Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
173.61.35.131
In Reply to: RE: That would be the Quad 303 of course! (nt) posted by longtimequadowner on September 03, 2014 at 17:17:04
In you're still following this thread, I completely agree on the 303. I've had my latest pair of 57s for almost 10 years (treble panels replaced with Wayne Piquet panels) and only recently got around to trying a recapped/serviced 303 after finally listening to Mr. longtimequadowners advice. I have tried many more expensive amps - mainly tube amps (and still use a pair of updated Eico UA1's) and the 57/303 just sounds right to me - tubelike with a very special synergy. Everyone who owns 57s should at least have one as a backup IMO. As for me, I spend my time NOT thinking about amps. Don
Follow Ups:
Yes I'm still following - it's an amazing lesson in audiophilia that soooo many people - even Quad owners - don't even bother trying the 303, and are probably so hypnotized by all the expensive sexy products out there that even when they do, their mind placebo's them that it can't be any good. You should have seen the relief on my face when I first hooked it up to my 63's - there was the ghost of my 57's with an extra octave of bass plus dynamics, basking in midrange beauty - with no *&^%*#$^ tubes - who needs it!
I've actually come to the belief now that Peter Walker was even more of a genius at designing amplifers than speakers - because the 606 in my massive room is as far as I can see a perfect amplifier, and it's a unique topology in the industry. For an amp that powerful to be simultaneously so fast and delicate with PRAT to die for - wow. I misjudged it for many, many years until I got it into a big room. I don't even play it loud, it's just the sheer image size. But for 57's and 63's in a smaller room it would still be the 303 for me - they can take the bit of midrange glorification of the 303 perfectly in stride to great effect.
The best news is both 303 and 606 absolutely radiate with my Creek OBH-12 - takes preamplifiers right off the table. Who needs it! They can truly reveal your source too - I've seen the Blue Circle USB thingee fall on it's face, but in a big room with my Creek+606 - $100 source that makes music and still puts on an imaging extravaganza. My micromega mydac is in the closet! Not so sure about it with 57's though, I think I rejected it there - different room though.
Religion is the world's oldest profession
Yes, I remember you mentioning the Creek OBH-12 before as well. I've never liked passives in my systems (I won't get into that now) and continue to use a tubed pre. However, based on the fact that I now have a bit too much gain for comfort with the 303, my growing exasperation with with tubes, and your spot-on observations about the 303, perhaps its time to try again - especially with the comparatively low price of admission :-)
You'll only have to put the creek at 1/10th volume - and it will sound great - I mean, it will be invisible. If anything it imparts a richness, but I simply think other passives impart a dryness. I'll stick with invisible as the best description...
Religion is the world's oldest profession
Edits: 09/10/14
I believe the 303 was an earlier Quad amp before the "current dumping" 405 and later 306 and 606--all subsequent Quad solid-state amps are just revisions of that same basic "dumping" circuit.
I still have a 606 that I used for 25 years to power first Boston A150s and then Totem Hawks. When I purchased it I compared it to many of the popular amps of the day, including Bryston, Adcom and Nad. Much preferred the 606. Sure I prefer my Rogue Stereo 90 tube amp these days, but I think the 606 is a very good amp for the price used ones are going for these days. Apparently with some mods these old amps can be kicked into an even higher level.
Yes the 405 and later models (606 and 909) are based on a different circuit to the earlier 303. I am not exactly sure on the specs and circuit but the 405, 606 and 909 are much higher gain than usual for a power amp, and their respective matching preamps (44, 66 and 99) have lower voltage gain/output than usual to match with them. My friend Satie (who is quite technical) suggested than the high gain of the 606 puts it past the the linear portion of the amp gain stage and that brings a slight roughness to the sound. I did compare the 606 to a few other amps a few years ago and there is perhaps some grain there, but you have to listen quite hard to hear it.The 33/303 have a more usual gain configuration, but don't produce anything like as much power as the later Quad amps into a lower impedance load. The 606 and 909 will drive a set of Maggie 3 series fine (I used to use the 606 with a pair of MGIIIa with no problem), and of course the 303 don't drive Maggies well but might indeed match extremely nicely with the 57, and have the right sort of power needed. Maybe not quite a good as the Quad II monoblocks, but much cheaper.
Edits: 09/10/14
Yes there is a bit of grain in the 606 compared to my tube amp, but IMO every (reasonably priced and some not so reasonable) solid state power amp I have heard has some grain. That's a reason to love tubes.
However the 606 and other Quad current dumping amps can be renewed and improved--there are many ideas and sources on the net just google Quad 606 mods. One very interesting site is www.quadmodsusa.com Much better parts including new output devices can be installed. Who knows what a souped up 606 could actually sound like? Probably killer.
Thinking of upgrading my 606 for the next quarter century of service......
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: