I was hoping that Dover would reply about how he did using those Sequerra ribbon tweeters. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-quad-57 I tried emailing but no reply yet. Presumably, he tried this not for extending the HF range of the Quad tweeters. Instead, it must have been to either partially or completely remove them from use, at least as tweeters, due to their beamy ~ 1 foot lateral “sweet spot”-probably the only real drawback with these otherwise amazing speakers.
Those Sequerra ribbons are very expensive so I hope Dover had success with them or in use with some other speakers. Sequerra Online Home
Googling [Quad ESL 57 ribbon tweeter ] shows a few who may have attempted this with Decca Howard Dawson Audio - home page ribbons or others. Again the goal is only to finally banish that very narrow “head in vise” HF range lateral sweet spot. It’s really tragic that such an astoundingly good speaker should have this problem, and after all of these decades that no one has any devoted engineering efforts in the least to solving it.
Why wouldn’t well-designed and built ribbon tweeters, AMTs or ESL panels-properly installed and crossed with the Quad 57s’ own tweeter panels or alone with the bass panels-blend seamlessly, sound as neutral as the Quad’s tweeters and finally achieve that superb vertical and lateral HF range dispersion we all want from the Quads 57s?
Gary Jacobson The Quad ESL - Home condemned one such attempt based on what he heard. Planar Speaker Asylum But that was over a decade ago and today’s tweeters may offer much better performance and compatibility with the Quad 57.
Indeed, there’s a tweeter solution for Quad 57s perfect enough to get raves from Dick Olsher. ENIGMAcoustics Sopranino Super-Tweeter | The Absolute Sound The price of these is $3690/pair. Would this be a more cost-effective solution than DIYing a solution? I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to say. But I would think that those DIYers among us who’ve repaired, stacked and/or bi/tri-amped Quads would be up to the task of making that determining by judging the quality and compatibility of today’s ribbon, AMT and ESL tweeters with the Quads. Ideally, this mod could be achieved just as successfully with passive crossovers, as are the Supranino tweeters, connected in parallel with the Quads.
Today’s top choices are likely Visatron, RAAL and Stage Accompany ribbons Ribbon Tweeter RAAL: Products Stage Accompany Mundorf AMTs http://www.mundorf.com/PDF/Mundorf_hifiAMT_Catalog.pdf or ER Audio ESL mini panels. Mini Panels and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1XTT_kQmJ_QNE1wbnVFdUsyLWs/view
Again, first investigate the compatibility of dispersion geometries between these or other ribbons, Mundorf AMT tweeters and the ER Audio ESL panels with and the Quad’s tweeter and/or bass panels to gauge the chances of successful integration without penalties.
Then our chosen designer/builder should re-confirm such ample compatibilities before we have a designated person receive our pay pal payments to do a “group buy” of the selected tweeter.
As for financing, if need be we can partner with members of other forums for the cost of the ribbons and passive crossover to be as little as $20. or so per member ( I bought my third pair of Quad 57 speakers yesterday. | Page 3 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/236512-stacked-quad-esl-57-a.html Sonic difference between Quad 57 and 63 )
Just imagine if your Quad 57s had a sweet spot that instead of a foot was wider than your sofa and tall enough for you to stand up and not be missing any of the sound? Isn’t it time for our ace Quad DIYers to get serious about making this happen?
Those Sequerra ribbons are very expensive so I hope Dover had success with them or in use with some other speakers. Sequerra Online Home
Googling [Quad ESL 57 ribbon tweeter ] shows a few who may have attempted this with Decca Howard Dawson Audio - home page ribbons or others. Again the goal is only to finally banish that very narrow “head in vise” HF range lateral sweet spot. It’s really tragic that such an astoundingly good speaker should have this problem, and after all of these decades that no one has any devoted engineering efforts in the least to solving it.
