Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Expand Messages
  • ddm261125
    I still have that issue,your review pushed me to buy the 306 for my esl 63s! I don t own the 63s anymore,but still have the 306 which works flawesly with
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I still have that issue,your review pushed me to buy the 306 for my esl 63s! I don't own the 63s anymore,but still have the 306 which works flawesly with Gradient Rev.,esl57,C,Wegas...and lot more that used to have.Before buying the 306 I used to have various much more expansive ss and tube amps costing 10 times more,but none of them sounded as good as to 306! After that I bought and own two more pieces and the 909 as well,and couldn't be happier,no more amp issue for me!I am very thankful to you REG for this 'discovery'!


      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
      >
      > Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
      > I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
      > amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
      > were not regarded as essentially perfect then
      > the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
      > to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
      > they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
      > would be expected a priori to have little effect
      > except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
      > off did not really seem in measured term large
      > enough to amount to much.
      >
      > Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
      > bought at the time). One striking feature is
      > that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
      > Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
      > But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
      > sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
      > other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
      > midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.
      >
      > Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
      > is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
      > really calls for explanation. How can what is
      > really a very small droop in the extreme top
      > (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
      > for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
      > the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
      > better with the speaker....
      >
      > Until people can answer such questions, then
      > discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
      > except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
      > I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
      > today. Hence the title of this message.
      >
      > REG
      >
    • Will_H
      The latest version of Quad s current dumping amp (now called the QSP) is supposed to sound very good too. The Canadian distributor was very high on it when I
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        The latest version of Quad's current dumping amp (now called the QSP) is supposed to sound very good too. The Canadian distributor was very high on it when I talked to him about it at the Montreal show. He said there was supposed to be a rave review in the next UHF magazine. In retrospect, I should have taken him up on his offer for a great deal on the demo unit. MSRP is a very fair $2000 CDN.

        Sent from my iPad

        On 2013-06-20, at 12:51 PM, "ddm261125" <ddm261125@...> wrote:

        > I still have that issue,your review pushed me to buy the 306 for my esl 63s! I don't own the 63s anymore,but still have the 306 which works flawesly with Gradient Rev.,esl57,C,Wegas...and lot more that used to have.Before buying the 306 I used to have various much more expansive ss and tube amps costing 10 times more,but none of them sounded as good as to 306! After that I bought and own two more pieces and the 909 as well,and couldn't be happier,no more amp issue for me!I am very thankful to you REG for this 'discovery'!
        >
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
        >> I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
        >> amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
        >> were not regarded as essentially perfect then
        >> the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
        >> to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
        >> they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
        >> would be expected a priori to have little effect
        >> except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
        >> off did not really seem in measured term large
        >> enough to amount to much.
        >>
        >> Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
        >> bought at the time). One striking feature is
        >> that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
        >> Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
        >> But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
        >> sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
        >> other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
        >> midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.
        >>
        >> Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
        >> is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
        >> really calls for explanation. How can what is
        >> really a very small droop in the extreme top
        >> (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
        >> for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
        >> the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
        >> better with the speaker....
        >>
        >> Until people can answer such questions, then
        >> discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
        >> except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
        >> I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
        >> today. Hence the title of this message.
        >>
        >> REG
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Fred
        My 306 has also worked impeccably since new and I think the bandlimiting is caused by bridge circuitry involved in a high quality class A amplifier controlling
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          My 306 has also worked impeccably since new and I think the bandlimiting is caused by bridge circuitry involved in a high quality class A amplifier controlling the class B power stages as if the whole amplifier were class A.  A distinct advantage would be in limiting extreme low frequencies that would otherwise be dissipated as heat and greater bass distortion.  The "softer sonic character" perhaps explained by available energy directed more cleanly and with improved stability within the audible range.

          Fred.



          From: Robert <regtas43@...>
          To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, 20 June 2013, 1:19
          Subject: [regsaudioforum] Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

           
          Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
          I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
          amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
          were not regarded as essentially perfect then
          the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
          to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
          they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
          would be expected a priori to have little effect
          except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
          off did not really seem in measured term large
          enough to amount to much.

          Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
          bought at the time). One striking feature is
          that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
          Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
          But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
          sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
          other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
          midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.

          Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
          is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
          really calls for explanation. How can what is
          really a very small droop in the extreme top
          (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
          for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
          the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
          better with the speaker....

          Until people can answer such questions, then
          discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
          except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
          I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
          today. Hence the title of this message.

          REG



        • Paul
          I m pretty sure I read that DH stated the Quad 606 was used to voice the Spendor 1/2e. That s a plus in my book.
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm pretty sure I read that DH stated the Quad 606 was used to voice the Spendor 1/2e. That's a plus in my book.

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
            >
            > Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
            > I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
            > amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
            > were not regarded as essentially perfect then
            > the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
            > to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
            > they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
            > would be expected a priori to have little effect
            > except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
            > off did not really seem in measured term large
            > enough to amount to much.
            >
            > Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
            > bought at the time). One striking feature is
            > that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
            > Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
            > But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
            > sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
            > other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
            > midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.
            >
            > Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
            > is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
            > really calls for explanation. How can what is
            > really a very small droop in the extreme top
            > (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
            > for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
            > the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
            > better with the speaker....
            >
            > Until people can answer such questions, then
            > discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
            > except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
            > I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
            > today. Hence the title of this message.
            >
            > REG
            >
          • Robert
            This is indeed what occurs to me--that maybe the way it sounds is somehow not so much from the bandlimiting as such as from the fact that it works better in
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              This is indeed what occurs to me--that maybe the way
              it sounds is somehow not so much from the bandlimiting
              as such as from the fact that it works better in band.

