View Full Version : Dull as ditchwater?
Gordon Steadman
08-11-2014, 20:04
i reckon those people who call the Quad 33/303 combination dull, boring and unexciting are too used to being hit round the chops with a wet kipper.
If there is one thing I can't stand it is hi-fi that screams 'look at me' all the time.
I have just accepted the Quads in payment for a speaker rebuild job. I am sitting here with them playing through a pair of Wharfdale Diamond 7 pros and allowing for the Diamonds shortcomings, the sound is natural and 'unforced' with lovely depth and height as well as width. Tonally, a guitar sounds like its made of wood and a sax is made of brass. All the insight necessary to enjoy the music is there.
Now I have run them all day and no real nasties have appeared (there was some noise on the 33 to start with but it appears to have settled - they have been unused for ten years), I will try them with the 57s tomorrow to see how they stack up against the Stereo 20.
Apart from anything else, I just love the way they look. Such class industrial design.
PS: Does anyone know where I can get some power out plugs to fit the 33?
Well for me I have never heard a system that used a 33 pre amp to be anything other than a bit bland and woolly but I suppose that could be other factors. The 303 I really like both the looks and the sound and I'm toying with the idea of getting one that's been serviced. I've never heard a bad system with a 303 in it. Unless it had a 33 as the pre...
Martyn Miles
08-11-2014, 22:32
I have a 34/303 combination to drive my Harbeth P3ESRs. I will not be replacing it with some trendy amplifier. Peter Walker knew what he was doing...
walpurgis
08-11-2014, 22:38
I have a 34/303 combination to drive my Harbeth P3ESRs. I will not be replacing it with some trendy amplifier. Peter Walker knew what he was doing...
So did the guy who made the first dug out canoe. :)
Oldpinkman
08-11-2014, 22:49
They are shocking Gordon. Viceless but lifeless. It reminds me of my (now 80 year old) fathers comments about condoms. "like washing your feet with your socks on".
The quad is like listening with pads over your ears. Accurate, but no dynamics, no imaging, and no real. Instruments sound like they are the other side of a curtain. A sort of sterile copy of what the original music was. The power amps not too bad with the right speakers. The pre - particularly it's phono stage is dull as ditch water. Adequate at best. (imho) ;)
walpurgis
08-11-2014, 22:55
I love older Quad gear actually. Just for what it is, superb for its time and so well made and uniquely stylish. I just don't want to use it having tried and heard many examples. I quite like the sound of the 306 and 405 II, but prefer my alternatives.
I'll stick to my Class A SS amps and the valves.
One of my mates has the 33/303 combo. its good but seems to lack something. Would be interesting to try the 303 with another pre.
The quad is like listening with pads over your ears. Accurate, but no dynamics, no imaging, and no real. Instruments sound like they are the other side of a curtain. A sort of sterile copy of what the original music was.
If that truly is an accurate representation of how the Quad sounds, then how on earth could anyone who purports to be into hi-fi live with it? :scratch:
Marco [who hates 'pipe & slippers’ sounding gear with a passion].
My 306 & 405-2 certainly sounded better with pres other than the 34 which always seemed a bit 'veiled' (they both worked quite well with the Tisbury passive). Having said that they're all on the subs bench at the moment.
Light Dependant Resistor
09-11-2014, 05:36
i reckon those people who call the Quad 33/303 combination dull, boring and unexciting are too used to being hit round the chops with a wet kipper.
If there is one thing I can't stand it is hi-fi that screams 'look at me' all the time.
I have just accepted the Quads in payment for a speaker rebuild job. I am sitting here with them playing through a pair of Wharfdale Diamond 7 pros and allowing for the Diamonds shortcomings, the sound is natural and 'unforced' with lovely depth and height as well as width. Tonally, a guitar sounds like its made of wood and a sax is made of brass. All the insight necessary to enjoy the music is there.
Now I have run them all day and no real nasties have appeared (there was some noise on the 33 to start with but it appears to have settled - they have been unused for ten years), I will try them with the 57s tomorrow to see how they stack up against the Stereo 20.
Apart from anything else, I just love the way they look. Such class industrial design.
PS: Does anyone know where I can get some power out plugs to fit the 33?
Hi Gordon
Like you I love the look of the 33 and FM3. The 33 is so much better though converted to be a stereo coffee LDR pre. Currently running this with 2x 306 amps and stacked ESL57's clarity of sound is well beautiful to say the least.
Cheers / Chris13489
I like the looks too, but I don’t do ‘veiled’, which Quad preamps seem to be commonly accused of being. No doubt the LDR injects some life into them :)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 07:47
They are shocking Gordon. Viceless but lifeless. It reminds me of my (now 80 year old) fathers comments about condoms. "like washing your feet with your socks on".
