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

[high.spirits]

I'm looking at building a second system comprising of older kit, however my memory of these items is slightly tinted with rose coloured glasses!!

How do they sound now, having been used to modern hifi.

Is there anyone in or very near to Milton Keynes that could let me listen to their Rogers speakers.

Similar request for Quad power amps.

Thanks Martin

[Simon_Nottingham]

Similar request for Quad power amps.

Thanks Martin

I'm no expert, but have been doing a bit of research as I'm up for some Quad - general view is that 34/44 preamp era kit is good, but needs to be serviced (cap's, etc replaced).

Plus it looks great!

[mossy]

I'm looking at building a second system comprising of older kit, however my memory of these items is slightly tinted with rose coloured glasses!!

How do they sound now, having been used to modern hifi.

Is there anyone in or very near to Milton Keynes that could let me listen to their Rogers speakers.

Similar request for Quad power amps.

Thanks Martin



Not very near but welcome to listen to my Studio 1's

BN44

[walpurgis]

I personally would steer clear of the 34 pre-amp. It's not Quad's best effort. The sound is a bit dull and flat to my ears.

[Pieoftheday]

Ive recently bought a quad 306, really like it,used with a novafidelty x40 as pre, its fast clear and musically involving, well chuffed. I payed a £200 which seems a bit over the odds but it s a very clean example

[high.spirits]

Not very near but welcome to listen to my Studio 1's

BN44

Thanks for the offer Steve. It's a bit far.

[high.spirits]

I'm no expert, but have been doing a bit of research as I'm up for some Quad - general view is that 34/44 preamp era kit is good, but needs to be serviced (cap's, etc replaced).


I personally would steer clear of the 34 pre-amp. It's not Quad's best effort. The sound is a bit dull and flat to my ears.

Thanks for the feedback so far.
I have heard various reports, good and bad about different Quad preamps, so in the first instance was going to get a Quad power amp and feed from a 99 CDP (has volume control inbuilt) which I already have.

[Martyn Miles]

I personally would steer clear of the 34 pre-amp. It's not Quad's best effort. The sound is a bit dull and flat to my ears.

You must have a different type of Quad 34 to the one I own.

[walpurgis]

You must have a different type of Quad 34 to the one I own.

I don't own one. Never have, but I've tried a couple. That's why I don't use one.

[high.spirits]

I don't own one. Never have, but I've tried a couple. That's why I don't use one.

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

[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 :D

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??? :scratch:

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. ;)

[high.spirits]

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.

Thanks for the comprehensive response. So it looks like I should be looking at a Quad 606 Mk11 or newer.
Still not sure about the speakers thus the request to listen locally. cheers Martin

[Martyn Miles]

Where does 'BBC Bollocks' come from??? :scratch:

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. ;)

I know DJSR and we've discussed 'BBC type' speakers, but I have never come across 'BBC Bollocks' speakers...

[walpurgis]

I know DJSR and we've discussed 'BBC type' speakers, but I have never come across 'BBC Bollocks' speakers...

They must be rare Martyn. Anybody got photos? ;)

[spendorman]

Here are mine!

[Idlewithnodrive]

Must say, I own a Quad 34 pre into a 405-2 and flat and uninspiring (or veiled) it most certainly is not. Just the opposite on good recordings with decent DR in fact.

Yum.

[Macca]

Just for balance I've heard a few systems with unmodded 33 and 34 preamps and I thought they were veiled. The 33 unacceptably so.

[walpurgis]

The first time I tried a Quad 34, I was using a Rappaport Pre 2 as my main pre-amp, feeding an Audio Concepts P300 MosFet power amplifier. They were a great combination driving my Tannoys. I hooked the 34 up and the music just went flat and dull by comparison. Mind you the Rappaport was a bit special (wouldn't mind another, it was as good as the Forte Model 2). I have used a 34 since and had similar results again. I suppose if you're used to the Quad and have not tried other pre-amps, you won't necessarily be dissatisfied.

As I've mentioned on here before (and been pulled up for it by indignant owners), There are amps that have a similar presentation (to my ears). The Audiolab 8000a, Cambridge A60 and NAD 3020a. They obviously are integrateds, but just seem rather flat and two dimenional.

