No surprise. $900 vs $25,000 is only a price tag.
Is It Possible?
Help!!!
Is it possible for a pair of Quad63 sounds better than a pair of Focal Utopia Scala I? I am was using the Scala in my system and was very happy with the overall result, except for an occasionally bright sound on certain recordings. I recently bought a pair of non-working Quad63 at a garage sale for $250, had them serviced for about $650. I was going to use the quad in my office for background music, but I decided to have a A/B test against my beloved Scala. I almost fell of my chair when heard what came out of the Quad. The vocals and the instruments just came alive, especially the female's voice. The only advantage I gave to the Scala was the soundstage, which is wider and a little deeper than the Quad. How can this be? What am I doing wrong with the Scala? How can a pair of $900 speakers sounds much better, in my opinion, than a pair of speakers that cost me almost $25,000?
47 responses Add your response
If you are looking for something that combines what you like about both your speakers then definitely try to audition ATC (especially those with the 3” mid range). The design goal of ATC is almost entirely based on the sound of Quad electrostatic. The aim of the design was to reproduce the super clean and clear Quad sound (super low distortion and no resonances) but with greater dynamic range, bass extension and higher SPL. Many longtime electrostatic fans moved to ATC like Gordon Holt, Stereophile. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too! BTW I am familiar with the Focal Utopia Scala and it is an excellent speaker but for sure the Quad will have easily alerted you to what you are missing. |
"Welcome to modern high end audio. I wasn’t sure if you were making a joke or not so don’t take this wrong if you were. The HEA market is a very small part of the playback hobby. Long after the over priced, over built era is long gone products like the Quad will be admired for thousands, maybe tens of thousands. The 57 and 63 models, set up well, can hold someone’s attention for hours and days of constant play. Most "modern" speakers haven’t a prayer in doing this before the owners start making "bad recording" excuses. There are far more listeners who have moved back to proven designs then there are modern purchases. Michael Green |
I owned a pair of Crosby-modified ’63s which I enjoyed several decades ago, after an even longer love affair with the original, a/k/a the ’57, which I’ve owned since 1973. I had those restored somewhat recently, after languishing in packing crates for years. They are now set up as a second system in our "front parlor." They are extremely forgiving, and despite their obvious limitations, make music in a way that is stunning. They are just so engaging to listen to; i could easily live with them as a main system notwithstanding their limits. They are far different in presentation than my bigger horn based system, but the focus is not on the WOW factor-- they pull you in. I’ve known many Quad owners over the years who are recidivists--they eventually sell them, only to buy them again. I’m glad I have mine. I enjoy them immensely. |
@michael green. I was being very sarcastic. It was a shot against those who believe you need to have the latest greatest thing to get good sound. The longer I spend in the hobby the more I realize that this couldn't possibly be further from the truth. It's definitely related to the similar belief that you need to spend a ton of money to get good sound. I mean obviously the review were's and advertisers need to convince us of that to sell us the latest most expensive crap. My speaker system dates from the 60s and when I go to shows I really don't hear anything that I want to replace it with. I believe one could augment the top and bottom of the quad 63's and have a state of the art world beater. |
I also was shocked at how good they sound. a good friend has an array of 6 with 3 stacked on top of one another in a custom rack. 3 per side gives a huge room filling experience and with 6 panels they have great bass too. mind you the need for 6 amp channels makes for an expensive ordeal (he has 6 quad amps fully updated). |
Not too surprised by myaudio168’s experience. It’s not for nothing that so many speaker designers, including those who design dynamic speakers, have held the Quad up as a sort of paradigm for the type of sound they are going for, in terms of midrange transparency. That said, there’s a reason so many designers aren’t just trying to re-design versions of a Quad. They are great at what they do, but they aren’t the full package in terms of what can be had in reproduced music. I lived with the Quad 63s for a long time, and also paired them with the Gradient dipole subs made for the 63s (still the best stat/sub pairing coherency I’ve heard). In *some* aspects, despite all the speakers I’ve owned, that may have been some of the best sound I ever owned. But....as great as the midrange transparency was, I ended up craving more density and palpability. The Quads seemed to cast beautiful sonic images that didn’t really move air, or seem in the same room as me, so it became something of a detached-from-the-music experience for me. I moved on to dynamic speakers and would not go back to the Quads, or any electrostatics. Electrostatics for me are a wonderful place to visit; whenever a pair is around I have to sit and listen. But it’s also immediately apparent that I could never live with one again because the don’t do some fundamentally satisfying aspects of music that I really crave. (Though I would absolutely LOVE to have a pair of ESL 57s, which I prefer over the 63s, in a second system). But...yeah...after listening to box speakers and then hearing Quads, it’s hard not to notice that amazing boxless factor in the Quad sound. |
