Awesome imaging, inner detail, transient response, and vast sound stage. Most like real music of any speaker ever.

These ain't cheap. Go to eBay after searching the web for how to tell a fried panel.

My first pair of ESL-63 speakers were the original International Monitors, serial # 5000s. These were purchased in England years before a modified ESL-63 was sold in the USA as the US Monitor. After 22 years, one of them developed a leaking capacitor which makes weird noises, and I replaced it with ESL-63 USA Monitors (serial # 21,000s), an upgraded version of the originals. The original ESL 63 was the best speaker ever made, especially for classical music. The US Monitor is better, being a bit more open. These speakers are not fussy unless they are over powered. If you have pop music induced hearing loss, you won't like them. Quads roll off from 40 Hz (which is pretty good bass unless you are a hard rock nut), and a little low base boost makes sense, but running the Quads through a crossover is not a good idea, it only makes things worse. I built my own subwoofer with its own amp that rolls off -6db between 30 and 40 Hz, and the signal is terminated at 40 Hz. That way. in only adds bass in the region where the Quads roll off without taking anything away from the Quads.

Similar Products Used:

MacIntosh, Quad, Adcom, Tandberg, Berning, Crown, and Marantz amps. Magnavox, Sony, JVC, CEC cd players. Ariston 400 turntable/Ortofon OM-40 mm cartridge.

Transparent, "open window" reproducers of the natural timbre of acoustic instruments and voice, if faithfully recorded. Beautiful mid-range fidelity. Wide,stable soundstage.

Lack the "punch" of dynamic speakers. Difficult to blend-in a dynamic subwoofer. Require a lot of space around the speakers.

I purchased my new Quad ESL 63s with "Stand and Deliver" stands in late 1979, along with a Janis 15" W-1 Subwoofer and crossover/amp. In 1988 I traded them for a pair of ESL 63 USA Monitors. They have always been driven by Audio Research M100 tube monoblocks and an ARC SP-9 hybrid preamp. After 14 years, this system continues to thrill me with the transparent, holographic delivery of beautiful music, especially with the acoustic classical and jazz performances now becoming available using the new DSD SACD recording. The Quads deliver astonishly real(true) voice, piano and woodwind sound, and with a well-blended sub do not seem to slight the musically deep bass notes on the DSD disks. I have an all-digital Meridian home theater surround sound system, which is really great for movie sound as well as music, but it can't input the DSD multichannel SACDs, so I prefer my Quad ESL63/tube system for stereo listening to these super-fidelity recordings and other good analog source material like Direct-to-Disk and high quality vinyl. Over these many years, I have had no problem with the speakers deteriorating.

Similar Products Used:

VPI T.T., Souther Linear Tracking Arm, Koetsu MC Pickup, Sony SCD-777es SACD

Satisfying natural sound

Damnably unreliable (especially if you live in a humid clime).

Arguably (but please don't) the best speaker ever made - including the 988 & 989. I respond to Juan Romero's review of June 18th ,2003. I agree with everything he said except his comments re the ESL57. I heard these several years ago but cannot remember how they sounded (as part of an HQD Mark Levinson system). The comments from persons who have heard both seem to divide fairly evenly with respect to which gives the more transparent midrange. Check out MT Audio Design at http//user.tninet.se. He has extensive experience with both. BTW, I have never heard them sound jumbled. Your comments about the stator elements separating from the frame because of glue deteriorating are well taken. My experience has been much worse than the 10 or so years you mentioned. I have had failures on the order of a different one every 6 or so months. It may be the humidity here in Nassau. I have learned to repair the panels however. Address info on your repair source would be much appreciated as I am on the look out for better tools to effect such repairs.

Quad ESLs are :transparent, have a great Midrange (Though not as good as the QUAD ESL 57's), great looks (though you will need a rather larger living room....

