View Full Version : Your fav Quad power amp of all time
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 11:09
For me i will always vote for the '303'
707 and 909 (with proper caps fitted!!!!!!)
They're like a 303 but BIGGER :guitar:
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 11:38
707 and 909 (with proper caps fitted!!!!!!)
They're like a 303 but BIGGER :guitar:
707/909 not allowed :lolsign:
Oh alright - 606mk2 then.... :D
I love the 303 and hope to have another one soon. What I'll do with it is another matter...
I have just got my Quad 77 Int Amp, CD Player and Tuner out of the attic. It is very nice, but I prefer my Refurbished 405-2.
The 405 is with my big speakers in Nicosia, the 77 is presently driving a pair of Goodmans Maxim IIs. I'm listening now.
On the lookout for something to replace the Maxims.
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 12:13
Oh alright - 606mk2 then.... :D
I love the 303 and hope to have another one soon. What I'll do with it is another matter...
Net MK.3 Power board etc..
Anyone with experience of rebuilt Quad pre-amps?
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 13:13
Aye piece of cake...Watsup
Techno Commander
03-07-2010, 13:38
I have ony listened to the II's and the 405, both through my old Tannoy Cheviots. I preferred the II's.
quadsugdenman
03-07-2010, 13:43
For me i will always vote for the '303'
Only one 4 Me 2 Andre. I owned my first in 1978, gutted when it was stolen and I foolishly replaced it with a wanky Nytech tuner amp (Poor reliability). Subsequently I have owned four in various forms with DINS and with phonos. Reliable workhorses and when fettled properly (updated caps etc) sound great especially with my modded 57's. :respect:
What are the perceived strengths of the 303 over the 405 (2)?
I bought a Sugden A48 in 1978 and only sold it couple of years ago - it needed more love than I could give it, but it went (with its T48 Tuner) to a technical man who has a 33-303 setup.
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 15:34
405 is a current dumper the 303 isnt..
405 is a current dumper the 303 isnt..
Yes . . . and why do some prefer the older amp?
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 16:49
To me the 405 is slightly dull at top end..
hifi_dave
03-07-2010, 16:53
My favourite without hesitation is the 11. Best sounding by a country mile even though Quad 'proved' they all sounded the same....:scratch:
Next is the 303, not because it sounded good but it brings back memories of when I put myself in debt just so I could buy one when it first came out.
In increasing order of preference, for me it would be:
Quad 50E
Quad Mk II (valve)
Quad 303
Quad 405
Quad 405-2
My own modified Quad 405.
Would love to get my hands on a Quad 520f. I would also like to hear the 606 and 909 amps.
Regards
spendorman
03-07-2010, 16:59
I only have old ones, Quad II, 303 and 405-2.
Best for bass is 405-2
Best for top and middle is II
Not bad for all 303 (if fully serviced)
Have four 303's
405 (original) not that good for mid and top, bass is not bad with easy loads.
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 17:13
Quad 50E
I sold my mint ones a bit back for peanuts, i wish i knew you wanted some..
Would love to get my hands on a Quad 520f.
510 & 520 are current dumpers
What about the 240?
quadsugdenman
03-07-2010, 17:44
My favourites in order
1. 303 cos it works with anything/ robust/ good sound
2. 909 Excellent ooommpphhh/sound
3. 606 MKII as above but not so subtle
4 405 MKII good deep bass/ gets hot
5 405 MKI as above but get those speaker clips changed!!
6 707 fiddly interconnect and can be a little dull.
Gazza :cool::cool::cool::cool:
I had a 606mkII for a short while... I was pleasantly surprised by it, pretty nice for a transistor amp, quite "punchy" too.
I sold my mint ones a bit back for peanuts, I wish I knew you wanted some..
Thanks for the offer André but I have three already. Ex BBC items.
510 & 520 are current dumpers Yes, I know
What about the 240? Well it has a certain cachet in that only 180 of them were made. But you have to ask yourself, "Why did the production run stop at 180 - didn't they sell that well?"
Regards
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 18:37
They wernt very powerfull Barry, they are actually my 2nd fav Quad
Andr'e, I owned two freshly serviced 405-2's (new caps and mk2 boards) and the last thing I'd say about them was that they were dull. In fact, for the first 8 hours they had a wiry sparkle in the treble (first was used with Epos ES14's and the second with ATC 20's). After the 8 hours, they sweetened up nicely..
The 303 has current limiting and, with the original output transistors, it needs to be there. With the Net-Audio transistor update (MJ15** series), one can remove the limiting and also make the design a fully complimentary one..
Pete The Cat
03-07-2010, 18:52
Always a bit puzzled when folks opt for 405-2 over 405. IMHO the main difference is in the state of the individual unit's components and whether it has been serviced or not, rather than which version. I've run both side by side and can't spot anything between them.
One thing is true. My Quads will be functional longer than I am...
Pete
spendorman
03-07-2010, 19:01
Always a bit puzzled when folks opt for 405-2 over 405. IMHO the main difference is in the state of the individual unit's components and whether it has been serviced or not, rather than which version. I've run both side by side and can't spot anything between them.
One thing is true. My Quads will be functional longer than I am...
Pete
I bought my 405 brand new, not that happy with it, when -2 came out, bought the full upgrade kit from Quad. I thought it an improvement in the same system.
No one has mentioned the 77 and 99.
quadsugdenman
03-07-2010, 19:04
One thing is true. My Quads will be functional longer than I am...
Pete
You could be right there (no malice meant)!!!!
