I owned a pair of 63's for about 6 months with a pair of Celestion dipole subs. It was the GREATEST most ethereal sound ever for classical and jazz. It was a bit slow and shimmery for rock. My wife forced me to get rid of them because of their size. But I would repurchase a pair immediately if I could get rid of my wife!
Quad 2805 v. Quad 57
I recently heard, at the San Francisco audio show, the Quad 2805 and I liked them very much.
How do you compare them to the Quad 57? I've read quite a bit comparing the Quad 57 to the Quad 63. Some like the 57 for its more immediacy and midrange and other like the 63 for sacrificing a smidgeon of those traits to obtain more extension of range and the ability to rock. Rebuilt 57's or 63's run quite a bit less dough than the 2805.
If you have heard this line up, I'd love to hear your assessment of the characteristics of the 2805 compared to its older 57 and 63 siblings.
Last, my amps are the Air Tight 211's. I understand they can power the older siblings, but how about the 2805? I understand the impedance load is irregular, but that a good SET does fine with the 57 or 63.
Thanks for the help.
How do you compare them to the Quad 57? I've read quite a bit comparing the Quad 57 to the Quad 63. Some like the 57 for its more immediacy and midrange and other like the 63 for sacrificing a smidgeon of those traits to obtain more extension of range and the ability to rock. Rebuilt 57's or 63's run quite a bit less dough than the 2805.
If you have heard this line up, I'd love to hear your assessment of the characteristics of the 2805 compared to its older 57 and 63 siblings.
Last, my amps are the Air Tight 211's. I understand they can power the older siblings, but how about the 2805? I understand the impedance load is irregular, but that a good SET does fine with the 57 or 63.
Thanks for the help.