Sound

Bass, but...

...the bass that the 63's do present is very true, and that's what these speakers are about.

The review below is nonsense (if Quad's goal were commercial success, for instance, the bass would have been far more enhanced and 'plastic'), and although the 57's are fantastic, the 63's are better...

I have never heard anything so faithful. Take voice and piano. These two natural signals are the hardest to reproduce because of their timbre, yet the 63's, like no other, are absolutely glorious. There is no addition to the signal - no siblance, so often a bi-product of trying too hard; no added weight from trying to sound full and rich, yet they impress simply because they're so damn realistic!

They reproduce the music in the best way I ever heard

They have to be positioned far from the wall

I walked into a shop as I wanted to buy some speakers. I heard the Quads. I never imagined before music could be reproduced so accurately. I heard many other speakers but I remained in love with them.
After six years I know that maybe I will change everything in my life: my job, my wife, my tailor and my house. But I am sure I will stick to Quads.

Similar Products Used:

Kef, Martin Logan, Vandersteen

Natural sound, deep and very clean bass, very precise and transparant soundreproduction. My kind of sound (at last)

After 10 years of usage, I had to replace one of de middle units. And that introduced a problem: the repaired speaker had a completely different sound. After some testing (in fact: a lot of testing) the only solution seemed to be replacing all units. So I had them replaced by the ones used in the 988/989 models. What an improvement that was! In fact, the differences are well described in an earlier review, concerning the difference between the German and the Enlish units. And no misunderstanding: before replacing the units, my speakers sounded like the germans.
My speakers had serialnumbers 26313 and 26314 with green units. Earlier units where red and sounded much better. If you have models with the green units and you have to replace them with de 988/989 models, youre in for a very big, pleasant surprise!
Driven bij an Accuphase DP55 CD-player, a Thorens TD2001 (what a beauty that is!) with Ortofon MC20 Super cartridge, and an Accuphase E306 integrated amplifier I have a set to grow old with.

This review is in two parts, first the sound, then the nuts and bolts...
1) Sound: Outstanding! Wide, flat frequency response. No distortion. Excellent imaging, dynamics, etc. Some people say they won't rock. I say they do, and better than most. They CAN play painfully loud even with a relatively low powered amp.

You will love these speakers from the first moment you hear them.

Very low bass is not there, so a subwoofer would help, but not really necessary unless you like pipe organ music.

2) Nuts and Bolts:
a) They don't stand up well on carpeted floors, so use stands (see note below) or put a board or slab of marble under them if they're gonna sit on a carpet.
b) They are a little large for most peoples' rooms, so you may find positioning them to be a little difficult (keep them away from the back wall).
c) I just did a partial rebuild of a pair of these speakers and was dismayed by the prodigious use of polyurethane foam tape inside the speakers to prevent rattling where two pieces of metal/plastic come in contact. As everyone knows, polyurethane foam tape turns to goo after just a couple years. I spent several hours trying to clean the stuff out. Polyurethane foam has no business inside a $6K pair of speakers.
d) The mechanical integrity of the speakers is a little less than I would have expected. The frame that holds the drivers consists of plastic top and bottom pieces and extruded aluminum side rails. The side rails are attached to the top and bottom pieces by two screws at each end. The screws are flat head type that pass through the plastic and into the aluminum pieces. Tightening the screws forces their tapered heads into a countersink molded into the plastic. Tightening the screws too much, or putting mechanical stress on the speaker (such as when moving it) causes the tapered head to split the plastic and ultimately break it.
e) The box which forms the base of the speakers and houses the transformers and bias supplies is also made of plastic. I found the walls to be rather thin considering that the box is supporting the weight of the speaker panels. Again, grabbing the top of the speaker to reposition it will result in a lot of stress being applied to the box where the speaker panel bolts on.
f) Stands: The speakers I rebuilt came with rectangular tubular steel frames (Arcici?) that attach to the sides of the speakers. DON'T USE THIS TYPE OF STAND! There are two major problems with them. First, they attach to the speakers by driving screws against the aluminum side rails. This pokes holes in the grill cloth and worst of all, BENDS THE SIDE RAILS, putting aditional stress on the screws holding the speaker frame together. Second, there is nothing connecting the two stands for each speaker together, except the speaker itself. By attaching the stands to the relatively fragile speaker frame assembly, you are increasing the leverage available to stress the hell out of the frame. The result is not pretty, and not easy to repair (and probably expensive if you pay someone to repair it for you).
If you gotta use stands, get something rigid that supports the speakers from the bottom, where they were meant to be supported.
g) The wiring inside the speakers is absolutely beautiful. Every wire is placed carefully. Circuit boards are all well laid out and professionally assembled.

