Oh man !!

[Gordon Steadman]

Apology's in advance in case anybody feels slighted. I've heard the Quads many times and do like them, but to be honest, in my system I'm pretty sure the 33/303 combination would fall flat on its face compared to my reasonably modest amplification.

Maybe to your ears but probably not to mine. I don't see how anyone can feel slighted by someone's different opinions based an a different set of lug'oles and expectations.

[Arkless Electronics]

303 is a classic design and pretty capable but I'm no fan of the 33..... apart from it's looks! Muddy and veiled sound plus the constant hassle with the plug in cards etc.

[Mr. C]

Agree 100% Jez

[dantheman91]

I'm no fan of the 33..... apart from it's looks! Muddy and veiled sound plus the constant hassle with the plug in cards etc.[/QUOTE]


Fair...but you are totally wrong

[Gordon Steadman]

303 is a classic design and pretty capable but I'm no fan of the 33..... apart from it's looks! Muddy and veiled sound plus the constant hassle with the plug in cards etc.

Why??? I never touched the plug in cards for the entire time I had it. By muddy, I assume you mean not excessively bright and screetchy like I find most 'modern' amplifiers and pre-amps.

Our ears tell us what we are trained to expect most of the time I suspect. The guy that bought my 33/50Ds has just replaced top of the range Audiolab stuff and is overwhelmed with the quality of music he now enjoys.

[RobbieGong]

Hifi's a funny old game - Sometimes we hear gear that sounds 'different' and nice at the same time and rate it as great when in fact it isnt really any 'better' than the good system we've spent much time carefully putting together (and enjoying), It's just different!

[Barry]

Hifi's a funny old game - Sometimes we hear gear that sounds 'different' and nice at the same time and rate it as great when in fact it isnt really any 'better' than the good system we've spent much time carefully putting together (and enjoying), It's just different!

Never was a truer word said Robert. In fact the only way one can say that a change has made a true improvement, is after listening to it for a while (say a week)then to revert back to the original state. As you say, quite often the wonderful improvement you think you have made is false - it has just sounded different but no better.

Apropos the Quad 33, the design is dated and improvements/upgrades can be made for little cost. Certainly changes need to be made for the 33 to happily accept the output from a CD player.

I used to use an unmodified 33/303 running into B&W DM2As, to relay the audio from my DVD player and Freeview box, and found the sound quality to perfectly acceptable.

[Graeme]

Been thinking of getting a 33/303 for years, for a second lounge system, just because they look ace.

What are they like compared to 44/405-2?

I had the 44/405 years ago, was ok i guess. Did all the net audio mods and it was very good, however the wd kel84 kit completely out shone it so the quads got sold.

Having said that, ive just borrowed a modified 405-2 so i can try bi amping my tannoys.
Ill try it first in place of my now heavily modified kel84, see how it compares, but i dont expect it to impress.

[ledzep]

My 33 has had the tape input upgraded to take a CD and has been upgraded slightly certainly doesnt sound muddy or veiled and havent had any hassle with the cards at all.

[istari_knight]

I like them as a pair for the same reason I also like the original NAD 3020 - Very euphoric & musical, perfect just enjoying the music. Time has moved on mind.... Not sure I'd call them "high fidelity"