ESL-57 question for PS and JH (and anyone else too!)
Will -- Fri, 07/04/2008 - 10:56
In Paul Seydor's 988 review a few years back, he mentioned that the 63/988 (and I assume 2805) should not be used with stands because the resultant floor-bounce cancellation makes the speakers sound too lean.
Does the same apply for the ESL-57?
I am particularly interested to know if PS and JH use their ESL-57 on stands.
I ask because I am considering ordering a pair from PK, and wonder if I should get the matching PK stands as well.
Thanks
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
I had a pair of ESL-57s for quite a few years.
I liked them best on top of a pair of Cizak subwoofers.
I used a adjustable turnbuckled wire system to cant the speakers back slightly and make the entire unit rigid.
Personally I never liked the ESL-57's on the floor or with their stock legs - it always felt like I was listening to an orchestra from the first balcony.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Thanks Steven.
Any opinion on amps that work well? I will probably be using a Placette passive preamp. Was thinking maybe one of the smaller Brystons...
The comment about the ARC D40 rang true. I stacked two pair, used an SP8/D40 after giving up a 7C/8B combo, had the amp wired for 16 ohms and used a Pyramid tweeter in the Levinson stands. It seems that the Ayre AX7 or ARC VSI60 might also be a reasonable choice
I'm a big fan of some Bryston amps, such as the monoblock powerpack series, but I would be very careful using them with the ESL 57's - too much power makes it easy to arc the panels.
I would suggest a moderately powered tube amp 25 to 50 watts such as a CJ MV-45 or MV-50, HK Citation V or II, Marantz 8B, or Quad II.
You could also experiment with a small Tripath digital amp from Red Wine audio.
If you must use solid state a Bedini 25 would be about right.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Quote:I liked them best on top of a pair of Cizak subwoofers...Personally I never liked the ESL-57's on the floor or with their stock legs - it always felt like I was listening to an orchestra from the first balcony.
Steve and Will,
I smiled when I read Steve's post above because I, too, listen to my pair of 57s on top of those little Gradient dipole subwoofers that I believe may have been the first designed for dedicated use with the 57s. (Of course, I don't actually use the Gradient subs.)
I also smiled when i read Steve's comment about the soundfield of 57s mounted on their stock legs reminding him of sitting in the first balcony, which is precisely so. OTOH, I rather like this effect. One of the most astonishingly wide, broad, three-dimensional soundstages I ever heard (albeit from a slightly "aerial" perspective) was via a pair of stock-feet-mounted 57s, driven by an ARC D40 amp, an ARC 6B preamp, and a Kenwood turntable equipped with Grace arm and Grado cartridge. I remember the system so well (even though it wasn't mine) because it staged so phenomenally well, had sensational midbass (almost like Maggie I-Us), and extraordinary realism on voice.
Jon
Thanks for the responses.
And I just found the thread below discussing amps for Quads... lots of great info there!
Hi Will,
After some time using the ESL-57 on PK stands, I now use them on their stock feet. A couple of factors led to this change:
- On their stock feet, they produce more bass than when they are raised up on stands. If you are using subs, this will not be an issue, but I've found that a properly restored pair of 57s can produce marginally acceptable bass if returned to their stock feet. On stands, they do not.
- I have a "Relax the Back" chair that enables me to get my ears more level with the panels. Alternatively, because of the lingering effects of a broken tailbone, I also listen on my knees in the near field.
- Even in a regular chair, I don't mind a front row balcony perspective. (Perhaps that's because those were the seats I was able to afford at Carnegie Hall for many years)
- Lastly, Peter Walker voiced the speakers on the stock feet. He knew what he was doing.