You might get the impression from reading the above that these speakers are too flimsy for practical use. This is not true. Remember, they don't have tweeters that can be wrecked by a misguided finger, like many even more expensive speakers have. So they really aren't any worse than any other speaker. Just don't abuse them and they are fine.

All of my comments are based on my experience with two, very old production units. It is entirely possible that Quad has changed the mechanical design over the years.

Anyone who would like details about the innards of the speakers should feel free to email me.

MR

Have now owned the ESL 63s for approx. 10 years. They are used in combination with a Quad 606 power amp and 36 pre amp. The low end is supplemented by a REL stadium sub woofer.
The system is always a joy to listen to - but the positioning of the speakers and size of the room are important. Equally, the stands for the ESL are essential. The overall effect is however effortless and involving - but having a high ceiling (13 feet) is very beneficial. Highly recommended.

Smooth, natural sound; flat frequency response; superior midrange detail; wide and consistent stereo image; superb transients; non-fatiguing.

Somewhat hard to place, being dipoles; dynamic range limited in the deep bass.

I first heard the Quad ESL-63 about 1985, and decided they were for me. Several years later, I picked up a used pair, and I have been using them happily ever since. I find they are simply very natural and easy sounding on all the program material I tried: orchestra, male and female vocals, opera singers, mixed chorus, piano, percussion, even ordinary sized organs. The idea that the Quads have no bass is somewhat of a myth. At ordinary levels, the Quads can have useful bass down to about 30 Hz, and so can do reasonably well with a 16 foot organ pipe. However, the speaker limits in the deep bass at loud levels.

Although I usually can think about evaluating speakers with different musical material, with the ESL-63, this was very difficult, as I just ended up listening to the music. I find them very easy to listen to. Most impressive.

The Quads have to be set up fairly far from the rear wall, but can be fairly close to the side walls, anything over 15 inches is sufficient. One key to placement is the balance of male vocals, neither too heavy or too nasal. Being dipoles, the front and rear waves cancel out at the sides, and are reasonably directional. Properly placed, the Quads make most other fine speakers sound a bit confused, especially in the upper bass and midrange. This may be the way the react with the room, as being dipoles, the front and back waves cancel out at the sides.

The Quads are fairly low in sensitivity, but can play fairly loudly. I run them with a Quad 44 preamp and an original Quad 606 with no problems, and they will play louder than I wish to listen. However, they are not for rock concert levels.

One never has the impression that the sound is coming from the speakers with the Quads. With good recordings, the image is very consistent, wide and deep.

The Quads can benefit from a good subwoofer. I use a Paradigm PW-2500 with a Mirage LFX-1 electronic crossover, crossed over about 70 Hz. This gives me bass extension sufficient for a 32 foot organ pipe. The sub is placed in the right rear corner of my 25' X 14' X 8' living room. As they are dipoles, I found the large box interfered with the image if placed in the corner behind one of the Quads. This set up works very well, and the sub integrates very well with the Quads. It's all in the placement, the crossover settings, and the level.

While speakerd listing at $6000/pair may not seem the best value, there is nothing quite like them. They have stood the test of time and are a true classic.

Similar Products Used:

Similar? I have heard other electrostatic loudspeakers, but the Quads are the only ones I really liked, and I like them a lot. I usually prefer forward radiating speakers, but the Quads won me over. The earlier model is a most ingratiating speaker, too. The speakers I used to have were fine large bookshelf types, the Kef 104aB. I had a pair for 18 years.

After just coming across this website and finding the 63s reviewed by others I felt I had to add my two cents worth. I've owned them for over six years now with no regrets whatsoever. I was always fascinated by the idea behind them since it approaches an ideal in audio.

