Restoration of Quads Vs Newer Models

Having read posts recently debating Martin Logans vs Magneplanars, I am wondering if the best choice between those two might be QUADS?!

One of my earliest audiophile experiences was hearing a true HQD system with stacked ESL 57s, circa 1979. Compared to my plastic Soundesign stereo, I would say it changed my life.

Later, I remember the 63s, often matched with Entec woofers at Lyric hi fi in NY, although I never had a real demo.

I last heard a pair of Quads a few years or so ago (circa 2000 - the 989s?) and although it was in a typically overcrowded hi fi showroom with too many other speakers and a short demo of some music I had never heard before....they sounded surprisingly good, and with perfectly satisfactory - if not earth shaking - bass.

(By the way, this was really in contrast to my impression of Quads, which is that they are a great speaker for listening to Baroque chamber music at moderate to low volumes when your head is in a vice.)

My postiive memories, however, combined with another thread on taming high frequency fatigue and the importance of coherent midrange, makes me wonder more about Quads.

Have any of you lived with and loved Quads , listening to a wide variety of music? Is there a consensus on the best version? What about these people that restore them, stack them etc.

Are the later models even better -- more of a good thing?

Or is there some wonderful qualities to the older models that would make it better to restore older speakers than to buy new ones?

Any and all comments greatly appreciated.
I have a pair of restored Quad 57's. They were done by Wayne Piquet. They are excellent with a wide variety of music. I am also using a pair of Entec subwoofers which supplement the Quads very well. Still, there are limitations in loudness and without the woofers limitations in bass. These have been very reliable speakers and I have used a Berning ZH-270 amp. They are much more enjoyable than the Quad 63's which I have also had for several years. mpcrnc
I have owned a stacked pair of 57's and sold them after a couple of years of trouble free listening,but they were in need of a rebuild and that would be around $4000.00 or more.I owned Quad 63 on Arcici stands with 2 separate 12 inch powered subs in the late 90's but they didn't have the magic that the 57's had. When stacked I never felt the 57's needed a sub.My advice would be get 2 pair of 57's restored by a reputable restorer and stack them as Peter Walker suggested.I am sorry I was cheap and let them go.
Thanks for info so far. Lacee, you are confirming my suspicions that the older speakers did have a magic quality that has not necessarily been replicated by later versions.

I think I have seen a site or two on Audiogon for Quad restoration experts, but it would be great to know if anyone in particular is recommeded.

And what about amplifiers? Did Mark Levinson have it right with the old class A amps? Or would tubes be better?
I used a 1961 Bell integrated tube amp that put out 20 watts.It had 16 ohm taps and I wired the stacked Quads in series /parrallel and kept the impedence at 16 ohms.There was no need to turn the volume past 10 o'clock to fill a 34x26x8 room.Before the Bell I used an Atmasphere MP3, pre and Atmasphere stereo 30 OTL amp to similar great sound but at far greater cost,so don't overlook 20 to 30 watt used tube amps.There is a fellow in Montreal that I was going to use to avoid border/duty hassels(I'm Cdn).Go to the ESL 57 Hotline site.