The quad is like listening with pads over your ears. Accurate, but no dynamics, no imaging, and no real. Instruments sound like they are the other side of a curtain. A sort of sterile copy of what the original music was. The power amps not too bad with the right speakers. The pre - particularly it's phono stage is dull as ditch water. Adequate at best. (imho) ;)
Absolute bollocks:lol:
I knew of course, that you would say this!! As I said, I don't want to be hit in the face, I like some distance from the band rather than sitting in the middle of it.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 07:48
One of my mates has the 33/303 combo. its good but seems to lack something. Would be interesting to try the 303 with another pre.
It sounds good with my Creek passive but does lack a bit of drive. Maybe my 33 is faulty but its as clear as a bell.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 08:14
I don’t do ‘veiled’, which Quad preamps seem to be commonly accused of being.
Marco.
I got a card from a girlfriend once that said 'keep following your own path, don't be one of the sheep' I'd rather make up my own mind.
Over the years I have listened to all levels of equipment and I've come back to 'natural balance' I really don't give a stuff what other people's ears tell them.
Martyn Miles
09-11-2014, 08:16
They are shocking Gordon. Viceless but lifeless. It reminds me of my (now 80 year old) fathers comments about condoms. "like washing your feet with your socks on".
The quad is like listening with pads over your ears. Accurate, but no dynamics, no imaging, and no real. Instruments sound like they are the other side of a curtain. A sort of sterile copy of what the original music was. The power amps not too bad with the right speakers. The pre - particularly its phono stage is dull as ditch water. Adequate at best. (imho) ;)
So, you who purports to know what other people require, think it is a 'sort of sterile copy' then ? How can a phono stage be as 'dull as ditchwater'?
It's all about perception, and you should accept other people's interpretation of how they perceive things.
There is quite a large band of contributors on this forum who tell us what to buy, to listen to and what to avoid.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 09:58
There is quite a large band of contributors on this forum who tell us what to buy, to listen to and what to avoid.
Anyone who buy on this basis is nuts. Recipe for pot luck. Only your ears can tell you what anything sounds like to you.
dantheman91
09-11-2014, 10:07
people love them people hate them but i love them defiantly don't sound dull to me also clear as a bell. Pipe and slippers their a bit more then that i think but each to their own.
Hi Gordon
Like you I love the look of the 33 and FM3. The 33 is so much better though converted to be a stereo coffee LDR pre. Currently running this with 2x 306 amps and stacked ESL57's clarity of sound is well beautiful to say the least.
Cheers / Chris13489
hi Chris, are you running the 306's as two mono amps ?
Well, I won't get into the telling other people what to think or what to buy, but will share my own thoughts on the 33/303.
I first heard this combo several decades ago, and back then it sounded neutral and enjoyable playing into a pair of Quad ESL 57s. I always liked the 303 particularly and there's a reason that so many found their way into broadcast studios...durable and tough as old boots, decent sounding when partnered with the right speakers and reliable.
More recently, I was asked to repair and upgrade a 33/303 combo for a friend who was using them with some Heybrook HB2s. Dead easy to work on, the originals by now may require some internal re-wiring and recapping, and I replaced the power socket on one and provided a new power lead. Suitably re-capped, I tried it into my (at the time) Tannoys. The sound was neither veiled, compressed nor lacked decent imaging. It was very neutral although there are limits to the loudspeaker loads that the 303 can drive. I was not so fond of the 33, which, whilst perfectly adequate, was let down by being a little dull sounding. The 34 was much better, and partnered with the 303, makes for a fabulous sounding system, especially into undemanding speaker loads which don't demand large current swings. I could quite happily settle for a 34/303 set up driving the Rhapsodys, as that seems to work really well. I tend to agree with Gordon's overall views especially where the 303 is concerned. Not so fond of the 33 though.
Over the years I have listened to all levels of equipment and I've come back to 'natural balance' I really don't give a stuff what other people's ears tell them.
…and quite right too, Gordon! You like what you like.
My point was simply that if Quad preamps *in actuality* are as ‘veiled’/woolly sounding as many say they are (and it’s not the first time I’ve heard this mentioned), then personal taste aside, they have no place in a high-resolution hi-fi system.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 10:41
Well, I won't get into the telling other people what to think or what to buy, but will share my own thoughts on the 33/303.
I first heard this combo several decades ago, and back then it sounded neutral and enjoyable playing into a pair of Quad ESL 57s. I always liked the 303 particularly and there's a reason that so many found their way into broadcast studios...durable and tough as old boots, decent sounding when partnered with the right speakers and reliable.
More recently, I was asked to repair and upgrade a 33/303 combo for a friend who was using them with some Heybrook HB2s. Dead easy to work on, the originals by now may require some internal re-wiring and recapping, and I replaced the power socket on one and provided a new power lead. Suitably re-capped, I tried it into my (at the time) Tannoys. The sound was neither veiled, compressed nor lacked decent imaging. It was very neutral although there are limits to the loudspeaker loads that the 303 can drive. I was not so fond of the 33, which, whilst perfectly adequate, was let down by being a little dull sounding. The 34 was much better, and partnered with the 303, makes for a fabulous sounding system, especially into undemanding speaker loads which don't demand large current swings. I could quite happily settle for a 34/303 set up driving the Rhapsodys, as that seems to work really well. I tend to agree with Gordon's overall views especially where the 303 is concerned. Not so fond of the 33 though.