Why wouldn’t well-designed and built ribbon tweeters, AMTs or ESL panels-properly installed and crossed with the Quad 57s’ own tweeter panels or alone with the bass panels-blend seamlessly, sound as neutral as the Quad’s tweeters and finally achieve that superb vertical and lateral HF range dispersion we all want from the Quads 57s?
Gary Jacobson The Quad ESL - Home condemned one such attempt based on what he heard. Planar Speaker Asylum But that was over a decade ago and today’s tweeters may offer much better performance and compatibility with the Quad 57.
Indeed, there’s a tweeter solution for Quad 57s perfect enough to get raves from Dick Olsher. ENIGMAcoustics Sopranino Super-Tweeter | The Absolute Sound The price of these is $3690/pair. Would this be a more cost-effective solution than DIYing a solution? I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to say. But I would think that those DIYers among us who’ve repaired, stacked and/or bi/tri-amped Quads would be up to the task of making that determining by judging the quality and compatibility of today’s ribbon, AMT and ESL tweeters with the Quads. Ideally, this mod could be achieved just as successfully with passive crossovers, as are the Supranino tweeters, connected in parallel with the Quads.
Today’s top choices are likely Visatron, RAAL and Stage Accompany ribbons Ribbon Tweeter RAAL: Products Stage Accompany Mundorf AMTs http://www.mundorf.com/PDF/Mundorf_hifiAMT_Catalog.pdf or ER Audio ESL mini panels. Mini Panels and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1XTT_kQmJ_QNE1wbnVFdUsyLWs/view
Again, first investigate the compatibility of dispersion geometries between these or other ribbons, Mundorf AMT tweeters and the ER Audio ESL panels with and the Quad’s tweeter and/or bass panels to gauge the chances of successful integration without penalties.
Then our chosen designer/builder should re-confirm such ample compatibilities before we have a designated person receive our pay pal payments to do a “group buy” of the selected tweeter.
As for financing, if need be we can partner with members of other forums for the cost of the ribbons and passive crossover to be as little as $20. or so per member ( I bought my third pair of Quad 57 speakers yesterday. | Page 3 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/236512-stacked-quad-esl-57-a.html Sonic difference between Quad 57 and 63 )
Just imagine if your Quad 57s had a sweet spot that instead of a foot was wider than your sofa and tall enough for you to stand up and not be missing any of the sound? Isn’t it time for our ace Quad DIYers to get serious about making this happen?
I own a pair of Quad ESL63 that were rebuilt in Kansas City, USA. That design addressed the dispersion issue you've mentioned. They sell the Sopranino tweeter for the original Quads. If you're deeply invested in the ESL57, the ENIGMAcoustics product will help. If you're not, the rebuilt version of the ESL63 approaches the ideal of a full range transducer (with proper amplification).
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Indeed, that’s my dilemma. While I am blessed to have found someone-and right here on Long Island-who will let me hear his Quad 57s this month (with a superb 300B SET amp, if only 8 wpc), I can’t find anyone within driving distance who has the 63s, 988s or 989s.
I doubt if I could afford those other models from Welcome - Quads Unlimited much less from here ElectroStatic Solutions - Visit Nor what they would sound like to my ears compared to the 57s, which so many seem to prefer, despite their limitations.
It seems to be very well established that placing the 57s a good 6 to 7 ft from the rear wall and raising them 14 to 20” off the floor, with Arcici stands or the like, will expand soundstage size in at least two dimensions a whole lot. True?
The stands will also extend bass response to 40Hz. And further extension is no problem with my pair of Rythmik 12" sealed servo subs.
Someone who has the 57s says that the 63s sound to him like the music is playing “down the hall”. But then how does he contend with that accursed HF range “head in vise” sweet spot? I can’t believe that Quad lovers have tolerated this all of these decades from an apparently otherwise superb, indeed incomparable, speaker.
In any case, for health related reasons I can’t do air travel, nor can I risk buying a pair of speakers that are unavailable for audition. So if get any Quads it would have to be the 57s by default. Ergo, my wish to eliminate that sweet spot.
But how to do so successfully and affordably?
