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

[Phorize]

Thank you!

I really have been considering borrowing that pair so I have been well cautioned.

Too bad I just sold my Eico HF-81 - a classic old integrated push-pull tube amp 14Wpc. I infer it would have been suitable.

It's a good excuse to get a quad 303, there are loads around and quad will still fully service them, and even have replacement casing if needed.

 

[anmpr1]

My favorite of those I have heard were the Acoustat 3's. I think they made some 6's which were like 3+3's and likely would have liked them. One thing I like about my Soundlabs which share a lot of design similarity with the Acoustat is they don't have a plastic quality to them, and panels have a gentle curve rather than angled flat panels side by side.

Model 3 was flat and wide, whereas Model 2 (and the 2+) was tall and slim. It really depended on your listening space--how much room to move you had. And of course your pocketbook. Tall and slim was certainly easier to place within most domestic settings. Since the speakers did best (IMO) in a more open space, for a good sounding 3 and/or 6 you wanted a pretty large listening area. I suppose that it true of any oversized panel.

I also spent time with Soundlabs (not mine, and not in my home). To me, they were much better sonically, but much more expensive.

Acoustats generally were more affordable than the usual electrostatic thing. The company attempted to go 'downmarket' with a line of hybrids, incorporating an integrated woofer below the panel section, but the integration was not particularly successful to my ears. My brother in law had a set of those, and I never could get them to sound as coherent as the 'full range' models. I think at their price point a dynamic loudspeaker would have been better.

Acoustat merged into the Hafler/Rockford group, and was left to flounder. Jim Strickland (the man behind Acoustat) incorporated some of his electronic designs into Hafler amps, but by then Hafler was concentrating on the 'pro' market, having left the DIY consumer scene. For their part, Rockford understood that aftermarket car audio was the money maker, and acted accordingly. I read somewhere that the name was sold to an Italian company, and then to a Chinese company. But it's been decades.

Hafler was acquired by Radial, but I don't know about the brand's market penetration. Radial also attempted to bring a 'modern' version of the Dynaco ST-70 to market, with results that were pretty much expected.

With Acoustat's decline, my dealer dropped the franchise, substituting the Magneplanar product. I never thought those were as sonically sound as what came before, but Magneplanar is still in business, still offering viable product to customers who are looking for that sort of thing. So they win.

Another aside: I owned both the larger Acoustat amplifier and matching preamp. The preamp developed some switch/attenuator noise, but I had a lot of gear do that. I was living in Central Florida at the time, and now wonder if the overwhelming humidity had a negative effect on electronic gear, in general? I wonder whether living in Arizona, or New Mexico, or one of the other venues that rust forgot, would be better on electronics?

 

[Midwest Blade]

I have been running my 57’s for the past 6 years, these are late models that I originally bought sometime around ‘83? Had them in storage for several years brought them out when finally had space/room to set them up.

Yes, limited low end output and punch, you don’t buy panel speakers for that attribute. High frequency might be an issue, but at my age, not hearing any of the roll off.

I will run them till they break, nothing sounds as good when sitting in “my chair”.

I am running them with Quad 34/405-2 (with limiters in place), NAD CD player. Simple as it gets.

 

[MattHooper]

I remember listening to some Acoustat Hybrids at a dealer I used to frequent. They were cool but weren't my cup of tea. What was really fun were the big full range soundlabs! It was always amazing to hear a giant full-range electrostatic!

Another acquaintance had stacked 57s and that was a blast too!

 

[anmpr1]

I am running them with Quad 34/405-2 (with limiters in place), NAD CD player. Simple as it gets.

Quad--the flexible choice. Like Stone Cold told Vince right before he smashed a Steveweiser over the boss's head, "We can do this the easy way. Or the hard way."

Easy:

Not so easy (on the wallet):

 

[hvbias]

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

Interestingly the two speakers I've heard that got closest to them in terms of realism are K402 constant directivity waveguide with horn midbass and Kii 3. All three are radically different speakers but the Kii and K402 have fairly even if not reference level directivity. Though oddly Salon 2 which I was able to hear again a few days ago just sound like reproductions with some real imagination required to picture any realism.

Their advantages were just as clear - the best midrange anywhere. Detail, macro and micro tone, imaging it's all there, - even the bass is all there in detail and texture... just not in volume or extension - it is a speaker that does 99% of all the most important things right.

That is my experience with solo piano and chamber music with them. Never heard that much realism from any other speaker and I've had seven speakers come and go in that time.

 

[Axo1989]

I remember listening to some Acoustat Hybrids at a dealer I used to frequent. They were cool but weren't my cup of tea. What was really fun were the big full range soundlabs! It was always amazing to hear a giant full-range electrostatic!

