I did get the pleasure of listening to Quads (first time ever) don't know which model, at the NYC 2012 show. I think It was my favorite sounding room. I would try putting the 57's away and live with the 63's exclusively for at least a month to get very well accustomed to them. Then switch back in the 57's. Either way, I am very interested in your comparison. You may just have to change your user ID, just kidding!
Yet another Quad 57 Experience
Ho hum, some will say...can we not mention this speaker again?
Obviously not!
I recently had yet another demonstration of this loudspeaker's power; one that 'solidified' some of my judgements.
Let it be said, I am one of those people who, after a lifetime of searching, finally found The Music in the form of the Quad ESL 57s; "Walker's Wonders" as they have been dubbed. As a musician (piano) my search has been simple but quite circuitous: finding a speaker that makes music that I recognize to be real was not an easy process.
Much has been written about this speaker. Many of you will have read glowing accounts of its ability in the all-important midrange. But these are just words.
And this is what happened last week...
I had the opportunity to buy a mint pair of the 57's successors; the Quad 63s as they are known. As expected, the set-up was easy, given that the 63 is a strict dipole (so rear reflections have to be taken into account). What was immediately apparent is that the 63s had a little more bass and a little more dynamic capability. The midrange (as many reviewers have noted) however was not quite in the same league as its predecessor.
I listened to a variety of music (mostly vinyl sourced): everything from rock thru to plainsong and was relatively well pleased.
After three days I unhooked them and went back to the 57s. Relief.
A good friend, who also has a pair of 57s, was most curious to hear the 63s, so out they came again.
Firstly we listened to two pieces of music, one rock, and one mostly acoustic vocal, both thru the 57s. Two minutes later we did the same thru the 63s.
Thirty seconds in, we began to talk about what we were hearing.
This is the interesting point, the epiphany if you will.
Neither of us would have dreamed of speaking during the first 'performance'. Not only was the music compelling (as good music invariably is) but it would have seemed unseemly to have done so. The 63s permitted the interruption.
For me this is a crucial point. To talk when listening to reproduced music is perfectly permissible: during a live performance, much less so. It was brought home to me again with great clarity that the Quad 57, this old-fashioned space-heater of a thing, despite all its faults (and it has a few) makes music like nothing else I have ever heard. Any attempt to 'improve' this speaker seems doomed: the improvements seem inevitable to come at at too great a cost.
I would petition that this speaker has an ability like none other, before or since. Is it just the midrange, or the phase coherence (for which the 57 is also famous for)? I wonder. Like many other devotees I find it impossible to believe that this seeming magic-trick of a speaker could ever, ever, be improved.
Peter Walker: you were a genius!
Obviously not!
I recently had yet another demonstration of this loudspeaker's power; one that 'solidified' some of my judgements.
Let it be said, I am one of those people who, after a lifetime of searching, finally found The Music in the form of the Quad ESL 57s; "Walker's Wonders" as they have been dubbed. As a musician (piano) my search has been simple but quite circuitous: finding a speaker that makes music that I recognize to be real was not an easy process.
Much has been written about this speaker. Many of you will have read glowing accounts of its ability in the all-important midrange. But these are just words.
And this is what happened last week...
I had the opportunity to buy a mint pair of the 57's successors; the Quad 63s as they are known. As expected, the set-up was easy, given that the 63 is a strict dipole (so rear reflections have to be taken into account). What was immediately apparent is that the 63s had a little more bass and a little more dynamic capability. The midrange (as many reviewers have noted) however was not quite in the same league as its predecessor.
I listened to a variety of music (mostly vinyl sourced): everything from rock thru to plainsong and was relatively well pleased.
After three days I unhooked them and went back to the 57s. Relief.
A good friend, who also has a pair of 57s, was most curious to hear the 63s, so out they came again.
Firstly we listened to two pieces of music, one rock, and one mostly acoustic vocal, both thru the 57s. Two minutes later we did the same thru the 63s.
Thirty seconds in, we began to talk about what we were hearing.
This is the interesting point, the epiphany if you will.
Neither of us would have dreamed of speaking during the first 'performance'. Not only was the music compelling (as good music invariably is) but it would have seemed unseemly to have done so. The 63s permitted the interruption.
For me this is a crucial point. To talk when listening to reproduced music is perfectly permissible: during a live performance, much less so. It was brought home to me again with great clarity that the Quad 57, this old-fashioned space-heater of a thing, despite all its faults (and it has a few) makes music like nothing else I have ever heard. Any attempt to 'improve' this speaker seems doomed: the improvements seem inevitable to come at at too great a cost.
I would petition that this speaker has an ability like none other, before or since. Is it just the midrange, or the phase coherence (for which the 57 is also famous for)? I wonder. Like many other devotees I find it impossible to believe that this seeming magic-trick of a speaker could ever, ever, be improved.
Peter Walker: you were a genius!
- ...
- 10 posts total
- 10 posts total