I doubt if I could afford those other models from Welcome - Quads Unlimited much less from here ElectroStatic Solutions - Visit Nor what they would sound like to my ears compared to the 57s, which so many seem to prefer, despite their limitations.
It seems to be very well established that placing the 57s a good 6 to 7 ft from the rear wall and raising them 14 to 20” off the floor, with Arcici stands or the like, will expand soundstage size in at least two dimensions a whole lot. True?
The stands will also extend bass response to 40Hz. And further extension is no problem with my pair of Rythmik 12" sealed servo subs.
Someone who has the 57s says that the 63s sound to him like the music is playing “down the hall”. But then how does he contend with that accursed HF range “head in vise” sweet spot? I can’t believe that Quad lovers have tolerated this all of these decades from an apparently otherwise superb, indeed incomparable, speaker.
In any case, for health related reasons I can’t do air travel, nor can I risk buying a pair of speakers that are unavailable for audition. So if get any Quads it would have to be the 57s by default. Ergo, my wish to eliminate that sweet spot.
But how to do so successfully and affordably?
Planar drivers have limited horizontal coverage, regardless. Only the SoundLab design (which is quite expensive) handles this in a stable manner. Personally, I don't think this limited point of best image is a problem unless multiple people are enjoying the music together.
For my money, the ESL63 is a better value unless the ESL57 in question has been rebuilt.
Smaller amps will not be sufficient to drive any of these to higher SPL, they're inefficient.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
For my money, the ESL63 is a better value unless the ESL57 in question has been rebuilt.
Smaller amps will not be sufficient to drive any of these to higher SPL, they're inefficient.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Definitely so, the stands are essential to having their best sound.
It's not a small difference. Extra tweeters won't seem so important then.
Thanks rayma, this is very encouraging news.
Do the stands also greatly expand the soundstage size, and do so in ALL three dimensions?
And what other sonic benefits might the stands add to using the Quad 57s?
Yes, I wouldn’t dare risk buying any Quads from other than the abovementioned sources. And as you said if I am the lone listener and with the 57s up on stands then I suppose it makes sense to go for them.
Too bad that I can’t afford SoundLab. That’s why I thought of building these Acorn Electrostatic Loudspeaker Kit The kit is almost 4X cheaper than even least expensive SoundLab model, although because I’d never risk building it myself I’d had to have someone like Jim Salk do it for me. Salk Sound
And Jim would likely have to follow their lead of what to do in case of accidents while assembling the Acorns. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/planars-exotics/113214-can-mylar-rip-repaired.html
Then there’s the question of how many wpc for an average ~ 86db SPL in a 14 ft x 19 x 8 room. Too many for an affordable Class A amp that would kick on the AC all summer long. Unless the Acorns are too big for this room?
Again, however, I couldn’t audition these ESLs either before purchasing (the kit). AFAIK, the only one whohas them in the US is the ER Audio rep Mike Beck, in North Carolina.
And yet Nelson Pass says to remember that this is all supposed to be fun.
This was at a friend's house some years ago, with equipment I built for him. The speakers were much more neutral
and natural sounding on the stands, which were about 18 inches high. The speakers were vertical, and not angled back.
The soundstage was certainly better, as you would expect, but the improvements in overall balance, transparency,
and more lifelike qualities were very surprising. I would certainly make stands for them if I owned the Quads.
Oltos, why is it that you're willfully ignoring Martin Logan ESLs? And why would an ESL fan be invoking the voodoo of magnetic tweeters?
I could say why are you willfully invoking the voodoo of magnetic woofers, found in most Martin Logan models? If you're going to spring for M-L ESLs-which are almost always $$$$$-why not instead buy (SoundLab?) or DIY some large enough to avoid the need to even use subs?
As for magnetic tweeters, while hardly any kind of DIY brainiac, my understanding of tweeters like the RAAL Lazy and the better Mundorf AMTs is that they are VERY fast, with diaphragms about as light as ESLs. And their dispersion is probably superior to most ESLs. And like many who post to this forum, I'm on a budget. So as much as I'd love to buy the Enigma Supraninos-if I do go for the Quad 57s who could benefit a lot from them-it's not an affordable option.
