[[email protected]]

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

Comments welcome, but please do not shoot the messenger!!!!

ESTG in sunny Nassau Bahamas/

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jan 19, 9:17=A0am, " wrote:
Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything =A0must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

Comments welcome, but please do not shoot the messenger!!!!

ESTG in sunny Nassau Bahamas/

I heard a pair at an audio fair in Toronto in around 1970 and was not
impressed. The AR3A's quadraphonic sound demo did impress me, but the
big old Klipschorns struck me as badly coloured. Of course I was only
just under 30, what can you expect in the way of taste at that age?
My 66 year old ears might have an entirely differing opinions, but I
won't venture to say which pair would be right.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:
Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD
ESL 57 DEMO - Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything must
change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go
there and take a listen. Even with dinky computer
speakers the unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of
this 53 year old design sees off so many modern high-end
systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong
turn somewhere along the way to better sound?

Someone is unclear about the truism that a signal chain can never be better
than its weakest link.

In this case there are at least two very weak linkd, one being the agressive
lossy compression that the audio in YouTube videos get, and the other being
the dinky computer speakers.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:17:06 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

Comments welcome, but please do not shoot the messenger!!!!

ESTG in sunny Nassau Bahamas/




I dunno. I certainly can't tell anything about a pair of speakers from a
You-Tube video. Maybe it's just me, but we really aren't listening to the
Quads, but rather the microphone used to make the video and of course, the
computer electronics and speaker system.

That's not to take anything away from the Quad ESL-57s, you understand. They
can be quite magical as long as one keeps in mind their shortcomings. First
of all, they are a "one man" speaker, and only sound their best from the
"sweet spot". Secondly, their best consists of a lovely and extremely
realistic sounding midrange, but not much below about 60 Hz or above about 7
KHz. They also won't play very loud and, if one isn't careful, they'll arc at
"high" volume levels, damaging both the diaphragms and the power supply.

Over the years there have been many attempts to circumvent these
shortcomings. I recall that in the middle 1970's, Mark Levinson sold a
speaker system based upon Quad ESL-57s that actually made them sound really
spectacular. He built a frame that held TWO ESL-57s base to base so that they
both curved back from the center. Between the two Quads he mounted a piece of
matching hardwood (to the frame and the ESL's trim) in the center of which he
mounted a Decca ribbon tweeter. The array was suspended by two pillars by
large handscrews (like one of those portable black-boards one often sees in
corporate conference rooms) and the two ESLs could be tilted for or aft
around that axis (again like a blackboard). The base of the two pillars was a
large box containing a subwoofer, which, IIRC, was self-powered and crossed
over from the Quads at about 50 Hz.

By doubling up on the Quads (the Mark Levinson contraption had a total of
four ESL-57s, two per channel), Levinson was able to get the Quads to play
louder and to go lower, BEFORE they crossed-over the the sub-woofers! The
addition of the then state-of-the-art Decca ribbon tweeter, with it's wide
dispersion, finally gave the speakers the highs that they needed and weren't
so "beamy" at high-frequencies as were the Quads alone.

I thought that the Levinson system sounded really excellent. It was easily
the best ESL system I had heard up to that time (the Infinity ESL system
wasn't out yet, I don't believe). I also remember that Levinson wanted an
awful price for the system - around four grand as I recall (anybody remember
for sure?). While $4000 doesn't seem like a lot for speakers today, in the
mid 1970's it was astronomical.

As for Quad ESL-57s today, it's rare to find an undamaged pair. Here in the
USA, there doesn't seem to be any refurbishing facilities although I know
that there is one in the Netherlands which will actually improve the speakers
with modern sputtered, low-mass diaphragms and improved power supply, and
there is possibly one in England (Quad doesn't repair the original ESLs
anymore, from what I understand). The problem with the Quads is that the
original coating on the diaphragm breaks down (it was "painted" on) and the
power supply fails as a result of chronic arcing as well as component aging.

I'd say that if someone really likes the way a pair of Quad ESL-57s sound,
they should audition a pair of Martin Logan speakers. Even the (relatively)
cheap $2100 "Source" speakers should easily outperform a pair of ESL-57s.
OTOH, don't short-change the new $2000/pair Magnepan MG-1.7s. They will
outperform most speakers at any price (except for really deep bass) and are
certainly better than any Martin-Logan electrostatics; up to the Vistas,
anyway.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 2:31=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything =A0must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?
If you did, what is your impression?

ESTG/

[Ed Presson[_2_]]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:
Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

Indeed. These Quad speakers were my first really good speakers back in
1962. They sounded wonderful, I thought, though they really had very little
bass. The reproduction of certain human voices was uncanny.

Later, when I had much more experience listening to symphony orchestras
live, I realized that I was missing something important, namely the lower
mid-range and upper-bass weight of an orchestra. Nonetheless, they were a
very special speaker design.

Ed Presson

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

On 1/19/2011 1:31 PM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:


I heard a pair at an audio fair in Toronto in around 1970 and was not
impressed. The AR3A's quadraphonic sound demo did impress me, but the
big old Klipschorns struck me as badly coloured. Of course I was only
just under 30, what can you expect in the way of taste at that age?
My 66 year old ears might have an entirely differing opinions, but I
won't venture to say which pair would be right.




I've heard those Quads many times, starting when they were just out.

They do sound different. And for some small-ensemble groups,
back then, I thought they sounded the most "they are here in the room".

I have a great fondness for AR3As as I owned them for decades until the tweeters
died, and the magnet-voice coil assembly of one powered the apparatus
that got me tenure.