In February, I will be able to compare the 33 with the 34. I will report my findings:)
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 10:47
i reckon this whole thing comes down to the 'night and day' problem. One man's terrible is likely my not quite as good. Most high quality equipment - and I certainly include Quad - is actually just that. How different can they really sound? I have always maintained that the electronic bits can only be subtly different. Source and speakers is a whole different game of course.
Well, Gordon, my experience is rather different. Entry-level, ‘mediocre’ electronics might sound subtly different, but the *really good* (ultimately more expensive) stuff, IME, invariably sounds markedly superior, both in a hi-fi and musical sense.
I suppose it comes down to what you’re used to. I guess that to the average red wine drinker, ‘red wine is red wine’, until perhaps they compare their usual bottle of Jacob’s Creek to Gevrey-Chambertin… ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 12:18
Well, Gordon, my experience is rather different. Entry-level, ‘mediocre’ electronics might sound subtly different, but the *really good* (ultimately more expensive) stuff, IME, invariably sounds markedly superior, both in a hi-fi and musical sense.
I suppose it comes down to what you’re used to. I guess that to the average red wine drinker, ‘red wine is red wine’, until perhaps they compare their usual bottle of Jacob’s Creek to Gevrey-Chambertin… ;)
Marco.
I did use the phrase 'high quality'. The judgement on 'really good' is subjective too. The 'best' I've heard pricewise and reputationwise, I wouldn't have given house room.
Even the red wine analogy holds up only if you think that training in a certain area gives you automatic superiority of some kind. The technical stuff I will buy but when it comes to the senses, there is only the individual, even if he is a lone voice. Who says that one wine is better than another? The 'experts' in the field are only that because of their training. The rest of us like one thing or another and yes, I have had the 'privilege' of tasting the world's finest wines. I prefer a Barolo or Merlot to many of them.
Suggesting that someone who enjoys listening to a Dansette is somehow getting less of a musical experience that the owner of a super duper all singing, all dancing, high res system is just plain wrong in my experience.
Indeed - that would be almost as daft as suggesting that all electronics which measure the same will automatically sound the same, but that’s not the point I was making.
Marco.
.
Suggesting that someone who enjoys listening to a Dansette is somehow getting less of a musical experience that the owner of a super duper all singing, all dancing, high res system is just plain wrong in my experience.
They are certainly getting less of a musical experience. I enjoyed my music on my Aiwa midi system but I enjoy it much more with what I have now. Isn't that the whole point of having a decent sound system?
Get the Dansette owner out of his attic and stick him in front of a proper system for a few hours then see how happy he is to go back to his dansette...
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 12:31
They are certainly getting less of a musical experience. I enjoyed my music on my Aiwa midi system but I enjoy it much more with what I have now. Isn't that the whole point of having a decent sound system?
Get the Dansette owner out of his attic and stick him in front of a proper system for a few hours then see how happy he is to go back to his dansette...
Many musician friends have done just that and happily gone back to their 'crap' system. There is much more to it than a simplistic 'sound quality' approach.
In my experience musicians are a special case. They will often maintain an adequate system but care little about optimising, tweaking or upgrading. They far prefer making music to listening to it.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 12:42
In my experience musicians are a special case. They will often maintain an adequate system but care little about optimising, tweaking or upgrading. They far prefer making music to listening to it.
They do however, know more about music than the average person. I dabble in both camps. Its still all down to personal preference. Its the snobbery and elitism that piss me off.
Quad 33
I have an early Quad 33 from late sixties. It is about number 3000. Quad started the 33 in 1967.
Mine has been revised with the DaDa kit. Basically it was a total recap.
I just put it in my system and listened with reasonable headphones (Sennheiser HD 540 Reference).
* This is in no way "pipe and slippers" or "behind the curtain"
* It is not actually also über Hifi as in very clean and wide band
* It has an interesting and engaging grittyness in the mid region.
The sixties (germanium?) transistors have a sound of their own.
This gives computer based music a little softness that it probably needs.
I don't know that is true of all musicians. In any case making music and listening to it are two different things. Both my mother and one of my brothers are highly accomplished classical musicians, my brother also plays guitar very well, and neither spend any time listening to recorded music. They do attend classical concerts regularly, though.
Re the snobbery and elitism - have to say some of the most enjoyable systems I have heard were relatively cheap and some of the least enjoyable were very expensive. On the other hand people who say 'Good quality hi-fi is wasted on me because I couldn't tell the difference from my midi system' irritate me enourmously. Of course they can tell the bloody difference. Same as people who say 'I don't want care about my car's handling or performance I just want something that gets me from A to B'. There is nothing wrong with wanting something that does what it does better than the average. I'm sure the guitars you make are better than those they sell in Argos, for example.