Last edited:
Dispersion of an esl63 is pretty acceptable I think , but indeed it is pretty hard to find a good pair , almost all Esl 63 I've seen where in need of repairs. As for ribbons I never had the magic moment with them to be honest, yes they sound good but so do Esl ,dispersion is the only factor if you want rather ally broad dispersion, but adding one to a perfectly fine system is a waste. The supraninos website looks retarded, in the white papers they say adding a ribbon to your excisting system and enjoy the superior sound...... bla bla bla.
As if you just can add a tweeter and all is good, nowhere mentioned using a filter blending it in just add I and your done , typical overkill of high frequency by some confuses with clarity and speed, especially the elder people since they became deaf to high frequencys.
I had one of the more expensive RAVEN ribbons and sold them for 250 , they are ok but hell they cover the range that is the hardest to hear and as well the most easy to reproduce except for the 20khz to 60 range , But no one except You dog hears those.
If you are low on cash try leaving the 57 as they are save some money and sell them later on , and buy a set of 63 or bigger
As if you just can add a tweeter and all is good, nowhere mentioned using a filter blending it in just add I and your done , typical overkill of high frequency by some confuses with clarity and speed, especially the elder people since they became deaf to high frequencys.
I had one of the more expensive RAVEN ribbons and sold them for 250 , they are ok but hell they cover the range that is the hardest to hear and as well the most easy to reproduce except for the 20khz to 60 range , But no one except You dog hears those.
If you are low on cash try leaving the 57 as they are save some money and sell them later on , and buy a set of 63 or bigger
Oh and sorry my post looks offensive , witch is not my intention. It's hard to type anything on a phone , my apologies!
In a nut shell , save the money on expensive ribbons and buy a better esl it has more value later on, a mangled 57 and a separate ribbon won't get you a decent return compared to a working complete set of Esl in working condition. This is the beauty of buying gear second hand if the product is good and old you will receive back you money when you had enough of them
In a nut shell , save the money on expensive ribbons and buy a better esl it has more value later on, a mangled 57 and a separate ribbon won't get you a decent return compared to a working complete set of Esl in working condition. This is the beauty of buying gear second hand if the product is good and old you will receive back you money when you had enough of them
In my opinion, the current crop of rebuilt ESLs represent a rare value in High Fi - mature technology refurbished with the best available materials by enthusiasts.
I would deal directly with the principal rebuilders, and go with the seller who is most accommodating.
After you factor in your time, necessary tools and materials it may be less expensive to have an actual expert handle things.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
I would deal directly with the principal rebuilders, and go with the seller who is most accommodating.
After you factor in your time, necessary tools and materials it may be less expensive to have an actual expert handle things.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
What are you hoping to accomplish? You are dealing with a 60+ year old design which is very compromised in several ways (it's like comparing an MG TD to a miata). It's a great speaker, and just astounding when compared to the other offerings in the mid 50's. It's interesting that you are talking about the horizontal dispersion versus the vertical dispersion. The horizontal dispersion is way better than vertical in that model. High dispersion speakers, while not changing tonal balance when moving around, also can present more problems with your room than more beamy speakers. And as previous posters have said, this dispersion problem was cleverly solved in the newer 63 design.
Since this is a DIY site, a lot of us would build exactly what we wanted, rather than take an old design and try to cobble extra parts on it in hopes of turning it into something it isn't. So you may not get as much of an enthusiastic response as you might like. Plus you are taking a very nice balanced design, and mucking about with it. It's the equivalent of dropping a chevy V8 into a vintage Jaguar.
But here's some things that I've learned from rebuilding quads for over 20 years, as well as building my own ESL's:
ESL's suck for bass. They can't move much air, and they need to be large to do any sort of bass. I really enjoy the 63's and 2905's, but a well done ESL careefully crossed over to a moving coil dipole sub is really the way to go if you want the bottom octave.
