Quad or Audio Innovations

[ledzep]

Here's one for you just a little survey, Quad 44 & Quad 606 or Audio Innovations S500 int ?

[The Grand Wazoo]

Is this a philosophical question or a hi-fi one?
If it's a hifi one, we need to know 'what with'

[ledzep]

Just a hifi one see what people would go for simple as that. Just interesting to what people would choose no lengthy discussions just one or the other. :)

[The Grand Wazoo]

But what would the amp be used with? I'm not sure how anyone can give a meaningful answer unless they have a little more information.
Speakers? Source? Room size? Taste in music......

[Spectral Morn]

If you offered me the Quad for my Series 500 I would decline your offer. If you tried to take it from me it would be from my cold dead hands.

Much depends on speakers but if they are 89 db (and upwards) and a fairly easy load then go for the S500 - after a suitable audition - mandatory with any hifi purchase. Oh yes get rid of the EL34s it comes with and fit 6L6s or 5881 valves - the Tung Sol 5881s are very nice. And as a final thought give it plenty of ventilation.

The amp will benefit from an aftermarket mainscable, valve dampers and being sited on an isolation platform.


Regards Neil

[loo]

Audio Innovations no contest :)

[ledzep]

Looking good for Audio Innovations

[DSJR]

I'm not a fan of the AI 500 I'm afraid, finding the soft and velvety tone just too 'nice' to be true myself. It looks good though and surviving ones must obviously have been reasonably well made, as some at the time used to melt-down due to inappropriate component-coupling.

The Quad, although not perfect (especially older 44's), gives a far more realistic view of what's really there in the source, although later Quad preamps (and others not made by Quad) almost certainly offer more transparency to the source, without stomping their sonic 'flavour' all over the music.

In terms of 'musicality' and 'niceness' of tone, the AI500 may well appeal hugely. It looks good and uses valves too :lol: so it really has to be a heart choice. I wish 'real life' sounded this way, but I'm afraid it doesn't. The separate pre and power amps that AI made in similar style were far more to my taste and I have very fond memories of these :)

[Arkless Electronics]

Quad 606 but with passive pre.

[ledzep]

Getting interesting

[Barry]

Although I have been a lifelong fan of Quad electronics, my only long-term experience of the 405 amp has been with Quad 57 speakers. I have three 405s: a very heavily modified 405-1 and two lightly modified 405-2s; one having NET dual mono power supplies. These amps have been part of my system for the last thirty years; only recently being replaced by Mark Levinson electronics.

I also use a Quad 520f amp with B&W DM2a speakers in a second system for AV duties.

The only other speakers I have heard being driven by the 405-1 were the Rogers BBC Monitor (based on the LS3/6, if I recall) and the Celestion 66s. However this was over thirty years ago, so my impressions are rather hazy.



A good friend of mine uses the AI 500 with Impulse H2 horn loaded speakers to good effect - the combination of valves with horns does produce a nice, clear, if not the most accurate sound.

[DSJR]

Go with your heart, since music listening is an emotional thing. If you want technical, build/style and the emotional connection all together, save up for one of the better icon Audio amps (with copper top) as these do beautifully what good solid state do, but with a purity in the treble that's highly addictive IMO.


I must admit that for five hundred notes, a 606mk2 with Tisbury (or similar) passive control/switch is highly temping and residuals holding well mean you wouldn't be hugely out of pocket should you sell 'em on later :)

[Oldpinkman]

Although I have been a lifelong fan of Quad electronics, my only long-term experience of the 405 amp has been with Quad 57 speakers. I have three 405s: a very heavily modified 405-1 and two lightly modified 405-2s; one having NET dual mono power supplies. These amps have been part of my system for the last thirty years; only recently being replaced by Mark Levinson electronics.

I also use a Quad 520f amp with B&W DM2a speakers in a second system for AV duties.

The only other speakers I have heard being driven by the 405-1 were the Rogers BBC Monitor (based on the LS3/6, if I recall) and the Celestion 66s. However this was over thirty years ago, so my impressions are rather hazy.