Gordon Steadman
09-11-2014, 13:24
I'm sure the guitars you make are better than those they sell in Argos, for example.
I hope so but you never can tell:lol:
Unless you've heard both of course:eyebrows:
Over on pfm in the Off Topic room is a thread about comedy programmes that make you laugh out loud. Unsurprisingly, some people's favourites are other people's pet hates. There is no right or wrong when it comes to personal taste, and that applies to hifi as well as to comedy programmes. Unless you are seeking a technically accurate sound (in terms of minimal distortion etc, in which case all you need are spec sheets) then you can only go on what your own ears tell you is right for you, even if everyone else is saying 'ugh, pipe 'n slippers' or 'argh, my ears are bleeding!'.
Plus, of course, context is everything, so an amplifier may sound 'dull' and 'veiled' in one system/room, and anything but that in another, so absolutist statements are meaningless.
'.
Plus, of course, context is everything, so an amplifier may sound 'dull' and 'veiled' in one system/room, and anything but that in another, so absolutist statements are meaningless.
Very true but no-one here is making any absolutist statements. This isn't PFM ;) Some quite like what the 33 does, some don't, we are all really just saying where it is we stand in response to the OP.
There is another factor too. What you have been exposed to. Back in 1986 when I got my Aiwa midi it was clearly better than my mates dad's Sharp music centre. But not quite as good as another mate's Goodmans seperates. At the time that was the limit of my exposure. Then , when I heard a late seventies mid range JVC seperates system with JBL L100 speakers my expectations of what was possible and where my Aiwa stood in the scheme of things were re-defined.
Okay so Gordon is not a stranger to expensive high quality kit so this doesn't apply to him , he likes the 33 regardless. That still doesn't mean that in all cases one opinion is as valid as the next.
I love Quad kit if not for its sound then at least for its understated design and battle tank build quality.. I've always had a 33\303 combo as a backup / colectionable in a cupboard. The other day at an acquaintance's place, I heard a 33/303 playing through a pair of 80's KEF speakers and was impressed at how pleasant it sounded.. on the warm side certainly but the kind of sound you can listen to all day
walpurgis
09-11-2014, 15:52
Plus, of course, context is everything, so an amplifier may sound 'dull' and 'veiled' in one system/room, and anything but that in another, so absolutist statements are meaningless.
In my experience an amp that sounds dull and two dimensional in one system, tends to sound the same in other systems.
i reckon those people who call the Quad 33/303 combination dull, boring and unexciting are too used to being hit round the chops with a wet kipper.
If there is one thing I can't stand it is hi-fi that screams 'look at me' all the time.
I have just accepted the Quads in payment for a speaker rebuild job. I am sitting here with them playing through a pair of Wharfdale Diamond 7 pros and allowing for the Diamonds shortcomings, the sound is natural and 'unforced' with lovely depth and height as well as width. Tonally, a guitar sounds like its made of wood and a sax is made of brass. All the insight necessary to enjoy the music is there.
Now I have run them all day and no real nasties have appeared (there was some noise on the 33 to start with but it appears to have settled - they have been unused for ten years), I will try them with the 57s tomorrow to see how they stack up against the Stereo 20.
Apart from anything else, I just love the way they look. Such class industrial design.
PS: Does anyone know where I can get some power out plugs to fit the 33?
I know the 33/303 really well (and look forward to owning 'my' set again one day soon). The 33 is a bit band limited and the bass especially can sound a little 'one note' and 'thumpy' due to the early low frequency rolloff on phono as well as the output cards. Changing two caps, one on each output card, takes the rolloff below 20hz and I'm convinced it aids the sound on modern line sources. Treble can be good but overall, there's some sort of 'processing' going on that does subtly change the sound from input to output. I used mine on the tape input for CD and adjusted the gain accordingly. Noise can often be little more than the board contacts in the 33 needing cleaning.
The 303, once properly fettled, is a velvety sounding little thing with huge charm and sonic involvement. The speaker caps MUST be regularly inspected and replaced if necessary to prevent the entire supply rail voltage feeding into the speakers if these caps fail. Fortunately, modern big caps are better than ever and if the replacements are properly specified to offer a good working margin, the replacements should last a few more decades I think.
As for after-market mods, do remember that both units were carefully designed to be the best they could be in their day (mid 60's) and were NOT AT ALL designed by numpties with little knowledge of the job at hand. I respect the Dada mods as they stay faithful to the original as much as possible, only the preamp having fairly major changes to rail voltage and phono stage gain.
Hi Juha,
Quad 33
I have an early Quad 33 from late sixties. It is about number 3000. Quad started the 33 in 1967.
Mine has been revised with the DaDa kit. Basically it was a total recap.
I just put it in my system and listened with reasonable headphones (Sennheiser HD 540 Reference).
* This is in no way "pipe and slippers" or "behind the curtain"
* It is not actually also über Hifi as in very clean and wide band
* It has an interesting and engaging grittyness in the mid region.