Dispersion of ESL's will never equal a moving coil speaker, particularly at the highest frequencies.
ESL's can be extremely low distortion, but ribbon tweeters aren't. Be careful in using ribbons with ESLs, you might be better off with a high quality dome tweeter if you really want to add something to the top end of the original quads (I wouldn't).
My advise is to not spend that level of money on a horn loaded super tweeter, buy music instead.
There's a bunch of 63's in NYC, I suspect that you can find a pair to listen to. I repair them for folks down there all the time.
Not that you asked for it, but here's my view of the two Quad models:
The original Quads have a very transparent midrange, they seem uncolored, but actually do have a bit of midrange emphasis that you only really notice after you have spent some time with a less colored speaker like the 63's. The emphasis is not offensive at all, and could be that the emphasis is due to the slight weakness at the frequency extremes.
The 63's seem un-involving, particularly if you've been listening to some modern sizzly modern cone and dome speakers (why do most modern high-endish speakers seem to have slightly rising treble responses?), but the fact that nothing reaches out and grabs you is because they are very low distortion, and transparent, without a lot of attention given to the speaker itself. You won't get much in the bottom octave, but you do get flat response to 20K. You hear your electronics and the recording with as little as possible added or removed by the speaker itself. That's why so many recording studios and recording engineers use(d) them.
I find the original quads to be very enjoyable and involving, particularly with intimate acoustic recordings. But the 63's are a more capable speaker across the entire spectrum.
Just my $0.02.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
Since this is a DIY site, a lot of us would build exactly what we wanted, rather than take an old design and try to cobble extra parts on it in hopes of turning it into something it isn't. So you may not get as much of an enthusiastic response as you might like. Plus you are taking a very nice balanced design, and mucking about with it. It's the equivalent of dropping a chevy V8 into a vintage Jaguar.
But here's some things that I've learned from rebuilding quads for over 20 years, as well as building my own ESL's:
ESL's suck for bass. They can't move much air, and they need to be large to do any sort of bass. I really enjoy the 63's and 2905's, but a well done ESL careefully crossed over to a moving coil dipole sub is really the way to go if you want the bottom octave.
Dispersion of ESL's will never equal a moving coil speaker, particularly at the highest frequencies.
ESL's can be extremely low distortion, but ribbon tweeters aren't. Be careful in using ribbons with ESLs, you might be better off with a high quality dome tweeter if you really want to add something to the top end of the original quads (I wouldn't).
My advise is to not spend that level of money on a horn loaded super tweeter, buy music instead.
There's a bunch of 63's in NYC, I suspect that you can find a pair to listen to. I repair them for folks down there all the time.
Not that you asked for it, but here's my view of the two Quad models:
The original Quads have a very transparent midrange, they seem uncolored, but actually do have a bit of midrange emphasis that you only really notice after you have spent some time with a less colored speaker like the 63's. The emphasis is not offensive at all, and could be that the emphasis is due to the slight weakness at the frequency extremes.
The 63's seem un-involving, particularly if you've been listening to some modern sizzly modern cone and dome speakers (why do most modern high-endish speakers seem to have slightly rising treble responses?), but the fact that nothing reaches out and grabs you is because they are very low distortion, and transparent, without a lot of attention given to the speaker itself. You won't get much in the bottom octave, but you do get flat response to 20K. You hear your electronics and the recording with as little as possible added or removed by the speaker itself. That's why so many recording studios and recording engineers use(d) them.
I find the original quads to be very enjoyable and involving, particularly with intimate acoustic recordings. But the 63's are a more capable speaker across the entire spectrum.
