As far as I know there is no reason you can't.
They are just dust covers is all and have no function to producing the sound.
Not having them just means dust can get inside them and any dust will need to be occasionally vacuumed or blown out with some compressed air.
To avoid any of these issues leave them on.
You can however replace them with some thing thinner if you feel that they are hendering the sound in anyway.
FWIW
jer
They are just dust covers is all and have no function to producing the sound.
Not having them just means dust can get inside them and any dust will need to be occasionally vacuumed or blown out with some compressed air.
To avoid any of these issues leave them on.
You can however replace them with some thing thinner if you feel that they are hendering the sound in anyway.
FWIW
jer
I have used my 63's for many years without dust covers (and obviously without metal grilles). Big improvement in details and treble quality.
Caution: use the speakers only in dust free, child free environment and think of some form of protective cloth cover when not in use
Also avoid direct sunlight (UV) on the exposed membranes
Ciao,
Bifor
Caution: use the speakers only in dust free, child free environment and think of some form of protective cloth cover when not in use
Also avoid direct sunlight (UV) on the exposed membranes
Ciao,
Bifor
so you say
They are just dust covers is all and have no function to producing the sound....
For years now i have been saying that the So-called Dust Covers are what makes the 57s... the 57s...But thay DO work with out...Been there done that...but the sound well be off...the best panels/ESL i have ever had...were the 57s an Apogee, Magnepans, Thay have nothing between you ear an the Mylar...foil...or what ever...Why other ESL Makers have not use a Mylar type dust/cover on there esL ....go figg...I say the dust/cover on the 57s is 80% of the sound...goodluck
They are just dust covers is all and have no function to producing the sound....
For years now i have been saying that the So-called Dust Covers are what makes the 57s... the 57s...But thay DO work with out...Been there done that...but the sound well be off...the best panels/ESL i have ever had...were the 57s an Apogee, Magnepans, Thay have nothing between you ear an the Mylar...foil...or what ever...Why other ESL Makers have not use a Mylar type dust/cover on there esL ....go figg...I say the dust/cover on the 57s is 80% of the sound...goodluck
My post was just a generalization of their function.
I have never heard the Quad's yet but would very much like too, However I personally prefer the sound of my panels without dust covers.
When I was in to recording bands and singers we did an experiment with pop filters and such.
We tried to use a peice of very thin saran wrap type of material and we did find that it did take away from the airiness and finesse of the high end detail that the microphone was well known for and it certainly could be heard in the recording.
The Idea was to keep spit from getting in to the very expensive microphone as some of the singers had quite wet singing techniques.
The sound was much like the effect of using a diagphram material that is heavier or one that has extra mass on it caused from much dust, soot and dirt on it or even a dirty and unpolished cymbal.
It was very noticeable on a sax track recorded that way.
Even a regular pop filter had a noticeable difference in the sound but not as bad as the plastic wrap.
The average person would not have noticed the difference of either but our goal was to turn out the best recording we could as we were well known for that, Being one out of the three decent quality studios in town at the time.
I can even hear the difference from the added pressure of anything being to close to the back of the diagphram such as an 8" thick piece of Fiberglass insulation in an experiment when I was trying to reduce the back wave.
This have documented in another thread during one of my rebuilds of my little panels.
I am not saying to use them or not to use them.
Cheers !!
jer
I have never heard the Quad's yet but would very much like too, However I personally prefer the sound of my panels without dust covers.
When I was in to recording bands and singers we did an experiment with pop filters and such.
We tried to use a peice of very thin saran wrap type of material and we did find that it did take away from the airiness and finesse of the high end detail that the microphone was well known for and it certainly could be heard in the recording.
The Idea was to keep spit from getting in to the very expensive microphone as some of the singers had quite wet singing techniques.
The sound was much like the effect of using a diagphram material that is heavier or one that has extra mass on it caused from much dust, soot and dirt on it or even a dirty and unpolished cymbal.
It was very noticeable on a sax track recorded that way.
Even a regular pop filter had a noticeable difference in the sound but not as bad as the plastic wrap.
The average person would not have noticed the difference of either but our goal was to turn out the best recording we could as we were well known for that, Being one out of the three decent quality studios in town at the time.