Another acquaintance had stacked 57s and that was a blast too!

Yes, I recall fantasising about stacked 57s. All the way to the ceiling in a nice curve like a line array.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Model 3 was flat and wide, whereas Model 2 (and the 2+) was tall and slim. It really depended on your listening space--how much room to move you had. And of course your pocketbook. Tall and slim was certainly easier to place within most domestic settings. Since the speakers did best (IMO) in a more open space, for a good sounding 3 and/or 6 you wanted a pretty large listening area. I suppose that it true of any oversized panel.

I also spent time with Soundlabs (not mine, and not in my home). To me, they were much better sonically, but much more expensive.

Acoustats generally were more affordable than the usual electrostatic thing. The company attempted to go 'downmarket' with a line of hybrids, incorporating an integrated woofer below the panel section, but the integration was not particularly successful to my ears. My brother in law had a set of those, and I never could get them to sound as coherent as the 'full range' models. I think at their price point a dynamic loudspeaker would have been better.

Acoustat merged into the Hafler/Rockford group, and was left to flounder. Jim Strickland (the man behind Acoustat) incorporated some of his electronic designs into Hafler amps, but by then Hafler was concentrating on the 'pro' market, having left the DIY consumer scene. For their part, Rockford understood that aftermarket car audio was the money maker, and acted accordingly. I read somewhere that the name was sold to an Italian company, and then to a Chinese company. But it's been decades.

Hafler was acquired by Radial, but I don't know about the brand's market penetration. Radial also attempted to bring a 'modern' version of the Dynaco ST-70 to market, with results that were pretty much expected.

With Acoustat's decline, my dealer dropped the franchise, substituting the Magneplanar product. I never thought those were as sonically sound as what came before, but Magneplanar is still in business, still offering viable product to customers who are looking for that sort of thing. So they win.

Another aside: I owned both the larger Acoustat amplifier and matching preamp. The preamp developed some switch/attenuator noise, but I had a lot of gear do that. I was living in Central Florida at the time, and now wonder if the overwhelming humidity had a negative effect on electronic gear, in general? I wonder whether living in Arizona, or New Mexico, or one of the other venues that rust forgot, would be better on electronics?

Yes, the model 3 was big and flat, but sounded better. Never liked the hybrids from Acoustat or Martin-Logan. The ML CLS is a different story.

Soundlab actually works in a way similar to the Acoustat. They have two step up transformers with a crossover around 800 hz. A 200:1 step up for the lower frequencies and 50:1 step up for the higher frequencies. These are then blended back together on the panel itself.

 

[MattHooper]

ML CLS is a different story.

I'm curious: It's been a long time since I heard the ML CLS, but I retain a strong impression that they were a little bit aggressive for me in the upper mids/lower treble. Just enough to make longer term listening less relaxing.

I think you have ML speakers don't you? Do you have the CLS? Would my impressions correspond to how those measure (without DSP?)

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm curious: It's been a long time since I heard the ML CLS, but I retain a strong impression that they were a little bit aggressive for me in the upper mids/lower treble. Just enough to make longer term listening less relaxing.

I think you have ML speakers don't you? Do you have the CLS? Would my impressions correspond to how those measure (without DSP?)

I've never owned the CLS, but have heard them. Your description isn't wrong, but what I really think is they just don't have enough low end. And then you push them for some loudness and it only makes the upper mids and treble stand out more.

I don't have any ML speakers I do have Soundlabs.

 

[Sal1950]

I've listened to Quads and other stat's many times over the years, from back-in-the-day when we had maybe a dozen brick&mortar stores in the greater Chicago area and numerous audio shows. They always impressed with their ability to deliver a lot of inner detail and when properly set-up an impressive though somewhat blurry soundstage.
But they would never had made it in my crib, I'd have probably had a light show dancing the the panels within a week. LOL
Their weaknessis in many other areas made them far away from my cup of tea.

 

[MattHooper]

I've never owned the CLS, but have heard them. Your description isn't wrong, but what I really think is they just don't have enough low end. And then you push them for some loudness and it only makes the upper mids and treble stand out more.

I don't have any ML speakers I do have Soundlabs.

Ah right. Thanks.

Have you posted any pictures of your Soundlab set up? I'd love to see them! Must be glorious.

 

[Sal1950]

Thank you!

I really have been considering borrowing that pair so I have been well cautioned.

Too bad I just sold my Eico HF-81 - a classic old integrated push-pull tube amp 14Wpc. I infer it would have been suitable.