I have found that the choice of amp has a significant impact on bass performance. The Pathos Inpol2 draws more bass out of the Quads than you might think possible. The PrimaLuna Dialogue II (not the Prologue II), with its wonderful output transformers, also does a fine job, if you prefer an all-tube solution.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Like most Quad ESL owners, I've experimented with them at various heights. When it comes to the 63/988/2805, on the floor is unquestionably the best for natural tonal balance. Peter Walker factored this in when he designed the speakers. The trouble is, there are a great many audiophiles, I fear, who don't really like mid and upper bass, because this is the region that interacts most strongly with room acoustics. So they take a perfectly natural sounding speaker like the 63, add Arcici stands or some equivalent, and basically turn the speaker into a giant table radio, that is, all midrange. It's true that Walker himself eventually capitulated and offered his own stand for the 63s, which worked well enough if you had to have the thing raised up. The other day I was listening to Alfred Brendel playing Beethoven's Op. 111, a Philips recording, over my 2805s (Sony XA777ES feeding a Benchmark DAC going into McIntosh electronics) and just marvelling at the sheer beauty of the music and sound: utterly natural, devoid of coloration, the instrument placed palpably in the room, with natural and naturally full bass response. I won't claim the sound was perfect, but I will say that there was next to nothing any serious music lover would want to do to "correct" it further. Yes, you could make the piano sit higher, the way audiophiles love to have vocalists stand at what would be their literal height, but doing so would absolutely emasculate the reproduction owing to the floor cancellation that would be introduced and to the overall thinning of the sound. It would make it more "audiophile" and in this context that would be just awful. I know that audiophiles have a virtually genetic disposition to want always to tinker, to fix, to improve, as opposed just to relax and listen. But relax and listen is precisely what a really great sounding system is supposed to allow you to do. Or concentrate and listen. Or be transported and listen.
As regards the 57s, because they are not literally a point-source design, they are little more tolerant to being raised off the floor. Wayne Piquet, whom I trust implicitly with respect to the 57s, finds that 14 inches is optimal. I have tried this and it works very well, but I must confess that I still find myself preferring the speakers on the floor on their three feet. Yes, it's like listening from the balcony, but then in many of my favorite halls that's where some of the best sound is anyway (it is in LA's Dorothy Chandler Pavillion and it is also is, in my view, in Disney Hall). The 57 is intrinsically a somewhat warmer sounding speaker than the 63/988/2805, so I can understand how in some rooms, depending on how it interacts with the modes, a slight physical lift might be preferred. But it's the rare room, I've found, that any of the Quad ESLs will not perform well in with just a little bit of effort.
Since I'm going on here, I might as well offer my two cents' worth on what I regard as one of the more pernicious rumors about Quad ESLs, namely, that because they are dipoles, they are more difficult to place in rooms. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 63/988/2805 in particular are almost perfect dipoles, which means that there is a near complete cancellation in the lateral plane of the speaker. In other words, there is one whole set of room modes that the speaker doesn't excite. The reputation Quads have for being difficult to place owes to just one thing: the necessity to place them at least 30 inches or more from the back wall. But why this should be held against the Quads is beyond me, since it is true of just about every other speaker with pretentions to state of the art ever made: they all sound better out from the walls, and many of farther away from the back walls than Quads require. Moreover, provided the back wall distance is observed, Quads can be set up so that they almost touch the side walls with no adverse effects on the sound whatsoever, something that is certainly not true of most dynamic speakers.
My experience has been that Quads are in fact among the easiest speakers to place in any given room and get the performance you're paying for. Even rooms that are difficult for many speakers, such as highly reverberant ones, Quads acquit themselves well in (not least because their dispersion is restricted). Observe the requirements as regards the back wall, toe them in so that their centers aim at your ears (or, if you prefer, crisscross slightly in front of you), sit equidistant from them, and enjoy. Let the audiophiles agonize about moving other speakers a quarter inch here and there to "dial" them in while you spend all that time listening to more music, like Brendel or Uchida or Rosen doing the 111 or the Waldstein or the 111 again. That's what high fidelity is meant to serve and make possible.
Once more on amps for the 57: go on eBay, find a 303, buy it. Why is it so many American audiophiles find it difficult to understand that Peter Walker knew as much about designing amplifiers as ESL speakers? The 303 is a perfect amplifier for 57s: it won't overdrive them (unless you're invulnerably stupid), it sounds absolutely gorgeous (this is unquestionably one of the most beautiful sounding amplifiers ever made, considerably better, in my view, than the Quad II), it's reliable beyond belief, you can pick them real cheap on eBay and they all seem to work just fine. I do not let anything else drive my Wayne Piquet restored 57s, and I've not heard anything I like better driving them.
I want to second Paul Seydor's comments. I have never owned original Quads, but I owned various versions of the ESL 63 for many years.
If one lifts them off the floor more than a few inches, the sound stops being what it was supposed to be and stops being what sounds right,too.
The Stand and Deliver stands were all right if one put a piece of board
through the base of the stand, to block the wrap around of the sound underneath. But any higher than that, forget it.
Everyone has a floor, and Peter Walker took that into account--something not every speaker designer seems to do!
