A Journey Through the World of Preamps – and the Genius of the Quad Tilt Control

Warning - Long Post

Bit of a ramble this one, but wanted to pass on some experiences messing with preamps for comment, advice and/or hoots of derision.

It all started when I got the Yams and was initially running it through a Densen Beat B100. I liked it, bags more detail than my previous Kefs (Q55.2 which I never liked that much), but bright and forward on a lot recordings and surprisingly bass light. Some repositioning and homemade slab/bubblewrap/superball concoctions did a lot to help on the bass front – suspended floors can be a pain - thanks for helping with this Pete (Zanash) - I will get round to trying those stands some time I promise.

At some point last year (may even have been the year before) I acquired a WAD K5881 power amp which after an initial trial with the Passive pre side of the Beat sat doing not a lot until late last year when I tried it with the active pre side of an old Sansui integrated and rather liked what I heard, a bit bright and grainy when really pushed and less detailed but a lot more laid back (and with tone controls – aminor obsession which we will return to). Some replacement caps and a bit of tweakery from Pete brought out more detail, but had a downside in that it became a lot brighter.

I’d initially tried the Beat pre side but I had dismissed it because it sounded a bit flat and lifeless using the Phono pre I had at the time, CD was okay. I tried it again, but now with a different Phonostage (Heed Questar) and its starting to sound very good, clean and grain free, with much better soundstaging. Lacking a little body maybe but there you go. I think the second more successful run with the Beat was facilitated by the discovery of two nasty carbon pots on the inputs which had been used I guess to reduce the WAD’s sensitivity, with these out, it worked very well … no tone controls though . At least I know the seemingly bright character of the Yams can be tamed and given that its via a passive, not it would seem by subtraction of something.

I now acquired another WAD power amp, this time a Kat88. Better than the 5881, certainly with a bit more bottom to it. The Densen (which so far as I can tell in pre mode is basically an Alps Blue plus input switches passive) and the Kat88 are the reference here if you like.

I’ve tried several alternative preamps in there since (admittedly none very expensive … with one possible exception)

• A DIY* Alps Blue potted passive with relay switches on the inputs – sounded pretty much the same as the Densen, which is to be expected I guess - fast, clean, detailed with good soundstage but maybe lacks a bit of body – pretty much how I like it

• A DIY* Stepped Attenuator passive with mechanical switches – didn’t like this – very harsh on the peaks (It didn’t pass the Emmylou Harris test, put it that way)

• An active valve pre – an old but revalved Beard CA506 – this was interesting as it was switchable between active and passive. The Phono preamp was noisy and not that good. The active linestage was better though it never sounded quite right to me – hard to put my finger on it, but it just didn’t sound in control. The Passive sounded – like the Densen pretty much J

• An Audiolab 8000C – a little lifeless I thought and could get a bit harsh when cranked and the inputs are way too sensitive (or its gain is way too much for the WAD), however it did confirm that my hankering for tone controls to make certain records more palatable, if not necessarily Hifi, is not mere whimsy.

• An MFA TVC – wow detail, soundstaging and maybe a tad more bottom end … great, except its mighty bright (I understand it could just be a system matching – who knows maybe the damn thing is so transparent its blowing a raspberry at the rest of the system) … does it pass the Emmylou test? Hmmm. Dunno if its TVCs in general or this implementation, but its not for me. Sounded not unlike the stepped attenuator to me.

• Finally, Pete (Zanash) lent me his old and slightly modded (different opamps I believe) Quad 77 pre …. It sounds very good indeed. Passes the Emmylou test with flying colours, a nice fullbodied sound, bass goes a bit lower I’d say and you can crank it and crank it without whincing. Not quite as fast and detailed as the Densen passive and soundstage is a little fluffier, but very liveable.

If you are wondering why I tried the various flavours of passive it was partly to see what influence different sorts of volume control had (quite a lot it would seem), but also if I found a passive that did everything I wanted sonically the plan was (may still be) to build one, probably into the old Sansui case with tape monitoring and use off board tone controls like an X-Tone or a similar (in principle) valve driven German unit recommended by Thorsten. I’d take the tones in and out using tape monitoring.