Just my $0.02.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
I agree, Quad 63 has a pretty good response nothing wrong with it, every time I measure them I am impressed. One thing why the 57 sound special to some is the fact it beams , you get a headphone kind of feeling. But finding a speaker good or bad has moor to do with personal taste in response then actual data in my opninion.
me too, when I rebuild a set of 63's, I can get them matched within a fraction of a dB. See:
The 63 panels are much more precisely fabricated than the originals were, I find it so satisfying to rebuild 8 panels and have the pair of speakers match like that.
the 57's are really quite satisfying to listen to, I enjoy them a lot. They are the best $300 speakers I have purchased.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
If you add a tweeter to the ESL, its frequency balance will be over, and you will probably feel the need to add also woofers to them.
me too, when I rebuild a set of 63's, I can get them matched within a fraction of a dB. See:
The 63 panels are much more precisely fabricated than the originals were, I find it so satisfying to rebuild 8 panels and have the pair of speakers match like that.
the 57's are really quite satisfying to listen to, I enjoy them a lot. They are the best $300 speakers I have purchased.
Sheldon
quadesl.com
May I ask what thickness Mylar you used , and if you used heat treatment while stretching ? I am rebuilding 2 sets and I encounter a decent amount of problems. Dropping output and resonance , output is gone be fixed with a better coating. But dropping resonance is a big deal.
"ESL's can be extremely low distortion,but ribbon tweeters aren't. "
Stokessd , can you give a bit more info on this statement?
I agree the Stat is often a bit lower but im confused.
I agree trying to blend any driver from midrange on up to a good stat is likley to result in an less than ideal match , BUT ribbon performance is ALL in the execution. Many of the small ribbons on market do have an ugly distortion profile below about 2khz but thats in part because they are "squeezing" and shortcutting the design in a number of ways to get high sensativity and a cheaper build cost. Get rid of the tiny rear chamber, the cheap transformer, the simple foil only diaphragm etc and be willing to accept a sensativity around 87-88 db and you can get a different result from the ribbon.
BTW Wrinex I agree on the super low mass ribbons. I have built many different configs of 4 micron foiled ribbon from tiny , to large (about 20mm wide by 1meter long working down to about 500 hz. Flat foil, embossed in many ways, corrugated in many pitch size etc. In the end they do have some nice qualities BUT I always felt they were holding back a bit with dynamics compared to the heavyer ones.
As for the Bass and stats. Im wondering do the Quads need a breakin? the last pair I heard I emediatly heard a plastic resonant coloration. Mind you this is after spending a year of prototyping large planer magnetic bass diaphragms with emphasis on removing that exact coloration and my ears were trained on it. I was talking to the maker of the "Gold ribbon" years ago and he told me the best bass he ever heard was a large stat designed with 2 diaphragms back to back. Not exactly sure what this acconplshes.
Stokessd , can you give a bit more info on this statement?
I agree the Stat is often a bit lower but im confused.
I agree trying to blend any driver from midrange on up to a good stat is likley to result in an less than ideal match , BUT ribbon performance is ALL in the execution. Many of the small ribbons on market do have an ugly distortion profile below about 2khz but thats in part because they are "squeezing" and shortcutting the design in a number of ways to get high sensativity and a cheaper build cost. Get rid of the tiny rear chamber, the cheap transformer, the simple foil only diaphragm etc and be willing to accept a sensativity around 87-88 db and you can get a different result from the ribbon.
BTW Wrinex I agree on the super low mass ribbons. I have built many different configs of 4 micron foiled ribbon from tiny , to large (about 20mm wide by 1meter long working down to about 500 hz. Flat foil, embossed in many ways, corrugated in many pitch size etc. In the end they do have some nice qualities BUT I always felt they were holding back a bit with dynamics compared to the heavyer ones.
As for the Bass and stats. Im wondering do the Quads need a breakin? the last pair I heard I emediatly heard a plastic resonant coloration. Mind you this is after spending a year of prototyping large planer magnetic bass diaphragms with emphasis on removing that exact coloration and my ears were trained on it. I was talking to the maker of the "Gold ribbon" years ago and he told me the best bass he ever heard was a large stat designed with 2 diaphragms back to back. Not exactly sure what this acconplshes.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.