A good friend of mine uses the AI 500 with Impulse H2 horn loaded speakers to good effect - the combination of valves with horns does produce a nice, clear, if not the most accurate sound.

I promise you a well sorted 405 can drive just about anything. Mine is making a lovely job of driving very inefficient ventricals right now. The phono stage of the preamp is the bit I am most lukewarm about, but only by comparison with "super" phono stages like the Pip, Audio Research SP10 etc. Against most mid-price amps its good enough


Dan - where are you in Kent? :)

[Andrew B]

Innovations for me, no contest. I do think the 606 is a far better power amp than you'll ever hear with a Quad preamp though.

[cloth-ears]

I’m probably going to lose any chance of making friends here but I would go for quality transistor amp any day. How any grownup and sensible person can say with hand on heart that a valve amplifier is HI-Fi is beyond me. The sound produced by valves is coloured, bloated and bears no relation to the original input signal. And yes, that can be measured. It’s a bit like natural colour and Technicolor. When people see mutable TV sets for sale in a shop all displaying the same picture the one with the brightest colour and contrast almost always grabs the attention. If valves were really that good then professional near field monitors would still utilise them.

Why don’t professional sound technicians use valve equipment when evaluating the final mix?

By all means bask in the nostalgic 50’s jukebox sound but never use the oxymoron of “valve” and “high end” in the same sentence

Now cross me of your Christmas card list, light those torches and get the rest of the villagers together. Love and peace.

[Spectral Morn]

I’m probably going to lose any chance of making friends here but I would go for quality transistor amp any day. How any grownup and sensible person can say with hand on heart that a valve amplifier is HI-Fi is beyond me. The sound produced by valves is coloured, bloated and bears no relation to the original input signal. And yes, that can be measured. It’s a bit like natural colour and Technicolor. When people see mutable TV sets for sale in a shop all displaying the same picture the one with the brightest colour and contrast almost always grabs the attention. If valves were really that good then professional near field monitors would still utilise them.

Why don’t professional sound technicians use valve equipment when evaluating the final mix?

By all means bask in the nostalgic 50’s jukebox sound but never use the oxymoron of “valve” and “high end” in the same sentence

Now cross me of your Christmas card list, light those torches and get the rest of the villagers together. Love and peace.


:eek: Wow that's a pretty insulting and insensitive post, no smilies used to denote any tongue in cheek aspect to it so I will take it as it was mean't to be, just rude :(

You obviously haven't heard that many valve designs over the years or you would have heard that implementation is everything and valve based designs do not all sound as your ill-informed cliché suggests, though there are some that do.

Here's the thing though if some folks, quite mature make well reasoned decisions to listen to kit that does sound that way, well that's fine by me, not for me, but as long as they are enjoying it then I say go for it. Equally cool, sterile, bright, in your face, analytical solid state kit isn't for me as to my ears and mind it doesn't produce music as I hear it. However what I will not do is insult those people who like such a sound presentation.


Neil

[loo]

Woah Bob Sorry but some of the widest bandwidth lowest distortion amps made are valve And many sound engineers crave valve equipment

[cloth-ears]

:eek: Wow that's a pretty insulting and insensitive post, no smilies used to denote any tongue in cheek aspect to it so I will take it as it was mean't to be, just rude :(

You obviously haven't heard that many valve designs over the years or you would have heard that implementation is everything and valve based designs do not all sound as your ill-informed cliché suggests, though there are some that do.

Here's the thing though if some folks, quite mature make well reasoned decisions to listen to kit that does sound that way, well that's fine by me, not for me, but as long as they are enjoying it then I say go for it. Equally cool, sterile, bright, in your face, analytical solid state kit isn't for me as to my ears and mind it doesn't produce music as I hear it. However what I will not do is insult those people who like such a sound presentation.


Neil

Telling someone that their new baby is ugly and has big ears is “insulting and insensitive”; giving an opinion on valve amplifiers is not. I suppose those on rocky ground are the easiest to push over. If this makes you feel better…………:):):)

[cloth-ears]

Woah Bob Sorry but some of the widest bandwidth lowest distortion amps made are valve And many sound engineers crave valve equipment

OK, name one valve power amplifier that can match a Quad 606 on output, distortion, bandwidth and damping factor. If you can I will eat my words.

