Apart from going to Argos and buying the one with the most buttons....

[OldTechie]

Had Quad amplification about 20 years ago with some amazing speakers that I cannot for the life of me remember the name of!

My Quad amps are now almost 50 years old. One of the smoothing chokes has died, but the other amp worked last time I tried it. Perhaps I could return the broken one under warranty? The Rogers Cadet II speakers from the time still work, despite the attempted destruction by the cat.

Some people think old valve amps sound better than modern kit. They are wrong.

[hackneyvi]

Or is it the other way round?

[Mr Pee]

I remember vividly going into a Hi-Fi shop in Chichester back in about 1978, and listening to a pair of ELS-63s, driven by Quad amplification. It was a revelation. For the first time I felt as though the musicians were right there in front of me. I think that day was the start of a long and expensive Hi-Fi journey as I tried to replicate the experience!!

[ahinton]

My Quad amps are now almost 50 years old. One of the smoothing chokes has died, but the other amp worked last time I tried it. Perhaps I could return the broken one under warranty? The Rogers Cadet II speakers from the time still work, despite the attempted destruction by the cat.

Some people think old valve amps sound better than modern kit. They are wrong.

Really? I have no complaints about the EAR (Esoteric Audio Research) preamp or power amps that I've now had from new for around a quarter of a century; very much the reverse, in fact - and I've only ever had one valve go in that time...

[umslopogaas]

I think affection for Quad must be built in to those of a certain age. I bought my 33/405 combination in the mid 1970s, ran it for ten years in the lowland tropics of the Far East, then came back with it to the UK and had it overhauled by Quad. They grumbled a bit about corrosion, but given the humidity in the offshore islands of Papua New Guinea, there was little I could have done about that. Last year I dragged it out and powered it up again, when my Musical Fidelity had to go off for repairs; it worked just fine, and I am sure it still would. Given that its nearly forty years old and has been once round the world, I think its a pretty impressive piece of electronics. The only downside is the complex system of plugs, unique to Quad and a terrible fiddle to sort out; also, many of them are curious sizes of DIN and horrible little things to resolder when the joints dry out.

[Ferretfancy]

I think affection for Quad must be built in to those of a certain age. I bought my 33/405 combination in the mid 1970s, ran it for ten years in the lowland tropics of the Far East, then came back with it to the UK and had it overhauled by Quad. They grumbled a bit about corrosion, but given the humidity in the offshore islands of Papua New Guinea, there was little I could have done about that. Last year I dragged it out and powered it up again, when my Musical Fidelity had to go off for repairs; it worked just fine, and I am sure it still would. Given that its nearly forty years old and has been once round the world, I think its a pretty impressive piece of electronics. The only downside is the complex system of plugs, unique to Quad and a terrible fiddle to sort out; also, many of them are curious sizes of DIN and horrible little things to resolder when the joints dry out.

I certainly agree about those awful DIN plugs, and also the fiddly printed circuit boards in the back for changing input levels etc. In fact that was one of my reasons for parting company with my 44/45 years ago. I still have to use a DIN/ phono adapter for the output of my FM4 tuner.

Incidentally, Graham's Hi-Fi arranged to send my tuner to Huntingdon for its repair. It wasn't cheap, but worth it.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

dont mention Quad i'll do a Livingston on yer [i actually took mine to Huntingdon on a train from Kings X] i will weep

.... was going to post about the perils of too many buttons [a whole literature about xcurrents etc etc ooohh] but i am distraught .... my quad my quad ....[in the attic innit]

[Stunsworth]

Really? I have no complaints about the EAR (Esoteric Audio Research) preamp or power amps that I've now had from new for around a quarter of a century; very much the reverse, in fact - and I've only ever had one valve go in that time...

What a coincidence. I have a pair of 509s - though I use a Musical Fidelity transistor pre-amp.

I also have a set of Quad valve equipment - pre-amp, power amps and tuner - that I picked up years ago for £100. The dealer (the now defunct Stereolectrics in Bolton) added phono sockets to the power amps so that they could be easily used without the rest of the package.

[Mr Pee]

ILast year I dragged it out and powered it up again, when my Musical Fidelity had to go off for repairs

Glad to see a mention of Musical Fidelity- I have long been a fan. My current set up is the Tri-Vista integrated amp and a Nu-Vista CD. Fantastic sound, even though the speakers (Acoustic Energy) are actually the least expensive part of the system......