Well little can be added to previous reviews. But since anyone buying a pair will have to acquire them second hand I better give a warnning. The adhesive employed by quad to glue the stators to the plastic matrix tends to corrode with ozone (this happenened to my pair). This means that they have to be replaced (around$400 per panel)or repaired (around $150 per panel) about every 10 to 12 years. This can mean a big a lot of money, considering that there are four panels in each loudspeaker and that they will surely fail at the same time. I could not afford to replace or have them repaired, so I had to do it myself with a kit I acquired from ER Audio in Australia. Now, I am very happy with them and I am always impressed by their sound quality.

Well, a lot can be said about QUAD ESL 63, I cannot add a lot to the reviews posted before me. Though this product is no longer in production they are amongst the most succesfull electrostatic loudspeakers ever produced.

Similar Products Used:

QUAD ESL 57

Midrange is terrific. Very holographic sound. Horns sound magical as do string intruments. Very quick sounding.

Shows off the warts of poorly recorded music. Not terrific on large orchestral works or heavy metal (passages seem jumbled). Panels have a tendency to break, and they are costly to replace.

I bought a pair of Quad ESL 63 USA monitors about eight years ago. At first I used the Arcici stands, but found that I was losing midrange. So I had Crosby, of Crosby Audio Works, build me a set of box stands, that work much better. I currently mate my Quads with two Vandersteen subwoofers, but in the past had used a Muse 18 sub with a Quad personality card module. Problem with the Muse 18 is that I was using a tube preamp that inverted polarity, so the bass going to the Muse 18 was out of phase. With the Vandersteen subs, it was simply a matter of switching the wire connections in parrallel with the Quads. The Quads are a great sounding pair of speakers on most music, but when you are listening to complicated orchestral passages, it can begin to sound one dimensional. Other than that, the clarity and 3 dimensionality of these speakers are really something. I've had problems with panels breaking, which has been a real pain, because I never really overdrove the speakers. I think the problem was the Conrad JOhanson Premiere 11 a tube amp I was using. I have a feeling that the difficult load the speakers present caused the Premiere 11 a to arc the panels. I am now using a 200 watt per channel dual mono B and K amp, with plenty of current to drive them. I recently purchased a third Quad speaker to use as a center channel in my home theater in a separate room. The quad looks kind of funny sitting atop my 46 inch widescreen Mitsubishi HDTV, but it does justice to a lot of the dialogue on DVD and laserdiscs.

Similar Products Used:

Vandersteen 2 ce speakers.

Detail without fatigue, a holographic soundstage (a cliche, but it's true!) Will reveal things you have never noticed before in recordings, but not in an etched, hifi way. In fact, while they have many "audiophile" traits, they are more a music lover's speaker. Bad recordings, while revealed, are still bearable or enjoyable, something I can't say for some current high-end speakers.

You must be willing to plan your room around them (I love my wife for putting up with me!) In effect, at least three or four feet into the room, with treatments if needed. They are not the ultimate bass machines. A small, QUICK sub, brought in lightly, can help add some weight. I might try a diy version of the Gradient dipole subwoofer some day, though some folks who have tried the crossover/sub route have not been pleased. Not for intense volume freaks. Great for those of us who like to listen at low to moderate volume levels.

