The Naim Nait I is a good match for the Quad ESL57. Not sure how it would match up with the ESL63?
Never heard the Ion Obelisk. Will have to research.
They have returned from the basement to reclaim their crown.
- Thread starter JohnVF
- Start date
Never heard the Ion Obelisk. Will have to research.
I have not tried the Obelisk. The 57s are different in what they require from the 63s..they actually like a bit of power behind them. Not too much, but there's a sweet spot. The Obelisk is a bit deficient in the bass arena, which is why I plan to put it on smaller speakers.
Last edited:
Charles King showed me the panels from the ESL-63 -- they seem far more intelligently designed (so to speak!) than the panels on the "57", at least in terms of service/rehab.
It has been a long time since I heard a pair of '63s. Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I charged up my '57s and listened to them.
I never found them thin nor bright, either (FWIW).
It has been a long time since I heard a pair of '63s. Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I charged up my '57s and listened to them.
I never found them thin nor bright, either (FWIW).
I have liked the 57s I've heard but I didn't like how they imaged, and imaging is very important to me. I wish they were easier to repair, though, as I'd own a pair of those, too. I was offered a beautiful gold-metal-grilled pair once that was not working for a very good price, but I couldn't find a place that would rebuild them and I had no desire to do it myself. That, and the fact that I knew I liked the 63s better kept me from buying them....but I always wonder 'what if?"
The point source design of the 63s was really really innovative when they were new (and, I would opine, still is!).
They're merely taking a break. If it was a decision to be made simply on sonic merits, the Harbeths, I'm a bit shocked to say, would lose out to the Quads. The Quads are my favorite speakers.
But my living room is small, and I'm a bit particular about what things look like in here and the Harbeths look a lot better. And so is my wife. So when she's around the Harbeths will be in. I think it will be a case of switching them in and out, because after spending a few days with the Quads, I'm hooked. They sound like music in the room, and now everything else sounds like, well, speakers.
Quads have a way of doing that - sounding like music.
A more thorough opinion on them, and the Harbeth SHL-5s.
I find it really hard to write about these speakers in a way that I feel conveys how they sound. A lot of things in this hobby are variations on the same theme. I think a lot of current higher-end speakers fall into that category. There are ones that I like and ones that I don't like, but they exist within guardrails of what I expect a speaker to sound like. And, of course, we all have a taste for things that has evolved over years of listening and us getting used to one sound over another, to the effect that what I love won't necessarily be what you love (take that, objective-only-reviewers...we get used to things).
I can say that I own these after auditioning speakers all over Chicago and LA back about 7 years ago. And I made the decision to buy them, after hearing all of those speakers, after hearing one song. I listened to more songs on them, but I knew within the first song that I wanted these speakers. They had the sound I'd been looking for, and not finding, in every other speaker I'd heard. They just didn't sound like speakers. They still don't sound like speakers. Music just sort of hangs in the air, its weird. They present a texture to the sound, I wouldn't call it 'detail' so much as a tangibility to the sound. Things feel real and fleshed out and right there in the room. It's like there are no speakers, just sound coming from air.
So why do I have and love Harbeth SHL-5s, which I bought soon after these 'perfect' speakers? Well part of it is, back when I got them, I had room for two large systems. But part of it is also that they're not the most livable things. You have to turn them on. Turn them off. They need to be a fair bit out from the wall. They're, ahem, not the most attractive things. Every non-audiophile who sees them notices them before anything else in the room. "What are those things?".
And so I got the Harbeth SHL-5s to be the presentable speakers for a living room system. And I picked them because, of all of the speakers I had heard they sounded the closest to the Quad 63s. They do sound a fair bit alike and do some things like timbre accuracy similarly. They both give enough detail to sound lifelike, without becoming one of those speakers that the first thing you comment on is, wow, they're detailed. They both cover around the same range. There is just, with the Quads, an extra veil removed..and the SHL-5s are not veiled. Its just, they aren't Quads.
They aren't for everybody and I have to think that condition plays a HUGE part, for I know at least one person with similar taste to mine that had a pair and sold them quickly, a stock unrestored pair. Mine are not stock. Also, these are PRO versions, stiffer, more robust in both build and their protection circuits compared to some 63s (I had a 400wpc amp on them, handled with volume-caution, with no hiccups, no clamping, no shut downs..these are not like 57s in that regard). They have all new panels from about 8 years ago. Everything was reconditioned. So maybe this pair is a unicorn. Whatever it is, they're the finest speakers I have ever heard for my taste, at any cost. Which is why I've kept them, even though I don't have a permanent place, yet, for them.
I find it really hard to write about these speakers in a way that I feel conveys how they sound. A lot of things in this hobby are variations on the same theme. I think a lot of current higher-end speakers fall into that category. There are ones that I like and ones that I don't like, but they exist within guardrails of what I expect a speaker to sound like. And, of course, we all have a taste for things that has evolved over years of listening and us getting used to one sound over another, to the effect that what I love won't necessarily be what you love (take that, objective-only-reviewers...we get used to things).
