Hifishark esl 57 for free#
(Though it's killing me that someone I know actually offered me their ESL 57s for FREE - my favorite panel speaker and one I"d love to have around, but they just wouldn't fit in to my room situation). Stats are a lovely place to visit for me, but no longer home. But I still love hearing a stat or panel speaker whenever I can. I found plenty of dynamic speakers that got satisfyingly close to that ideal. And like almost all who started out with Quads or stats, searched for a box speaker that could get me the best of both worlds - the "disappearing" act of the quads as sound sources, the sense of transparency and fine detail, but with the guts of dynamic speakers. Still.didn't have that top to bottom seamless punch and palpability of the average box speaker.
Hifishark esl 57 driver#
Best stat/dynamic driver match I've yet heard. Later I added the dipole Gradient subs made especially for the 63s. I did try adding subs, but it only made the range covered by the sub sounding dynamic - the panel portion still had that ghostly detached sound. Every time I set up a smaller pair of box speakers to compare, the difference was pretty stark with the box speaker sounding more palpable, dense, dynamic and "air moving." And that was the case even though the box speakers had more limited low frequency range than the ESL. It's like "seeing" images of instruments through a portal, but I don't "feel" the sound, as if they are actually moving air in the room. But eventually I became dissatisfied with the "ghostly" presentation I find form all electrostatic speakers. Loved them for all the reasons people have already pointed out. I started with Quad ESL63s, living with just the panels for quite a while.
Like Replicants, my guess is that if you put the machine on them, they wouldn't pass the test. Otherwise you got a 'headphone effect' listening up close.Īs good as electrostatics sound, and as much as people like them, they are probably unavailable for accurate Klippelization. Sound Lab-played louder than the Quad, maybe as nice an overall sound. Super tweaky, unobtanium electronics that had a habit of blowing up, as I recall. As big as it was it didn't play very loud. did not beam so you didn't have to sit with your head in a vice.
After Acoustat went south, Jim Strickland, the original engineer, wound up designing the last of the Hafler amps, at least as I understand it.īeveridge-totally different kind of sonic presentation, like bathing in or being immersed in sound. Rockford bought them (along with Hafler) and soon it was all over. I have no idea why they went south since the company sold a lot of them, and they were not expensive in the electrostatic scheme of things. Sounded best at least four feet from any back or side wall, making placement a lot more difficult than the usual box speaker. Possibly because that's what the panel was made out of? Needed a powerful amplifier that could pump out the watts into low impedances Beamed terribly. Impressive at first, but after a while I began to notice a plastic-like quality to the sound. I'd like a pair right now.Īcoustat 2+2-overall sound quality not as nice as the Quad, but played louder with lower subjective bass. What can you say? My experience with it was with the old 303 amp. Harvey Rosenberg sold specially modified price no object Futterman OTL amps for it. Peter Aczel rated it as one of the best speakers of all time. Quad ESL (original)-sounds first rate at low levels but can't play loud, and beams terribly. I like them, and have owned them, but overall they have the wrong trade-offs for me.
0 kommentar(er)