[ledzep]

Ok please dont turn this into a slagging match,simple answers just seeing how the percentages come out. Yes we all have our preference's but it's good to see what the majority would for and hear their views without knocking one or the other. :)

[The Grand Wazoo]

Quite right Dan.
Bob - we can surmise from your first post that you'd prefer the Quad. If you want to vent about how inadequate valve amps are, then the place for that would be on another thread.


Back to the matter in hand.

[Andrew B]

I do t take offence even if someone thinks I'm crazy or just plain stupid for my choices. After all, it's only me who has to listen to my bits and the same with anyone else :)

What I will say though is that the best amps I've had, whether valve or solid state, seem to have more similarities than differences. My Puresound and My NVAs for instance, differ very little in terms of tonal balance and presentation. I don't hear massive distortion from the valve amp, so. I don't worry if measuring equipment can pick it up.

[cloth-ears]

Ok please dont turn this into a slagging match,simple answers just seeing how the percentages come out. Yes we all have our preference's but it's good to see what the majority would for and hear their views without knocking one or the other. :)

It wasn’t my intention to start a slagging match. I was giving my honest opinion as to which I believe was the better choice. I merely tried to qualify my choice. Anyone can say that A is better than B or that Z is better than Q but isn’t it better to say why? I don’t get all defensive if someone doesn’t like transistor amplifiers and I don’t think they are being rude for saying so, just less informed.

[Oldpinkman]

Bob - I've started a thread :)

[Arkless Electronics]

Woah Bob Sorry but some of the widest bandwidth lowest distortion amps made are valve And many sound engineers crave valve equipment

Really? :lol:

[Spectral Morn]

Telling someone that their new baby is ugly and has big ears is “insulting and insensitive”; giving an opinion on valve amplifiers is not. I suppose those on rocky ground are the easiest to push over. If this makes you feel better…………:):):)

I am quite happy with my choices - all of them - but I am not happy with aggressive, derogatory, hostile posting styles - yours above falls into that category in my opinion. It is quite possible to share a negative opinion on anything with out being insulting.


Neil

[loo]

Really? :lol:
no I admit the distortion bit is bollox but whether it matters depends on what species of Bat is hearing it
Paul

[cloth-ears]

I am quite happy with my choices - all of them - but I am not happy with aggressive, derogatory, hostile posting styles - yours above falls into that category in my opinion. It is quite possible to share a negative opinion on anything with out being insulting.


Neil

You think that my comments are “hostile and aggressive”. I think you chose your avatar wisely.
PS does this mean no Christmas card?

[Barry]

To try and bring this thread back on track, I ought to point out that the Quad 405, 520, 606, 707 and 909 power amp designs all use the "current dumping" circuit topology. Some have described this as having a 'grey sound', though I believe that criticism really only applied to the 405-1.

The 606 was a development of the 510/520 design, themselves a development of the 405. Both the 606 and 909 reperesent excellent value for money, though if you choose to buy one of the latter, make sure it was built in Huntingdon. Since Quad was sold to the Chang brothers and manufacture moved to China, word has got out that the later versions built there have used inferior, locally-sourced components in their construction (capacitors in particular), to the detriment of sound quality. :( Beware!



Again The Audio Innovations 500 is an excellent 25w/channel valve amp. I have had extensive exposure to this amp and regard it as one of the better valve designs. Sadly the company is no longer in business, so should you buy one and it needs service you will have to look elsewhere.

I'm going to avoid commenting on the pros and cons of the EL34 valve (I'm not really qualified to do so), save to say I regard the AI 500 as a 'modern day' Radford STA25 III, with a built in preamp. :)

[ledzep]

Barry :) nice answer

[The Grand Wazoo]

Poll added.

[Arkless Electronics]

Personally I can't really give a vote as the Quad 44 is included..... If it was just between the 606 and the Audio Innovations it would be for the 606.

[DSJR]

The early 44 was a bit 'dead' sounding, but the later ones in grey & chocolate with phono sockets were very good indeed IMO!