anderson4209
pfm Member
Any opinions please
Mr Colloms’ point system is absurd. What does he test with anyway?
I'm intrigued to see that Mr Colloms rates the Quad 303 as almost junk,
the Radford (STA 25) as very little better than junk (not really a 'different league'),
and that other well-regarded classic the Krell KSA 50 as between the two.
So all of them scrap really.
https://www.hificritic.com/power-amplifiers.html
Even more interested that he has rated the only example in the world of a Quad 202I'm intrigued to see that Mr Colloms rates the Quad 303 as almost junk,
the Radford (STA 25) as very little better than junk (not really a 'different league'),
and that other well-regarded classic the Krell KSA 50 as between the two.
So all of them scrap really.
https://www.hificritic.com/power-amplifiers.html
Subjective opinions are, as ever, like arseholes. Especially ones presented as fact or with some self-assigned authority. The reality is both the Quad and Radford have stood the test of time well enough to have obtained a sought-after classic status in a market where very, very few products ever do. Countless people still enjoy these amps half a century or more since they were designed and I’m sure many more will continue to do so for decades yet to come. That is pretty much the definition of good design IMHO.
Martin Colloms isn't infallible. I've owned at least one component designed by him and several that he really highly rated at the time. They were all terrible. I wouldn't set much store by his ratings.I'm intrigued to see that Mr Colloms rates the Quad 303 as almost junk,
the Radford (STA 25) as very little better than junk (not really a 'different league'),
and that other well-regarded classic the Krell KSA 50 as between the two.
So all of them scrap really.
https://www.hificritic.com/power-amplifiers.html
Any opinions please