Barry’s radiogram, Part 2

[Barry]

A while ago, the mains switch in my Quad 44 failed and thus the preamp returned to Quad for repair and service. In its absence I replaced the System 4 Quad electronics with the Series 3 electronics (33 preamp, FM3 tuner and 303 power amp) as shown here.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/Uher4400beingputthroughitspaces004.jpg?t=128726739 2

Since then, the 44 pre has come back and so for a short while the System 4 electronics (44 preamp, FM4 tuner and 405-1 power amp) was re-installed.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/002-6.jpg?t=1287268330

The Series 3 Quad gear has now returned to AV duties in the TV room. At the same time I decided not to re-install my cassette deck, as cassette is a medium no longer I use. (Sorry Nick) For tape duties, I can connect up a Nagra IV-S reel-to-reel machine.

Recently I have been using a Mark Levinson ML28 preamp. This is the first step of a radical up-grading programme, so as of 10.10.10, the business end now looks like:

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/008-3.jpg?t=1287268751

Viewers might be puzzled as to why the Quad 44 is still used. Compared to the Levinson, the Quad has a far more versatile disc input. I’m going through a programme of re-visiting my fixed-coil cartridges. When it comes to ease of changing the sensitivity and loading, the Quad is far more convenient in this regard.

Eagle-eyed observers will also note that the power amp has been replaced with a Quad 405-2. Again this has been done for the sake of connection expediency; the 405-1 uses a 4-pin DIN connection. I have yet to make up a set of CAMAC to 4-pin DIN leads. The 405-2 uses RCA phono connectors, thereby greatly helping matters. Actually I’m using the XLR balanced inputs and outputs on the Levinson. Another reason I’m using the 405-2, is that this is a late version fitted with an on/off switch. The Levinson does not have an on/off switch; it is intended to be permanently on. Whilst I’m content to do this with a preamp, I’m not when it come to the power amp. (By the way, the 405-2 seems to run slightly warmer than the 405-1. Is there a reason for this?)

So this is how things stand at the moment. Watch this space; there are more changes in the pipeline.

Regards

[The Grand Wazoo]

Good stuff Barry!
I'm sure that in time, you'll realise that you're a Quad man through & through & you'll send me the Levinson for 'safe disposal'.

[spendorman]

About 1987 I upgraded my Quad 405 to 405-2 using a kit of parts supplied by Quad. I did notice that at idle, the heatsink was warmer to the touch after the mod. The parts included a new self adhesive Quad 405-2 label.

As to exactly why the -2 runs hotter, I don't know for sure, but suspect that it may be to do with increased output transistor bias level. Perhaps someone knows and can give details?

[Barry]

Good stuff Barry!
I'm sure that in time, you'll realise that you're a Quad man through & through & you'll send me the Levinson for 'safe disposal'.

Haha

At the moment that seems highly unlikely, though a review will be forthcoming once I have lived with the beast and got its full measure. There is much I like about the 28, there are a few things that I don't.

I doubt if we will have another 'Uher situation', but if you carefully read my profile - all things are possible.

Regards

[DSJR]

When Glenn Croft became absorbed into the EA situation and was unavailable most of the time, alongside Croft products not made by "the man" and unreliable to boot, HiFi Dave's business was in the need for a decent preamp to replace their favourite Mega Micro. They found it in the ML28, which was, as far as I can remember, fully balanced from input to output. The components were very high grade too and I believe this generation of ML products was in a far higher league than ARC and Krell (several have expressed this opinion, so it wasn't "just" Dave).

The ML28 often goes for under a grand (probably won't now) and would make an excellent Croft Series 25 alternative I reckon, if the need for summat a bit more "conventional" is needed.

[Rare Bird]

I'd rather have the Quads anyday

[DSJR]

:lol:

I'm playing mine as I type....

[Beechwoods]

I must admit that though my rig is centered around a Series 3 Quad system I'm not knowledgeable at all about their later gear. The Series 4 Pre-amp and FM4 look like nice pieces of kit. Aesthetically taking the essence of the Series 3 design, and updating it with a few LEDs and digital tuner display... I like it. My series 3 is completely stock. I'm not sure I want to upgrade it either... Barry will probably understand why, Dave R may not!

I must admit that I love the Quad approach to handling different cartridge types via it's Disc card. This was a big reason for me in going for the Quad 33 / 303. That and the fact that IMO the Quad amplification suits the flavours of LS3/5A speakers I've had over the years.

