A vintage Quad thread.

[Martyn Miles]

Interesting, Tony.
My Harbeth P3-ESRs are nominally 6 ohms impedance. Whether or not they're a good electrical match with the 303, I don't know.
All I do know the combination sounds superb.
Surely that's what really matters?

 

[calorgas]

Brief update on my own vintage Quadyssey; managed to snag a one-owner 33/303 combo over Xmas in really great condition complete with all original packaging and both fully serviced by Quad a year ago. Oh, but they are lovely. And they sound tremendous too.
No switch on dramas with this 303, just the mild *flup* as described by Tony and a slight quiver of the speaker cone.

Happy.

 

[koi]

Just recapped a quad 303 and it’s working rather better than I thought into a pair of stacked quad 57s

I think it’s a peach of a Amp for the money.

Well impresssed

 

[Matty297]

Some may find this sacrilegious but I shoehorned a Nelson Pass B1 Buffer and Remote volume module into an old Quad FM3 case to use as a preamp for a 405-2

 

[tinpot]

I have a FM4, 34, and 306, driving a pair of Wharfedale Glendales.

I still have the FM3, 33 and 303 that I had before them.

 

[calorgas]

Some may find this sacrilegious but I shoehorned a Nelson Pass B1 Buffer and Remote volume module into an old Quad FM3 case to use as a preamp for a 405-2

I think it's a nice thing to do especially if the 'donor' item is not working. I'd like to find an old Quad 22 pre that's beyond economic repair and gut that to use as chassis for a passive pre. I did search for one some time back but didn't manage to find one.

 

[Matty297]

I think it's a nice thing to do especially if the 'donor' item is not working. I'd like to find an old Quad 22 pre that's beyond economic repair and gut that to use as chassis for a passive pre. I did search for one some time back but didn't manage to find one.

The Quad FM2 seems to pop up more often than the 22 and might be a cheaper option as you only really need one knob!

 

[calorgas]

What's the consensus on a late 44 partnering with a 303 - good match? I presume I can still power the 303 via the 44 and therefore use that to switch it on?

I'm using a nice tidy serviced 33 at present but fancy trying a different pre or two.

 

[Radfordman]

I used an early 44 with a 303, no problem, I believe that a late 44 should be the same. The 44 has a switched IEC mains output for powering the power amplifier.

 

[Tony L]

What's the consensus on a late 44 partnering with a 303 - good match? I presume I can still power the 303 via the 44 and therefore use that to switch it on?

I'm using a nice tidy serviced 33 at present but fancy trying a different pre or two.

It will work fine. The 44 is very versatile having switchable output levels so can deal with any amp from the high sensitivity 303 through to vintage Quad IIs which need about 1.5V IIRC.

PS Depending on the rest of your system I’d consider a passive preamp too. The 303 works well in this context so if you don’t need the phono stage, balance or tone controls it would likely be a better sounding option. That’s not implying the 44 is in any way “bad”, just that a good stepped attenuator is pretty much state of the art for not huge money.

 

[calorgas]

Great, thanks, I think I shall keep my eyes peeled for a late 44 then.

I do have a diy passive pre using a valab stepped attenuator but it's only got one input and I need more than that, plus I kinda like not having to switch the 303 on at the plug (more ease of use for the rest of family as much as anything else). I could revive my 'build a passive pre inside a vintage Quad chassis' plan and incorporate a switch and multiple inputs, at some point.

 

[rich46]

one thing let the 44 down was the op amp in the phono M.C. DID UP GRADE IT . HI Tony , have you a spare 2 pin cable for sale , to run a fm3 with your 33, just updated its power supply using dada advice , increasing zener to 16v.spent time on switches contact resistance now very low. with reading i got seems its worth do cleaning etc allan

 

[Radfordman]

Sorry something went wrong, Tony's post was meant to be quoted here.

Indeed, when the 44 first came out I bought it partly because it could supply enough signal for Quad II power amps, the 33 Had only a 0.5V output (I think!). I still have my 33 and 44, although I feed the 303 pretty well directly from a Soundblaster computer card.

 

[chartz]

To me the 33/303 pair just can’t be separated. They just gel and no other combination - 33 or 303 with something else - was really satisfying (in the context of feeding ESL57s).

 

[Radfordman]

Aesthetically, I agree, but otherwise I don't. The 33 is OK, but I only realized how good the 303 could be, was by ditching the preamp (33 or 44).

 

[chartz]

Funny that, I really couldn’t tell 33 or no preamp apart.

And I find the phono stage excellent too, very revealing. Listening to CD is equally good, perhaps a bit softer. I use several turntables but I mainly use a TD160 with AT740ML or 150SA.

I have valve equipment too (DIY amp with a Hiraga original preamp, not a copy) and Technics SU-A4/SE-A3 combination.

 

[Tony L]

A clean and properly serviced 33 is far, far better than a lot give it credit for, but still no match for a really good and more simple modern pre, active or passive, IMHO. The 33 has a heck of a lot in the signal path that most people will never need along with some switch gear and edge-connectors that are far from ideal. Lovely thing though, I’d never part with mine even though it is but an ornament at present (despite being fully serviced and working!). In fairness it’s competition here is an exceptionally quality Audio Synthesis ProPassion dual mono stepped attenuator or a £2k+ JC Verdier valve preamp, which is hardly fair to it!

 

[Radfordman]

Funny that, I really couldn’t tell 33 or no preamp apart.

And I find the phono stage excellent too, very revealing. Listening to CD is equally good, perhaps a bit softer. I use several turntables but I mainly use a TD160 with AT740ML or 150SA.

I have valve equipment too (DIY amp with a Hiraga original preamp, not a copy) and Technics SU-A4/SE-A3 combination.

I will admit that under many circumstances it would be pretty difficult to hear a difference preamp or none.

I too have valve stuff, including Quad II/22 and Radford STA25 III/ SC22

 

[chartz]

Some say that the 33 is noisy too. Mine is not, it produces no hiss at all, even on my 95 dB efficient Cabasses!
Probably too many of them are not properly serviced, hence the criticism.
But this goes the same with all equipment, doesn’t it?

 

[Radfordman]

Some say that the 33 is noisy too. Mine is not, it produces no hiss at all, even on my 95 dB efficient Cabasses!
Probably too many of them are not properly serviced, hence the criticism.
But this goes the same with all equipment, doesn’t it?

My 33 is not noisy, it's never been serviced, I did buy it new, but that was probably more than 30 years ago. The Quad 44 was bought new also (early production), almost immediately I had two problems, a relay not making proper contact, and the stepped attenuator volume control noisy. A spray with Elecrrolube cured both, no further problems to this day.