The sixties (germanium?) transistors have a sound of their own.
I don’t doubt it. There are plenty of examples of quality vintage gear that take on a new lease of life with some judicious modifications - I know because my system is full of them! ;)
The fact is that one of the few areas in audio today where genuine innovation has taken place, and thus real progress has been made, is in the design of electronic components.
In that respect, the best items available today, for example, in terms of capacitors and resistors, are (in the vast majority of examples) grossly superior to what was available in the 1960s (e.g. as was proven to me when I had the crossovers on my 1960s vintage Tannoy Monitor Golds modified), but other aspects of vintage equipment are often superior to what is produced today (for example, in some instances, circuit design), so that’s why combining the best of old and new technologies can produce some stunning sounding equipment, at reasonable cost - and I’m sure that also applies to the Quad 33.
This gives computer based music a little softness that it probably needs.
Now that’s an interesting comment… I suspect you’re right, although only when computer based music is done badly, as in my experience, when done well, it can sound stunning. However, my argument would be that if any preamp makes something sound ‘softer’, then it isn’t transparent, and thus not accurate.
Personally, I’d far rather have a preamp that revealed all the sonic nastiness of a particular recording or partnering system/component, if that was what was genuinely there, than one which ameliorated the effect by softening the sound, both because that is what true high-fidelity is all about, and also when it comes to music reproduction, it'd be the only way you’d hear top-notch recordings at their very best, rather than those also being ’softened’ by coloration.
For me, hi-fi is all about 'opening the window’ as far as possible and making music sound *real*. In that respect, I’ll always trade ‘niceness’ for (genuine) transparency!
:exactly:
Marco.
Hello Marco,
Now that’s an interesting comment… I suspect you’re right, although only when computer based music is done badly, as in my experience, when done well, it can sound stunning. However, my argument would be that if any preamp makes something sound ‘softer’, then it isn’t transparent, and thus not accurate.
Personally, I’d far rather have a preamp that revealed all the sonic nastiness of a particular recording or partnering system/component, if that was what was genuinely there, than one which ameliorated the effect by softening the sound, both because that is what true high-fidelity is all about, and also when it comes to music reproduction, it'd be the only way you’d hear top-notch recordings at their very best, rather than those also being ’softened'.
For me, hi-fi is all about 'opening the window’ as far as possible and making music sound *real*. In that respect, I’ll always trade ‘niceness’ for transparency!
Convenience is driving me to computer based audio. I use semi-pro or pro audio interfaces for listening.
Unfortunately these are very neutral by definition. I mostly use modern preamps and amps, but these are
also neutral. Once in a while it is fun to use something that has a more personal sound signature.
I agree with your 'opening the window' statement. But sometimes a dirty window is more interesting.
I agree with your 'opening the window' statement. But sometimes a dirty window is more interesting.
Lol - I like that! At the end of the day, whatever floats your boat :)
Marco.
Not into transparency just for the sake tbh, I like to like what I'm listening to "My Way".... In fact I am not even sure I know what a transparent amp is now that I think of it..... maybe someone can enlighten me. without hearing music on the equipment it was made on I doubt we will be sure what the producer/artist wanted it to sound like, so I just like My Sound, which is to me lively yet non fatiguing .....:)
In fact I am not even sure I know what a transparent amp is now that I think of it..... maybe someone can enlighten me.
this
http://www.dnm.co.uk/images/csdnmtwinfront.jpg
Not into transparency just for the sake tbh, I like to like what I'm listening to "My Way".... In fact I am not even sure I know what a transparent amp is now that I think of it..... maybe someone can enlighten me. without hearing music on the equipment it was made on I doubt we will be sure what the producer/artist wanted it to sound like, so I just like My Sound, which is to me lively yet non fatiguing .....:)
I totally agree, Grant. Once again it comes down to one’s available ‘benchmark’, in that respect, and the experiences it is founded upon. However, if an audio component succeeds in softening the sound, then by definition it isn’t sonically transparent, and thus not ‘hi-fi’.
Marco.
But how do you know it has softened the sound? ..maybe the so called transparent one has Hardened it:eyebrows:
Sure, at the end of the day, most of us just trust our ears :)
In that respect, if Juha hears his Quad 33 ‘softening’ the sound, compared with that of his other available equipment references, then I believe him that it is.
Marco.
walpurgis
09-11-2014, 23:35
But how do you know it has softened the sound? ..maybe the so called transparent one has Hardened it:eyebrows:
I've not experienced that myself Grant.
As I see it, all that may occur is that a transparent amp lets the shortcomings of other equipment show themselves. Not the amp's fault.
I've constantly strived to find transparency in all the gear I choose and I'd say I have a system that has all the benefits of that and none of the drawbacks. I like the term 'revelation' in the respect of transparency. The point is to reveal everything possible, in terms of detail, ambience, image depth, breadth and placement. you cannot have too much information coming through.
Funny thing is, it all sounds very clean and due probably to lack of distortion, it sounds smooth.