The 405 MKI had awful spring speaker clips instead of binding posts, :doh: these would often cause shorts and blew the output transistors on mine. When serviced by Quad they fitted the MKII binding posts and updated the output transistors to match the MKII. Soundwise I dont think there was a great deal in it however.
They weren't very powerful Barry, they are actually my 2nd fav Quad
50W into 8Ohms would do me - I use the Quad 57 speakers after all. ;)
They look to me to be a 405 designed for professional use (19" rack mounting, balance input etc.).
Regards
hifi_dave
03-07-2010, 19:25
No one has mentioned the 77 and 99.
No insult intended but the 77 series was pretty dire. As a dealer we had our demo models exchanged by Quad (probably) a dozen times to iron out faults and it was never a big seller. In fact we only sold two sets - our demo gear at trade and one other. It was a disaster and probably helped Quad's demise.
The 99 is Chinese and not 'real' Quad. IMO of course.
77 - the problem was with the control side rather than the audio. No?
I have had a 77 stack for years and it has just gone on and on - trouble free since the day I bought it - apart from soldering in some new remote batteries every few years.
The 99 is in the same cast case, I think. I cant speak about the quality of internal work.
spendorman
03-07-2010, 19:40
No insult intended but the 77 series was pretty dire. As a dealer we had our demo models exchanged by Quad (probably) a dozen times to iron out faults and it was never a big seller. In fact we only sold two sets - our demo gear at trade and one other. It was a disaster and probably helped Quad's demise.
The 99 is Chinese and not 'real' Quad. IMO of course.
A friend has had a 77 for some years, has been pretty reliable (perhaps just lucky), has been through several amps including an A&R A60 (which he quite liked) before settling for a very rare Radford STA20 (not STA15 or STA25), but similar.
I found the 405-2 to sound better than a mk1 even into ESL57's (fitted with their limiters), but the mk1 went through many issues of circuit board on the way and the first mk2's were "issue 7."
Twelve miles away from Dave at the same time, we sold a few 77 sets and, IMO, the sound was the sweetest and most atmospheric since the valve days. I concur that in the 77 era the software changed a good few times and the two-way remote was a commercial disaster, introduced just as B&O were abandoning theirs for the same reason (beolink 5000 and 7000).
I never got to hear the 77 mono's and can't even remember if they ever existed, but the 707 was, from cold, better than a freshly connected 606. I understand that a proper 909 (without the cheapo Chinese caps fitted) is at least as good.
I bought a mint carbon finished 77 pre with remote nine years or so ago and it sat in its box until we moved here, the box being large and wifey wanting it gone. I sold it for moderate profit and regret not trying it, as I suspect that from cold, it would have been better than the Bryston BP25 I had (the Bryston needs 24 hours and preferably 24/7 power).
A shame that Quad is but a trading name for some identikit Chinese concern making updated versions of fifteen to fifty year old (at least) designs. They're doing the same with the Audiolab brand too. Enjoy the Quad legacy, 'cos at its best, all of their pre buyout designs makes music to a high standard and measures pretty well too. In fact, thanks to Net Audio, Dada and others, these venerable old designs sound better than ever and at least as good as modern budget gear IMO. I can't wait to have a 303 to fettle, but I'd probably want a late one with IEC mains socket...
The main problem with any Quad amp is the ability to drive low impedance loads with bags of current.
I'v got the old modified 405 up and running again on a pair of Kef 105.3 at the moment, it drives them ok
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/DSC_0057.jpg
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/DSC_0055.jpg
Ere guv, can't you do summat about that bloody rats nest inside?????
i know it looks like a turd but it don't arf sound good though ;)
Ali Tait
03-07-2010, 20:49
Amps always sound better with rat's nest wiring!
Amps always sound better with rat's nest wiring!
I helps the 'tricity go wizzy-wizzy.
Amps always sound better with rat's nest wiring!
Strange but true it would seem. :scratch:
I tidied the wiring up in my amp and got worse hum measurements afterwards. I must get back in there with an egg whisk or sumfink and muck it back up again. :lol:
Taking the tidy thing to extremes was Naim's bag, you know, lumping the power, signal and speaker connections together to make a neat run down the middle of their amps. It would have made more sense to me to run the signal leads separately (as I believe they do now) and one of the first tweaks to the 82 preamp was to remove all the cable ties from around the volume control.
I still like Quad's internal neatness. They kept everything neat while following good electronic practise IMO. Glenn Croft does the same thing too..
Techno Commander
04-07-2010, 00:51
I'v got the old modified 405 up and running again on a pair of Kef 105.3 at the moment, it drives them ok
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/DSC_0057.jpg
Seeing that make me feel good about my preamp.
I did have a plan for all the internal wiring. But it somehow "evolved". :)
The Grand Wazoo
03-11-2010, 00:48
At the weekend, I poked about among all sorts of boxes looking for something or other for some games with receivers. One of the things that appeared downstairs after all this activity was a Quad 520f.
I realised that it's quite some time since it's had the pleasure of goosing up a set of speakers & I toyed with the idea of flogging it, & some other bits & bobs to clear the decks a bit.
Next thought was that I couldn't sell it without having a bit of a play with it, so that's what I've been doing tonight:
1. to make sure all is still well with it &
2. cos I like to have a bit of a play with these things
It sounded great - Accuphase CD player straight in, gain controls set to full & volume & controlled through the CD player. Squirted into the big Mirage speakers.
I was very impressed in particular with the way it handled well recorded drums.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.