Ok, a lot has been said about these. I will say that I listened to a pair of PROPERLY refurbed 57s (done by Wayne Piquet of Florida), and the INSANE midrange purity blew me away. However, my wife did not like the looks of the 57 at all (too wide.) She was ok with the 63's shape, so I found a pair of USA Monitors in great shape. While they do not have that so real it's unreal midrange of the 57, they do still have a wonderful midrange, better soundstage, more extended highs and lows than the 57. This does suit some of the rock music I like a bit better than the 57 might (but, oh, that revealing yet natural midrange of the ESL. You gotta hear a PROPERLY working pair at least once in your life.) If I did not live in a Manhattan studio apartment, I would probably want to own both! Anyways, much has been mentioned here, but a couple of my feelings and findings: Height is important, get them off the floor. I have read terrible things about the Arcici stands (damage done to panels due to the clamping nature of these stands), so instead I built braced MDF boxes, filled each with 100 lbs (!) of sand, painted them black, and that was just the trick: the center of the speaker is at ear height, on a heavy, solid base. Take the grillsocks down, if you care more about music than cosmetics. The speaker sound a little more open. When my cat passes on, I will go further and remove the metal grill (DO NOT do this if you have kids or pets that might touch the panels and kill themselves!) These things need to be at least three or four feet out in the room to open up. Also, they are great in the nearfield, and not cranked to the ridiculous levels that some audiophiles (deaf ones?) seem to like. If you have to fill a large space with loud music, look elsewhere, or go for the big Innersound Eros or Soundlabs. While some have said "don't even try a sub", I have had nice luck using a small sub (Parts Express Titanic sub kit), running the 63s fullrange, and using the sub lightly to add some weight to bass drum and guitar. It makes rock, funk and some jazz stuff have a little more authority. Lastly, some folks have said these are not good rock speakers. If you are trying to fill up a large room with chest thumpin', ear bleedin' volume, that is true. But, if you live in an apartment like myself, listen at comfortable volume levels nearfield, or listen at night a lot like I do, these can reveal everything on a recording at low levels, much more important to me than a speaker that can (or needs to be) cranked. I find at night I can listen to everything from classic jazz and folk to punk and heavy metal and find it enjoyable. So, if you do not have loud volume needs (and can toss off your audiophile shackles and accept poor recordings of music you love, more often the case than not), these speakers can be very rewarding. Lastly, make sure you have decent components. I find they like tubes, though the right SS amp could be nice (like Plinius, or the Innersound ESL amp) For gear, it's an Audible Illusions Modulus 3 (with MC Gold Board) tube preamp, Music Reference RM9 tube amp (with cap and other upgrades), Monarchy SM70 Pro Class A Mosfet amp, Rega Planar 3 with modded RB300 arm (will be upgraded to a much better table soon), Dynavector 20XL low output moving coil cartridge, modified Sony ES555 SACD player. Cables are Goertz TQ2 silver interconnects, Pure SIlver Sounds interconnects, some Audioquest interconnects, Goertz MI2 speaker cable.

Fast on transients, pinpoint imaging, reference quality soundstage. Shows up every flaw in your front end, or on the other side of the coin, reveals how wonderful well-recorded analog can sound.

None. Will live with these forever. Even if I get something else later like the Martin Logan Statements when I can afford them.

First I have to explain my love affair with the Quad ESL-63s. I have always wanted to own Quad products. From my very first encounter with Quad, which was in the mid 70s while visiting a family friend. I was in my teens but a keen hi-fi nut from then. The system was integrated into what was then knows as a “stereogram”, built by the owner I suppose. It comprised of a Garrard 301 with the Garrard arm, a Shure cartridge of some kind, a couple of home made corner speakers (dynamic) and then there it was the gorgeous set of separates, the Quad II. Pre-amp, tuner and the mono bloc amplifiers. I was incurably hooked to the cosmetics of the quads. I never did hear this system but that matters naught. I eventually bought a set of Quad components, the 303 and the 33. Then I heard the ESL-57, and was just blown away by the open window on sound that I experienced form these miracle devices, which looked anything but like a speaker. Alas they were beyond my modest budget at the time. I vowed to eventually own a pair of Quad electrostatics. Then Mark Levinson decided to make the HQD (Hartley Quad Decca) system and I was even more frustrated as now what was mildly unaffordable, was now completely out of my range. I believe they listed for $35k US! However the desire still remained. I gave up on ever owning a pair of ESL-57s and bought a pair of Magneplanar SMGa, which was a darling of a speaker. All of the benefits of planar technology without the complexity. As they say, once you go planar you never go back. Frustration set in as I still longed for the electrostatic experience. The Quad ESL-63 was introduced and I was privileged to be in the top ten customers in Canada to listen to a pair. I did not purchase them at that time but did so eventually. So here are my comments on the Quad ESL-63. This is a speaker, which appeals to me on two levels. I have read most of the major reviews from the first time the press wrote about these speakers; and tend to agree with pretty much most of the general comments. Like speed, detail, imaging etc, etc. But music is more that just getting the perfect imaging. The first level on which these speakers appeal to me is on the emotional level. This speaker, more that any other that I have owned or listened draws the listener into the musical experience. Sure they excel on musical material like chamber music or jazz. Guitar and flute music gives you the experience of being there. But it is with pipe organ, yes pipe organ where I most like these. I know they don’t play extremely loudly but if you couple these things with the correct subwoofer, in my caste the Muse Model 18, then these things make such a statement. Bach would have owned these I am sure. The second level that these appeal to me is on the level of logic. Most hi-fi hobbyists have heard or at least are familiar with electrostatic speakers but most people have never, and those people are always amazed at how well these things perform despite not having any “speakers” in them. It is for this reason that I sometimes sit in a darkened listing room and just enjoy the naturalness of these speakers without any visual clues that those panels make music. Final thoughts. If you own pair make sure you use the Arcicci stands filled with lead shots. Bring them way into the room and tow them in to the listener.