I understand that Geoff, and we all want detail, but as I said, as we really dont know what it sounded like when it was cut on the original equipment it is a problem. I dont like the definition that if something in not "transparent" it is not HiFi. I have heard expensive stuff and some have not excited me, and to me that is the crux of it. If I'm not getting the vibes of the music the I might as well be listening to a tranny:)
walpurgis
09-11-2014, 23:53
I understand that Geoff, and we all want detail, but as I said, as we really dont know what it sounded like when it was cut on the original equipment it is a problem. I dont like the definition that if something in not "transparent" it is not HiFi. I have heard expensive stuff and some have not excited me, and to me that is the crux of it. If I'm not getting the vibes of the music the I might as well be listening to a tranny:)
Yeah, I've heard mega priced stuff that did little for me. Avalon and Wilson speaker spring to mind (unlike Avant Garde, which are sublime).
If you want a tranny, I'd suggest a holiday in Bangkok :D.
By the way, there was no sound "when it was cut", apart from maybe a little 'needle talk' from the tip!
(yeah, I know. I'm being 'difficult')
I understand that Geoff, and we all want detail, but as I said, as we really dont know what it sounded like when it was cut on the original equipment it is a problem. I dont like the definition that if something in not "transparent" it is not HiFi. I have heard expensive stuff and some have not excited me, and to me that is the crux of it.
You’re missing the point, Grant. It’s not necessarily about price - in fact cost often has little to do with it. It’s about the ability of someone (a designer or end user) to design and/or modify a piece of equipment in order that it acts, as closely as possible, as an ‘open window’ onto music recordings.
In that respect, ‘transparency’ simply means replicating, as faithfully as possible, the sound of the recording, when it left the studio. Therefore the CD, LP or file we own, carrying that sound, acts in terms of transparency (or accuracy), as our sonic benchmark or reference.
Therefore, when using our system to reproduce the sound carried on that CD, LP or file, and one component, to our ears, clearly sounds more coloured/less transparent than another, then that’s precisely what it is - and the effect may also be measurable! ;)
Of course, at the end of the day, none of us knows for sure what was, in actuality, the sound that left the studio, so in that respect, we simply have to trust what our ears tell us is the most accurate representation.
However, I don’t get hung up on accuracy (as it can be a fruitless goal), but I certainly wouldn’t use a piece of equipment that to my ears was very evidently ‘editing’ the sound in some way, based on what I thought was right.
Marco.
I dont think i was but will leave it there.
In that respect, ‘transparency’ simply means replicating, as faithfully as possible, the sound of the recording, when it left the studio. Therefore the CD, LP or file we own, carrying that sound, acts in terms of transparency, as our sonic benchmark or reference.
Therefore, when using our system to reproduce the sound carried on that CD, LP or file, and one component, to our ears, clearly sounds more coloured/less transparent than another, then that’s precisely what it is - and the effect may also be measurable!
Marco.
Some tricky nomenclature here. To me faithful replication suggests accuracy. I would ascribe to Transparency a sense that you can see / hear through something. An example may be where you can hear every instrument in, say, Brandenburg No.2
walpurgis
10-11-2014, 00:05
Certainly Marco. What your ears tell you is everything as far as I'm concerned. I trust mine!
Hi Andrei,
Sure, I get where you’re coming from. ‘Transparency’, for me, in reference to audio equipment, is simply the ability for a piece of kit to maintain the integrity of the music signal, and in my experience, some kit does that better than others.
Marco.
walpurgis
10-11-2014, 00:09
Some tricky nomenclature here. To me faithful replication suggests accuracy. I would ascribe to Transparency a sense that you can see / hear through something. An example may be where you can hear every instrument in, say, Brandenburg No.2
"accuracy" would suggest hearing as much of what was originally recorded as possible. That would include very aspect of what we (I) describe as being the sound sought from Hi-Fi.
"accuracy" would suggest hearing as much of what was originally recorded as possible.
Precisely, which is why anything I perceive (preamp or whatever) that veils or ‘softens' information on recordings is an anathema! :)
Marco.
I dont think i was but will leave it there.
Sure, no worries. However, let me explain this:
I dont like the definition that if something in not "transparent" it is not HiFi. I have heard expensive stuff and some have not excited me, and to me that is the crux of it.
I too have heard the same, but that’s simply because said expensive equipment merely purported to be ‘transparent’, but was usually the opposite, due to the over-complication of its design! ;)
Simply throwing money at something doesn’t guarantee superlative results. In hi-fi, the best recipe for success is usually to invoke the K.I.S.S (less is more) principle, along with using the highest quality electrical components available within a given budget (i.e. what’s ‘under the hood’, as it were) - and that approach usually also makes for achieving the highest SPPV! :)
Marco.
As a long time user of Quad gear (and a bit of a fan for thirty years, before Quad were sold by Farad Azima of Mission to the Chang brothers in China) I think I am in a good position to comment on the sound quality of Quad gear.
