Rogers Studio 1 / LS6 and or Quad 405 / 606 / 909 Listen In or Near Milton Keynes

[walpurgis]

How about the power amps as in the first post.
Thanks

I like Quad power amps. I'd not use 2s or a 303 myself, the sound is not to my taste, but the 306 or bigger are nice enough.

[Arkless Electronics]

I like Quad power amps. I'd not use 2s or a 303 myself, the sound is not to my taste, but the 306 or bigger are nice enough.

+1 II and 303 too coloured etc for me....

[DSJR]

The thing about ALL old Quad amps is that they need some work doing to bring them back to as new and even more work to maybe make them better - hang on a minute jez, bear with me...

The Quad preamps are the weakest part, but I remember how the 44 improved after its revision and didn't sound dead and airless any more - I believe the op-amps were updated and this may be the main reason they sounded better rather than other changes. The 34 may have also been improved this way, although this model is my least liked one currently. The 33 in stock form is band limited and noisy, with a 'stunt' bass and often dirty highs. I can say with mine that a full dada update to caps, transistors and power supply, together with the C400 change from .068uF to 1uF, has transformed mine into a thoroughly transparent device with good retention of atmosphere of a recording venue, unlike when I first acquired it. The 34 has apparently responded similarly to dada updates.

For me, Quad preamps fully matured with the delightful 66 and 77 models. The 66 was made in two versions, the second issue rather different inside. I know the early one intimately and love it to bits for its light and delicate way with a music signal. The 77 was wonderfully musical and involving, hobbled only by the unreliable two-way remote control it had.

Of course, Quad preamps LOVE a passive preamp feeding them and I know of a superb one with two inputs plus a direct input for a mere £100 - cough - .....

Quad power amps are products of their time. I love what a good 303 does, but it doesn't like heavy synth bass and floppy ported or TL style speakers as the bass is all over the shop most of the time. Absolutely delightful for chamber, lighter jazz, acoustic music in general and folk style music though, but Depeche Mode, Sabbath, Led Zep or AC/DC etc. lovers should look elsewhere methinks The 405 mk1 MUST be changed to a mk2 for any decent sound system as Quad over-did the limiting, even before the extra limiters were fitted. the 405-2 boards transformed a friends 57 speakers after they'd had the protection boards fitted. Only thing with a 405-2 with stock chips and sensitivity is that the hf is just a tiny bit 'sparkly' and crisssssp until a few hours have passed, after which it totally disappears from the reproduction chain. The 606 was sniffed at by HFN and even me in the early days, as early ones need a couple of hours from cold to remove a sense of grain and constriction. Much later samples weren't like this at all and the 606mk2 was perfect from switch-on (bigger supplies which can be retro-fitted to mk1 models now I believe). The 707 was also a fab amp and so were UK made 909's. Chinese 909's may need all the electrolytic caps changing though for them to really fly.

As for speakers, look out for KEF Concerto's and use them on 10" approx. stands. Rogers Studio 1's are boomy and need acres of space round them (Spendor SP1 mk1's are FAR superior, but SP1/2 and SP2/2-SP2/3 need new cone surrounds now) but the LS6 was a bargain... Hundreds of good vintage speakers though, but many will need cone surrounds re-foaming and internal cap changes.

[BTH K10A]

As for speakers, look out for KEF Concerto's and use them on 10" approx. stands. Rogers Studio 1's are boomy and need acres of space round them (Spendor SP1 mk1's are FAR superior, but SP1/2 and SP2/2-SP2/3 need new cone surrounds now) but the LS6 was a bargain... Hundreds of good vintage speakers though, but many will need cone surrounds re-foaming and internal cap changes.

Having owned both Studio 1's and SP1 mk1's I never found the Rogers to be at all boomy and were in many ways a more accomplished speaker than the SP1's. The Spenders needed a little stuffing in their ports to tighten the bass up though. I've also owned Rogers studio 1a's which were very accomplished speakers.

[Arkless Electronics]

The thing about ALL old Quad amps is that they need some work doing to bring them back to as new and even more work to maybe make them better - hang on a minute jez, bear with me...

The Quad preamps are the weakest part, but I remember how the 44 improved after its revision and didn't sound dead and airless any more - I believe the op-amps were updated and this may be the main reason they sounded better rather than other changes. The 34 may have also been improved this way, although this model is my least liked one currently. The 33 in stock form is band limited and noisy, with a 'stunt' bass and often dirty highs. I can say with mine that a full dada update to caps, transistors and power supply, together with the C400 change from .068uF to 1uF, has transformed mine into a thoroughly transparent device with good retention of atmosphere of a recording venue, unlike when I first acquired it. The 34 has apparently responded similarly to dada updates.

For me, Quad preamps fully matured with the delightful 66 and 77 models. The 66 was made in two versions, the second issue rather different inside. I know the early one intimately and love it to bits for its light and delicate way with a music signal. The 77 was wonderfully musical and involving, hobbled only by the unreliable two-way remote control it had.

Of course, Quad preamps LOVE a passive preamp feeding them and I know of a superb one with two inputs plus a direct input for a mere £100 - cough - .....