If you lift the Quads far off the floor without blocking the underneath wrap around, you introduce a hole in the response. It is not hard to see why:
on the floor, part of the dipole cancellation is blocked--the floor is in the way. Take them off the floor and all of a sudden you are introducing more cancellation. (You are also changing the frequency of the floor bounce cancellation).
As Paul says, some audiophiles like the "transparency" of erasing a good deal of the energy between 100 and 300 Hz. Look at all the speakers that
are sold that do that! Cf for example the floor stander graphs here
http://www.regonaudio.com/The%20SigTech%20AEC%201000%20System.html
You can find some Quad measurements on the same site.
The Quads tend to lean out a bit in the 100-300 Hz region anyway.
But the best hope is definitely on the floor and indeed on the floor something satisfactory in this region is attainable.
But pick them up very far and you are doomed, I say, doomed.
Robert G(REG of TAS)
Robert E. Greene of TAS
I meant to add to my comments what REG says about baffling the Quads if you lift them up--which I learned from Robert anyhow. Yes, if you must lift them off the floor, put a baffle across the front of the stands so that some of the area of cancellation will stand a chance of being filled back in again. Thank you, Robert, for reminding us of this.
The expression goes it's not nice to fool Mother Nature. It's also not particularly productive to second-guess designers, such as Peter Walker, who really knew what they were doing!
Jim and Paul,
I'm curious about what both of you guys think of stacked quads, stacked 57's. I've heard people describe stacked quads as the end-all and be-all of audio bliss. I've heard others say you lose some of the original beauty when you stack the 57's.
I read somewhere that Wayne Piquet, the restoration man himself, prefers stacked quads. What sayeth each of you?
I have to confess that I've not enough experience with them to answer how good stacked Quads are. They were always endorsed by Peter Walker, which should tell you a lot right there, and favorably. I'll also confess that I've seriously thought of buying a second pair for Wayne to restore and trying them, but I am so enjoying my 2805s right now. What can I say? Quads are Quads, and Peter Walker is Peter Walker. Anything he designed was/is worth a serious listen.
I realize I am responding to a post over 1 1/2 years old, however, as a Quad 57 owner/listener for over 45 years I feel my comments may further support the beauty of these speakers.
I am fortunate to experience 'live' music from a vantage point few have - as the conductor of a large symphonic wind ensemble. Further, I have spent much of my life recording classical music and have been able to add that control to the whole process of 'bringing it home.'
The first 20 happy Quad years:
I have owned various Quad 57's and Quad 2/22's in both single and stacked sets. From the moment I heard them I never doubted that these were the most satisfying speakers, regardless of their 'inherent limitations.'
The grass is greener?
Nevertheless, with the passing of years, I thought I would see what else might fulfill the 'limitations' without sacrificing the assets of the Quads. 20 years pass by and I'm still trying to convince myself that increased an increased sound stage and deeper bass is a good subsitute for the natural transparency of live music and (yes) the Quad 57. Just couldn't find all of it in a single system.
I wake up:
I read about Wayne Picquet's work right here, called him, heard a quad stack he had done for a gentleman in Connecticut and my frustrating, time consuming, tinkering days began coming to an end. I sold every bit of the crossovers, speakers and devices which ate up my time and eroded my enjoyment of reproduced music. I am now awaiting delivery of one of PK's custom quad stacks - the game is over and it has not been too late to win.
Quad 57 lovers might also be interested in PK's 'Ultimate Quad System" - a one of a kind quad (as in FOUR in each stack) currently for sale. Here is the link:
http://quadsunlimited.com/#/ultimate-quad-esl-for-sale/4540174833
I hope this helps someone who is 'afraid' to invest in these wonderful speakers because they are 50+ years old and there 'must be better out there today.'
Jim
Thanks Paul. That's so interesting that Peter Walker himself endorsed them. I'm learning of the high regard a lot of folks hold him (held him) in. I'm eager to learn more about the man.
Well, if you get the chance one day, I would love to hear how some stacked 57's, set up in your place with your tweaking, etc., compare with the 2805's.
They would still be not identical. Keep in mind that basically the 57s are a linesource, and using them stacked, preferably triple-stacked if you really want to make them function as a true floor to ceiling linesource, while the 63/988/2805 are a point source, which is one reason why you don't want to double or triple them up. The late Alistair Robertson-Aikman did double up his beefed up 63s but in a very particular way--that I gather was also endorsed by Peter Walker. AR-A placed the second pair at right angles to the pair facing forward and ran them at a lower level so that they provided a kind background fill. It evidently worked superbly in his very large room. Ken Kessler heard that system many times and seems to feel it--the whole setup, the room, the equipment, etc.--one of the wonders of the audio world.
