Anything more resolving than 65 year-old speakers?


As I’m listening to some Raal headphones - the most resolving cans I’ve ever heard - I can’t help but be reminded of Quad ESL 57’s. More than any other speaker I’ve heard at shows or in homes, they had resolution without harshness. Maybe the Sanders 10e comes close, but is much more expensive. Maybe Bohlender Rd75’s come close for transparency, but are still not quite there.

Am I missing something or have we really not progressed in terms of resolution in 65 years, at least from the greats? If you’ve got something super-resolving (but not harsh) that you prefer to Quads with a sub, please speak up!

angaria2

If I were looking for speakers today these are the ones I would purchase.

Dynamikks - cannot be beat especially for the price.

 

 

..and the side aside about the Walsh in the MBL comment is why I play about with my diys’....*S*

So far...I’ve only blown up One. And it was one of the first 4 I made.....a long while ago....

They may not be ’perfect’....but I’ve yet (and, apparently neither have y’all) to hear such anyway. Which, I’d suppose, is why sites like AG exist.

Enjoy the warts as well as the nuance, Nevill...;)

 

Yes, the 57s were great in resolving lightweight programme, ideally chamber music and especially the female voice in recital.  But for other music they had poor dynamics, no 'slam' at all.

Few will disagree that if resolution is your first priority then electrostatic is the way to go.  But since 1957 other companies as well as Quad have moved the game a long way along.  I have used Martin Logan CLX Anniversaries for nearly 10 years now.  Resolution just as good but with some muscle behind it.  Still 3dB down at 56Hz though.

The 57's still ring in my memory whenever I listen to a "stereo". I had subs, tweeters and even tri-amplification but ultimately... sold mine 20 years ago for "more dynamics". At one point recently, I had Eminent Technology LFT 8's, Martin Logan ESL's and Quad 63's all at the same time, in various forms of "stock" and "modified" configurations, The 57's kinda ruined me...ah well... the search continues.

My experience with Quads is extreme listening fatigue at volume.  I switched to Maggies and got all the accuracy without the fatigue.  Of course, you need excellent hardware--typically tube--and they have to be set up properly.  I have never found anything more accurate.

As for the HQD system, we made some of the stands for him and some 24" Hartley sub cabs--HUGE and heavy--they were on 4" casters and made out of either 1.5" or 2" composite board--I forget much of 1973-76.  Unfortunately, the ML HW of the day was un-listenable even though it was made with the best possible parts and designed by a terrific designer.

As for horns, they belong on the top of poles at HS football games, not in your home system.  Put a pair next to a pair of Maggies and see what YOU think.

Cheers!