P3ESR and Quad Amplification

[Labarum]

My first post. I am just dipping my toe in the water!

My big box system is on its way to Cyprus to use in a large detached bungalow in Nicosia

Squeezebox Classic, Beresford Caiman DAC, Quad 405-2 refurbished by 405man - Quart 980s German Tower Loudspeakers.

These Quarts were in the same price bracket as Quad Electrostatics when I bought them 20 odd years ago.
http://www.hifi-wiki.de/index.php/MB_Quart_980_S

The Quad 405 I added after I stopped spinning CDs and took to streaming via the Squeezebox - the "Preamp" function of the Caiman DAC was sufficient, so my Quad 77 Integrated amp was moved to the study after finally retiring a 30 year old Sudden A48 where it had powered the study system for many a year.

Now I have retired we have a flat in UK and will spend a lot of time in Cyprus, so I need a system for a UK flat with a fairly large lounge.

I am considering:

Squeezebox Classic, Beresford Caiman DAC, Quad 77 Integrated Amp, P3ESR and Sony MDR-F1 Headphones

My question: Will the pre-amp section and remote volume control of the Quad 77 compromise the system?

I could sell the Quad 77 Stack and invest in another refurbished 405 or buy a modern power amp.

I never thought the 77 strained to drive the big Quarts, but when I got the Quad 405 I thought it more weighty and more detailed than the 77.

Any Harbeth, however, will be far easier to drive than the Quarts - and, I guess, more revealing.

Any ideas? Any suggestions.

[garmtz]

Re: P3ESR and Quad Amplification

I think you will be fine with the Quad 77!

[s.a.b.]

Re: P3ESR and Quad Amplification

I own both the Quad 99 and 909 power amps. I actually prefer the smaller 99 with my Harbeth C7s as it's a bit leaner/crisper sounding (though I'm sure many audiophiles would prefer the 909).

My guess is that you'll be fine with the 77.

[John Geisen]

Re: P3ESR and Quad Amplification

I agree with both of the forum members above. While the P3ESR will let you hear the differences in amps, they are not fussy nor difficult to drive. Start with the 77 and if for some reason you feel you want to change later you can always explore alternatives.

John

[Ferdinand777]

the P3esr are easier to drive than the predecessor.
I drove them successfully with a 60watt LFD amp and it was great.
Much to my surprise they sounded fabulous with the 14watter leben CS300x int amp.
Great little speakers !!

[DSRANCE]

Brian, you know my views already.....

DO IT!!!!!

[Miles MG]

Define please

I own both the Quad 99 and 909 power amps. I actually prefer the smaller 99 with my Harbeth C7s as it's a bit leaner/crisper sounding (though I'm sure many audiophiles would prefer the 909).

My guess is that you'll be fine with the 77.

I have only just received my P3ESRs and use a Quad 303 to power them.
I have no idea what ' leaner/crisper ' is. I just know the speakers sound fabulous...

[broadsword]

The QUAD 77 tilt functionality

Does anyone have any experience of the Quad 77 Integrated? Considering one to partner my C7s, eg. I'd like to know how easy the tilt control is to use via the remote.

[Labarum]

No tilt

Does anyone have any experience of the Quad 77 Integrated? Considering one to partner my C7s, eg. I'd like to know how easy the tilt control is to use via the remote.

The Quad 77 Integrated Amp has no tone controls - tilt or conventional.

You have to go to the Quad 77 Pre-amp for tone controls.

[broadsword]

Remote control?

The Quad 77 Integrated Amp has no tone controls - tilt or conventional.

You have to go to the Quad 77 Pre-amp for tone controls.

I could see there were no tone/tilt controls on the amp itself but hoped this might be an option via the remote commander.

[Labarum]

Quad 77

I could see there were no tone/tilt controls on the amp itself but hoped this might be an option via the remote commander.

Sorry. A vain hope I have had a Quad 77 Integrated for many years and from new. It is a fine Amp. I no longer use the remote - it never was that reliable and is now most unreliable. But no, the 77 Integrated has no tone controls.

Have you a manual? I have been meaning you scan my set and upload them to a forum that makes the generally available.

77 Integrated Amp Reviewed here

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...57752919,d.ZG4

77 Pre reviewed here

http://www.meridian-audio.info/publi...%5B1592%5D.pdf

[Miles MG]

Quad tilt: inexpensive

The Quad 77 Integrated Amp has no tone controls - tilt or conventional.

You have to go to the Quad 77 Pre-amp for tone controls.

I drive my new P3ESRs with a Quad 34/303. The tilt controls are very useful. I use a little bass cut on occasion with some CDs. I was using a passive preamp. previously the 34 is very useful with its controls.

The combination of Quad amplification and the P3ESRs work together superbly, and I purchased both the amplifier and control unit at a very reasonable cost.

Martyn Miles .

[Andy264]

Quad 303 v Quad 303 monoblocks and P3ESRs

Given the difference in cost between a standard, unmodified Quad 303 (say, for argument's sake, £150), a modified one (£400) and a pair of Quad 303 monoblocks (£400 for the donor pair and a further £500 - £600 to modify them professionally), is the monoblock route an expensive and unnecessary case of overkill? These costs also put you into Quad 909 or Elite QSP territory, more modern power amps with supposedly better components than the 30-year old 303. The theory, as I understand it, is that monoblocks improve stereo separation, but the stereo 303 with P3ESRs seems to be a great amplification match, so I wondered if any HUGgers have any experiences here.

This is my first post, so best wishes for a music-filled 2014.

Andy264

[DSRANCE]

Quad and value for money

I know amps aren't supposed to sound very different from each other, if at all, but damping factor extremes, along with clipping performance (as discussed elsewhere here) may well count for a lot of the difference, even if conventional distortion measurements don't these days.

The 77 integrated is a lovely sounding thing I remember, but currently despised because it's so limited outside of the complete system. I think I can now say that, in my experience and under non stressful conditions, good properly working examples of the 303, 606 series, 306 (possibly, but for pop/rock it's my least favourite Quad, along with the 34 preamp) should sound broadly the same, the main difference between them all into something like P3ESR's I suspect, being in terms of percussion 'slam,' for want of a proper word.

Apologies for being confused, but the 77 amp always sounded lovely with the original P3's, which are still great little boxes by the way. I'd better leave off before I go even more subjective, but to conclude, may I say that my admiration for most of Quad's power amps especially, has increased hugely in the last twenty years and it's lovely that these can easily be serviced and updated where necessary, by Quad and others.

A 303 in serviced stock form is fine for most speakers except the most current-hungry and although I never pushed mine, which I hope to have back in the coming months, I remember it (the 303 as a model) clipping very gently indeed. The cost of 'bodging' a mono pair is a bit silly in my view, as 606's are so good, so much more load tolerant (220W per channel into 4 ohms) and can be got in good order for under £500 still I believe.

Labarum will also be aware that I'm a closet fan of the 500 'pro' models, which look far 'meaner' in the flesh than they do in pictures, but best not say too much about these as prices are already getting silly

[willem]

QUAD demo

I still treasure the memory of a private (blind and level equalized) demonstration by Peter Walker that his amplifiers all sounded the same. The only reason to choose a particular model would be the power output that one needed, he said.

As for powering P3ESR's, I think a 303 should be just fine. These are not speakers for playing loudly in a large room. Getting my 1970 303 refurbished was a good investment for me, and did not cost a fortune. Parts like capacitors etc do age, and with modern components and slightly changed values for some parts to better suit modern sources like cd players, the sound seemed to have become more dynamic. It looked good on the scope as well.
Willem