Have You Ever Owned QUADS?



I’m curious how many members here have owned any model of Quad Electrostatic speakers at any point.

I ask because I’d just been watching the video of John Atkinson’s presentation about his life in music and audio, and of course at one point early on he’d owned the original Quad ESL 57s.

When I got back into high end audio in the mid 90’s, back then it was still something of a badge of honour, or an audiophile rite, to have owned Quads at some point. The cliche was that you either still owned them, or you loved them, but became too cognisent of their deficiencies, and moved on....though always at the price of trying to get what the Quads did...but more....an elusive journey. The Quads always "haunt" you in the background.

Here’s my old Quads story:

I’d grown up listening to my Dad’s Kef 105.2 speakers and Carver Holographic amps, so I was well versed in high end sound, great imaging etc.

But like many it was my encounter with a Pal’s set of Quad ESL speakers - the 63s paired with a Dynaco ST-70 tube amp - that re-opened my mind to the possibilities in high end audio. That completely clear window, transparency, detail, lack of any box artifacts!

So inevitably my first "real" high end set up started with the ESL-63s (with a Conrad Johnson MV55 tube amp). Eventually I paired them with the Gradient di-pole subwoofers specially built for the ESL 63s, which were about as seamless a subwoofer/panel match as I’ve ever heard. I’ll never forget the huge wall of transparent sound that system produced.

But they were in a fairly small living room and the back monoliths, especially sitting on the Gradient subs, looked like huge room dividers. So aesthetics was one reason to start looking at other speakers.

Another was that, I’d sometimes bring up my old pair of little Thiel 02 speakers and set them up, and when I did I found I was getting something that I was missing from the Quads that I really liked. One was a more open, warm tone. For all their transparency, the Quads actually sounded just tad toward the "dark, rich" side, and a tiny bit in the charcoalish tone for instruments and voices. The box speakers (and some others I’d listened to) seemed to have a bit more "rightness" in the upper frequencies and "woody, organic" tone.

The other thing was that that really separated the box speaker from the Quads was the sheer palability and aliveness of the sound coming from the box speaker. The Quads presented amazing apparitions of vocalists and instruments, but they tended to sound as if in another room from me, not really moving the air so much, like viewing through a glass window. Whereas instruments like trumpets, bongos, drums, strummed guitar just rippled the air of the room coming from the little Thiels. I felt more connected and moved by what was going on through the Thiels.

So I ended up looking for a dynamic speaker replacement. I ended up replacing my Quad/Gradients with Von Schweikert VR-4 Gen 2 speakers, which were full range, and sounded big and rich in the midrange like the quads, and projected as huge and boxless a soundstage as I’d ever heard. They were as close to the "Quads in a box speaker, but doing all the things I want dynamically" as I found at the time.

Naturally, being an audiophile I moved on from the VR speakers as well.

But I have to say, even though I’ve had many great speakers pass through my home, I’m not sure I’ve ever truly surpassed or equaled the sound of the ESL-63s/Gradient combo. Maybe it’s a bit of memory distortion as well over time, but it was such a BIG wall of sound, and so hugely midrange oriented.

I’d never go back to ESLs as I know they don’t in the end satisfy me.

Still, the Quads still haunt me - but more the ESL 57s. I actually prefer the tone of the 57s to the 63s, finding them a bit more warm, golden toned and a bit more dense sounding. If I could fit the 57s anywhere in my home I’d have them as a second system.

How ’bout you folks?

Time has moved on, so I doubt the Quads still feature as much as a right of passage for audiophiles. But I’m curious about their status at this point in the journey of people on this forum.
prof
@roberjerman- good for you. I wanted to own a Futterman back in the day, but viewed it (perhaps wrongly) as the amp equivalent of a London/Decca cartridge- high risk/high reward.
@geoffkait - I think you are swiping too broadly, Geoff. I agree about getting the speakers up to improve their performance-- I had mine mounted on Arcicci stands back in the day, but the glory of the speaker still shines through without removing the grill and dust cover. I'm not using fancy power cords or cables in this system either (though I appreciate what they can do and use such stuff in my main system). The Quads, with a refurbishment, a protection circuit, and better connectors, are still very satisfying, a joy to hear. 

I occasionally visited a local tube amp designer who had double-stacked ESL-57s - I think he also employed a ribbon tweeter.

Talk about a wall o' transparent sound!  It was always a treat listening to that system.  Low WAF though....

(Though as I remember actress Faye Dunaway, of all people, had I think stacked quads!).
Faye Dunaway? Honestly, she doesn’t strike me as a stacked Quads kind of gal. But I guess ya never know.
I know what you mean, goeff.  I always pictured Faye as being a more "high sensitivity horns w. single ended triode amps" type of gal.

Wonders never cease.