If you do, put an inline fuse on them just to be safe.
They're scary fragile.

 

[MattHooper]

I've listened to Quads and other stat's many times over the years, from back-in-the-day when we had maybe a dozen brick&mortar stores in the greater Chicago area and numerous audio shows. They always impressed with their ability to deliver a lot of inner detail and when properly set-up an impressive though somewhat blurry soundstage.
But they would never had made it in my crib, I'd have probably had a light show dancing the the panels within a week. LOL
Their weaknessis in many other areas made them far away from my cup of tea.

Thanks Sal.

Totally makes sense, given some of the speakers you have gravitated toward.

That reminds me of why I moved on from my early Quad ESL 63s.

Before I bought the Quads in the 90's I'd been using my wife's old Thiel 02 speakers. They were a medium size two way speaker put out by Thiel in the early 80's, before Thiel went all in for time/phase coherence. My wife's audiophile brother and father picked them out for her I think as a college gift or something. But I loved the sound of those Thiels.

When I bought the Quads I spent quite a while entranced by what they did in terms of floating the sound in the air, without any box sound, and the incredible sense of detail and insight in to recordings etc.

But occasionally I'd throw the little Thiel dynamic speakers back in to the system and I'd be utterly taken aback by their sound again.
There was a general tone/timbre to the Thiels I really liked, but most of all I was struck by how palpable the sound seemed to be compared to the Quads. I'd play, say, the Enter The Dragon soundtrack - full of different types of percussion - and the Quads would unravel all the delicacies in the recording, but in terms of impact the sound felt sort of "ghostly" and removed, more like I was viewing a performance happening in another room. On the Thiels, bongos, wood blocks, tympani all had a more sense presentation, and a sense of air-moving acoustic force, more like a real bongo being struck and moving air in the room. I puzzled over this for quite a while, wondering if the difference was mainly in the dipole radiation of the Quads or whatever. (I found the Thiels had better presence in this respect, even when the Quads were mated with Gradient dipole subwoofers). But after a while I gave in...I just found the little box speaker that much more compelling in terms of "moving me" musically.

So I went on the hunt for some dynamic speakers that could do what I liked in the Quads, but with that dynamic speaker character.
Ultimately my next speakers were big Von Schweikert VR4 Gen II speakers. They "disappeared" in a way quite similar to the Quads, with gigantic soundstating and imaging, but with that more dynamic/palpable/ forceful sound. (Not that the Quads still weren't better in some respects).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks Sal.

Totally makes sense, given some of the speakers you have gravitated toward.

That reminds me of why I moved on from my early Quad ESL 63s.

Before I bought the Quads in the 90's I'd been using my wife's old Thiel 02 speakers. They were a medium size two way speaker put out by Thiel in the early 80's, before Thiel went all in for time/phase coherence. My wife's audiophile brother and father picked them out for her I think as a college gift or something. But I loved the sound of those Thiels.

When I bought the Quads I spent quite a while entranced by what they did in terms of floating the sound in the air, without any box sound, and the incredible sense of detail and insight in to recordings etc.

But occasionally I'd throw the little Thiel dynamic speakers back in to the system and I'd be utterly taken aback by their sound again.
There was a general tone/timbre to the Thiels I really liked, but most of all I was struck by how palpable the sound seemed to be compared to the Quads. I'd play, say, the Enter The Dragon soundtrack - full of different types of percussion - and the Quads would unravel all the delicacies in the recording, but in terms of impact the sound felt sort of "ghostly" and removed, more like I was viewing a performance happening in another room. On the Thiels, bongos, wood blocks, tympani all had a more sense presentation, and a sense of air-moving acoustic force, more like a real bongo being struck and moving air in the room. I puzzled over this for quite a while, wondering if the difference was mainly in the dipole radiation of the Quads or whatever. (I found the Thiels had better presence in this respect, even when the Quads were mated with Gradient dipole subwoofers). But after a while I gave in...I just found the little box speaker that much more compelling in terms of "moving me" musically.

So I went on the hunt for some dynamic speakers that could do what I liked in the Quads, but with that dynamic speaker character.
Ultimately my next speakers were big Von Schweikert VR4 Gen II speakers. They "disappeared" in a way quite similar to the Quads, with gigantic soundstating and imaging, but with that more dynamic/palpable/ forceful sound. (Not that the Quads still weren't better in some respects).

Was it Sam Tellig that said with ESL's there is no there there? I thought it made sense. Some have said ESLs have a ghostly sound. What I liked was the subjective speed. Listen to acoustic guitar or even a cello. With other speakers it is like the note is half over before the speaker gets around to playing the note. With ESL's they were just almost as quick as hearing one live. Most box speakers had enough resonances to cover it up even if they managed to be fast. I do think some of the apparent 'speed' is because there wasn't enough bass to cover it up and there were no resonances.