No worries about the tape deck Barry... a Nagra IV-S is man enough for any taping you might need to do from the radio or borrowed discs, and when you have friends with 2-track reel to reels as well, you shouldn't want for anything to listen to on it :)

[Rare Bird]

Hi Nick:
Quad 3 series is by far the best Quads for me.They are what you call legendary.

[Beechwoods]

I am very happy with mine... and they are extremely good value, IMO, even in the age of eBay.

[Thermionic]

Very jealous of that Levinson preamp Barry, loverly bit of kit designed by John Curl I believe. Nearly bought one myself several years ago but the 2.3K required was just to much for me then and I ended up with my ‘budget’ Audio Research LS7.

[Barry]

Very jealous of that Levinson preamp Barry, loverly bit of kit designed by John Curl I believe. Nearly bought one myself several years ago but the 2.3K required was just to much for me then and I ended up with my ‘budget’ Audio Research LS7.

Mine was bought from eBay, and to corroborate with what Dave said, it was bought for less than £1K. New Levinson gear however is well out of my price range.

You jealous of me? I've seen all that mouth-watering gear you've got Gino - there's the Stellavox for starters, then the Magnum Dyna and Yamaha tuners ... !:)

Regards

[Rare Bird]

I am very happy with mine... and they are extremely good value, IMO, even in the age of eBay.

Although i love the series 3 i've been thinking about buying a '34'/'306'!

[DSJR]

IMO, a *standard* 34/306 has no dynamics at all - about the same as a limp lettuce. There are possible problems with leaky caps too on the preamp, so a darned good service and refurb MUST be factored in.

I appreciate the Net-Audio updates/replacement boards for the 33/303, but this wasn't an option for me due to cost issues. I found the Dada Electronics and Richard Brice low-bass filter removal updates affordable and each mod has a sensible explanation I think. I'm amazed how good the 33 preamp can be - mine is a late one though - and I use the tape input on max sensitivity to reduce resistance in the signal path. The 303 came well done-up so for the time being it's being left alone.

[Rare Bird]

IMO, a *standard* 34/306 has no dynamics at all - about the same as a limp lettuce. There are possible problems with leaky caps too on the preamp, so a darned good service and refurb MUST be factored in.



:lol: you honestly think i'm gonna live with a standard form 34/306, they need more than a service ;)

[Barry]

I must admit that though my rig is centered around a Series 3 Quad system I'm not knowledgeable at all about their later gear. The Series 4 Pre-amp and FM4 look like nice pieces of kit. Aesthetically taking the essence of the Series 3 design, and updating it with a few LEDs and digital tuner display... I like it. My series 3 is completely stock. I'm not sure I want to upgrade it either... Barry will probably understand why, Dave R may not!

I must admit that I love the Quad approach to handling different cartridge types via it's Disc card. This was a big reason for me in going for the Quad 33 / 303. That and the fact that IMO the Quad amplification suits the flavours of LS3/5A speakers I've had over the years.

No worries about the tape deck Barry... a Nagra IV-S is man enough for any taping you might need to do from the radio or borrowed discs, and when you have friends with 2-track reel to reels as well, you shouldn't want for anything to listen to on it :)

Hi Nick,

The Quad 3 series of electronics are excellent and almost renowned for their reliability. The BBC used hundreds of both the 33 (though customised by Quad for the Beeb) and 303s. Pink Floyd also used several 303K power amps.

Had I not already been using the 44/405 combo, I would probably be quite content with the 33/303. Despite André's preference, I do appreciate the 44 for its versatility and comprehensive range of adjustment of input sensitivity and cartridge loading.

My 33/303 are stock; in fact the 303 is an early sample with the large capacitors mounted 'up side down'. It works perfectly, despite being 40 years old.

I haven't abandoned my Nak cassette machines, it's just that cassette is no longer a source medium for me. I have about 200 cassettes I recorded for the car. My car player has packed up, so I'm thinking of replacing it with a CD player, for which I can 'R&B' copies (I'm not happy with the idea of the discs being simply loaded through a slot). Nevertheless I still have a Nak hooked up to my 'AV' system, so as to record the occasional concert on TV.

Regards

[Barry]

:lol: you honestly think i'm gonna live with a standard form 34/306, they need more than a service ;)

The Quad 34 is a neat little pre, and probably does all that you would want from a 44, but in a smaller case.