Doug McDonald

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 1/19/2011 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Jan 19, 2:31=A0pm, Dick wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:
I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design ...
If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?

You may not.

If you did, what is your impression?

Having been a Quad-authorized repair center for a number
of years, having set up dozens, repaired dozens, modified
dozens, and lived with several pair for a number of years,
and thus can claim at least some familiarity with them,
my impression is, with all respect, the suggestion that
one could experience even the rumor of a suggestion of
a hint of a clue of what any speaker might sound like is,
with no intent to offend, ridiculous.

In fact, listening to the YouTube video, it is nearly
impossible to, without looking, decipher even what speaker
is playing. It's a completely unfamiliar room, material
which is unfamiliar, recorded with an unknown microphone
(seems like it's the cheap-ass mike in the video camera).

To be quite honest, it was difficult to take your original
post seriously

Seriously, if the "dinky little computer speakers" were
capable of rendering even the vaguest hint of a miserably
done recording of speakers in a room with ANY fidelity at
all, then, indeed, those dinky-little speakers share, in
a small measure, some of the qualities of the Quads.

Is THAT what you are suggesting?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 7:15=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
On 1/19/2011 3:02 PM, wrote:

On Jan 19, 2:31=3DA0pm, Dick =A0wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:
I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and tak=
e
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design ...
If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?

You may not.

If you did, what is your impression?

Having been a Quad-authorized repair center for a number
of years, having set up dozens, repaired dozens, modified
dozens, and lived with several pair for a number of years,
and thus can claim at least some familiarity with them,
my impression is, with all respect, the suggestion that
one could experience even the rumor of a suggestion of
a hint of a clue of what any speaker might sound like is,
with no intent to offend, ridiculous.

In fact, listening to the YouTube video, it is nearly
impossible to, without looking, decipher even what speaker
is playing. It's a completely unfamiliar room, material
which is unfamiliar, recorded with an unknown microphone
(seems like it's the cheap-ass mike in the video camera).

To be quite honest, it was difficult to take your original
post seriously

Seriously, if the "dinky little computer speakers" were
capable of rendering even the vaguest hint of a miserably
done recording of speakers in a room with ANY fidelity at
all, then, indeed, those dinky-little speakers share, in
a small measure, some of the qualities of the Quads.

Is THAT what you are suggesting?

My friend, calm down!

I merely gave my impression and asked for others impressions. Clearly
you did not hear anything in the video to suggest that the Quads are
something special. It would have been enough to just say so.

I listened through the limitations so painstakingly outlined by you
and others and having heard the Quads and other excellent speakers
within and without the Youtube medium, I asked if womehow we had taken
a wrong turn along the way to better sound.

Mayhap someone will still address that question.

Nevertheless thank all of you for your comments.

ESTG/

[Hank]

In article ,
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2:31=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything =A0must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?
If you did, what is your impression?

Well, I'm not Dick Pierce, but I did "bother to go and listen."

Just a few comments:

1. Honkings out of a tenor saxophone with some drums and a bit of
piano are hardly any "sound" capable of demanding much from a
recording/reproducing system.

2. Anything good filtered through Youtube digitization suffers. You
might as well listen through a hundred feet of 10-inch plastic pipe.

3. Dinky computer speakers are adequate---perhaps---for a rendition
of what you've chosen. If that's what you want to listen to, I'd
agree with Dick. Save a bundle of money and buy the dinky speakers.

Now, you can go to youtube and find performances of Widor Symphony 5.
The first movement (Allegro) has got a serious range of tonal colors
that will test any recording/reproducing system, from microphone to
recording medium to speakers. I have a French CD of Olivier Latry
playing that piece on the Notre Dame organ in Paris. Very good
recording---as recordings go. But if you are going to evaluate sound
systems with it, it helps to know what the piece sounds like in an
equal venue (Saint-Sulpice is what Widor composed it for), and have
some idea what limits are on a good recording.

Then accept that your living room is NOT a French Cathedral, for
starters. Nor is it really possible (in my view, at least), to get
any full representation of a Cavaillé-Coll instrument through
microphones. "Live" is one thing. Recordings are another.

Hank

[KH]

On 1/19/2011 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Jan 19, 2:31=A0pm, Dick wrote:
On 1/19/2011 12:17 PM, wrote:

Just went on youtube, searched Quad esl, clicked on "QUAD ESL 57 DEMO -
Archie Shepp Quartet- Everything =A0must change"

I suggest that all you lurkers, posters and whomever go there and take
a listen. Even with dinky computer speakers the unmistakeable purity,
clarity and realism of this 53 year old design sees off so many modern
high-end systems that I am left wondering, have we taken a wrong turn
somewhere along the way to better sound?

If those "dinky computer speakers" can reveal the
"unmistakeable purity, clarity and realism of this
53 year old design," why even bother with Quads,
save a bundle and just buy them dinky little computer
speakers. Save a bundle of money!

May I take it then that you did not bother to go and listen?
If you did, what is your impression?


No need to, for a couple of reasons. One, I've heard them in person
many times, and for some types of music, they were very good, others
just OK. But second, you can't listen to Quads on U-tube, you can only
listen to a poor recording of Quads through another system adding
colorations that were not in the original venue. So what's the point?

Really, that's like going to U-tube to watch a video demonstrating how
wonderful HDTV is, or 3-d for that matter.

Keith

[axelstrong]

Not everyone knows about music or techniques, they just love Slash, perhaps because they can relate to his music.Honkings out of a tenor saxophone with some drums and a bit of piano are hardly any "sound" capable of demanding much from a recording/reproducing system.