Oh man !!

[ledzep]

Still loving my old Quad 33 and 303 ive been putting them up against a lot of expensive gear some mega expensive and they still sounds bloody good,even my mates with their gear costings ££££'s are amazed by them, even think about selling their hifi. Just goes to show how good some old amps are and people spends loads trying to get the sound they want. No way im spending mega bucks anymore i dont need to. Just thought i would pass this on :)

[dantheman91]

+10

[Gordon Steadman]

Absolutely. I had to sell my 33/50Ds to fund some other stuff and I still miss them. I reckon its the rise of 'hi-fi' and forgetting about the music that is to blame. Plus, of course, how is anyone going to make any money if we all stick with what's good rather than new and shiny. That describes the sound of most of it to me too!!

I use valves and Quad57's - much too 'cuddly' for the hi-fi brigade. My wife came from huge SS amps and JBLs and is a total convert to the 'music':)

[synsei]

Although my QUAD 306 is a few generations on from your 303 Dan I feel exactly the same way and wouldn't swap it for the world, it does so much right ;)

[Ali Tait]

Absolutely. I had to sell my 33/50Ds to fund some other stuff and I still miss them. I reckon its the rise of 'hi-fi' and forgetting about the music that is to blame. Plus, of course, how is anyone going to make any money if we all stick with what's good rather than new and shiny. That describes the sound of most of it to me too!!

I use valves and Quad57's - much too 'cuddly' for the hi-fi brigade. My wife came from huge SS amps and JBLs and is a total convert to the 'music':)

There is nothing cuddly about a good valve amp and a pair of '57's. Just great music!

[walpurgis]

There is nothing cuddly about a good valve amp and a pair of '57's. Just great music!

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.

[Ali Tait]

Geoff, my inbox has been cleared, did you receive the necessary?

[walpurgis]

Geoff, my inbox has been cleared, did you receive the necessary?

I PM'd you Ali! All OK.

[Ali Tait]

Didn't get it! Just an email saying my inbox was full..

[walpurgis]

Didn't get it! Just an email saying my inbox was full..

You have a replacement PM.

[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 :rolleyes:

[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! :eyebrows:

[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! :eyebrows:

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"

[Gordon Steadman]

perfect just enjoying the music. Time has moved on mind....

er............... time has moved on from enjoying the music?

What a strange hobby this must be.:mental:

[Oldpinkman]

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.


Fair...but you are totally wrong :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I think Fair - but the 33 is competent and good value. I agree with Gordon about the music, but that has the potential for a flat earth denial that anything is ever better enough to care. The 33 is great value, honest, uncoloured, "nice" but very boring when you have heard better. I agree with whoever it was about the Nad 3020. I think I prefer it's phono stage - it is not as accurate, but I've never caught it yawning. :)

The 303 is a great product, but like the 405 (a great product) can be improved and bettered by other quality amps - but no amp at anything like the price of a 2nd hand 303 that I have found.

Dan you are just down the road. Don't tolerate this arrogance - call my bluff. Borrow the Pip for a week, and tell me how good the phono stage on the 33 is.

Actually, if you enjoy the music the way Gordon does, don't because you'll be turning the country upside down looking for Pips that no longer exist and can't be serviced :sofa:

Geoff - you mentioned your amplifiers outperform this combo, and are modestly priced, but you are terribly coy about saying what they are. 'Fess up :)

But finally, Gordon, brace yourself for this, Gordon is absolutely right. If you have something you like, and are enjoying the music on it, then stick with it :cool:

[Trumpton_Rioter]

If you have something you like, and are enjoying the music on it, then stick with it :cool:

and that ladies and gentlemen, is the name of the game :clapclapclap:

[Gordon Steadman]

But finally, Gordon, brace yourself for this, Gordon is absolutely right.


Yikes, I know its early Sunday morning but I really thought I had already woken up, gone to get the croissants and made the coffee. Am I Nodrog dreaming of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being Nodrog?

[Macca]

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"

A but harsh that is James. Granted they are old units now but suitably serviced they will amplify with no audible distortion from 20-20KHZ and that is the definition of a 'high fidelity' amplifier. I have heard systems with original 303s and fettled ones and have never heard anything I didn't like. Never heard a fettled or serviced 3020 but a pal of mine uses an untouched one with some little Tannoy six series and that combo works very well indeed.

