2. misc-audio
  3. 1270894733

quad 57 vs vandersteen for low volume listening

I listen at low levels to prevent hearing loss and exacerbating tinnitus. I had decided on Vandersteen quatros (not sure about sock vs wood), but a dealer suggested I consider rebuilt Quad 57's. The Quad cons of not playing loud and less treble emphasis are pros to someone with tinnitus. I clearly preferred the coherent, real sounding Vandies vs Quad 988's side by side. (I will audition the 57's soon, but can't do a side by side with Vandies) I am currently using a Rel Strata III with Vienna Acoustics Mozarts. Seems the Rel wouldn't integrate tonally with an electrostat. I'm not sure I can live with the missing low frequency harmonics in the Quads that I think are fundamental to creating the illusion of being in the room with with musicians. Let's hear from all you 1st order phase aligned and electrostat proponents!
tompoodie
bpwalsh
1,195 posts
 
Thanks, Tompoodie. Your room lends itself well to Quad 57s, as you noted. Price difference notwithstanding, it took me a long time to come around to owning Quad 57s years ago, ultimately moving on to other speakers with the same midrange magic, coherency, and low level natural detail, albeit at much higher cost. My recommendation is listen to each at the various volume levels you would at home and trust your instincts.
tompoodie OP
37 posts
 
Thank you kindly for your input, Essentialaudio. I am looking forward to the Quads Unlimited 57 audition soon. I will bring my trusty radio shack dB meter to help, and a notebook. When I actually write down impressions, I realize being an audio equipment reviewer is way more challenging than it seems. Frogman, the Stax are indeed very well regarded (I found the John Nork TAS review from 1982) and I appreciate that heads up. Being able to purchase the Quads locally, newly refurbished to essentially new by Mr. P at Quads Unlimited, with really good local dealer support is pretty valuable to me. Frogman and Essentialaudio, do you have suggestions for the electronics for electrostats? I'm thinking used Aesthetix Io with volume countrol for phono/preamp and for amp: EAR 861, or Rogue Atlas magnum per Robin Wyatt's excellent test publilshed in 6moons. Some feel strongly that SET will roll off too much at frequency extremes in Quads (and Stax?) compared to push-pull...do you gentleman have an opinion about that? Thanks, Tom

link to 6moons amp shootout for the quad 57:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/roadtour7/roadtour3again.html
frogman
7,356 posts
 
I use a pair of Manley 200/100 mono's, and they drive the Stax very well; even in triode (100W) mode. That (100 GOOD watts) would probably be a bare minimum. I also own, and have tried a pair of the Meitner 100W ss mono's, and they do a surprisingly good job; for lowish volumes. The "cat's meow" on the Stax are OTL's. My friend's Atmasphere's make these speakers sing. But I am quite happy with the Manley's. Keep in mind that the overall gain structure of the system has to be kept in mind. The preamp must have enough drive (gain) into highish sensitivity amp(s), to get sufficient volume from the low sens Stax. I would imagine SET is out of the question. But when you get it right, they are a beautiful, and very classy sounding speaker. Especially for acoustic music; nothing like it IMO. Also, the Rel should be used in "augment" mode. IOW, to fill out the bottom only, without going through it's built-in xover. Not that the xover is bad, it's just that once you hear the incredible purity of the Stax, it's hard to go back to anything else.

I don't know if this is the review that you found:
http://www.onethingaudio.net/FOR/QUA/63/9512-QUA-63-REV-CS5.htm.
There was a full review of the Stax by JN in TAS, as well as one by HP. I have the old TAS issue siomewhere if you get closer to considering them, and are interested. Let me know.

To be honest, I was temped myself when these Stax came up for sale.

Good luck.
More to discover