Walker's "Little Wonder" (Quad ESL 57) - Your Opinions/Experience?

[DSJR]

Harry Pearson, I believe, had an interesting observation about the 57s and the pluses/debits: He described them as similar to listening to a window that had been cracked open a little so you could hear what was going on outside. Only some of what is there comes through...but what does come through within it's hard limitations can sound awfully authentic.

Very late reply, but I don't think Mr Pearson's statement is entirely right unless he's talking of maximum volume/dynamic range obtainable. I'd suggest it's more like standing in the doorway of a venue or control room, rather than in the auditorium or control-desk chair with monitors close by

 

[Robin L]

Hey folks,

I'm curious about your opinions on Peter Walker's ESLs - from the original ESL 57 to the Quad ESL 63.

Not much needs to be said by way of introduction to those speakers. Quad's Peter Walker was known as a no-nonsense engineer, and the ESL 57 was, as I understand it, the first commercial electrostatic speaker. As we all know it went on to be a classic, still highly lauded in the audiophile world. In fact for many years there was a sort of theme that "every audiophile should own, or at least hear, a pair of Quads at some point."

A fairly classic trajectory for many audiophiles is to have owned Quads, and those that didn't stick with them move on to other speakers, but usually sort of "haunted" by the Quad's clarity/midrange, so the speaker quest takes on a "looking for a speaker that can match the qualities of the Quads...but MORE "(e.g. dynamic speakers moving more air, wider frequency response, etc).

So I'm curious about people's experience or opinions of the Walker's Wonders - the 57 and 63. Any formative experiences? What esteem do you hold them in...or not...these days? Certainly technical discussion of their merits and liabilities are welcome as well.

FWIW: It was hearing Quad ESL 63s at a friend's place that shook my world, the clarity and sense of sound occurring without coming from a box. I ended up buying a pair of 63s, later pairing them with dipole Gradient Subwoofers (made for the 63s), then moved on to dynamic speakers. My friend eventually traded his 63s for 57s, which I found curious - why the backward-in-time step? When I heard the 57s I understood. I too actually preferred the tone of the 57s to my 63s (IIRC the 57s are actually a bit more forward in the upper mids/lower treble).

Nice old article by a writer hearing the Quad ESL 57s for the first time:

Peter Walker's Little Wonder 1956 — Retro Vintage Modern Hi-Fi

I've always been a fan of the Quad ESL speakers but I've never owned a pair. Maybe I'll find a pair local someday. I do have one room left that needs speakers.... Kitchen...

www.itishifi.com

My single memory of an audition of the Quad ESL 57 goes back to the mid-1970s at an audio boutique in Pasadena California. Its clarity was remarkable. I was also struck by the narrow listening angle, the lack of bass and the tiny image size. The playback level was atypically low for 1975. The pair of these ESL 57s were on the floor, tilted back. Later (it might have been in Berkeley) I heard the ESL 63s. Recall constrained dynamics, narrow listening angle and little bass. But it played louder and imaged bigger.

This brings to mind three other "legendary" speakers - the LS3/5A, the KLH 9 and the Ohm F.

I didn't hear the LS3/5A until the late 1980s. For tiny speakers, they were pretty sweet, great (predictably) with voice. Little (boomy) bass, rolled off treble but perfect for some situations. Heard the KLH 9* around the same time I heard the ESL 57s. This audio showroom had plenty of floorspace, fortunately, as the KLH 9 consists of four tall panels. The image size of these electrostatic panels was great, there was some actual bass going on, probably the best full-range electrostat I've heard. However, dynamics were still constricted. I heard the Ohm F in Pasadena in a large showroom, late 1970s. As far as I was concerned, those speakers had everything. Deep bass you could feel, amazing (albeit oversized) imaging, fantastic clarity. But I never had enough money or enough room.

My main playback system from 1988 to around 2005 consisted of Stax Lambda signatures with the SRM-T1 vacuum tube (hybrid) energizer/amplifier. I got the clarity of the Quad ESLs but a lot more volume and treble. Probably too much treble. Also, not enough bass, though what was there was clean. Wore those suckers out.

* https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/666klh/index.html

 

[mps]

Hi @MattHooper, I just ran across this thread and was wondering if you ever tried out the ESL57s and what you thought.

 

[TLEDDY]

I have owned 57s for decades, likely eight to ten pairs. Best was an HQD System-tragically sold following a catastrophic business collapse. My last pair now resides in a good friends dedicated music room; they were modded not to blow up with too much voltage.

In my unqualified opinion, their midrange was/is absolutely wonderful - especially (only) in the sweet spot.

I now have Sanders 10e and consider them an equal, just with extended frequency response- - - and they do not (!) arc under high power.

That said, if I never had anything but the 57s, I would be content.

 

[TLEDDY]

I have ESL57 rebuilt by Wayne Picquet, I'm always on the hunt for replacement speakers to have in several living rooms.

I had Waynés stacked 57s… also wonderful!

RIP Wayne - he passed too young!

 

[hvbias]

@TLEDDY you attributed something in my quote which I never said, I've never owned stacked 57s.

I have been on a 15 year quest looking for speakers to replace the ESL57. My budget can go as high as $100k. KEF Blade Meta 2 was about as close as it gets and funnily the guy that writes for Tonepub also compared them to the ESL57.

I bought Genelec 8341a to use as computer speakers, but decided to buy a new computer desk first for aesthetic reasons. The 8341a sound shockingly close to the ESL57 when placed in the same position in my listening room and with GLM correction. They lack that last bit of realism the ESL57 has with classical music but tonally are still damn good. I think that "realism" and seeing/hearing real instruments seems to be that last bit that I can't completely resolve with measurements but that's why I audition speakers.