The downside to the Quad is its pig ugly and the remote is horrible. I don’t use a remote and don’t really want one, I like my amps with knobs on so to speak and Auntie says it looks like an 80s computer game console.

The upside are the rather unusual Quad tone controls. Instead of the usual crude bass and treble cut and boost, meeting somewhere in the middle, It has a tilt control, slight bass boost and cut and an optional filter at the top end. I’ve been messing with it all weekend and have come to the conclusion that if you have a lot of records, covering a wide time span, not all of which are in top condition (pretty much describes my vinyl), then this arrangement is actually pure genius.

Most records don’t need it, but some records are transformed. An example is my vinyl copy of the Queen is Dead, which is a very bright and thin sounding pressing. A +1/-1 tilt (+2/-2db I think) and it just sounds so right. It also seems to be able to clean up the sound of a lot of early 60s British recordings, which can sometimes sound a bit hashy either through wear or primitive recording techniques – I think the big American labels were way ahead on this front back then.

So? That’s a lot. What next. Does anyone have thoughts on the Quad 44, how do the early v late models differ and any tweakery to bring out the best in it? They are reasonably priced, have full service backup, look impressively built, and have yet more sophisticated tilt, bass boost, and filter controls than the 77. There are several places which offer recaps and tweaks (better op amps mainly but in one case the input switches as well) and seem to be very flexible in terms of the input modules available. Any thoughts on these tweaks?

I know the Quads these days don’t seem to be exactly fashionable, but is this a prejudice based on fact or is it just fashion?

And before this could possibly turn into a flame war on the “If you need tone controls you are deaf/your system’s rubbish” variety, please don’t … I have very specific requirements which are a result of having a fair few great, but not greatly recorded/pressed/mastered/whatever records. I don’t believe that the neutral hair shirt approach is a panacea for all records and recording, though it may be just your bag.

Interestingly whilst I’ve borrowed Pete’s Quad, he’s borrowed the Beard and in his setup seems to rate it better than the Quad.

* I didn’t DIY them Pete did and thanks for your help in all this by the way.

(with apologies for cross posting to Wig Wam)

 

If you wanted a more modern amplifier with such a control, the NAD M3 has spectral tilt, in addition to bass and treble controls.

 

That's interesting. How much are they? and any idea how effective/easy to use it is?

I have to say part of the appeal of the 44 in particular is the huge degree of flexibility offered using the filter/slope control, while at the same time having a simple setting, the Tilt control itself, that Auntie can get her head round without resorting to a load of button pushing and menus ie. its a knob and its use is obvious. She does use it almost as much as I do.

I don't know about the 66 or 99, which ming as badly as the 77 ... sorry Pete , but the 77 has a little less flexibility in this area. Using the controls on the 77 doesn't seem to have any negative impact on the sound, so long as you use them subtly, but it has less flexibility than the 44, at least from looking at the manual (praise be for the HiFiEngine). Also the 44 looks eminently fixable by the local HiFi blacksmith,whereas the later models don't.

 

The M3 is the S300's replacement and plays in the same £1500 ballpark. It's a big integrated.

 

Ah yes I just did a goggle ... more than scrooge here wants to spend though and being a simple soul I'd rather have a knob.

An irrational foible maybe ... I've managed to declutter the number of remotes in the front room down to zero and if possible would want to try and keep it thataway. And I'm allergic to little menu screens with multifunction buttons, they just aren't immediate enough.

Hence the 44 query. Assuming its not an irretrievable sonic lemon it looks perfect ... or at least worth a try.

 

I'm not sure what is the problem people have with old Quad pre-amps. I think it's a fashion thing, the way some things become flavour of the month (ART speakers on Wigwam, currently Raven turntables on PFM), and other things fall out of favour for no reason. (Remember a time, not so long ago, when nobody would have touched a Garrard 301 or 401 with the proverbial sterilised bargepole?) I used a 33 for 20 years and got splendid service out of it - and Dave Pritchard's Net Audio mods improved it not at all to my ears (I still have it in reserve). I then acquired a 44 and it sounded splendid through a vintage 303 until the 303 finally expired after 27 years' continuous faithful service. Needless to say, I'll be getting it fixed.

