[EarHead1]

El_Doug, I don't think you can go wrong with the 2805s although I prefer the larger panels myself. Quad has an excellent speaker in the 2805s. EarHead1

 

[J-Pak]

The one time I heard Sound Labs at a hi-fi show they didn't do much for me. Those massive panels inevitably overloaded the ****ty tiny room they were forced to play in. Now demonstrated at a dealer that knows they need a large room, treat the room, and amp them is a whole different story. I have yet to hear that realism from any other speaker I have ever heard. Acapellas might have been next, but are still colored, though less than other horns I have heard. Apogees are fantastic as well, but I always got the sense I was listening to speakers, they can't quite disappear. Quad ESL are a great compromise that do well in non-dedicated listening rooms, but require attention to setup and obviously room treatments go a long way; they're my interim speakers until the Sound Labs...

 

[milezone]

Quad 57's are hardly a compromise as you're likely aware. Still one of the best. I'm using a pair of KLH Nines which use a single Janszen tweeter panel, which Roger West familiarized himself with in the 70's while designing speakers for Janszen before going on to found Soundlabs. The two big differences between the Quads and the KLH's vs the Soundlabs is the radiation pattern and the inclusion of a crossover. The Quads and KLH's are both two ways. Featuring flat bass panels and flat treble panels. The Soundlabs are single membrane/driver speakers which eliminate the use of a crossover. By curving the panel in the way that soundlabs does, it increases dispersion and reduces beaming (which is otherwise inevitable with a panel this large). Beaming occurs when the treble panel is larger than the wavelength being produced. As a result multiple equivalent frequencies are produced from multiple locations on the panel. As they travel they cancel each other out and or amplify the frequency (comb filtering). By curving the panel or using a dome tweeter, this cancellation is reduced. This improves dispersion but can reduce coherence and create unwanted distortion.

 

[J-Pak]

I consider anything that isn't full range a compromise. While I don't listen to much electronic music, I think a pair of end game speakers should be able to reproduce all fundamentals and harmonics. Just IMO of course....
 
Quad 57s will not recreate the live band experience of a RVG 1950s Blue Note recording can like an Aceppela, Sound Lab, Avantgarde, etc. Or even a full symphony. They do the disappearing act well with simpler music.

 

[milezone]

True. Part of my reason for switching from Quad's to KLH Nines was for the reason you described. I've recently been listening to Squarepusher's Go Plastic. Not my go to music but it's lying around. I've had no issuesi with "limitations" when listing to this or any other electronic music for that matter. If I had the Quad's still I'd probably build a transmission line sub (very different from hybrid solutions you find in the commercial realm) for them, restore them to spec and they'd become my endgame speaker. Have you used/considered using them with a really high quality subwoofer?

 

[J-Pak]

I have thought about OB/H-frames, but I'm uncertain if I will do it or not. I would only go with an active crossover. It's a lot of time and money spent if it turns out not to be good, that's why I'm on the fence.

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

I have thought about OB/H-frames, but I'm uncertain if I will do it or not.

 
i probably should know this but i can't come up with it right now. what are 'ob/h' frames?

 

[milezone]

Well implemented, it's a certain improvement. The benefit of an advanced active crossover is that you can dial the levels to accurate degrees. Even with the improved bass of the KLH Nines, I intend to build a pair of subwoofers down the road using a crossover. I don't think there's a system in the world that doesn't benefit from a well implemented pair of subwoofers. That being said, I can't stand in your face bass. For me, achieving that last octave in a resolving manner enhances the music to a great degree but over doing it really ruins it. My headphone/speaker preferences tend to 'suffer' from rolled off low end.
 
OB is open baffle. H is the shape of a frame or a horn. With regards to subwoofer designs, I think there are a few types worth considering. The transmission line enables use of a small driver which is good for achieving higher speeds and thus enabling it to better blend with fast electrostat drivers. The same is true of a compression horn (possibly better than a TL) design. A sealed multi-driver enclosure is another good option, as is an open baffle. A possible issue with an open baffle is that such a design requires greater than normal driver (xmax) excursion in order to achieve proper subwoofer frequencies. The very nature of this deviates from an electrostatic design in that electrostats have very limited excursion. Higher excursion means slower bass response thus this may not be the best option. The Hartley woofer used in Mark Levinson's HQD stacked Quad design was great because it behaved more like a planar speaker in that it produced very little distortion and could generate deep bass with little excursion making it "fast" enough. They are 24" however. My dream solution would be a pair of Tympani planar woofers and two sealed woofers to cover the lowest octave (and everything else electrostatic). This however is a lot of dough and requires a lot of space. There are plenty of good solutions.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Well implemented, it's a certain improvement. The benefit of an advanced active crossover is that you can dial the levels to accurate degrees. Even with the improved bass of the KLH Nines, I intend to build a pair of subwoofers down the road using a crossover. I don't think there's a system in the world that doesn't benefit from a well implemented pair of subwoofers. That being said, I can't stand in your face bass. For me, achieving that last octave in a resolving manner enhances the music to a great degree but over doing it really ruins it. My headphone/speaker preferences tend to 'suffer' from rolled off low end.
 
OB is open baffle. H is the shape of a frame or a horn. With regards to subwoofer designs, I think there are a few types worth considering. The transmission line enables use of a small driver which is good for achieving higher speeds and thus enabling it to better blend with fast electrostat drivers. The same is true of a compression horn (possibly better than a TL) design. A sealed multi-driver enclosure is another good option, as is an open baffle. A possible issue with an open baffle is that such a design requires greater than normal driver (xmax) excursion in order to achieve proper subwoofer frequencies. The very nature of this deviates from an electrostatic design in that electrostats have very limited excursion. Higher excursion means slower bass response thus this may not be the best option. The Hartley woofer used in Mark Levinson's HQD stacked Quad design was great because it behaved more like a planar speaker in that it produced very little distortion and could generate deep bass with little excursion making it "fast" enough. They are 24" however. My dream solution would be a pair of Tympani planar woofers and two sealed woofers to cover the lowest octave (and everything else electrostatic). This however is a lot of dough and requires a lot of space. There are plenty of good solutions.

