I know this debate must have been argued over the years. But I'm waiting on a pair of rebuilt 57s and wondering if I should have gone with the 63s. But I tend to go with the more "musical" speaker over a more accurate speaker. It seems like many make conclusions on the sound of Quads, both 57 and 63s, based on speakers that are decades old and not refurbished to factory spec. The grills should not rattle if it is properly refurbished. But I may give the 57s a go sans grill and see. May be if I stick my tongue on the diaphragm while it's playing, I will get better bass response :-).
I know I had many preconceptions about the Quads that were not true, as explained to me by several who refurbish these speakers. The more I researched the more I have come to appreciate the genius engineering behind both the 57 and 63s.
What's interesting is this. People who refurbish Quads seem to prefer the 63s, while recording engineers seem to prefer 57s for monitoring. I think Chesky uses the 57s. I would have thought it would be the other way around.
Here's another interesting tid bit. 90%+ of the internal wiring in the 57s are STEEL, not copper. From what I understand, the transformers were also wound with steel. Didn't they discover copper way before 57s came out? :) Although the 63 and 57s are engineering marvels, the actual build quality, if you ever took one apart yourself, is just awful - imagine a thumb less monkey. The factory spec for the 57 bass panel is 12 micron thick mylar, but QUAD has been known to use much thicker mylar (like 50 micron!). Why? Sometimes they would have difficulty sourcing 12 micron so they went with what was available.
But it's just amazing the 57 and 63s have endured all these years, even with all the new models of Quads, which left me underwhelmed.
As far the 57 looks go with the grills, they're works of space heater art!
Weseixas, why does the 57 win hands down over the 63s in a small room?