All the above are 'safe' choices in a system, as they do nothing wrong as such, but I like a degree of lucidity and transparency they don't seem to offer. And I'm not talking about brightness or fowardness.

[Idlewithnodrive]

I have tried many pre's with the 405-2 Geoff, active, passive and valve.

The worst of the lot, by a country mile were the passives; now they were flat, fairly transparent but no drive. Some did some things better than the 34, the croft for instance was more detailed but not as open, but none, I felt were as good an all rounder. I need tone controls (shock, horror) in my small, very challenging room and in this area the 34 shines.

While the 34 certainly isn't perfect, I can't think of anything sub £300 that is as good an all rounder and suits my listening circumstances as well.

Unless, of course, you can point me at something better ?

[Martyn Miles]

I have tried many pre's with the 405-2 Geoff, active, passive and valve.

The worst of the lot, by a country mile were the passives; now they were flat, fairly transparent but no drive. Some did some things better than the 34, the croft for instance was more detailed but not as open, but none, I felt were as good an all rounder. I need tone controls (shock, horror) in my small, very challenging room and in this area the 34 shines.


While the 34 certainly isn't perfect, I can't think of anything sub £300 that is as good an all rounder and suits my listening circumstances as well.

Unless, of course, you can point me at something better ?

I own a Quad 34 and find the Tilt controls excellent.
It's one of the reasons I own one.
Someone here said the Audiolab 8000A is similar to the Quad.
I own both.

I sometimes feel some who post here are pursuing Audio Nirvana with the
'Try this amplifier, try that amplifier' road they go down.

I have lived with the Quad 34/303 and a Audiolab 8000A for many years.
I'm not looking for Audio Nirvana, just enjoying the music...

[walpurgis]

The worst of the lot, by a country mile were the passives; now they were flat, fairly transparent but no drive. Some did some things better than the 34, the croft for instance was more detailed but not as open, but none, I felt were as good an all rounder. I need tone controls (shock, horror) in my small, very challenging room and in this area the 34 shines.

I agree generally Mike. The majority of passives use cheap potentiometers and as you describe, can sound flat and lacking body. The stepped attenuator versions can be better, but so far the best I've found are the TVC types, which are totally superior in my experience and that's what I use now, although I retain a good valve pre-amp too, but it seldom gets used.

I certainly don't need tone controls and have not used them for thirty years or more. I also have a small room, but my big Tannoys work just fine in there.

[walpurgis]

Someone here said the Audiolab 8000A is similar to the Quad.
I own both.

I sometimes feel some who post here are pursuing Audio Nirvana with the
'Try this amplifier, try that amplifier' road they go down.

Yes. 'Twas I who made that observation.

It's not about "Audio Nirvana" really, but it is about not necessarily implementing a particular amplifier and deciding 'that's it'. There are always options and no doubt improvements to be gained.

My own choices in amplification have been more or less settled for a good few years, but I do find that I tend only to be happy if I'm using Class A amplification, valve or solid state. It took me years to find what is best suited to my system, but there was no chopping and changing just for the sake of it. Each step has been carefully considered and of course budget driven.

[Idlewithnodrive]

Exactly the approach I have taken Geoff.

I have dabbled with an awful lot of pre's in the sub £500 bracket, even while I have owned the 34 and it is still here.

The 34 works best for me, in my system, in my room, to these ears ...................

[Martyn Miles]

Exactly the approach I have taken Geoff.

I have dabbled with an awful lot of pre's in the sub £500 bracket, even while I have owned the 34 and it is still here.

The 34 works best for me, in my system, in my room, to these ears ...................

My ears, too.
I am sticking with my Quad and Audiolab.

I have no problem at all about others' findings and experiences.
It all makes for a lively Forum.

[DSJR]

Where does 'BBC Bollocks' come from??? :scratch:

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. ;)

Sorry for forthright manner - too much to type, so little time... As for 'BBC Bollocks,' - you really don't want to know where that came from. I'm still smarting from that one...

[DSJR]

Exactly the approach I have taken Geoff.

I have dabbled with an awful lot of pre's in the sub £500 bracket, even while I have owned the 34 and it is still here.

The 34 works best for me, in my system, in my room, to these ears ...................