[Wakefield Turntables]

Just been reading this thread. I have a whole mixed bag of kit. My old Garrard 301 and SME 3012 arm are way way behind my Technics setup but I enjoy listening to Jazz on this setup and Prog on the Technics. The Garrard has its own "Sound" which I love. I love watching the kit do it's job. Some of my kit has been bought and repaired, some has been swapped. For me it's been the process of putting my kit toegther. Knowing that I spent six months of my life restoring a deck which was sat in a garage back to life, finding a cheap enough SME3012 from Australia and the Koetsu black from the USA makes me feel great. Sometimes its not about how good the kit is. It's about how it makes you feel and what it gives back to you.

[walpurgis]

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"

I did not rate the NAD 3020 for the same reason I did not think a lot of the Audiolab 8000, they are 'safe', but not very illuminating.

[walpurgis]

Geoff - you mentioned your amplifiers outperform this combo, and are modestly priced, but you are terribly coy about saying what they are. 'Fess up :)

Depends on my mood, but most of the time I'm using a Ming Da MC-9 TVC preamp and a Monarchy Audio SM-70 Pro (a sensibly priced but fantastic sounding combination). I do have other amplifiers to choose from though.

[YNWaN]

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.

I'm afraid this completely correlates with my experience. I also found the 33 veiled and opaque sounding, I wasn't overly taken with the 44 either (or the 33 :().

[istari_knight]

A but harsh that is James. Granted they are old units now but suitably serviced they will amplify with no audible distortion from 20-20KHZ and that is the definition of a 'high fidelity' amplifier. I have heard systems with original 303s and fettled ones and have never heard anything I didn't like. Never heard a fettled or serviced 3020 but a pal of mine uses an untouched one with some little Tannoy six series and that combo works very well indeed.

30-20khz IIRC due to the tiny input coupling caps & tiny output coupling caps.

A chip amp would offer higher fidelity but that's not the point is it ?

[Gordon Steadman]

I'm afraid this completely correlates with my experience. I also found the 33 veiled and opaque sounding, I wasn't overly taken with the 44 either (or the 33 :().

Just different expectations. Some of us don't want to sit in the orchestra pit but to hear the band from the stalls.

[Haselsh1]

I recently upgraded to a twenty year old set of Rotel RC850 and two bridged RB850 power amps. The cost...? 250 quid in truly excellent condition. The gain for me...? A sound equal to my old Croft pre-power combination in terms of detail and resolution. The overall gain to my pocket...? Around one thousand pounds. Thank you very much to my local hi-fi shop. I totally agree with this thread. I shall not be investing many thousands of pounds in a sound system ever again. I just about have all I need with the exception of a first class phono stage. Cost...? I'll let you know when I find one on ebay.

[Haselsh1]

Just different expectations. Some of us don't want to sit in the orchestra pit but to hear the band from the stalls.

I agree entirely

[Ali Tait]

Cool, always wanted to try them back in the day, could never afford them though, at the time.

[southall-1998]

Silly question, how much was the 303 when it first came out?

[YNWaN]

Just different expectations. Some of us don't want to sit in the orchestra pit but to hear the band from the stalls.

Yep, guess so. I can't help but think that some prefer to listen from outside the venue altogether though ;).

[Barry]

Silly question, how much was the 303 when it first came out?

The Quad 33 cost £43 and the Quad 303 cost £55.

[southall-1998]

The Quad 33 cost £43 and the Quad 303 cost £55.

WHAT-£55!! CHEAP!!! :D Mind you, we are talking over 40 years ago !!

[Gordon Steadman]

Yep, guess so. I can't help but think that some prefer to listen from outside the venue altogether though ;).

Sadly, some of us have little faith in any comment by the trade as we fear there may be ulterior motives:(

This may or may not be unfair but human nature has a way of looking round corners so to speak. Any difference of opinion should have a shelf life otherwise it just goes back and forth with the parties trying to make 'cleverer' comments than the last. So I have said all I will on this thread.

[ledzep]

The Quad 33 cost £43 and the Quad 303 cost £55.

So the way i see it is for a pair of amps that are 40 years old and will go on for another 40 years the sound bloody good and up against more expensive and shiny equipment the Quads held their own and allways will. Doubt many modern designs will still be doing that in 40 years.

[Oldpinkman]

Just different expectations. Some of us don't want to sit in the orchestra pit but to hear the band from the stalls.