I can even hear the difference from the added pressure of anything being to close to the back of the diagphram such as an 8" thick piece of Fiberglass insulation in an experiment when I was trying to reduce the back wave.
This have documented in another thread during one of my rebuilds of my little panels.
I am not saying to use them or not to use them.
Cheers !!
jer
Last edited:
geraldfryjr....I get what your are saying....an always do..thanks for all of your post an work in diy here....
It seems Nuts to me also...to put one more thing in front of the sound...but as you know this all we can do...but with the 57..an with any other ESL...I gess it is the high bias... that can turn the so caled..dust/cover in to the sweets sounding panels i have ever had.or heard...
This should work with other ESLa as well...but no ones has done it...
It like the Mylar Dust/cover becomes the only driver... an it fites the ear better than any other ESL......This is why people say the 57 sound is the real deal...Like your right there in the room.....even it the base is a littel week....so some say...goodluck
It seems Nuts to me also...to put one more thing in front of the sound...but as you know this all we can do...but with the 57..an with any other ESL...I gess it is the high bias... that can turn the so caled..dust/cover in to the sweets sounding panels i have ever had.or heard...
This should work with other ESLa as well...but no ones has done it...
It like the Mylar Dust/cover becomes the only driver... an it fites the ear better than any other ESL......This is why people say the 57 sound is the real deal...Like your right there in the room.....even it the base is a littel week....so some say...goodluck
I see, perhaps they are required then despite their deficiencies. I have a opportunity to snag a pair of these modified by no grills and dust covers removed. Basically panels in frames with power supplies. Original owner claims they were used this way for years with excellent results. I've never owned quads just acoustats.
I have had all the ESLs i can find...Quad, JanZans,Acoustat SoundLabs KLH,Acoustats are on top to day for me....some of the SL guys came up with mods for there ESL speakers an i have put some in to my Acousta an i must say there as close to to the 57 sound yet for me.....but go hear these 57 without dust cover....it well work...tell us what you think.........thanks for any an all info on ESLs....goodluck
I'm sure they can be used without dust covers, but I wouldn't recommend it. The QUAD-63 is full of subtle compensations to get the response flat including the effect of finite membrane thickness, dust covers et cetera. Without dust covers they are bound to sound a bit too bright because the compensation is still there.
Besides, I know from experience that a good undamaged dust cover is very useful if you have pets who occasionally urinate against the loudspeaker.
I have rad about this before.
But it seems more logical for me that the stators should be at a positive charge being as they are on the outside and would repel the dust from even getting close to the diagphram.
This is the way I have mine setup, Although I have not had them on long enough or even assembled long enough as well for to collect any dust as I give them a good wipe down every time before I re-assemble them.
Not trying to go off of topic but it is a very good point.
jer
P.S. Thank You for the kind remarks, tyu !!
But it seems more logical for me that the stators should be at a positive charge being as they are on the outside and would repel the dust from even getting close to the diagphram.
This is the way I have mine setup, Although I have not had them on long enough or even assembled long enough as well for to collect any dust as I give them a good wipe down every time before I re-assemble them.
Not trying to go off of topic but it is a very good point.
jer
P.S. Thank You for the kind remarks, tyu !!
Last edited:
Take the dust covers off, are you serious ?
I really don't see why any one would want to remove the dust covers, with the shortening of their life time before repairs. For Quad 63 and later models, it is quiet possible that the speakers sound balance may be changed, and you may need equalization to resolve this if you remove the dust panels, but once applied that it may indeed sound better, and some people who have an operating theater clean room might get some benefit, but my expectation would be that your speakers will arc, damaging the membrane when playing quieter, progressively until a service is needed. To me this seems a lot of work for little benefit, and some serious problems. Particularly as resale value will be reduced and these speakers have very high re-sale value with undamaged pannels.
That said people who built their own electrostatics may know better.
The Quad ESL57 model, well, removing the dust panels would in my opinion be a foolish thing.
Provided you don't want to go loud, and you don't want to play stereo to many people at the same time (Common electrostatic design fault only partially solved by later Quad models), unbeatable styling.