 
The low end extension is what worried me about an OB/H as well. The plans on Linkwitz's site using a pair of 12" Peerless XLS drivers say they go down to 30 Hz which is not that bad for my use, and these can be built fairly cheaply. But the issue of integration concerns me more. I can't say I am too keen on paying for a single or pair of subs that cost more than the speakers (plus the active crossover). If my 63s were the speakers I were sticking with for good I would definitely consider something more exotic.
 
I think the 63s do mid bass well, so I was only looking for something below 60 or 50 Hz.

 

[milezone]

Agreed with regards to subs costing more than the rest of the speaker. It seems frustrating though especially necessary in the case of Quad 57s. To justify the thought to some degree, consider the Quads (one of) the greatest midrange driver ever created, and go from there. Given that they can be had for relatively cheap and with a well thought out and invested subwoofer design, can compete with the best speakers in the world (and still do without subs), it feels/seems like a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, experimenting with designs until you find the right one is less than optimal. I'm taking these next days weeks months years to gather as much information as I can both online and through listening in person to formulate an opinion before I commit to a final design. That's really the only way to do it without wasting tons of money -- as people too often do in this hobby... with dynamic speakers and all.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Agreed with regards to subs costing more than the rest of the speaker. It seems frustrating though especially necessary in the case of Quad 57s. To justify the thought to some degree, consider the Quads (one of) the greatest midrange driver ever created, and go from there. Given that they can be had for relatively cheap and with a well thought out and invested subwoofer design, can compete with the best speakers in the world (and still do without subs), it feels/seems like a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, experimenting with designs until you find the right one is less than optimal. I'm taking these next days weeks months years to gather as much information as I can both online and through listening in person to formulate an opinion before I commit to a final design. That's really the only way to do it without wasting tons of money -- as people too often do in this hobby... with dynamic speakers and all.

 
I look forward to what you come up with, please keep us updated. If you start another thread would you mind messaging me? I only read my subscribed threads.

 

[xzobinx]

I'm thinking of picking up a pair of 57. May I ask what amp you guys used to drive it ? Any cheap solution around 500 -1000 marks ? 
Thanks 
 

 

[n3rdling]

I use the Bedini 25/25 which was made for the 57s and is a classic pairing.  There's a website with recommended amps for the 57s.

 

[milezone]

J-Pak, happy to keep you in the loop as I learn stuff and eventually commit to a design. Please do the same.
 
With regards to amps for the 57's, I powered mine with an Almarro 318B (this seemed like a truly perfect match). They can be had for around $1350 used and I recommend them wholeheartedly. I also used an Almarro 205a MKII with good results as well, though there was obviously something missing compared to the 318B, it still made them sound great. There's a delicacy to the 205a that is quite rare. I own the amp and often use it to power my KLH Nine's. That being said for some, it may not be up to the task. I firmly prefer pentodes over triodes and recommend trying to hear amps designed with both types of output tubes before committing. With regards to tube vs. SS, generally I would say go with tubes over SS amplifiers when powering electrostats of any sort as they're voltage amplifiers (vs current amplifiers) which is what electostats need. With regards to amps like the Bedini, which is transistor based (solid state) I'm sure it does a great job powering the Quads. I'd be curious to hear. Keep in mind wattage (especially in the context of tubes and electrostats) does not directly equate to output power/amp capability. In my experience with transistor based amps (a 45 watt Stax DA80 which I owned around the same time as the 318B), I preferred the 318B. I imagine an amp like the Yamaha B2 would be a great choice for Quads as is the Bedini most likely. If you have DIY abilities and knowledge, I'd recommend building one of these: http://www.transcendentsound.com/Transcendent/Son_of_Beast_OTL_Tube_Amp.html. 
 
I'm about to receive a shipment for a pair of Hypex NCore Class D amplifiers and will report back my findings driving my speakers once I have them set up (soon).

 

[verber]

It's been a while since I have read this forum so my response is slow in coming. I haven't thought about audiostatic speakers in years.  I gave them a listen maybe 20 years ago. At the time I thought that sounded quite good, but they were a bit outside my price range, and for the same money I found there were some speakers I liked better (specifically a pair of Apogee ribbon speaker).  Back then, Martin Logan has just released the Aerius which was far from perfect, was significantly better sounding to my wife's and my ears than any other speaker we listened to that cost $2.5k or less (the Aerius was $2k at the time).  There were speakers >=$3k we liked more, but that was over the budget.
 
A couple comments about Martin Logan.  The first is that they made a decision to expand their market which resulted in them producing some really so/so speakers.  In the process it seems that their better quality speakers price rose more quickly that their competition. The result is you can typically find speakers which deliver better sound quality / money.  Their full range panels, and even some of their hybrids are still excellent sounding if you drive them with appropriate electronics in a room that is properly prepared.
 
I am personally very found of electrostatics, and their near cousins ribbon and planner speakers.  Beside the companies already named, there have been fine speakers made by Magnepan, SoundLab, and audiostat. I am sure there are some other companies as well that I have forgotten. I am personally disappointed that most of these companies have struggled if not closed down over the years. I think the best value these days (if purchasing new) is the Magnepan 1.7. Not to say that these are the best sounding speakers, but get something significantly better sounding is going to take a good bit of money... unless we are talking headphones, in which case there are a number of cheaper options  
 
--mark