All I can ask, is that you try a CD player (with variable output?) straight into a power amp, or a fixed output player into a power amp with adjustable gain. Listen and then insert active preamp of choice and see if there's a difference. The best active preamps don't alter the sound at all, but it's amazing how many do - and I was very surprised how say, an ARC preamp costing the thick end of five grand, added a golden warmth to everything played through it (I think it was an LS25, but the Ref 2 did as well from memory). Very clear indeed, but tonally 'altered.'

[Macca]

All I can ask, is that you try a CD player (with variable output?) straight into a power amp, or a fixed output player into a power amp with adjustable gain. Listen and then insert active preamp of choice and see if there's a difference. The best active preamps don't alter the sound at all, but it's amazing how many do - and I was very surprised how say, an ARC preamp costing the thick end of five grand, added a golden warmth to everything played through it (I think it was an LS25, but the Ref 2 did as well from memory). Very clear indeed, but tonally 'altered.'

But if you prefer tonally altered where does that leave you?

QED passive into a stock 303 is still one of the best sounds I've heard for sweetness, clarity and easy enjoyability. Putting the 33 pre-amp in killed it completely. There are passive pre-amps that don't sound flat. At the last NEBO we heard half a dozen of them, albeit some were transformer jobs. The Firebottle KIN active pre also held it's own with them, although I believe that does only have a small amount of gain. Also heard a Croft Micro-Basic into a modded 303, and compared that to a 34 - Croft was significantly better.

You can do better than any QUAD pre-amp for not silly money.

[DSJR]

Tonally altered (by the preamp) isn't 'high fidelity' in the purest sense though, at least not in my book.

A fully (Dada) updated Quad 33 is a far better animal than a stock one struggling with a digital source and with gain/noise all over the place. I use mine from the tape input, bypassing a stage and with sensitivity set to minimum and found it finally quite benign.

The QED passive *shouldn't* be any different to other inexpensive ones like the NVA or Tisbury, but it may depend a tiny bit on the value of pot used. I've only noticed a slight difference between 10k and 47k values, in the position of the volume control for a given output level (not sonics), and it's such a small difference I forget about it now.

[Idlewithnodrive]

You can do better than any QUAD pre-amp for not silly money.

You seem awfully sure of that.

In which case, I am looking for an active, 3 input pre with MM phono stage and good, usable tone controls, which you know to be better than the Quad 34 for less than £250.

What do you recommend ?

[Macca]

Nothing. There are no good* active pre-amps you can buy for £250, new or used.

*My definition of 'good' ,naturally.

I used to have a Linn LK1 that I would say was better than a 33 or 34 - that would fit your bill although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was 'good'.

Sorry if it comes across as slagging off you equipment choice, not my intention, but I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty penknife than go back to using an active pre-amp.

[Idlewithnodrive]

No worries at all as we're all entitled to our own opinions Macca.

I personally wouldn't use shelf space on NVA kit but that's just my opinion.

[Barry]

Nothing. There are no good* active pre-amps you can buy for £250, new or used.

*My definition of 'good' ,naturally.

I used to have a Linn LK1 that I would say was better than a 33 or 34 - that would fit your bill although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was 'good'.

Sorry if it comes across as slagging off you equipment choice, not my intention, but I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty penknife than go back to using an active pre-amp.

Don't you love these 'calm and reasonable' statements? Methinks a touch of hyperbole!

[struth]

Think I'd rather have the active pre tbh:D had one of Duncans makes and it was rather good.

[walpurgis]

You used to be able to pick up the original Musical Fidelity X-Pre for about £100 second hand (haven't seen one for sale recently). OK, its not exactly the last word in pre-amp quality, but it sounded sweet, open, musical and definitely like the little valve unit it was. Not entirely neutral, but not too far off either. Certainly a good enough pre-amp for under £200. Which is what they cost new back then. I bought one.

[mikmas]

Thanks for the comprehensive response. So it looks like I should be looking at a Quad 606 Mk11 or newer.
Still not sure about the speakers thus the request to listen locally. cheers Martin

Quite sincerely - I wouldn't dismiss the sonic capabilities of earlier Quads out of hand just on the basis of a couple of detractors, and certainly not the 33 or 34 preamps (both of which I have and both of which I will not part with)

I have partnered both with 303 and 405-2 power amps and they work a treat and all are still easily available for not too daft money. The 34 has the edge of an adaptable phono stage for MM and MC cartridges whereas the 33 is limited to MM only (and Ceramic of course ;) ) but too be honest I find little to choose between them

However, what is undoubtably true is that such will almost certainly requiring servicing if this hasn't happened already - but this pretty much a given for vintage kit of any brand. Quad do have an advantage of still offering servicing for these legacy products - and don't charge silly money either.