I have the circuit diagram for the 34 somewhere; I have up-graded the ICs in my 44, you might like to think about doing the same for the 34 unless Quad had already done the same.

I know little about the 306, apart from what is stated in Quad's publicity literature, however to purloin 'estate-agent speak': "the 34/306 presents ample opportunity for improvement".

Regards

[DSJR]

Barry, I can honestly ASSURE YOU that a 34 is nothing like a 44 on any music with percussion. The 306 is no 405-2 either, despite the similar circuit. Put the two together and the result is only suitable for speech and delicate chamber music. For me, the 66 preamp made the best of both approaches.

[Barry]

Barry, I can honestly ASSURE YOU that a 34 is nothing like a 44 on any music with percussion. The 306 is no 405-2 either, despite the similar circuit. Put the two together and the result is only suitable for speech and delicate chamber music. For me, the 66 preamp made the best of both approaches.

Dave, I don't doubt for one minute your experience and knowledge of the 34/306. As I said, my knowlege is entirely limited to Quad's literature. I have absolutely no experience with either item.

I do think however, that both items are capable of significant improvement through component up-grade.

Regards

[Rare Bird]

I do think however, that both items are capable of significant improvement through component up-grade.


:exactly: I don't believe you can buy anything off the shelf & be totally satisfied with it like you can after a bit of work has been done, only then does a design shine (if it's properly designed in the first place). If people want to compare bog standard models against each other fine. Most people just go to a shop & buy something, having no intentions farting about with the item, standard reviews & forum ramblings regarding the item may then be reference for them, doesnt mean nothing to me cos i know good designs can be taken another level.

The '44' gets more votes than the '34' cos of the modular type construction & the very very flexible turntable input, looks slightly more battleship,buisness like than the '34'..take all that away it's no better really...

I love most quads, i'm a quad man at heart even though i do go off on other tangents, i'll always come back to quad & hopefully Quad will be my last Amplifier.

As for favs i'll have to pass on the '22'/'II'..I love the '33'/'303'..Love the '34'/'44'/405's ..Even the '50's,'510','520','240' pro amps That's about it really, so i'm not gonna slag any of those off against each other.All i'm trying to say is someones view of an item may not be totally true of the same fully modified/rebuilt..

Series 3 is where my heart is..

[Barry]

:exactly: I don't believe you can buy anything off the shelf & be totally satisfied with it like you can after a bit of work has been done, only then does a design shine (if it's properly designed in the first place). If people want to compare bog standard models against each other fine. Most people just go to a shop & buy something, having no intentions farting about with the item, standard reviews & forum ramblings regarding the item may then be reference for them, doesnt mean nothing to me 'cos I know good designs can be taken another level. Several of my Quad items have been modified, either through improving component quality or through circuit modification. The only items that haven't been touched are the tuners and, of course, my speakers.

The '44' gets more votes than the '34' 'cos of the modular type construction & the very very flexible turntable input, looks slightly more battleship,business like than the '34'..take all that away it's no better really... Yes, but if you don't need all that versatility, the Quad 34 is a much neater package
I love most quads, I'm a quad man at heart even though I do go off on other tangents, I'll always come back to Quad & hopefully Quad will be my last Amplifier. I'll never abandon my Quads, but I'm hoping my 'last' amplifier will be Levinson.

As for favs I'll have to pass on the '22'/'II'..I love the '33'/'303'..Love the '34'/'44'/405's ..Even the '50's,'510','520','240' pro amps I've owned, at one time or another, just about every Quad product from the Series 2 valve gear, through to the Series 4, with some 50Es 'on the side'. Would love to try some Series 5 monoblocks, using them in balanced mode configuration.That's about it really, so I'm not gonna slag any of those off against each other.All I'm trying to say is someones view of an item may not be totally true of the same fully modified/rebuilt..

Series 3 is where my heart is..

I think we are largely in agreement. Good luck with the upgrades - keep us informed of what you do. :)

Regards

[DSJR]

Well, I have to "sort of" disagree with you there Andr'e :) the 44 in both forms just seemed to have more "drive" on music with percussion in and the later 44 (grey & chocolate with phono sockets) seemed to have a touch more "atmosphere" too. Apparently, changing the op-amps improves things further. I'd personally argue that a "sorted" 33 may be at least the equal of a 44, but haven't compared them. As my 33 is in a secondary role, I doubt I'll ever need the comparison.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/DSCF1355-1.jpg

[Rare Bird]

Don't worry about it Dave, like i said standard issue items mean nothing to me.

