressive trait. No frequency sticks out, nothing calls attention to itself, and the music just unfolds in front of you without screaming or shouting. There's a sense of purity to instrumental tone that confirms the ESLs' much-lauded timbral accuracy, and transients start and stop in an instant, without any false crispness or etching. I don't find the Quads to be "detailed" in the usual sense, but that's not to say details are lacking. They're just there, ready for you to find them if you want them, or ignore them if you don't. There's no stereotypical high-end hyper-reality, just smoothness, evenness. The presentation is certainly relaxed, and I can see how some might view this as a pipe and slippers sound, but that's infinitely superior to treble you could shave with. The more I listened, the more I enjoyed the relaxed presentation. The acoustic guitars of Mike Keneally's Wooden Smoke sounded balanced and beautiful, with just enough bass to keep things moving, Barton Hollow by The Civil Wars was clean yet full of atmosphere, The Cowboy Junkies' Caution Horses also translated beautifully via the Quads. Balanced was the word I kept coming back to. Everything just sounded balanced.

I was several discs in when I realised I was listening to albums rather than tracks, and while I was, as always, thinking thoughts like "x would sound great on these", I wasn't jumping up every 2 minutes to find out. I was listening. I was enjoying. As the night wore on, it also dawned on me that at no point had I heard the Quads do anything unpleasant. In the world of high end hifi, this is rare indeed! I put on a couple of discs that don't always work sonically, and sure enough, the same even-handedness paid massive dividends and rendered such recordings enjoyable. When it came to jazz recordings from the 50s and 60s, there was a certain "rightness" with the likes of Miles Davis and Nat King Cole that made me think the Quads were designed for them. Probably because they were.

That night, I didn't play anything silly, no metallica, no bombastic organ music, no techno, because I didn't want the spell to be broken. What would have been the point anyway? I was no longer interested in probing the Quads' deficiencies or testing their limits. I'd had one of those great listening sessions that comes from being sucked into the music, and that's a marvellous thing. I'd also decided that while I wouldn't be replacing the Kharmas, I'd definitely be keeping the Quads.

On hearing that I was buying them, one friend mused that "This really is the equivalent of buying an English classic sports car (maybe an MG)... Totally underpowered, probably unreliable... but for that one day in June when the sun shines and you have the top down and everything stays together, it's just perfect!!" I like this analogy, and I feel it's apt. In my mind, comparing the Quads to the Kharmas is like comparing a classic 2-seater to a modern-day BMW. To my ears, with my music, in my room, the Kharmas are "better" in virtually all areas: they're clearer and cleaner, more open, have more sparkle, more attack, more impact, they image better, have better bass, go louder, sound bigger in scale, they're more flexible, more reliable, etc. etc. etc. Let's be perfectly frank here, I still prefer the Kharmas overall, I think they get me closer to the "absolute sound" of reality, and if I had to choose between the two it would be the Kharmas in a heartbeat. But the Quads have something else, a certain rightness, a certain purity of intent and execution, a certain listenablility, a certain SOUL that you don't often hear in modern hifi. When it works it's really quite drug-like, and the beauty of it is that I don't have to choose between the Quad presentation and the Kharma presentation. I no longer have to wonder what Quads are really like and what I'm missing, now I can just sit back and enjoy.

[Ken Moreland]

Excellent review, there's an opening there for you on this forum , getting products on trial and writing them up. Sounds like the Quads are perfect with a late night bottle from Ivor's (which could explain a lot). By the way BMW's are great but when the "lifetime" gearbox expires it costs 9000euro to replace.

[Diapason]

Thanks Ken.

By the way BMW's are great but when the "lifetime" gearbox expires it costs 9000euro to replace.

LOL. I drive an ancient Lexus and had to replace the clutch recently. I was outraged!

[Ken Moreland]

http://www.cassidymotors.ie/ are the only guys in Ireland to recon BMW auto gearboxes for around 2000 euro

[Modest]

Killer review Diapason, thanks to you :-)

[fergus]

That was a super read Simon and I thoroughly enjoyed "watching" your gradual conversion!!

[Diapason]

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated!

[jaybee]

I realised I was listening to albums rather than tracks

that's the best praise you can give in my book....

Good read Si

[Derek]

Lovely review Simon, you nailed everything I love about the Quads.

...music just arrives in the air and hangs there, inviting you in.

You would have enjoyed the session here last Sunday, check your calender and I'll get you down for a listen to the 63's

[Seán]

Gosh Simon, that is some review, well done. I really enjoyed reading it and now I will do so again, it's smashing stuff.

Having had the pleasure of listening to my LPs on Derek's system I am well and truly smitten, I love the ESLs.