I can say that I own these after auditioning speakers all over Chicago and LA back about 7 years ago. And I made the decision to buy them, after hearing all of those speakers, after hearing one song. I listened to more songs on them, but I knew within the first song that I wanted these speakers. They had the sound I'd been looking for, and not finding, in every other speaker I'd heard. They just didn't sound like speakers. They still don't sound like speakers. Music just sort of hangs in the air, its weird. They present a texture to the sound, I wouldn't call it 'detail' so much as a tangibility to the sound. Things feel real and fleshed out and right there in the room. It's like there are no speakers, just sound coming from air.
So why do I have and love Harbeth SHL-5s, which I bought soon after these 'perfect' speakers? Well part of it is, back when I got them, I had room for two large systems. But part of it is also that they're not the most livable things. You have to turn them on. Turn them off. They need to be a fair bit out from the wall. They're, ahem, not the most attractive things. Every non-audiophile who sees them notices them before anything else in the room. "What are those things?".
And so I got the Harbeth SHL-5s to be the presentable speakers for a living room system. And I picked them because, of all of the speakers I had heard they sounded the closest to the Quad 63s. They do sound a fair bit alike and do some things like timbre accuracy similarly. They both give enough detail to sound lifelike, without becoming one of those speakers that the first thing you comment on is, wow, they're detailed. They both cover around the same range. There is just, with the Quads, an extra veil removed..and the SHL-5s are not veiled. Its just, they aren't Quads.
They aren't for everybody and I have to think that condition plays a HUGE part, for I know at least one person with similar taste to mine that had a pair and sold them quickly, a stock unrestored pair. Mine are not stock. Also, these are PRO versions, stiffer, more robust in both build and their protection circuits compared to some 63s (I had a 400wpc amp on them, handled with volume-caution, with no hiccups, no clamping, no shut downs..these are not like 57s in that regard). They have all new panels from about 8 years ago. Everything was reconditioned. So maybe this pair is a unicorn. Whatever it is, they're the finest speakers I have ever heard for my taste, at any cost. Which is why I've kept them, even though I don't have a permanent place, yet, for them.
One more thing. They exhibit a trait that a lot of the high efficiency folks, I'm guessing, like in their speakers. They don't sound like a bottleneck and once you've heard a speaker that doesn't sound like you need to force sound through it, its hard to listen around that. Everything just emerges as if there is no speaker in the way.
This isn't a room they should work in, its far too small and wider than it is deep (should be the other way for them). Yet...they work! I had just assumed they wouldn't so never bothered to set them up (until the boredom that only January knows snuck in).
There is a common descriptor, in my opinion, for the best horn speakers and the best electrostatic speakers: they both effortlessly connect me to the music with a "see through" quality that is akin to viewing a cityscape through a newly cleaned window as opposed to one rendered opaque by fine layers of dust and dirt.
Sometimes you don't even know the haze is there until you "clean" the window.
I run my ESL57 without the metal grilles (I do set the metal grilles on there when I am done listening).John, have you tried 'em sans socks?
They might not be as visually imposing that way; heck, there might be some cool play off that pic above the fireplace!
Ugly? Yes. Sound better? Yes!
I have not taken the socks off. I haven't really felt the need to but its certainly an interesting look. I've heard that dust on the panels can do nasty things for them, so I'll sacrifice that last bit of transparency. These are very healthy, I'd like them to stay that way.
I just looked up what Electrostatic Solutions chargers for a full rebuild. $2000. That is a bargain for what is, in my opinion, one of the best speakers ever made.
I just looked up what Electrostatic Solutions chargers for a full rebuild. $2000. That is a bargain for what is, in my opinion, one of the best speakers ever made.
Do the ESL63 socks act as dustcovers? The metal grilles on the ESL57 are for looks and protection - each panel has its own dustcover.
I've just assumed that they do. Looking at the above, you can see the bare panels and if you can see them, I'd think dust could get in there.
Either way, I simply haven't noticed anything lacking. I'm only an audiophile up to a point... at some point I tap out and just live a life that doesn't include making my speakers or any other gear into incredibly ugly woman-repellants. Though I must say I've seen far uglier speakers than naked 63s.
Either way, I simply haven't noticed anything lacking. I'm only an audiophile up to a point... at some point I tap out and just live a life that doesn't include making my speakers or any other gear into incredibly ugly woman-repellants. Though I must say I've seen far uglier speakers than naked 63s.
I go back and forth with running the ESL57 sans metal grilles but would not ever remove the mylar dust cover on each panel, as some ESL57 owners have done.
I don't remember if the ESL63 panels have their own dust covers or not.
I don't remember if the ESL63 panels have their own dust covers or not.
Similar threads