[Barry]

Well, I have to "sort of" disagree with you there Andr'e :) the 44 in both forms just seemed to have more "drive" on music with percussion in and the later 44 (grey & chocolate with phono sockets) seemed to have a touch more "atmosphere" too. Apparently, changing the op-amps improves things further. I'd personally argue that a "sorted" 33 may be at least the equal of a 44, but haven't compared them. As my 33 is in a secondary role, I doubt I'll ever need the comparison.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/DSCF1355-1.jpg

Oh! - I love those Crown/Amcron D60s. Way back in my student days I hankered after one of those. 30 watts/channel if I remember correctly.

I see you have three of them - do you tri-amp your speakers?

Regards

[Thermionic]

I’m a recent convert to the 303 having bought a re-capped one at Bracknell in the summer. I thought it would be interesting to try as it an alternative to a Leak Stereo 20 into a pair LS3/5a’s and a sub. The Leak I think is in pretty good shape with new caps and some sensible mods and seemed to drive the little Beeb monitors pretty well.

However, on connecting Peter Walker’s transistors it became quite apparent fairly quickly why valves lost favour (well at least in the old days). Perhaps not having the midrange sweetness of the Leak, the Quad proceeded to extend the frequency response in both directions, make the speakers ‘disappear’ and give a more tangible impression of the performance. The dynamics in the music were more pronounced, and it simply made things more lively and ‘real’. Kicking myself for not getting one rather sooner (like 30 years ago!) the 303 remained connected to the Ls3’s and the Leak is just tried out occasionally to confirm the 303’s qualities.

Today however I dusted off a bit of home made knitting I did over 20 years ago using a pair of LM1875 chips. Hard wired into a pair of Edistone boxes I think I put it together to drive a pair of Visonic Davids, which made the LS3/5s look like wardrobes by comparison. In the meantime it seems that the DIY brigade began to regard these chips rather well, and they also seem to have found themselves inside some exotic minimalist kit that has had some positive reviews. Not having tried this chip amp with the ELS57’s (of course) I have never had a serious listen to it apart from driving a Stax energiser pretty well, until today.

Swapping from the 303, the chip sound was perfectly acceptable with obviously deeper bass and perhaps a bit more resolution even. I noticed more low level harmonics on things like background piano. Oh, so it looks like the 303 will have to stand aside… I listened on and off most of the afternoon thinking very nice and what amazing bass. Until I that is I turned the volume up later, when it became apparent that the chips just didn’t have the dynamics of the 303, and started to sound compressed and ‘loud’.

Re-connecting the Quad restored the dynamics and also the ‘solid’ / ‘real’ impression of the performance, it also made live applause sound much more like the real thing. The chipery was put back on the shelf.

Sorry for another long waffle, but I thought I’d chip in (!) and say that even in my own very limited experience of the Quad 303, I have found that it can sound obviously better than an old classic valve amplifier as well as a fairly modern chip device.

Why was I not told about this new transistor amp!! :doh::)

[spendorman]

I’m a recent convert to the 303 having bought a re-capped one at Bracknell in the summer. I thought it would be interesting to try as it an alternative to a Leak Stereo 20 into a pair LS3/5a’s and a sub. The Leak I think is in pretty good shape with new caps and some sensible mods and seemed to drive the little Beeb monitors pretty well.

However, on connecting Peter Walker’s transistors it became quite apparent fairly quickly why valves lost favour (well at least in the old days). Perhaps not having the midrange sweetness of the Leak, the Quad proceeded to extend the frequency response in both directions, make the speakers ‘disappear’ and give a more tangible impression of the performance. The dynamics in the music were more pronounced, and it simply made things more lively and ‘real’. Kicking myself for not getting one rather sooner (like 30 years ago!) the 303 remained connected to the Ls3’s and the Leak is just tried out occasionally to confirm the 303’s qualities.

Today however I dusted off a bit of home made knitting I did over 20 years ago using a pair of LM1875 chips. Hard wired into a pair of Edistone boxes I think I put it together to drive a pair of Visonic Davids, which made the LS3/5s look like wardrobes by comparison. In the meantime it seems that the DIY brigade began to regard these chips rather well, and they also seem to have found themselves inside some exotic minimalist kit that has had some positive reviews. Not having tried this chip amp with the ELS57’s (of course) I have never had a serious listen to it apart from driving a Stax energiser pretty well, until today.

