advertisement


A vintage Quad thread.

So reading some of the comments above, maybe I should re-frame my question.

With my 303 I currently use a very tidy Quad serviced 33 in fine working order. If I swapped in a 44 in similarly good order do you think I’d notice a positive difference in sound quality?

Or would the difference be either non-existent or so subtle as to not merit the outlay?
 
calorgas said:
So reading some of the comments above, maybe I should re-frame my question.

With my 303 I currently use a very tidy Quad serviced 33 in fine working order. If I swapped in a 44 in similarly good order do you think I’d notice a positive difference in sound quality?

Or would the difference be either non-existent or so subtle as to not merit the outlay?
Click to expand...

I would say yes you will get a worthwhile improvement in SQ but if SQ is your main thing then there are other non Quad pre amps that would be much better still. Especially passives on price V performance. The 33 is pretty awful by modern standards...
 
Can’t let you say that without an explanation.

I have other preamps (yes, even audiophile ones) and in the context of a full vintage QUAD system nothing gels as well as the 33, sorry.

No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t get significant improvements.

However, the good old 33 just won’t work, sound quality wise, with other amps than the 303 (or the 405). It just will sound bland and uninteresting, possibly a bit dull even.

It obviously needs to be in perfect working order, contacts cleaned, etc.
 
My main experience of the 33 was with a 405-2 and it does indeed "sound bland and uninteresting, possibly a bit dull even". I heard this combination weekly for a couple of years at a mates place. He replaced the plug in PCB's with after market ones which could have been called "soundbox" but my memory may be failing me on that name. It was around mid to late 80's. These bypassed tone controls etc and replaced other boards with op amp based circuitry. It then completely trounced the original 33 and put it in perspective to modern pre amp performance... and these new boards would be nowt special by today's standards.
 
Yes I’ve heard about new boards and couldn’t care less.

Once again at home my 33/303 set sounds rather bright - but never fatiguing - and very detailed, with fair stage depth (here my valve gear is better) and amazing detail retrieval.

Just sheer luck then I suppose. Anyway, that’s what I heard 40 years ago at my dealer’s demo room. I still have vivid memories of what I then heard.

But even Steve at OTA tells me I should ditch my old stinker for a better preamp.

I rest my case then. :)
 
the 33/303 was in its days the leader, component quality today is far better, the capacitor is the one that can vastly improve the SQ. Once this is done the combo delivers . Switches all switches were over engineered in the past ,the benefit of this is , a good switch cleaner and a touch of deoxit will give further improvements .Technically the design of the 303 circuit is excellent and replacing psu caps etc is vital. i must say that over 50 years of using quads i never really used tone controls etc
 
Healthy range of opinions as always, which is good.

It certainly gives me reason to pause for thought. After a few days in away last week I was back enjoying sitting and listening to my 33/303 combo last night. I have to say that it does sound lovely and the 33 looks so cute on my sideboard, so perhaps I may hold back for now rather than rushing out to look for a 44.
 
My main reason for buying a 44 when they first came out, was the incredible range of adjustment possible for inputs and outputs.
 
There are some folk over on the Quad specific parts of the internet who prefer the 33 in very slightly tweaked form (just a nip and tuck to the PSU as far as I’m aware) to either the 44 or 34. I think because it doesn’t have any op-amp chips etc and is purely discrete componentry. Again I bet condition is everything and far too many will be assessing it on hearing an obviously tired example that is way below spec. I have to admit one thing that keeps mine in ‘ornament’ status is I detest DIN plugs! I can cope with the lone 4 Pin one on the 303, but I want to interface to everything else in the world with RCA leads!
 
ihi tony have you got a spare 2 pin plug/cable for fm3 ,, i know there are naff but want to switch fm3 on with your preamp regards allan

din plugs , ugggg nobody uses them except you know who Nxxx. they think they sound better /they dont
 
rich46 said:
the 33/303 was in its days the leader, component quality today is far better, the capacitor is the one that can vastly improve the SQ. Once this is done the combo delivers . Switches all switches were over engineered in the past ,the benefit of this is , a good switch cleaner and a touch of deoxit will give further improvements .Technically the design of the 303 circuit is excellent and replacing psu caps etc is vital. i must say that over 50 years of using quads i never really used tone controls etc
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with capacitors in 33. The circuit design is just not that brilliant.

I don't really have a problem with DIN plugs myself...
 
Tony L said:
.......Again I bet condition is everything and far too many will be assessing it on hearing an obviously tired example that is way below spec. I have to admit one thing that keeps mine in ‘ornament’ status is I detest DIN plugs! I can cope with the lone 4 Pin one on the 303, but I want to interface to everything else in the world with RCA leads!
Click to expand...

I bought carefully and mine was a well looked after one-previous-owner-from-new and in very good physical condition plus had been serviced by Quad in the previous 12 months. The 303 is practically mint. One thing I'd like to sort is to find a way to remove the subtle marks from (I guess) the feet of an FM3 or similar that had previously been positioned on the top of the 33. They're just darker little circles towards the 4 corners but don't seem to want to polish off.

DIN plugs are a bit annoying as I had to pick up a couple of new leads, but I have what I need so all is OK now :)
 
Yes, the marks can be a nuisance, Quad paint can be quite variable in quality. I guess that trying a little household furniture polish should be relatively safe, no guarantee though. The paint on front panel of my new 44 began to wear off after a few weeks of use. Quad sent me a replacement front panel, and that has been perfect after decades of use.
 
Last edited:
I have tried furniture polish and a squirt of switch cleaner but neither did anything. It's not a big deal but it would still be nice to shift them.
 
I solder, use and enjoy DIN plugs.

Great connectors IMHO. They have separate grounding and shielding when properly done, and of course carry both channels.

High quality ones are widely available. Naim use(d) them too.

RCAs are not true audio connectors by the way. They were originally developed for HF signals.
 
I use Autoglym Car Interior shampoo on all new s/h purchases. If it won't shift the marks then I agree with Radfordman, a mild abrasive is required, Autoglym paint renovator is less harsh than T cut.

No, I don't have a financial interest in Autoglym, just trust the products:)

Jim
 
chartz said:
I solder, use and enjoy DIN plugs.

Great connectors IMHO. They have separate grounding and shielding when properly done, and of course carry both channels.

High quality ones are widely available. Naim use(d) them too.

RCAs are not true audio connectors by the way. They were originally developed for HF signals.
Click to expand...

Nope they were developed as a very cheap and cheerful audio connector by RCA back in the 40's. Any old connector will do fine for audio but at RF things get a bit more tricky...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top