Regarding the 33/303 combination, this sounds very good indeed when running into the Quad 57s. Quad employed a clever little trick whereby the series output capacitance of the 303 resonates with the inductance of input transformer of the ESL 57, reducing the speaker impedance and allowing the bass response to be extended.
The Quad 33 was of its time and does little to sound offensive (it is comfortable or soft sounding, "pipe and slippers" as some might put it). Personally I would prefer this to a pre which has an untamed treble response. But we have to put this into context - all the preamps of the late '60s, be they valve or SS, sounded equally "unimpressive". I doubt the early Naim NAC12 preamp sounds any better.
I do believe the Quad 33 can be usefully upgrade using the Dada or NET upgrades, though unless one insists on keeping the lovely styling of the 33, it might be better to change it for a Croft preamp, or perhaps a Music First TVC.
The 303 is an excellent workhorse and can still stand its own today. NET make a series of upgrades to the power supply and can even change the output to a fully compementary design; but doing the latter would mean it is no longer a Quad 303. I haven't heard one such - do any members here use one?
The superb reliability of the 303 meant hundreds were used by the BBC (where some were left fully powered up) and by groups like Pink Floyd, who used 303Js for sound fold-back. The 303 can drive most loudspeakers with ease.
So my advice to any owner of a Quad 33/303 combination, would be to have the capacitors in the 303 renewed (and possibly increased in value) and to have the NET upgrades made to the 33.
I used to use my 33/303 for TV sound running into B&W DM2As and was more than happy with the result.
The Quad 33 was of its time and does little to sound offensive (it is comfortable or soft sounding, "pipe and slippers" as some might put it). Personally I would prefer this to a pre which has an untamed treble response.
Indeed, which is why I use a preamp that is neither soft-sounding, nor has an "untamed treble response", but one that to my ears is sonically ’transparent’ and, most importantly, musically enjoyable. It’s not that difficult a thing to achieve! ;)
Quite simply, life’s too short to listen to 'inoffensive sounding’ music, via a ‘pipe & slippers’ preamp!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Accuracy and transparency are measurable; the less distortion, the more accurate. It's like hanging a picture; it might 'look' straight, but only by using a spirit level can you know whether it is straight. Of course, a picture that is straight might look crooked if the walls themselves are crooked. So do you want something that 'sounds' right, or something that is actually more accurate?
The more accurate it is the more 'right' it will sound.
If you often find yourself complaining about the quality of recordings that is a good sign that the system is not 'right'. I've been there and done that.
Gordon Steadman
10-11-2014, 09:26
I don't know if any of you have seen Pam Ayres - They should have asked my husband - but there is a great line that says "anything you want to know, just run it past my husband, wind him up and let him go"
This thread brings that to mind for some reason:lol:
The more accurate it is the more 'right' it will sound.
If you often find yourself complaining about the quality of recordings that is a good sign that the system is not 'right'.
Spot on, Martin. Let’s also remember that ‘accuracy’, as determined by measurements, is only as reliable as our current ability to measure what needs measuring! ;)
For me, when it comes to assessing the ability of a piece of equipment to maintain the integrity of a music signal (and thus, in that respect, determine how ‘accurate’ it is), that process goes somewhat beyond measuring for some simple, well-established, electrical parameters.
As ever, measurements only tell part of the story. For the full story, one always has to listen.
Marco.
P.S Have you listened yet to the Sinatra CD I sent?
Spot on, Martin. Let’s also remember that ‘accuracy’, as determined by measurements, is only as reliable as our current ability to measure what needs measuring! ;)
For me, when it comes to assessing the ability of a piece of equipment to maintain the integrity of a music signal (and thus, in that respect, determine how ‘accurate’ it is), that process goes somewhat beyond measuring for some simple, well-established, electrical parameters.
As ever, measurements only tell part of the story. For the full story, one always has to listen.
Marco.
P.S Have you listened yet to the Sinatra CD I sent?
No, I'll play it tonight.
For me it is not a question of measurements. Set up a system and play a lot of different material - if you have accuracy everyhting will sound pretty much as it should but if you don't have accuracy then you will get the odd record sounding just 'wrong'. The less accurate the system the more recordings you will come across that sound wrong. There are very very few poor recordings on major labels or affiliates. So if it sounds wrong that's not shit production that's your system, that is ;)
I think that’s a very good way of looking at it :)
Marco.
Until one discovers a poor recording and subsequently heaves the system out of the nearest window... :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVTOMkJdqs
Do you consider that as a poor recording, Dave? I have the album on vinyl 'Spirits (Having Flown)’, with that track on it, and it sounds superb :)
Marco.
I have a 'best of' Bee Gees CD that is so dynamically compressed it generates its own gravity well...
That’s why records are sometimes better, especially when that’s the original format the music would’ve been released on ;)
Marco.
True. The LP can sometimes have a better dynamic range than the CD.
There is a thread on WTB at the moment claiming that LP has a higher dynamic range regardless....the case has not really been made satisfactorily, though.