Quad power amps are products of their time. I love what a good 303 does, but it doesn't like heavy synth bass and floppy ported or TL style speakers as the bass is all over the shop most of the time. Absolutely delightful for chamber, lighter jazz, acoustic music in general and folk style music though, but Depeche Mode, Sabbath, Led Zep or AC/DC etc. lovers should look elsewhere methinks The 405 mk1 MUST be changed to a mk2 for any decent sound system as Quad over-did the limiting, even before the extra limiters were fitted. the 405-2 boards transformed a friends 57 speakers after they'd had the protection boards fitted. Only thing with a 405-2 with stock chips and sensitivity is that the hf is just a tiny bit 'sparkly' and crisssssp until a few hours have passed, after which it totally disappears from the reproduction chain. The 606 was sniffed at by HFN and even me in the early days, as early ones need a couple of hours from cold to remove a sense of grain and constriction. Much later samples weren't like this at all and the 606mk2 was perfect from switch-on (bigger supplies which can be retro-fitted to mk1 models now I believe). The 707 was also a fab amp and so were UK made 909's. Chinese 909's may need all the electrolytic caps changing though for them to really fly.

As for speakers, look out for KEF Concerto's and use them on 10" approx. stands. Rogers Studio 1's are boomy and need acres of space round them (Spendor SP1 mk1's are FAR superior, but SP1/2 and SP2/2-SP2/3 need new cone surrounds now) but the LS6 was a bargain... Hundreds of good vintage speakers though, but many will need cone surrounds re-foaming and internal cap changes.

Not much I disagree with there

The 303 can be made into a unit that will do synth bass and Sabbath with aplomb. I know. I've done it. Loads of mods to a pair a mate had and used fur bi amping at the time.

I love both the Studio 1 and especially the Mk1 Spendor SP1 which is an all time fave of mine! They never need anything doing to the crossover BTW as they are made with film caps

[southall-1998]

I will ''NEVER'' have a 303 modded!

S.

[spendorman]

I will ''NEVER'' have a 303 modded!

S.

Quad did a mod themselves, early models of the 303 had a different biassing arrangement. I have one of these, can't detect any difference in sound quality though.

[mossy]

Boomy?
Flounce..............

[DSJR]

I'm in doo doos elsewhere because I seem to be an apologist for the 'BBC Bollocks' speakers we're discussing here. It's my experience that the Rogers Studio 1 models traded a one note 'honk' in the bass a la most BC1's before the port was modified later on, for a more full-on bass quality that doesn't always work in some UK domestic rooms. When the BC1 went off the rails a little, in 76 or so, the Studio 1 stepped right up and I think, led this field in domestic circles for this kind of speaker for a while, at least until the SP1 came along. For good or bad in the early 80's, much of our sales was with the Rogers LS7, which had a nice way with a wide range of music I thought. The later LS7T when new took fillings out, but seventeen years on when we had some in for a dem, the tweeter had beautifully mellowed out and they sounded very good to me.

I've already mentioned how Spendor SP1/2's and SP2/2's right up until the 1/2r or 2/3r models suffer surround hardening on their bass cones and although I *think* Spendor can re-do these, the usual recommendation on the Yahoo Spendor group is to replace the drivers altogether, which is incredibly costly for some reason... I always loved the original SP1 which has a different driver and Alex_UK here has a nice sounding pair. The driver is nothing like as underdamped as my BC2's and bass is tighter without being stripped bare. I remain very fond of this model - looks better than earlier BC models too... KJ in 1998 had some Wilson WITTS, which I liked a lot. A traded in pair of teak SP1's (we gave £150 for them!!!) sounded so similar, if 'smaller' in scale. For our small living room, I should have bought them - would have saved so much angst with the badly matched (to my ATC pre and power) Wilson Benesch Act 1's I tried to live with for a year or two - ugh!

I seem to spend my entire life apologising for something or other these days. My experiences are just that, MY experiences which I hope are helpful. No two domestic listening rooms are the same though and a speaker that sounds 'just right' in one room may be boomy or bass-light in another. Our rooms here are fully carpeted, but other more trendy rooms can be very bare, almost echoey, and this will have a massive effect on how a speaker works in a room in my experience.



Not mentioned, but vintage AR speakers are very good and usually had superior bass reproduction because of the IB loading. AR2ax's aren't too silly money I believe (thinking of size compared to Studio 1's) and 3a's, preferably the 'Improved' ones, were excellent but go for stupid money now. So many of these need drivers re-foaming now and I'm sorry, but I don't know the slightly later restyled models at all well, apart from the little screamer AR18s. AR48's used to get good reviews and I believe the AR3a became the AR12? - but you'd need to research this.. AR90's were funky fun but will all need work now...

[BTH K10A]

I'm in doo doos elsewhere because I seem to be an apologist for the 'BBC Bollocks' speakers we're discussing here. It's my experience that the Rogers Studio 1 models traded a one note 'honk' in the bass a la most BC1's before the port was modified later on, for a full-on bass quality that doesn't always work in domestic rooms.


I seem to spend my entire life apologising for something or other these days. My experiences are just that, MY experiences which I hope are helpful. No two domestic listening rooms are the same though and a speaker that sounds 'just right' in one room may be boomy or bass-light in another. Our rooms here are fully carpeted, but other more trendy rooms can be very bare, almost echoey, and this will have a massive effect on how a speaker works in a room in my experience.

Where does 'BBC Bollocks' come from???

There's no need to apologise over your views or experiences, they are how you perceive them but statement regarding the Studio 1's did however came across as a definitive statement of fact rather than a personal experience.

That your experience differs from my experience when I owned a pair is what life's all about.