And of course the founder, Anthony Michaelson, is a classically trained clarinettist, and is therefore always right about everything.

[cloughie]

ts I don't know how important a record deck is in your system but I bought the attached as a secondary system and I have been very happy with the sound and the facilities it gives inc USB.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Yamaha-MCR-555-Micro-hi-fi-System/dp/B006VCOKOI/ref=pd_cp_ce_3

[umslopogaas]

(Apologies if I've posted about this recently, I think I have written a similar response but am not sure if it was for these boards). Musical Fidelity would normally be out of my price range, but my A308 Dual Mono was half price in a sale. The dealer had apparently got it in stock, not sold it, then the company brought out a new model and he was stuck with last year's which nobody wanted. Even at half price it was too expensive, but I bought it anyway. It is way too powerful for the speakers, but so far I have managed not to explode the cones or blow out the windows or my eardrums. And the sound seems to me to be very good. Mr Pee #54, I agree MF are rather quirky, but Mr Michaelson does seem to know what he's about.

It is rather self indulgent to have two fully functional and quite expensive amplifiers, but it was useful to have a spare when I had to send the MF off for repairs.

[Beef Oven]

I certainly agree about those awful DIN plugs, and also the fiddly printed circuit boards in the back for changing input levels etc. In fact that was one of my reasons for parting company with my 44/45 years ago. I still have to use a DIN/ phono adapter for the output of my FM4 tuner.

Incidentally, Graham's Hi-Fi arranged to send my tuner to Huntingdon for its repair. It wasn't cheap, but worth it.

I have had a Naim system for the last 13 or so years. DIN plugs are horrible!

[Byas'd Opinion]

My CD player (an early 90s Marantz CD52 SE) is probably about to give up the ghost: the CD drawer is becoming very juddery when opening or closing and occasionally sticks halfway. Both the hi-fi shops I've contacted say that it would be easier and not much dearer to buy a new player than to fix my current one. Are they likely to be correct, or are they just trying to drum up business? I know there have been big advances in technology since I bought it, but it still seems a relatively minor fault to have to replace the entire player for.

And can you recommend a decent CD player in the £150 - £200 price range? Another Marantz? (I like the sound of my current system.) One of the cheaper Cambridge Audios? (I'd probably be buying from Richer Sounds in Glasgow, if that helps)

[OldTechie]

Some people think old valve amps sound better than modern kit. They are wrong.

Really? I have no complaints about the EAR (Esoteric Audio Research) preamp or power amps that I've now had from new for around a quarter of a century; very much the reverse, in fact - and I've only ever had one valve go in that time...

I was not saying that valve amps cannot perform brilliantly, just that the ones of the Quad II vintage were not up to modern standards. Some would claim that they are better than your EAR kit which is (relatively) modern.

Actually, the amplifier itself was OK apart from being a bit short of power by modern standards, not being as quiet as it should be and offering an only-just-adequate damping factor. It really only worked at its best with 15 ohm or 4 ohm loudspeakers (a series/parallel setting on the output transformer.)

What let the system down was the preamp. It did not have enough gain in the first stage to get the equalisation for records right, so it was lacking in low bass. That did not matter with my Rogers Cadet II speakers - they would not have reproduced the low bass even if it had been present. Also the input valve was microphonic. It was isolated from the chassis mechanically, but even so it would pick up sound from the speakers and add its own characteristic pinging resonance to the music. The FM tuner drifted off tune, and the transistorised bolt-on stereo decoder was far from distortion free. The AM tuner was fantastic, but when they changed from 10kHz channel spacing to 9KHz spacing in the laste 60's, its 10KHz notch filter became irrelevant. They also limited the transmitted AM bandwidth to 4.5kHz. Before that, the Light Programme on LW had a full 15kHz of audio.

I don't think my Quad kit restored to as-new would fare at all well in a head-to-head comparison with your more modern EAR kit.

There is a pair of Quad IIs on Ebay for £1999 - no doubt in much bettter condition than mine. However, I think you would get something from Richer Sounds inside the £500 range that outperformed them.

[Beef Oven]

I don't think my ageing Naim CD player is gonna last much longer (skipping is coming in now and then, despite a brand new puck), so I may need to rethink my entire system.

l want to sell off my amplification and loudspeakers and plug my laptop into these http://www.avihifi.co.uk/adm9.html

Why am I considering this at my most challenging financial position for 10 years!!!!?

.