Whats the confusion? The 57's were balanced precariously on old Sony book shelf speakers. Took them off and sat them back on the floor and it helped sharpen them up.
Remember Scalford and 63's in a room with boomy bass.
well the 63's stands aint exactly pillars of anti vibration
think a revision may be needed on these too
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:46 am
by Sligolad
Hi Tony,
Were the 63s on the stands you bought during the meet and were the B&W subs used for both 63 and 57 comparisons?
Cheers, Pearse.
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:55 am
by Sligolad
nige2000 wrote:
well the 63's stands aint exactly pillars of anti vibration
think a revision may be needed on these too
Mine sit on wooden boxes with "Woolly" mats between the boxes and speakers and definitely no wooly sounds here :-))
I had thought about building stiffer structures around them but their performance in weak frames and on floating bases defies belief.
I think they do suffer on big complex orchestral stuff without being locked down but everything else sounds superb.
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:51 am
by nige2000
Sligolad wrote:
nige2000 wrote:
well the 63's stands aint exactly pillars of anti vibration
think a revision may be needed on these too
Mine sit on wooden boxes with "Woolly" mats between the boxes and speakers and definitely no wooly sounds here :-))
I had thought about building stiffer structures around them but their performance in weak frames and on floating bases defies belief.
I think they do suffer on big complex orchestral stuff without being locked down but everything else sounds superb.
think this needs further investigation
my point was that the 63s stands aren't much or any better
Adam would be the guy to ask
we would know which material to use for stands then and how to implement :)
I'd be interested in speaker stand trials
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:41 pm
by Ivor
tony wrote:The 57's were balanced precariously on old Sony book shelf speakers.
So you're listening to the vibrations and resonance from old Sony book shelf speakers at the same time? Excellent!
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:22 pm
by tony
Ivor wrote:
tony wrote:The 57's were balanced precariously on old Sony book shelf speakers.
So you're listening to the vibrations and resonance from old Sony book shelf speakers at the same time? Excellent!
That is one way of putting it! Another way might be like this:
Was talking to some bloke who reckoned he bought a dodgy pair of Quads
and also a dodgy Jadis amp. Previously this person had problems with expensive speakers and dodgy Airtight amps. Well this guy told me I needed to lift me quads(57's) off the floor. I tried it and I don't like the result.
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:05 pm
by DaveF
tony wrote:Well this guy told me I needed to lift me quads(57's) off the floor. I tried it and I don't like the result.
by putting them loosely on top of another pair of speakers? Lol Well done. ;-)
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:47 pm
by sima66
Ivor wrote:
tony wrote:The 57's were balanced precariously on old Sony book shelf speakers.
So you're listening to the vibrations and resonance from old Sony book shelf speakers at the same time? Excellent!
That was my exact thought when I read for the first time!
My opinion always was that the 57's are to light on the frame. When panel membranes are moving, frame should be 100% solid and static. To achieve that you need stability and mass. Stability is one the things that you lost when you mount them on the speaker boxes.
Again, 57's are probably the baemiest speakers ever made and tilting up-down and left-right its crucial. They also call them the most selfish speakers, because the real pleasure is only in the one setting position.
The way I set mine is that the middle of each speaker pointed to the ear level on the the listening position, that includes the up-down also.
Most of the "old 57's guys" don't agree to this setup because of the "comb effect", but that is the best setup for the highs and clarity that I found.
In the end isn't every room just a different "comb effect"?!
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:36 pm
by tony
DaveF wrote:
tony wrote:Well this guy told me I needed to lift me quads(57's) off the floor. I tried it and I don't like the result.
by putting them loosely on top of another pair of speakers? Lol Well done. ;-)
Sorry Dave I had to blame somebody. Nigel advised ask Adam for advice. No way I couldn't afford the price for his solution!
Seriously I raised them up on a suggestion but just did it temporarily. It became obvious to me when the 57's performed so poorly against the 63's the other day that something was amiss. The 57's sit on OTA stand and that aims them slightly tilted up. Putting the 57's on narrow old speakers just made the sound beam towards the ceiling(slight exaggeration).
On Nigels suggestion re the 63's metal stands not being very solid probably correct but I don't think it is an issue. 63's are not as directional and a lot of the stands for them are very similar. It doesn't seem to be a problem.
Anyway this beats talking about CA all the time!
Re: 57's vs 63's
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:30 pm
by Fran
Nothing much to add, but I really liked this video - gives me hope that someday I'll recondition my own!