I think the ESL 57 with suitable amplification, (Eg Mcintosh/Radford amp) is like having a Rolls Royce Phantom V
rather than having a modern Bentley Continental GT.
Maybe the ESL 57 in its original 1957 Golden brown is not the last word in HiFi.
But close to the last word in stylish especially if coupled with slightly impractical valve amplifier HiFI.
I bet the Quad ESL is a little gem with a Mcintosh 40, also one of the most stylish HiFi items and an icon of its time.
Though for real quality you might be better of with a Radford amp.
Of cause it can be partnered by the Quad 303 with remarkable results.
but many other amplifiers will not match its difficult load, and if they do, deliver power that could destroy these wonderful sounding speakers.
You can even make it perform better and look more stylish too, fitting a new frame will no doubt improve the ESL57, and some might say improve its looks.
{credit quad-musik.de}
I am of mixed feelings but over all convinced if done with enough style, and not irreversibly and I am sure an improved performance would be the result.
{credit www.methe-family.de}
Would you really want to fit a nitro injection to a Rolls Royce Phantom V and risk burning out the valves, I think removing the dust covers in this case is a similar mistake. When simpler and better upgrades could be done. Also see this thread.
I am sure similar stand artistry could be done for the ESL 63 and later. I have already put my ESL 63's on rotating stands. I will make further stand improvements in time, but portability is a consideration, and I do have ESL 63 transportation boxes.
I have not ESL 57 transportation boxes which is why the ESL 57 are still in the United Kingdom, and I have never done a side by side comparison, but I suspect I like the ESL 63 is a better set of compromises, but the ESL 57 wins for looks like a Rolls Royce Phantom V.
Regards
Owen
I really don't see why any one would want to remove the dust covers, with the shortening of their life time before repairs. For Quad 63 and later models, it is quiet possible that the speakers sound balance may be changed, and you may need equalization to resolve this if you remove the dust panels, but once applied that it may indeed sound better, and some people who have an operating theater clean room might get some benefit, but my expectation would be that your speakers will arc, damaging the membrane when playing quieter, progressively until a service is needed. To me this seems a lot of work for little benefit, and some serious problems. Particularly as resale value will be reduced and these speakers have very high re-sale value with undamaged pannels.
That said people who built their own electrostatics may know better.
The Quad ESL57 model, well, removing the dust panels would in my opinion be a foolish thing.
Provided you don't want to go loud, and you don't want to play stereo to many people at the same time (Common electrostatic design fault only partially solved by later Quad models), unbeatable styling.
I think the ESL 57 with suitable amplification, (Eg Mcintosh/Radford amp) is like having a Rolls Royce Phantom V
rather than having a modern Bentley Continental GT.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Maybe the ESL 57 in its original 1957 Golden brown is not the last word in HiFi.
But close to the last word in stylish especially if coupled with slightly impractical valve amplifier HiFI.
I bet the Quad ESL is a little gem with a Mcintosh 40, also one of the most stylish HiFi items and an icon of its time.
Though for real quality you might be better of with a Radford amp.
Of cause it can be partnered by the Quad 303 with remarkable results.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
but many other amplifiers will not match its difficult load, and if they do, deliver power that could destroy these wonderful sounding speakers.
You can even make it perform better and look more stylish too, fitting a new frame will no doubt improve the ESL57, and some might say improve its looks.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
{credit quad-musik.de}
I am of mixed feelings but over all convinced if done with enough style, and not irreversibly and I am sure an improved performance would be the result.
{credit www.methe-family.de}
Would you really want to fit a nitro injection to a Rolls Royce Phantom V and risk burning out the valves, I think removing the dust covers in this case is a similar mistake. When simpler and better upgrades could be done. Also see this thread.
I am sure similar stand artistry could be done for the ESL 63 and later. I have already put my ESL 63's on rotating stands. I will make further stand improvements in time, but portability is a consideration, and I do have ESL 63 transportation boxes.
I have not ESL 57 transportation boxes which is why the ESL 57 are still in the United Kingdom, and I have never done a side by side comparison, but I suspect I like the ESL 63 is a better set of compromises, but the ESL 57 wins for looks like a Rolls Royce Phantom V.
Regards
Owen
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.