Just for a change lets start out with the weaknesses first. They won't play super load. If you want something over 100 db look elsewhere. However if you go to the concert hall with a sound meter you will find unless you are sitting in the front row that it rarely gets over 95 db most of the time. This is not really a problem for me. Secondly they do have an excellent base response getting down to the 30 hertz region but they won't play the bass real loud at that frequency. If you are really a bass freak don't buy these speakers. Contrary to what has been said elsewhere you will probably not need stands for these speakers if you room is of normal size. The speakers look quite nice just sitting on the floor and they sound great there as well. You don't have to be perfectly aligned with the centre of the speaker to experience the realism that these units can reproduce. For me the best position for the loudspeakers is about 3 feet from the rear wall and farther apart than you would place other speakers. This works very well because of the speakers smooth and constantly changing directivity(dispersion). My speakers are about 10-12 feet apart and my listening position is about 9- 10 feet back with the speakers angled in only slightly rather than aimed directly at the centre. With a good recording the sense of space and depth in this position is profound. And here we get to what this speaker is all about. There are many speakers out there that will impress many in a multitude of different ways, but if you want a speaker that will give a sense of reality than this speaker is in the top two or three. As is often quoted in the company brochure, they will produce a more realistic and satisfactory illusion of a live musical event than has been achieved before. One of the big reasons for this is that all of the sound is produced from one single membrame. Almost all other speakers have to use two or more units to reproduce all of the sound spectrum. This is a very important attribute. This is why these speakers sound so real. Older electrostats also have these speakers wonderful sense of transparency but had to break up the membrane into two or more units to achieve better dispersion. By using the delay network and annular electrodes the 63s create a sphereical wavefront from a flat surface. This negates the need for breaking up the signal into different parts, and therefore this is one of the few speakers that gives you a very accurate output of its input. If you listen carefully you will be amazed at how much difference there is between recordings using these speakers. This is as it should be as the more accurate the reproducer the less it colours the sound going through it thus letting the recording come through in all its glory or in all its horror. Thats the only other drawback of this speaker, badly made recordings do sound absolutley awful on these units. Other speakers not so revealing will actually make those same recordings more listenable.

Well there you have it. If you want reality in your living room look for these speakers if you can find a pair. If you want just hifi you can look almost anywhere else.

The most accurate speaker in the world. The closest You can get to a live performance

Lack of level at the low end.

I have been living with Carlsson speakers over a decade. They are famous for their soundstage and tonal qualities but are demanding due to room acoustics and placement.
I had always thought that I was listening to the perfect speaker until I tried out the Esl 63's.
They where superior in most areas accept for the performance at the low end. Tube amplifiers seems to be a perfect match for the Quads.Trying them out with various of different tube amps ranging from Dynacos to AudioResearchs gave me sounding satisfaction. A perfect bargain for the purchased price!

Similar Products Used:

Carlsson OA52, Martin Logan CLS

Everything except low bass and loudness above 99dB.

See below

Quad ESL57 vs. Quad ESL63 ?!?!?!?!?

It's interesting to read the favourable comments on the sound qualities of the ESL63 with which I generally concur.
I have had no experience with the ESL63 but instead own a pair of mint ESL57's(refer my favourable comments re: the ESL57 on this Website).

I'm interested in generating discussion on the issue of 'Quad ESL57 vs. ESL63'. Is there anyone out there who has anything to say about which speaker is better ?

I have followed all the usual reviews by Quad afficianados such as Sheldon Stokes, Andrew King and Chris Beeching who all seem to prefer the older ESL57 for its superior presentation of a natural midrange and better transparency. I am still wondering if there is an upgrade path for me in going from ESL57's to ESL63's?

Does the extra loudness/treble extension factor of the ESL63 outweigh the natural presentation of the ESL57 ?

Your comments would be appreciated.

Similar Products Used:

Quad ESL57; Spendor SP100; Yamaha NS1000/NS1200;
Proac Response 2.5; Apogee Stages; Original Linn Kans.

An organic injection

Flimsey construction, precocious, may appear DULL to many.

Unless you have a dedicated listening area I wouldn't buy these speakers. I don't, however a relative does, when set up correctly with suitable material you are basically at the venue. Forget rock, Leftfield etc they don't do that. Folk who run them down aren't adhering to the above, its as simple as that.The only critisism I would accept is that they are precocious. If you listen to a wide variety of music look else where, if jazz, classical of certain kinds and there is space to let them do their job then your'e in for a lifetime of acoustic pleasure.
Now there isn't even the worry about rebuilds, Classique audio in the Midlands will supply new panels etc, and they cost less than the ELS 57's to refurbish.

Similar Products Used:

Price wise; Thiel CS3, JM Labs 920.