 

[dlaloum]

@TLEDDY you attributed something in my quote which I never said, I've never owned stacked 57s.

I have been on a 15 year quest looking for speakers to replace the ESL57. My budget can go as high as $100k. KEF Blade Meta 2 was about as close as it gets and funnily the guy that writes for Tonepub also compared them to the ESL57.

I bought Genelec 8341a to use as computer speakers, but decided to buy a new computer desk first for aesthetic reasons. The 8341a sound shockingly close to the ESL57 when placed in the same position in my listening room and with GLM correction. They lack that last bit of realism the ESL57 has with classical music but tonally are still damn good. I think that "realism" and seeing/hearing real instruments seems to be that last bit that I can't completely resolve with measurements but that's why I audition speakers.

There is a good reason why so many speaker designers kept a pair of 57's for reference - that midrange which they do so superbly... and I have never heard a speaker at any price, better that midrange.

And it's that midrange that gives them the realism.

All other speakers (even the ones from Quad) do everything else better than the 57's .... but the 57's remain a reference point for midrange realism.

If you find a speaker design that can match this, please post about it!!! (cos then I will have to seek it out and hear it!)

 

[Mart68]

f you find a speaker design that can match this, please post about it!!! (cos then I will have to seek it out and hear it!)

Totally subjective ofc but ATC SCM150 ASL have outstanding midrange clarity. Enough to surprise me, and I'm pretty jaded

 

[TLEDDY]

@TLEDDY you attributed something in my quote which I never said, I've never owned stacked 57s.

My apologies! I meant that I had owned Wayne's stacked 57s - not you! Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[TLEDDY]

Totally subjective ofc but ATC SCM150 ASL have outstanding midrange clarity. Enough to surprise me, and I'm pretty jaded

I compare the Sanders 10e favorably with the 57s midrange - see Robert Greene's review in Absolute Sound for a subjective review.

Tillman

 

[hvbias]

There is a good reason why so many speaker designers kept a pair of 57's for reference - that midrange which they do so superbly... and I have never heard a speaker at any price, better that midrange.

And it's that midrange that gives them the realism.

All other speakers (even the ones from Quad) do everything else better than the 57's .... but the 57's remain a reference point for midrange realism.

If you find a speaker design that can match this, please post about it!!! (cos then I will have to seek it out and hear it!)

Have you heard the Kef Blade Meta? I think these are quite a close match for the ESL57. Even after I buy whatever speakers "come next" I will keep the ESL57 for another listening room.

The Sennheiser HE90 headphones, these were about as perfectly close to the ESL57 as I've ever heard. Sennheiser are no longer able to repair them which is why I never bought a set.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi @MattHooper, I just ran across this thread and was wondering if you ever tried out the ESL57s and what you thought.

Sorry I missed this.

Although I’ve listened to the 57s numerous times in various places , I never didn’t get to hear the ESL 57s in my own home.

As I mentioned, I actually prefer their tone over my old 63s.

It really is one of those second speaker systems I would love to own.

And I can’t remember if I mentioned in this thread, but I was offered a beautiful pair of 57s for free at one point by an audio pal who wasn’t using them anymore, but their form factor just wouldn’t work in my room as a permanent speaker, and I didn’t have any good place to store them when I wouldn’t be listening to them.

Not only that, my brother who’s a musician ended up with the 57s I mentioned in my first post which originally belongs to an old friend.
Once again, I would be able to use those if I wanted to, but just haven’t been able to figure out how to make it work.

Also, I learned here that apparently my Conrad Johnson premier 12 tube monos actually wouldn’t be a good match for those speakers.

 

[gnarly]

Fun thread...nice trip down memory lane, having been enamored with electrostats since the mid 70's. Thanks to all the contributors.

Sorry i can't comment on Quads; never had the chance to hear any.
But I can add some comments about Acoustat-X and ML CLS. I've had both of these in retirement since I moved into DIY with the synergy/unity/MEH bug.
This thread motivated me to set them up for a quick listen and measurement session. Nothing very serious...just set them up hastily downstairs for more of a comparative refresher than anything.

OK, first the CLS. I'm the original owner from the early 90's. The panels were replaced by ML in the early 2000's, after mine degraded heavily (as early ones were known to sometimes do). I've no idea the state of the panels today.

Immediate impression was a real lack of bass (despite a very strong room mode at around 30Hz.) I thought this might be because I've become accustomed to more than ample bass/sub power. So I pulled one of my six single 18" sealed subs used in my main room, and set it up with the CLS.
Crossover at 100Hz worked well. No problem blending sub in with CLS...I guess i've learned sub to main integration pretty well, as everything I've built with only one exception has been designed for 100Hz up, and use with sub(s).
I think taking the 100Hz and below, load off the CLS really helped them (just like it does about every dang main speaker !)
Sound was quite nice...the "stat detail" and micro dynamics were all there. Beautiful timbe. Makes for a great lower listening level rig.

Then on the the Acoustat-X. Original owner since mid-late 70's. Jim Strickland rebuilt the OTL direct drive tube amps about 10+ years ago.
Man, they still sound great...and not bass shy at all. Sometimes on a particular all-acoustic instruments type-track, I prefer the CLS. But not often, the Acoustats just do too much right...stat detail, strong SPL, and good low frequency extension.
The panels are apparently near indestructible. (Wish I felt the same about the amps lol.)
No need for the sub, and the variable HF gain/balance lets the X be dialed in to room with other need for tonal EQ.

Hey, Cheers to all you stat lovers !