It's one of those new fangled 'audio forums':
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/forumdisplay.php?3-What-s-Best-In-Audio
Ta - never heard of it. Too many bloody sections, though - makes it a nightmare to navigate…
Marco.
It's mostly yanks having pissing contests but they do occasionally have an interesting thread in the 'General Audio' section.
Yeah, not my thing at all. In all honesty, I only bother reading three forums (of any description), and that’s here, pfm and ‘over the road’, for the entertainment value! ;)
I simply don’t have time for any others.
Marco.
mr sneff
10-11-2014, 17:48
The 303 is an excellent workhorse and can still stand its own today. NET make a series of upgrades to the power supply and can even change the output to a fully compementary design; but doing the latter would mean it is no longer a Quad 303. I haven't heard one such - do any members here use one?
I have both an 'unmolested' Quad 303 and a Net Audio modified 303 which I use with either a 33 or 34. I'd say that the Net Audio 303 still sounds like a 303 but with better control at the frequency extremes, especially the bass. This is particularly true of more difficult to drive speakers. I have a pair of John Blue JB3s whih have a 87dB sensitivity and a nominal impedance of 6ohms and the modified 303 drives these much better than the standard 303. On the other hand aniother pair of speakers with a sensitivity of 90dB and a stable 8ohm impedance, to my ears, sound better with the standard 303. Dull is relative; I find that I can listen to the 303 all day long without fatigue, but it's more about musical enjoyment for me than hearing the second trombonist break wind.
Having said that I've just bought an Amptastic Mini-1 and it betters the Quad combos in just about every department, especially with a decent power supply. So impressed have I been by this amp that I'm tempted to get a second one for the bedroom system and put the Quads into mothballs.
walpurgis
10-11-2014, 19:08
I have a 'best of' Bee Gees CD that is so dynamically compressed it generates its own gravity well...
Whoa! Bee Gees? Highly cringeworthy. :eek:
I have both an 'unmolested' Quad 303 and a Net Audio modified 303 which I use with either a 33 or 34. I'd say that the Net Audio 303 still sounds like a 303 but with better control at the frequency extremes, especially the bass. This is particularly true of more difficult to drive speakers. I have a pair of John Blue JB3s whih have a 87dB sensitivity and a nominal impedance of 6ohms and the modified 303 drives these much better than the standard 303. On the other hand aniother pair of speakers with a sensitivity of 90dB and a stable 8ohm impedance, to my ears, sound better with the standard 303. Dull is relative; I find that I can listen to the 303 all day long without fatigue, but it's more about musical enjoyment for me than hearing the second trombonist break wind.
Having said that I've just bought an Amptastic Mini-1 and it betters the Quad combos in just about every department, especially with a decent power supply. So impressed have I been by this amp that I'm tempted to get a second one for the bedroom system and put the Quads into mothballs.
I have an Amptastic Mini T, and would agree it works very well into my B&W DM2As. But would have to disagree with you that it "betters the Quad combos in just about every department". It doesn't; in my opinion the frequency extremes are better handled by the Quad amps. This is a limitation with Class D amps.
Martyn Miles
10-11-2014, 19:45
Whoa! Bee Gees? Highly cringeworthy. :eek:
Ah, the Bee Gees. I still have my 1968 copy of 'Idea'. Love the song 'In the Summer of his Years,'
Now they were the days...
Their early albums are fantastic - way better than the well-known commercial stuff!
Marco.
I have an Amptastic Mini T, and would agree it works very well into my B&W DM2As. But would have to disagree with you that it "betters the Quad combos in just about every department". It doesn't; in my opinion the frequency extremes are better handled by the Quad amps. This is a limitation with Class D amps.
All Class D amps? I'd beg to differ.
dantheman91
10-11-2014, 20:29
Stayin Alive
:dance:
LOVE IT!!!
Light Dependant Resistor
11-11-2014, 02:10
True. The LP can sometimes have a better dynamic range than the CD.
There is a thread on WTB at the moment claiming that LP has a higher dynamic range regardless....the case has not really been made satisfactorily, though.
There is much sense in using a compander in todays CD based audio system. In my experience CD improves 20% with audio quality by using a DBX 150x that can be used real time, and another 10% if then recorded and played back using a 150x onto a Yamaha CDRHD1500. The reasons for this are that dynamic range is improved. This was the work of David Blackmer, who as well as companding was a strong advocate of extending frequency response of audio equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Blackmer
Cheers / Chris
Bit late on this one but I had a 303 running off the variable output of a cdp some years back. May have been a Nad or a Denon, sounded great.
Had a small advantage on fixing part of it too. My mum used to build them at Quad!
spendorman
11-11-2014, 20:02
"Dull as ditchwater? "
I had Quad II's, 22's, 303's, 33's, all OK, then in 1976 bought the all new 405, now that was "Dull as ditchwater?"
Stood unused on the shelf for several years, until I changed the op amps for TL071's, a great improvement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.