Oddly enough the first Acoustat ESL I purchased is because they guy had bought some Thiel 2.0 speakers. I listened to them and they had a good solid rhythmically inviting sound and didn't seem to have much of any boxy-ness to them. Now the Acoustat's and Soundlabs can have more impact if you put 1000 watts on each channel.

 

[MattHooper]

Was it Sam Tellig that said with ESL's there is no there there? I thought it made sense. Some have said ESLs have a ghostly sound. What I liked was the subjective speed. Listen to acoustic guitar or even a cello. With other speakers it is like the note is half over before the speaker gets around to playing the note. With ESL's they were just almost as quick as hearing one live. Most box speakers had enough resonances to cover it up even if they managed to be fast. I do think some of the apparent 'speed' is because there wasn't enough bass to cover it up and there were no resonances.

Yes, whatever the technical reason, there's a reason I think the subjective impression of "speed" became common in describing the electrostatic sound. My friend until recently have Martin Logans in his living room. My go-to test has always been acoustic guitar, first off. On my various dynamic speakers - e.g. Thiel, Joseph Audio, Spendor - with classical and acoustic guitar there can be more physical body to the sound, and in that we feel more like the real thing. But then when I hear acoustic guitar on a stat like the MLs, there is that immediate impression of just what you describe - like the finger picking is now just happening in real time before me, unencumbered by some sensation of "drag" from box speakers. It always immediately strikes me as "more realistic" in some fundamental way.

Oddly enough the first Acoustat ESL I purchased is because they guy had bought some Thiel 2.0 speakers. I listened to them and they had a good solid rhythmically inviting sound and didn't seem to have much of any boxy-ness to them. Now the Acoustat's and Soundlabs can have more impact if you put 1000 watts on each channel.

Yeah, the Thiel 02s sound amazingly neutral and unboxy. I'm still addicted to their sound. In fact, if I want to remain satisfied with more expensive speakers I own...I refrain from putting the 02s in the system

 

[Sal1950]

Was it Sam Tellig that said with ESL's there is no there there?

On the Thiels, bongos, wood blocks, tympani all had a more sense presentation, and a sense of air-moving acoustic force, more like a real bongo being struck and moving air in the room.

Quite probably, Sam/Tom always showed an aversion to speakers that lacked dynamic impact.
A preference he showed super clearly when he did the much slandered rave review of the Klipsch La Scala's.
A speaker I personally found unequaled in that quality for 30+ years, no matter their weakness in other areas.

 

[Axo1989]

Quite probably, Sam/Tom always showed an aversion to speakers that lacked dynamic impact.
A preference he showed super clearly when he did the much slandered rave review of the Klipsch La Scala's.
A speaker I personally found unequaled in that quality for 30+ years, no matter their weakness in other areas.

Around the time I bought those QUADs I listened to some big Klipsch which I remember as LaScala at a store. They were very cool. By that time my dad had moved on from the JBLs he left me to his Yamaha NS1000M. I recall they made the Klipsch sound like sandpaper in my memory. I wouldn't rely on that (without hearing them properly/again) but likely another reason the QUADs were interesting. I particularly enjoy midrange and stereo image rendering in my modern speakers still, but also I need (sub)bass now.

 

[dlaloum]

I've never owned the CLS, but have heard them. Your description isn't wrong, but what I really think is they just don't have enough low end. And then you push them for some loudness and it only makes the upper mids and treble stand out more.

I don't have any ML speakers I do have Soundlabs.

They have more SPL than a '57... or a '63 for that matter I believe...

But yeah, not enough for many people - and stats don't like being pushed.

 

[Blumlein 88]

They have more SPL than a '57... or a '63 for that matter I believe...

But yeah, not enough for many people - and stats don't like being pushed.

I think issue is the balance. It had a sharp 50 hz resonance, and effectively nothing even at 40 hz and a big dip between that and the midrange. It didn't have any body to the sound. So you turn it up more than the other ESLs and eventually push it too far without ever getting a solid body to the overall presentation. Here are the crude by today's standards measures of the original CLS from Stereophile. The ones I heard a few times were the CLS IIa version and there was a later CLS IIZ or some such. Lots of full range ESLs tend to have a resonance in the low end, a dip in the lower midrange and good response climbing up above that. Most distribute that resonance over a wider range of frequencies and fill in the 50 to 250 hz range better than the CLS did.