              It is interesting how people are in love with mathematics
              whether or not the mathematics really has anything to do with
              what is going on. Everyone learns in engineering school
              that when you trancate the Fourier transform, the inverse transform
              changes and the less you truncate it the closer you get to the original signal. So engineers take away the idea that broader
              bandwidth is more accurate. The mathematics is correct of course.
              Mathematics is always correct(almost always anyway--I just found
              out recently that in a thrity year old result close to my
              own field of work it seems there may be a major error, hitherto unobserved).

              But the mathematics may have nothing to do with anything that
              is really happening. Certainly the mathematics suggests that
              since the receiving item--the ear/brain --is itself bandlimited
              then at a certain point the increased bandwidth may not have
              any effect. But there is more to it than that--the devices involved,
              speakers in particular, and, comes to that, ears may be
              disturbed by out of band signals in fact. I think there is considerable evidence that ultra wide band width electronics
              have a lot of problems. I think of the Spectral DMA50 I owned
              briefly. It would shut down without a lot of RF filtering
              on its power input. It was really messed up--and even with the filtering it worked very poorly. This was all in the interests
              of super wide bandwidth, pursued as far as I could tell on
              just the same pseudo-mathematical argument as the one above.

              HP used to say that he could guess the bandwidths(upper end) of
              amplifiers from listening to them. No reason to doubt that--but
              if you think about it what this shows is probably not that wider
              is better but that wider is more likely to be screwed up!
              The most obvious way that one could hear really wide bandwidth
              way on out there is if it is messing up in band as a consequence
              either on its own or from driving the tweeters out of band in
              weird ways or the like.

              Like many articles of faith, the idea that ultrawide bandwidth
              is desirable is really not based on much at all. It could
              still be right but it is built on sand theoretically(as I discussed
              way back in 1991)


              Incidentally, people say that amplifiers like the Quad current
              dumpers are not "detailed". But this is actually not so.
              One hears a lot of detail. It is just slightly different detail!


              REG

              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
              >
              > My 306 has also worked impeccably since new and I think the bandlimiting is caused by bridge circuitry involved in a high quality class A amplifier controlling the class B power stages as if the whole amplifier were class A.  A distinct advantage would be in limiting extreme low frequencies that would otherwise be dissipated as heat and greater bass distortion.  The "softer sonic character" perhaps explained by available energy directed more cleanly and with improved stability within the audible range.
              >
              >
              > Fred.
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: Robert <regtas43@...>
              > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Thursday, 20 June 2013, 1:19
              > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
              >
              >
              >
              >  
              > Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
              > I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
              > amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
              > were not regarded as essentially perfect then
              > the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
              > to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
              > they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
              > would be expected a priori to have little effect
              > except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
              > off did not really seem in measured term large
              > enough to amount to much.
              >
              > Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
              > bought at the time). One striking feature is
              > that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
              > Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
              > But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
              > sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
              > other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
              > midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.
              >
              > Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
              > is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
              > really calls for explanation. How can what is
              > really a very small droop in the extreme top
              > (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
              > for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
              > the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
              > better with the speaker....
              >
              > Until people can answer such questions, then
              > discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
              > except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
              > I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
              > today. Hence the title of this message.
              >
              > REG
              >
            • Robert
              The BBC used the Quad 405 for a long time. I believe that Alan Shaw used it at Harbeth too for a long time--perhaps even now. (I do not know about that) REG
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 20, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                The BBC used the Quad 405 for a long time.
                I believe that Alan Shaw used it at Harbeth too
                for a long time--perhaps even now. (I do not
                know about that)
                REG

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <pjdami92@...> wrote:
                >
                > I'm pretty sure I read that DH stated the Quad 606 was used to voice the Spendor 1/2e. That's a plus in my book.
                >
                > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Way back in issue 71 , more than 20 years ago,
                > > I reviewed the Quad 606 and 306 "current dumping"
                > > amplifiers and pointed out that if these amplifiers
                > > were not regarded as essentially perfect then
                > > the field of High End audio was in a sense obligated
                > > to explain why. I als pointed out that ,while
                > > they were deliberately bandlimited, these limitations
                > > would be expected a priori to have little effect
                > > except in the deep bass--that the top end roll
                > > off did not really seem in measured term large
                > > enough to amount to much.
                > >
                > > Today, as it happens, I fastened up the 30(which I
                > > bought at the time). One striking feature is
                > > that after twenty years, it still works perfectly.
                > > Others have blown up one way and another--it has not.
                > > But th most striking thing perhaps is that it
                > > sounds just as I recalled--and qite different from
                > > other amps being noticeably softer on top and more
                > > midrange-y than usual broad band solid state amps.
                > >
                > > Musically pleasing actually. But different. And it
                > > is this difference which, as t did 20 years ago,
                > > really calls for explanation. How can what is
                > > really a very small droop in the extreme top
                > > (less than moving slightly off axis say) account
                > > for the much softer sonic character? Or is it that
                > > the Quad amp in some sense works better, interacts
                > > better with the speaker....
                > >
                > > Until people can answer such questions, then
                > > discussion of amplifiers can really not go anywhere
                > > except in the most purely phenomoninological way.
                > > I said these things long ago. They seem to remain true
                > > today. Hence the title of this message.
                > >
                > > REG
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.