Fed up with saying "almost". Call my bluff. What sort of poker players are you? Get Dan to have the PIP as a loaner, and see what he thinks of the Quad 33 phono stage afterwards. Its ok. Its good value. Its nice. And it may be very sensible to stick at something competent and affordable. But it is not mixing it with the big boys. The PIP is goin to blow his socks off :ner:

[walpurgis]

the Quads held their own

Against what Dan? There's far better sounding gear out there.

[dantheman91]

Guys they produce music weather it be good or bad i dont care there excellent kit to have.

People dont like them maybe i could say that about other gear out there thats just me

[southall-1998]

Guys they produce music weather it be good or bad i dont care there excellent kit to have.

People dont like them maybe i could say that about other gear out there thats just me

Very good post, Dan. I agree !!!!

[Barry]

Against what Dan? There's far better sounding gear out there.

Care to list what there is that costs the same as Quad's 33/303, 34/306, 44/405-2 .... ?

[Oldpinkman]

Care to list what there is that costs the same as Quad's 33/303, 34/306, 44/405-2 .... ?

No - I think that's fair, as I think I have been pointing out in my posts. It is good kit, and very hard to better for the money, now you can get them 2nd hand. Probably need a service if not had one in the last 10 years, and they can be improved (well the power amps can). The Nad 3020 does a good job as an alternative preamp, and the poweramp stage does ok if you don't need the grunt of the Quad (but its not in the same class).

But there is a world of difference between "hard to better at the price" and "can't be bettered (period)" and that point seems to get a little confused. The phono section of the 33 is pretty dull. Not in any muffled, or bass lacking or specific way. As I pointed out before - I swear I heard one yawn once. Better pre-amps - particularly the phono stage, are MUCH better - not a bit better. And I stand ready to have my bluff called and put my money where my mouth is on that point. Any Quad defenders in a 100 mile radius of Maidstone - which happens to include the author of this thread.

Excellent amps for the money. Not "unbeatable at any price" :)

[walpurgis]

Care to list what there is that costs the same as Quad's 33/303, 34/306, 44/405-2 .... ?

What I'm using!

[DSJR]

FFS fellas...

The 33 is dated, but the slightly opaque, constrained and one-note bass it can suffer from is easily all but removed and what's left is very listenable if not as transparent as a typical new Croft or similar - think Naim 12s with Snaps for basic standard in tweaked-33 form - same designer apparently and JV just used the basics already there I'm told. The 303 is lovely given a fairly easy 8 ohm load and in stock form, loves a passive preamp (Tisbury anyone?). The gain can easily be reduced to allow modern line stages to drive it too.

As a pair, they're lovely, charming and testament to the excellent design skills of Peter Walker and his colleagues as they're still thought of fondly fifty years or so after they were first conceived! To try to compare them on equal terms with modern stuff is totally missing the point IMO!

[dantheman91]

Quote
As a pair, they're lovely, charming and testament to the excellent design skills of Peter Walker and his colleagues as they're still thought of fondly fifty years or so after they were first conceived! To try to compare them on equal terms with modern stuff is totally missing the point IMO![/QUOTE]


There you go fellas spot on dave..

[Oldpinkman]

Quote
As a pair, they're lovely, charming and testament to the excellent design skills of Peter Walker and his colleagues as they're still thought of fondly fifty years or so after they were first conceived! To try to compare them on equal terms with modern stuff is totally missing the point IMO!


There you go fellas spot on dave..[/QUOTE]

What? I don't get it? A 50 year old design. We're talking a Morris Minor. It was a great car. Beautiful design. It did a job really well. But would I have one instead of Ford Focus to run to the shops in? Would I take it to the South of France and not notice it had no aircon, couldn't do 130Kmh on the motorway, and was likely to breakdown?

"I like it and its good enough for me" is very reasonable. It's what my kids say about their ipod, and listening to it on just one ear of the £50 headphones. And they are entitled to enjoy their music that way. But you can take this to extremes - any music player is all anyone ever needs, and any improvement is just box-swappers who don't really appreciate music. That would be my in-laws view of you and your needlessly fancy Quad silly boxes. Nothing wrong with their radiogram.

As I have said repeatedly - they are great products, if reasonably recently serviced (say 10-15 years), and great value for money. If they are what you like, or all you can afford, or all you choose to afford, then that's great - they make great music and they make you happy - like a one ear-piece ipod keeps my kids happy.