All right Paul,
I need some help here. I've been reading TAS for going on 5 years or so now, and I still don't know what a "line source" is and a "point source." Can you explain this to someone who has never heard any of the quad speakers.
Thanks.
I once had a pair of stacked 57's and I am sorry to have parted with them.
They worked very well with an Atmasphere S30 and MP3 pre.
My audio friends said it never lacked for bass and had a sound that drew you into the music where some systems throw the sound at you.
I also found listening to the Quad ELS-57 on its three legs was like I was in the balcony or that the sound was coming from the baseboards behind the speakers. I found a simple solution. I took two round wooden wheels from my daughter's toy box and put one each under the back leg. This raised the angle of the speaker up enough to greatly enhance the verticle stage height and dramatically improve the treble response. The only problem I remember was that this "improved" treble response gave me listener fatigue.
I also had stacked or double Quads on stands. I never could get them to sound as good as a single pair despite a lot of adjustment.
By the way, in my opinion the speakers sounded best with Quad's own 405-2 amp and 33 pre-amp. After my 405-2 was stolen during shipment back to the states I experimented with many amps, both solid state and tube, and never got the sound I got from the 405-2 and 33.
Hello,
I like my 57's vertical, 50 cm above the floor on old chairs, they better fill more naturally sounding my room this way, I also changed the filter to original (before nr 16000), by removing the capitor in series with the treble section there is lots more transparency, als no phase shift in high section, its sounds really more right, I ran this stats with a class A 10 watt (A18) direct coupled amp from Hawk audio in the netherlands which is a perfect combi, can't overpower them, normal sound pressures are right, it don't sound compressed in my 45sq.mtr room, I also can't imagine that the overelectronicd 303 gave a open sound, too much components in the signal path, and be aware of their age...........
Another point to further improve the sound is a remark of jon in his last clx review when he compares them with 2905, his statement that the sealed 2905 can't sound the way a clx do is really important, every sealed speaker (with dust protectection) sounds in theory limited and when you are aware of this it is remarkable that they do sound so well despite this limitation which is, and jon pointed that out very right, a design choice from the old mr walker.
I haven't got the time to remove the metal fronts and dust protection, but I have a strong feel they will breath after that without limits, maybe using a removable dust protection when not listening could be also interesting.
The Quad 57 is a celebration of everything right with audio. The best I have heard them is to drive them with a 303 amp, or preferably a 303 per channel, located close to the speaker. If you are careful with levels its possible to use each channel of each monoblock. as the output from each channel is capacitively coupled 303's don't seem to mind taking connections from both channels to feed one 57. Only use a passive preamp - you just miss out with anything else and a passive keeps the levels a bit lower than an active preamp. As for wiring use RG 58 coax - as much as possible - ie speaker leads audio leads, it just improves reproduction over conventional leads.
Forget using a CD player or LP player, you have some work and a bit of spending to do to get the best front end. firstly your best friend is a type 1 DBX Compressor expander - a DBX 150x, is perfect. You need to get a hard disk recorder and I have tried and used a Yamaha CDR 1500 Now using your CD player tape your CD 's onto the Yamaha - yes this takes many weeks - but tape them compressed using the compression part of the DBX. Now when you playback expand that recorded sound. Gone are all the nasty criticisms of Cd over the years. You should be smiling ear to ear by now, but remember to keep levels low so as to not overdrive the 57 . Mount your ESL57s using the original legs on wooden boxes- dampen them with carpet if needed. Now place small wooden spacers to get the 57's a bit more upright and angle them in to suit. Heaven .... you are there.
I forgot opa627's should be used where-ever a opamp lurks / Chris
i once saw (but did not hear,unfortunately) the HQD system at jonas miller's older store on wilshire blve in LA. steve mc cormack (yes THE steve mc cormack) worked there and could likely provide some insight here if he responded. i am quite sure that stacked 57s and in that config, were superb!
i heard 57s there and the soundstage was unmatched in my experience except for Fried model H. the same day is when i first heard LS35/As which eventually led me to buy a used pair. to this day i regret having to let them go.
i never heard stacked dahlquist DQ10s either but would liked to have. a dealer in LA was demoing them but i never got there.
an amplifier that was reputed to sound wonderful om 57s was the little bedini 25/25, known as ostensibly bedini's best ever amp. see a'gon thread below:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1038618409&openfrom&1&4#1
i just finished reading the thread and it was informative AND a nice walk down memory lane.