Similar Products Used:

Magnepan, Martin Logan CLS

- Pride of ownership - amazing heritage - Wonderfully transparent, open sound - The ultimate classical/ intimate jazz monitor - Superb residual values for such a long in the tooth hi-fi component - Seemingly impervious to the effects of quite exotic cables (in other words you save money) - Got recordings made in the 60'? - I'm almost certain that nothing will make them sound better than ESL 63's do

- Somehow miss the point with modern stuff - Inconsistent bass performance - Not always an easy domestic proposition - Prone to "arcing" sounds if dust gets in them (problem always cures itself though)

Quad ESL 63's are one of a few genuinely legendary hi-fi components. I first heard them in the mid 80's. They sounded fantastic and I vowed to own a pair one day. They are still breathtaking! Managed to obtain a virtually new, unused pair from my local dealer (!) a couple of years ago - so now feel that I can give a balanced view of these wonderful pieces of audio history. I really don't need to go on about the usual things like holographic imaging, unrivalled presentation of classical music etc., etc. - all that's been done to death on this and other sites. No, what I'd rather discuss is the listening limitations these speakers impose on you, which explains why I've just bought a big, bad, bassy pair of Celestion A3's. The simple truth is that anyone interested in today's bass-laden, multi-layered recordings will perhaps find the ESL 63 an ultimately frustrating, if fascinating, "classic" speaker. Peter Walker designed these speakers in an altogether more gentile musical age. I have found that the sheer power and resolution of much of today's music is just too much for the poor old Quads to completely do justice to. The old chestnut about Quads being bass light is only partly true. At times they can go very low; at others they fail to excite in the low end at all. A real curate's egg... Put on a classical or jazz piece or a well recorded classic pop or rock track and you will immediately understand why these speakers have been revered by so many for so long - and with a mountain of justification. Give Massive Attack, So Solid Crew, Missy Elliott or recent Madonna recordings an airing, for example, and it's quite a different matter. They still sound great, in their own way, but there's a whole element of the music that somehow just doesn't come over in the way it can with a big pair of up-to-date, more conventional speakers. Having said all this, I will most probably always hang on to my 63's and bring them out when delicacy and absolute transparancy are the watchword. I will be very interested to hear how the new 988 and 989 models cope with more modern recordings. ESL 63's can be obtained reasonably cheaply on the second hand market today. My recommendation would certainly be to buy a pair but, if at all possible, also run a more conventional loudspeaker. Then you can have your cake and eat it too!!!

Everything you can imagine.

None. Zero. Really.