But the reason you think they are without compare, isn't that the rest of us are deluded into needlessly expensive other stuff because we just have to have bling (as with some products I've been having a pop at on my Englishman abroad thread). No - the reality is I have heard better, and got used to it, and as a result the Quad 33 playing records is as valid to me as listening to the same music on my sons ipod. I get bored. I'm missing to much. The amplifier keeps yawning.:doh:

And I suspect if you ever heard seriously better in your own room, you'd understand. But enjoy what you like - just don't try and kid me or anyone else its better than it is

[dantheman91]

I stick with vintage because that's me if something reasonable priced like my Electra 100 i do like to try it and use it daily i dont bother comparing them because there both from different era's of Hi-Fidelity period. I maybe biased but thats my opinion Look at my equipment most of its vintage because i love it but as long as they give you the music the way i like it i don't care what other people think.

[synsei]

If we all possessed the same ears and interpreted music the same way this debate might actually have some relevance... :scratch:

[Oldpinkman]

It would be dull if we had nothing to talk about :) Of course we all hear different. My offer stands. I know what a quad 33 sounds like. Any of the local quad boys wants to hear a PIP I am happy to organise something (with the usual faf with leads since neither the Pip nor the Quad are conventional, and they are unconventional differently)

Back in September - if you fancy a go , let me know :cool:

[pjdowns]

If we all possessed the same ears and interpreted music the same way this debate might actually have some relevance... :scratch:

:lol:

[Stubies]

Geoff

What is your CD/Jitter/Dac combination if i may ask??

Thanks!



What I'm using!

[walpurgis]

Geoff

What is your CD/Jitter/Dac combination if i may ask??

Thanks!

It depends. Mostly I use a Pioneer PD-S505 Precision as transport, a Monarchy Audio 24/96 DIP into a Monarchy Audio M22B DAC. I also sometimes use a Meridian 507 as transport into a Monarchy Audio 24/48 DIP or Theta TLC into a Theta DS Pro Progeny DAC. Either combination sounds excellent.

I also sometimes include a Musical Fidelty X10-D in the chain. It has a little bit of magic about it.

[Stubies]

Geoff

I see you like the DIP (also read in other thread http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?17894-Another-DAC-coming/page2), im wondering about how it would help my 'listening fatique' problem.

Here is one now, should i wait for the 48/96?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MONARCHY-AUDIO-DIP-MARK-2-DIGITAL-INTERFACE-PROCESSOR-/251312732611?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a8367f9c3

Or would you recommend to consider a different one?


It depends. Mostly I use a Pioneer PD-S505 Precision as transport, a Monarchy Audio 24/96 DIP into a Monarchy Audio M22B DAC. I also sometimes use a Meridian 507 as transport into a Monarchy Audio 24/48 DIP or Theta TLC into a Theta DS Pro Progeny DAC. Either combination sounds excellent.

I also sometimes include a Musical Fidelty X10-D in the chain. It has a little bit of magic about it.

[walpurgis]

Geoff

I see you like the DIP (also read in other thread http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?17894-Another-DAC-coming/page2), im wondering about how it would help my 'listening fatique' problem.

Here is one now, should i wait for the 48/96?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MONARCHY-AUDIO-DIP-MARK-2-DIGITAL-INTERFACE-PROCESSOR-/251312732611?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a8367f9c3

Or would you recommend to consider a different one?

That one is a US sale. I can't recall if the voltage is adjustable to UK mains settings. Also, the postage is steep.

I found both the 24/48 and the 24/96 models very good, the Theta TLC works well too. I'd wait for a UK spec unit myself.

[DSJR]

It would be dull if we had nothing to talk about :) Of course we all hear different. My offer stands. I know what a quad 33 sounds like. Any of the local quad boys wants to hear a PIP I am happy to organise something (with the usual faf with leads since neither the Pip nor the Quad are conventional, and they are unconventional differently)

Back in September - if you fancy a go , let me know :cool:

The Pip didn't sound as good as the later AVI S2000MP+P I owned at the time (and still do, a different sample) yet cost rather more IIRC - and yes, I did extensively compare the two when a good friend of mine borrowed one, together with the DAC they did - the DAC was odd too, never one thing or the other depending upon the filter selected, but not one setting that made me feel 'That's the one!'