[walpurgis]

"Detractors" have valid opinions. If an item of equipment sounds like a drawer full of old socks to me, it's fair enough for me to point that out. If a user of the Quad 33 or 34 finds them adequate in their system, so be it. but I do wonder if they have tried out serious alternatives.

[mikmas]

"Detractors" have valid opinions.

'Detractors' do indeeds have opinions ... as do 'Non-Detractors' - as to which is 'valid' is simply a matter of opinion :)

[QUOTE=walpurgis;739979] If a user of the Quad 33 or 34 finds them adequate in their system, so be it. but I do wonder if they have tried out serious alternatives.[QUOTE}

Not really a statement I would even consider posting a response to .... :lol:

[Arkless Electronics]

"Detractors" have valid opinions. If an item of equipment sounds like a drawer full of old socks to me, it's fair enough for me to point that out. If a user of the Quad 33 or 34 finds them adequate in their system, so be it. but I do wonder if they have tried out serious alternatives.

+1 A stock 33 especially is fairly pants.... Can be upgraded to good with various upgrade kits etc.

[walpurgis]

'Detractors' do indeeds have opinions ... as do 'Non-Detractors' - as to which is 'valid' is simply a matter of opinion :)

I suspect you may have detracted on my detraction. Not quite sure what that adds up to now :scratch:. (:)).

[high.spirits]

Isn't it funny how these threads wander.
My original request was for a listen to some Rogers Speakers and / or Quad Power Amps around the Milton Keynes area. I like to listen to kit first and let my ears decide, which is not easy with older second hand equipment.

I have a Quad 99 CDP (adjustable volume output) which will be used to drive the power amp, so not really looking at pre amps at the moment. Thanks Martin




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

I'm looking at building a second system comprising of older kit, however my memory of these items is slightly tinted with rose coloured glasses!!

How do they sound now, having been used to modern hifi.

Is there anyone in or very near to Milton Keynes that could let me listen to their Rogers speakers.

Similar request for Quad power amps.

Thanks Martin

[Macca]

I guess no-one around MK is using that kit, at least no-one who is a member here.

The usual drill with used equipment is to buy at a reasonable price, try it, and sell it on if it doesn't do it for you, either at the price you paid or a nominal loss. It is a pretty easy, cost-effective method of trying a lot of different kit in your own home and system.

[high.spirits]

I guess no-one around MK is using that kit, at least no-one who is a member here.

The usual drill with used equipment is to buy at a reasonable price, try it, and sell it on if it doesn't do it for you, either at the price you paid or a nominal loss. It is a pretty easy, cost-effective method of trying a lot of different kit in your own home and system.

Yes you are probably right. There was always a small chance there could be some locals.

I have seen some equipment advertised here and then appear on ebay very quickly, sometime at quite higher prices (dealers perhaps), so its case of jumping in quick to try and secure a deal. cheers

[Macca]

Put a wanted ad up on here. It is amazing what folk have stashed away that they can't be bothered to advertise. :)

[high.spirits]

Good idea Martin. Cheers

[DSJR]

The Quad 606mk2 is an easy recommendation and it has enough power into 4 ohm loads (unlike its predecessors up to the 500 series) to work with most speakers out there. The 606mk1 needs work to update it now and earlier ones needed warm-up time which the later and mk2 onwards models didn't.

Enough said about the 33 and 34. I grew up admiring the 33 from afar, so when I had the chance of a nice one, it was logical I'd try to improve it. I'm pleased to report the dada mods do a heck of a good job. It seems the 34 will respond too to a similar update kit and will need the supply caps changing in any case so they don't leak into the motherboard and wreck it. Op-amps are improved and in any case, the gain can be altered to advantage even on stock ones.

[high.spirits]

Thanks Dave.

606 MK11 or 909 wanted ad posted.