@prof-- your comments are pretty on the money. Listening to the original Quad is in some ways like sitting in the balcony. I never had double or triple panel set ups, and was never happy with woofer integration on the old Quad; I didn’t even try on the ’63 when I ran them. The detached experience-- sort of a portrait in miniature--drove me to horns, for a greater ’in the room’ experience, dynamics. But, those posed a similar problem in sub-woofering. I currently run the restored 57 unadorned-- no special stands, woofers or auxiliary tweeters. They are what they are-- magnificent in some ways, fundamentally flawed in others. Their coherence and their ability to get out of the way of the music is still pretty stunning, though, more than 60 years later. In discussions with other owners on another board after I revitalized this pair, we agreed that though there have been strides in speaker design since the introduction of the original Quad, it’s pretty amazing how good they are this many years later, making you question whether throwing tens of thousands of dollars at the high end really does return value. (It does, but hearing the Quads will make you question it--i hadn’t heard my ’57s for since around 1990, though I have heard other pairs in years since). Robin Wyatt did a nice job several years ago demo’ing them with tape at the Waldorf show-- It was like old home week for me, I hadn’t been to an audio show in at least 20 years- the elevator doors opened and I saw the same guys I used to see from the NY audio mafia-- just 20 years older! (Me, I’m ageless) :) |
myaudio168, It is possible to like something relatively obsolete (no, I have nothing against Quad speakers, but they are not the newest model) more than a brand new one. Having said that, enjoy your new old speakers, but keep Focals for a bit more. Infatuation rarely lasts a lifetime, no matter how pretty the subject is. If it is a love of your life, you got double lucky. Not only was it affordable, but also "the right one". Or two, I guess. |
whart, Yep I agree. My desire for the palpability factor would probably lead me toward horns of some sort (though Lowther speakers can have this factor as well). And in fact I'd love to be able to try some. Unfortunately horns are just a bad fit in terms of size and requirements for my room, so I don't see it ever happening unfortunately. I get a very nice sense of palpability from my Thiel 2.7 speakers though. |
Analogluvr I am your newest fan. Brilliantly stated! I totally agree! Also I wish to say "hats off to the old schoolers"! There have been advances in a few areas of HEA, but there has also been many holes created with some of the newer designed drivers. I'm being very generous when saying advances in HEA. Michael Green |
The Quad 2905's are a minor evolution of the 63's. They can be much improved by changing the step-up transformers and delay line capacitors, but the biggest improvement of all is cutting out the circuit protection (which must be done with great care - my amps are designed to be incapable of driving the Quads into protection, so I don't need it). Enjoy! |
There are only two people in the US currently authorized to perform Quad Repairs per the US distributor. One on the East Coast in PA as I recall and the second is in San Jose, CA. Scott Frankland and Associates. I have been told that Quad 2805/2905s were made with less than perfect panels. 989's are also said to be problematic. $550 per each panel replacement, freight two ways and multiple panels-therein lies the rub. You may in fact need to sets of speakers as the expression "Have Quad will Travel" may apply. After I fell in love with the sound of a 2905 at a fellow club members home, I started hearing from the only two people I know who owned them about the issues they were having. When Scott told me about the issues he deals with on this model, I decided I need to look in another direction for new speakers. The good news is that Scott says the new panels are much better now. He has yet to see any issues with the next generation 2912s. I hope this helps some readers. |
Hi inna The last time I was playing with the 57's was in one of our Tunable Rooms that a good friend of mine has, about 5 years ago. I didn't have the Chameleons there, but did have a sweet pair of the Rev 60's. The 60's ate the Quads for lunch and then some. But set the Revs aside I enjoyed the Quads as I always have. The Scala doesn't hit my taste buds right. Body is something very important to me and the Focal fell short. I've always wanted to like Focal but they leave me empty and fatigued. The Quads on the other hand have all kinds of tweaking potential. But compared to your Chameleons you would get bored quickly I think. The 57s and 63s are classics and a ton of fun but they have their own thing going on no matter what someone does and it's either going to hit you right or can leave you wanting more. Always makes me happy to hear you enjoying the Chameleons. Michael Green |