The Quad 33 'in stock form' doesn't compare too well with modern preamps and given the money, I'd have a late 44 any day, which is rather good if used from the highest output setting (the power amp gain adjusted accordingly). Like I said, my example, with dada updates plus the VE recommended cap change on the output cards to take the low bass down below 20Hz, does sound much better but again, not quite up to modern designs. The 303 though, is another matter entirely, and limited only by its preference for higher impedance loads - think original LS3/5A's and 1960's and 1970's Tannoys for example, along with the BBC derived models of the era.

Just my view obviously. I happily lived with my 33/303 for ages and look forward to getting them back before too long (long financially led story).

[The Outcast]

Quad, it's bloody good stuff. Nuff said.

[r100]

just to chime in here .. an upgraded Quad 306 sounds even better. It's fun to do and costs less than a 100 EUR. See http://dadaelectronics.eu/ for details

I took the 34 pre out of the chain and replaced it with a passive. Subjectively, I found the soundstage got a big boost... it went from flat to multi-dimensional

[julesd68]

No - the reality is I have heard better, and got used to it, and as a result the Quad 33 playing records is as valid to me as listening to the same music on my sons ipod. I get bored. I'm missing to much. The amplifier keeps yawning.:doh:

This is why I eventually sold my 405-2 - wonderful with classical music, but I always felt I was missing a bit of 'bite' on any other kind of music, especially rock.

[Rare Bird]

I get board with bright modern equipment so it kinda works both way..

[julesd68]

I don't like bright either Andre. My kit is mixture of vintage and modern - neutral is what I'm after ...
At the moment I think my system has the perfect balance for me to be able to enjoy all the different kinds of music I like.

[MartinT]

I did not rate the NAD 3020 for the same reason I did not think a lot of the Audiolab 8000.

My mother has a NAD 3120 and Tannoy Mercurys. They have a similar frequency envelope and sound good as a combo - quite musical. If I were to run the 3120 in my system it would be a different story as I would hear the bandwidth limited quasi-complimentary 2N3055 circuit and find them veiled. As we have said many times before, it's all about synergy.

As for the Audiolab 8000, the later ones with the input RFI filtering were a revelation compared with the earlier models.

[MartinT]

Rotel RC850 and two bridged RB850 power amps

Nice, and a fab price for that level of performance.

[DSJR]

The only thing wrong with a 405-2 is the prolonged warm-up from stone-cold (stock but new replacement cap values in power supply) to sweeten up a slight sting in the treble and a tendency to run very hot indeed if pushed too hard for too long :) Other more modern amps I compared it with only sounded 'better' if they offered more power into difficult loads, otherwise, I found that used within its limits, the 405-2 was never found wanting if the preamp or signal feeding it were good ones. For modern speakers which dip to or below 4 ohms over much of their range, a 606 is very much better since it'll give over 200W into 4 ohm loads, rather than current limit as the 405-2 and earlier 303 do!

[Barry]

The only thing wrong with a 405-2 is the prolonged warm-up from stone-cold (stock but new replacement cap values in power supply) to sweeten up a slight sting in the treble and a tendency to run very hot indeed if pushed too hard for too long :) Other more modern amps I compared it with only sounded 'better' if they offered more power into difficult loads, otherwise, I found that used within its limits, the 405-2 was never found wanting if the preamp or signal feeding it were good ones. For modern speakers which dip to or below 4 ohms over much of their range, a 606 is very much better since it'll give over 200W into 4 ohm loads, rather than current limit as the 405-2 and earlier 303 do!

Interesting observation Dave.

I can't say I've noticed any prolonged warm up, or change in SQ with time with any of my 405s. Would agree with you that the 405-2s run quite a bit warmer than the 405-1s.

[Arkless Electronics]

My mother has a NAD 3120 and Tannoy Mercurys. They have a similar frequency envelope and sound good as a combo - quite musical. If I were to run the 3120 in my system it would be a different story as I would hear the bandwidth limited quasi-complimentary 2N3055 circuit and find them veiled. As we have said many times before, it's all about synergy.

As for the Audiolab 8000, the later ones with the input RFI filtering were a revelation compared with the earlier models.

It's not quasi complementary!

[MartinT]

Ah, I could have sworn the original 3020 was. Must be confusing it with something else.

[Rare Bird]

it's fully complementary