Swapping from the 303, the chip sound was perfectly acceptable with obviously deeper bass and perhaps a bit more resolution even. I noticed more low level harmonics on things like background piano. Oh, so it looks like the 303 will have to stand aside… I listened on and off most of the afternoon thinking very nice and what amazing bass. Until I that is I turned the volume up later, when it became apparent that the chips just didn’t have the dynamics of the 303, and started to sound compressed and ‘loud’.

Re-connecting the Quad restored the dynamics and also the ‘solid’ / ‘real’ impression of the performance, it also made live applause sound much more like the real thing. The chipery was put back on the shelf.

Sorry for another long waffle, but I thought I’d chip in (!) and say that even in my own very limited experience of the Quad 303, I have found that it can sound obviously better than an old classic valve amplifier as well as a fairly modern chip device.

Why was I not told about this new transistor amp!! :doh::)

Although your 303 was re-capped, are you sure that the HT, output transistor bias and centre voltage are adjusted to spec? This can make an amazing difference to the sound quality. I quite like the 303 (have four of the things).

I have no experience of the Leak Stereo 20, but do have a Radford STA25 III, and changing from the 303 to the Radford, bass is better, mid is clearer and the treble is just as extended, but sweeter.

The effect you mention:

"make the speakers ‘disappear’ and give a more tangible impression of the performance"

Happens with the Radford.

Speakers include 15 Ohm Chartwell LS3/5a, home-made LS3/5a clones, Spendor BC1, B&W DM4, ESL57 and ESL63. THE ESL's have not been used for some years though.

[DSJR]

Oh! - I love those Crown/Amcron D60s. Way back in my student days I hankered after on of those. 30 watts/channel if I remember correctly.

I see you have three of them - do you tri-amp your speakers?

Regards

30WPC in "stereo" form and 80W each when bridged.

The top one is for headphone duties, the gain controls set 3/4 way up for minimum noise - any less and the sound goes off..

The bottom two are bridged mono, one each Spendor and sound far better this way. Just one amp for each sounds bleached out with the BC2's and Crown brick-walled the design for safety. Bridged into the Spendors, which have a highish roller-coaster impedance curve, the BC2's come to life, there's still loads of bass damping available and plenty of volume too. The sound of the D-60's is better overall than the 303 or II's, but I love the mostly hidden glow of the II's at the moment and there's a charm all its own on the 303 ;)

[Thermionic]

Hi Spendorman, yup checked the voltage rail and bias as per manual before I plumbed it into the system, freq. response into a loudspeaker load looked ok too. I suppose there are degrees of ‘disappearance’ and ‘tangibility’, it just seemed more pronounced with the 303 than with the 1875 chips or the Leak. I don’t think the Leak is comparable with the Radford (nice if it was) and I didn’t check the age of the ‘new’ caps in the 303, so of course they might be past their best. At some point I will have compare the Quad IIs with the 303, but that deserves a bit more time and care.

[spendorman]

Hi Spendorman, yup checked the voltage rail and bias as per manual before I plumbed it into the system, freq. response into a loudspeaker load looked ok too. I suppose there are degrees of ‘disappearance’ and ‘tangibility’, it just seemed more pronounced with the 303 than with the 1875 chips or the Leak. I don’t think the Leak is comparable with the Radford (nice if it was) and I didn’t check the age of the ‘new’ caps in the 303, so of course they might be past their best. At some point I will have compare the Quad IIs with the 303, but that deserves a bit more time and care.

One other thing, increasing the output capacitor in value from their original 2000 uF (2200uF later production) can improve the bass, even into LS3/5a

[DSJR]

Done it - compared II's with 303. The latter is slightly better, but the overall flavour is similar.

[Rare Bird]

Needs fully complementary output :)

[Reid Malenfant]

Needs fully complementary output :)
That wouldn't be too difficult, change the driver & output transistor on the ground rail & a little rewiring & you'd have a complementary triplet ;)

You'd still need to use transistors with a similar ft though or you'd likely get high frequency oscillation :eek: I'm sure it's probably been done, i have definately seen complementary outputs on the 405 (current dumpers) so why not :eyebrows:

[DSJR]

I believe net Audio have diagrams showing how to convert to fully complimentary, but the output trannies need to be replaced with modern ones I understand. the current limiting can then be relaxed at the same time.