Quad 57s shine if, and that’s a big if, you’re willing to remove the heavy metal grills, remove the plastic dust covers, place the Quads on Arcicci stands and replace the stock power cords. Removing the entire electronics package in each speaker and placing it on a dedicated isolation stand is also recommended. Then you will have dynamics, bass, body and imaging up the wazoo. |
I love that man, Ray! One of the coolest guys I have ever worked with or known. Ray was the original RoomTune Rep. I flew back from meeting with TAS for the first time, and when I got home I had orders for over 100 stores. Ray, out of the blue, put on the first RoomTune dealers. I didn't even have a factory yet. I had no idea how to start a production run. I can still remember that thick fedex envelope full of computer print out order forms. I looked at my friends and said "looks like I won't be doing any recordings for a while". What a classy Classy MAN! |
Quads have/had their place in audio history. I mean, no other than Mark Levinson hisself (sorry, Honest Charlie) chose them to be in his famous HQD system back in the day. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-hqd-loudspeaker-system https://www.google.com/search?q=levinson+hqd+system&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS563US563&tbm=isch&so...: Full Disclosure: We made a few pair of stands for this system (the ones in this picture, I think), and it was not bad when not driven by Levinson hardware. They were one of the first to realize that imaging size was important, and electrostatics have their aficionados. Even the great Bob Fulton used a pair of RTR electrostatics in his Modular J system back in the day. (His 80 and 100 boxes are about the best I ever heard from a box back in the day...) https://www.stereophile.com/content/fulton-musical-industries-model-80-j-modular-loudspeakers-fmi-cu... http://fultonmusicalindustries.com/ Unfortunately, they are not as accurate as some other designs (Magneplaners) that provide better imaging and more accurate reproduction. BUT, they were and are pretty cool speakers. Enjoy them! Cheers! |
Great thread that brought back many memories of when I used to own Crosby modded quad 63's. I did love those speakers but got sick of replacing panels. Many years later I have the pleasure of owning TAD CR1'S. It was remarkable that they seemed to sound a bit like the quads, though with dynamics and bass. I then learned that Andrew Jones loves quads and still own a pair, and informed his design choices for the TAD'S. |
I do think part of the "shock" of hearing electrostatics like the Quads comes from the utterly boxless quality of the sound. It does help electrostatics sound very detailed, but I do think that even the perception of transparency detail is somewhat still tied to that boxless quality. I had been auditioning a number of very resolving dynamic speakers and recently listened to my friend's Martin Logan eletrostatics. That sense of transparency was great, but I also noted that a number of dynamic speakers seemed at least as revealing of information if not more. |
I bought a pair of the original Magneplanar Tympani-I’s in ’72, then sold them in ’74 and bought Fulton Model J’s. Though the Fulton’s were more transparent (those RTR ESL tweeters were killer!) and had the bottom octave missing in the Tympani’s, I soon missed the openness, image size and height, and depth afforded by the big panels. The music was being "squeezed" through the boxes of the Fultons, like a pair of bricks removed from a wall between speaker and listener. I realized then I was a planar man, and now have Tympani-IVa’s (the 80’s version of the new 30.7), old Quads (grills, but not dust covers, removed), and Eminent Technology LFT-8b’s. I feel no need for a pair of Charlatans. Oops, I mean Chameleons ;-). |
It seems that everyone here admires those Quad speakers. Maybe only people who admire them feel the urge to participate. I have a bit different memory of them. It was in and, more correctly, around Salzburg in 1990-1991. It was a year of Mozart’s death anniversary and many venues were commemorating. Exhibitions, concerts, etc. Quad was a supplier of music systems in those spaces (maybe not concerts, but wherever else the music was playing) and I was excited to finally hear the magic. Well, in some sort of a castle or a huge villa up in the hills, I entered one room and poof. It was truly underwhelming. I tried to convince myself it was great, but it really was not. I tried a few more rooms and it was all the same. It was not painful, but it was underwhelming. Speakers so perfect, at least that is what I had heard and read, were as plain as they get. They were memorable only because they were so non-memorable. I do not doubt that most of you have fantastic experiences, but this was mine. Maybe next time, I will be impressed. |
I love the virtues of electrostatics but in a reasonably large room the Focal’s frequency extremes will unquestionably be better & they will play louder. The Focals Beryllium tweeters will certainly have advantages. If you wanted to usefully narrow the gap in the midrange, then replacing the xover parts with EXTREMELY high-quality polypropylenes i.e. the top Wimas and/or Teflon capacitors (probably in an external xover) along with rewiring it with kimber or similar would be required. |