Well, I finally did it. After hemming and hawing for years, I finally got my ESl 63's.
First - some advice. Since you're reading this and obviously thinking about the speaker, BUY IT. Really, you will have no regrets. I have read a lot about these, and I guess I expected fragility, weak bass, etc...
HA.
These things are fantastic. I can find no weaknesses at all.
I also heard that they are more suited to acoustic music than other genres.
Again, HA.
I just played some Depeche Mode that PINNED ME TO MY CHAIR.
My equipment: I use a Sakura Systems 47 Labs Gaincard, Cal Audio labs Icon Mk II CD, and Nordost Blue Heaven interconnects and speaker cables. That's it. Sweet and simple. I had Audio Physics (Spark's) which I loved, but my listening room is almost a prefect square, and there was a lot of standing wave interference that was driving me crackers.
The sound is to die for. My 47 Labs has the warmth of tubes, but the fast transients of solid state, so the match to the Quad's is excellent. The music is lush, wide, bright and sharp without sounding brittle. Presense is astonishing. Everything you've heard is true - the musician is RIGHT THERE in front of you.
Soundstage is dramatic, but make sure placement is correct. This is the one thing you will need to get right in order for the Quads to truly shine.
Bass extension is excellent, despite what others might say. Tightness, weight, heft and slam are all world class. The 63's will go down to 40Hz with no problem. Any lower and you'll need a sub, but at that point you are merely counting angels on a pinhead. Again, on the aforementioned Depeche Mode, they simply SLAMMED my chest. Very cool.
The majority of music that I listen to is Jazz, rhythmic, like Pat Metheny. A lot of transient information being presented very quickly, and again, the 63's are just gorgeous in this arena. I have literally listened to every Metheny CD I own again with these, just to hear what I've been missing all these years.
I understnad the new Quad's are supposed to be even better, but I just can't see it.
If you can find these for sale for anything around 2 grand -BUY THEM. It is the deal of the century.

Similar Products Used:

No ESL's, but Vandersteen, Audio Physic and other 'column' speakers.

BASS IS ACCURATE, BASS DRUM,TYMPANI, BASS CLARINET, TUBA, CONTRA BASSOON, AND STRING BASS CAN BE EASILY IDENTIFIED WHEN ALL ARE PLAYING TOGETHER. THERE IS NO BOX SOUND AS WITH ANY P.M. SPEAKER. MID RANGE IS CLEAR- IT IS EASY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND ANOTHER, TO SAY NOTHING OF DIFFERENT SINGERS. HIGHS ARE STILL THE BEST I HAVE HEARD. THE CYMBALS SOUND NATURAL, I HAVE NEVER HEARD A P.M. SPEAKER APPROACH.

MOSTLY MINOR, THE SPEAKERS COULD BE A TOUCH MORE EFFICIENT.

THE SPEAKERS SOUND CLOSER TO THE REAL THING THAN ANY I HAVE YET HEARD. I WILL NOT USE ANY OF THE HIGH-FI TERMS LIKE SOUNDSTAGE OR PRESENCE OR OTHER TERMS THAT MOST REVIEWERS LIKE TO USE. THEY ARE BY AND LARGE MEANINGLESS TERMS. EITHER IT SOUNDS LIKE AN OBOE OR IT DOESN'T. GOOD FOR US, THANK GOD. THE QUAD DOES ITS JOB WELL. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE PHILHARMONIA REPLACED ITS PRINCIPAL TRUMPET, I RECOGNIZED THE DIFFERENCE IMMEDIATELY. ON PM SPEAKERS FORGET IT, THEY CANNOT RESOLVE THE SOUND WELL ENOUGH. S SYLLABLES ARE REPRODUCED NATURALLY AS ARE TONAL QUALITIES OF THE VOICE ITSELF WHETHER A SINGLE SINGER OR CHORAL. AS TO PERCUSSION, NOTHING IS MORE NATURAL. MY SPEAKERS PRODUCE 30CPS AS LOUD AS 50CPS AND THE SOUND SEEMS TO BE LOUDER AT 40CPS THAN AT 30 OR 50. THIS COULD BE CHALKED UP TO ROOM RESONANCE. EVERYTHING IS NATURAL FROM THESE FREQUENCIES UPWARD. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIKE TO PLAY BET TYPE MUSIC VERY LOUDLY. THE COMMENTS FROM THEM IS, IT IS THE BEST THEY HAVE HEARD.

Similar Products Used:

SOUND LAB-NARTIN LOGAN