For Paul Seydor:
Paul, many thanks from a Dutch TAS reader.
For a couple of years I had my Quads 63 Pro in Arcici stands. After reading your comments about floor placement
(as indeed intended by PW) and having to re-install my set up after a rebuilding and re-decorating of my music
room (I know, I'm a lucky bastard) I have tried the Quads on the floor and about 5 feet away from the back wall
(and keeping in mind HP's rule of third), and the result is like owning new, upgraded speakers! The imaging is
stunning and the bass a tad warmer.
I use the Quad 909 and I agree with Ken Kessler: "one the best kept secrets in hifi".
I also noticed favourable comments on other Quad electronics, a change of tune for TAS (compared to the
80's and early 90's).
Any idea why HP has'nt yet auditioned the 2905's? Surely after his review of the new Janszen it would be
very interesting to have his view on the latest Quads.
I couldn't resist offering a few thoughts in response to this read.
When I was in graduate school I was fortunate enough to own a pair of ESL 57's, which as I recall cost me the better part of an entire summer's wages (but, hey, that's the high-end for you).
Regarding the feet vs. elevated stands questions, I would weigh in in favor of sticking with the original feet on the grounds that this facilitates the most neutral tonal balance overall. However, if the "balcony view" imaging perspective bothers you (and it did bother me from time to time), bear in mind that there are two (or actually three) relatively simple things you can do to change the perspective. First, consider using solid shims to vary the speakers' tilt angles without significantly increasing their elevation relative to the floor (I found that fabric-padded solid metal floor protector pucks worked well for this application, and the neat part was that they could safely be stacked). Second, try lowering your own seating position (which is essentially what Jim Hannon's Relax-the-Back chair does, I think), so that you are more nearly on the same level as the Quads. Third, try sitting a bit further back, which has the effect of making the down-angle between your ears and the Quad a bit shallower.
Regarding amps, I must confess that I was always the daring (some might say "misguided") soul willing to drive the ESL 57s with relatively high powered, high-quality amplifiers, while--of course--monitoring listening levels very, very carefully. Thus, I used to drive my pair (back in the day) with a Quatre Gain Cell stereo power amp capable--if distant memory serves--of more than 100Wpc. My point is that some high(er) powered amps can really make the ESL 57s sing, provided you have enough self-discipline to hold volume levels in check. While I respect the choice of the Quad 303 amp for use with the 57's, I would also offer the opinion that the speaker is capable of reproducing a fair amount more resolution and inner detail than the amp is. If I remember correctly, Quad's own 405 amp offered higher levels of resolution, and works quite well with the 57s.
Single vs. stacked: I'm not fully qualified to respond to the question, but I will say that one of the most spectacular and enchanting "classic" hifi systems I ever heard was a well set-up sample of the HQD system as demonstrated at Goodwins in New England. If the sound of that system was any indication, then I believe the stacked Quads concept has a lot of potential.
--Chris Martens
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Chris--and the other correspondents below--sorry to be getting back to this string so late, but sometimes I tune out owing to other matters. In any case, Chris, I fully agree that 57s can shine with other amplifiers, but frankly I don't even want to come close to arcing the panels, as fixing them for me requires a trip back to Wayne and that's a cool $200 both directions, not counting the repair. For me, the 303 exists at the close enough level that I am perfectly happy using it when I hook up my 57s. Most of my review listening is done with 2805s, but from time to time I just love hooking up the 57s.
As for single versus stacked, the only stacked Quads I ever heard was the Levinson system with Hartley woofers and Decca ribbons was it? at Jonas Miller in the late seventies/early eighties, and it was mightily impressive, mightily. But it certainly does represent quite a commitment, because, first, you've got to locate the individual 57s, then what I would do is have one restorer--in my case Wayne Piquet--do them all, so that they all match--and then--forgive me--I'd do a triple stack so that you had a real linesource, which the 57 becomes if you stack it floor to ceiling (it's worth keeping in mind that evidently Peter Walker's ideal speaker was a floor to ceiling linesource, at least if I'm reading the appropriate passages in Ken's [Kessler's] Quad book correctly).
Isn't it amazing that one man got all this right at the beginning of stereo and most of the rest of us are still catching up?
I once heard 57's on an 405, that was not bad at all, yes it was detailed like mr Martens says, by the way looking at the 303 circuit you wil see a very nasty output capacitor, thats not nice for your sound, i'm not a 303 hater, not at all, but there are many capacitors who influence sound quality, when you can't rid of them, you have to throw them out and replace these for high end types.
In that case I expect a 405 is a better choice, sure upgrading with better capacitors wil make this amp more sexy, unfortunately I haven't heard newer Quad designs.
Bram
Output capacitors are not necessarily "nasty". A DC-coupled circuit is only essential if driving a large woofer. When on the way to a midrange or a tweeter, a "nasty capacitor" will always be in the signal path, and it does not matter if it is placed before or after the speaker terminals (ie inside a loudspeaker). They are especially not nasty when driving another giant capacitor, also known as an electrostatic speaker. Capacitor-coupled amplifiers are easier to implement, and given the quality of modern capacitors, they have no sound quality issues when called to drive electrostatics, mids and tweeters. There is no reason whatsoever to engineer a DC-coupled circuit when the signal will have to go through a capacitor further down the line anyhow. Furthermore sensible bandwidth limiting is always a good idea. Hum is better controlled, EMI and RFI are better kept at bay, intermodulation and noise are reduced etc.
I find that using the 57's on the stands made by Sheldon Stokes - so they are vertical, and about 16" off the floor - works best. The bass is a bit less boomy.
However compared with the 2805's they are definitely lighter in the bass that way.
Regarding the amp - remember that the 57's have an impedance which drops to 2 ohms at 20KHz. This can drive a solid state amp insane, and can certainly make it likely to go nuts if it picks up AM radio over the speaker leads (which it most certainly will). Different amps will sound different using these speakers. I used an early Naim 160 for many years to drive them most satsifactorily. It needs at least 6 ft of speaker cable but it won't oscillate and remains stable under that load.
Roland
hi guys,
i just bought two pairs of esl57 which i´m going to stack of course, one of them rebuild by o"one thing audio", the other one by local german specialist -reromanus. Yesterday i got an opportunity to get the third pair for very good price. I play with idea of stacking it all together :) if two pairs play that well, i imagine the third pair wouldn´t bother. My question is: how to power up triple stacked quads??? i can imagine using three amplifiers would be probably the best solutuion but quite complicated in terms of using preamp, amps, eventually crossovers etc etc. I can buy an really impressive diy tube amp based on sovtek kt88 tubes. puss pull with about 100 watts per channel. This monster amp weights about 200 pounds, transformers itself are just about 50 kilo, only premium parts used!!! it suppose to be extremely stable on critical impedances like 1 ohm. Do you think using triple stacked quads parallell would work or just kill any amp???i´m talking about very critical impedance of esl57 at higher and lower frequencies.
thanks for your suggestions
Dear paul1978, I have triple stacked ESL-57s and they are driven by an 8585 amplifier that was built by Patrick Turner. More details available about the 8585 amplifier including design schematics and measurements are available at turneraudio DOT com.au if you are interested. Peter.
TO all of the above, many thanks for these comments, but reading a circuit diagram is beyond my capabilities. As for powering up stacked Quads, well, if I had them, I'd using multiple 303s (see previous comments). But I have no experience even with double Quads, so I lack any expertise in recommending associated amplification.
I've enjoyed Quad ESL-57's for the last 25 years, but recently put in a new fireplace in my living room and am redoing the living room wallpaper and paint. I decided to have a beautiful living room in my condo, and my Quad ESL-57s are now in a closet. I think I am ready to sell them. They are in perfect working condition. Is there any interest out there? Thanks.
Well, as you can see, there are a lot of opinions on this subject. Peter Walker himself was okay with people raising the 57s off the floor (and even suggested beer crates--to Ralph West, I think [see Ken Kessler's Quad book]). For myself, I use them on the floor because for me they provide the best and most musical balance that way. Raising them introduces a floor bounce and thins out the bass, and turns them more or less into a big midrange speaker. I know there are people who like this sound, and also like the thinned bass, which can sound punchier. I'm not surprised that some people who raised them off the floor put them directly onto subwoofers (Jon and Steve, I believe). This actually could work very well, because if they are directly atop the woofer box, the box would act in effect as a baffle and thwart the floor bounce effect to some extent. I've often thought of experimenting with a homemade 57 stand with a solid wooden front that would raise the speaker about 12-14 inches off the floor. This would raise it and also provide a baffle for the bass. If I do it, I'll write up the results. In the meantime, I continue to use them on the floor and I have no problem with feeling as if I'm listening from the balcony--indeed, with orchestras, it rather increases the effect of realism!