The 44 filter controls are great - I use them only for some of my older records, but they can make a big difference. I think that it was John Atkinson on "Stereovile" who once said that Quad made equipment for music lovers, not for audiophiles. This was one of the few things that Mr. A. ever got right, and I guess it explains why I love old Quads and always will.

 

Funny whilst you're talking about this. It reminded me of an article I read recently talking about a hideously expensive phono stage. It talked about the differing eq's used at various points in time by different record companies, hence my old Decca's sound better than the old DG's because of different settings used in the mastering process. Not all LP's are RIAA standard. It made me think about that Graham Slee phono stage that is adjustable for different processes. Could be your notion is along those lines.

 

Mmm sorta. The Slee is a good product and reasonable at the price just as an RIAA stage but it isn't especially cheap - its value if you want a really good RIAA stage and really need to have adjustable EQ, if that makes sense. I had a chat with a chap over on PF about 78s and early vinyl and he had found a unit from the States that it seems may do the job creditably for much less (looks like hell though). I would actually like one because I have a few 78s I'd like to spin.

hang on, here

I say sorta because I do find a few 80s pressings a bit thin and bright for my tastes, but not uniformly so. A bit of downward tilt just lets me get at the music a bit easier. I been playing with it some more and anything half decently recorded/mastered or pressed needs nothing, it sounds great, but a lot of the Smiths and REM stuff I have don't (edited to say, but they sound a lot better with a bit of EQ). Maybe there was fashion for bright records in the 80s or maybe they just didn't care anymore .... I dunno its just a matter of taste really. But for me it seems to fix it.

 

Undoubtedly

Not really I'm not quite old enough (okay almost old enough ), but yeah I know what you mean. Other decks at the same time which were once the one and only have fallen from grace.

Well that the 44 and 34 look to be such eminently fixable "engineered" products is very much part of the appeal, same reason I love my NAS and my Michell. That they are relatively cheap and plentiful helps too.

I've spent some more time spinning some stuff and the 77 sounds pretty much what I've been looking for, but its an ergonomic eyesore (sorry again Pete). If an up to (or better than) spec 44 has the same character and if it sounds as good on this setup as the 77 then it'll be ideal. I see (currently which is why I'm asking ) no reason why it shouldn't . But preamps as I know better than I did do sound different.

Oh I tried the phono amp though ... Hmmm ... not sure about that but happy to use outboard anyway.

The 77 incarnation controls work a treat. More fine control on the high end filter would be interesting ... but the 44 has that. I just don't know if the 44 is or could be (with possibly a little work) the right preamp , on paper it looks good.

 

No more funny noises! ...?

For me the quad [and its my quad he's using ] is not transparent enough. The new opamps and pio's in the signal path have bought it forward ...it does need recapping though.

The 77 sounded better than the 44 I had before..but it had been unreliable and need several trips back to Quadsylvania.

I heard the tvc and to say it was uncomfortable would be an understatement .....which was a shame as I'd heard so many good things....

I'm currently using the beard 506.....sound very good with the cyber800's

My feeling is that a moded 44 [bought upto 2007 part specs] might be what he's looking for


saw this ....220118951836 on fleabay

 

I always wonder what the Beard CA506 pre amp sounds like, I am glad to read your comment. I think there was one for sale in ebay and the photo of the inside of the Beard shows that it is well made.

Hon

 

its the proverbial battleship.....sound is big round and bold ...huge image [active]....passive ...a little thin and soft [lack of attack ?]

 

how do you mean uncomfortable? like lack of remote etc.

to be frank i am a preamp fetishist and just in last 12 months i've changed 6 and tried at least as much.

apart from lack of remote which is an issue for some users, nothing can touch a TVC in their price range. MFA excluded - it's too expensive and not worth £1600.

i've just got an early version of it, under a different name and in a different housing - bent 102H. i bought it off audiogon for $400 (£200).

it sounds stupidly good, non-coloured, transparent and fast - compared to any active.

the only area where it may be inferior to a good active is drive and PRaT - it definitely doesn't have a jump factor of EAR 864 but in every other aspect it is as good, if not better (less coloured certainly it is).

however if "uncomfortable" meant lack of tone controls, ehmmm, sorry.:JOEL:

 

how can such a complicated circuit sound good?

it looks like a real 80s device - reminds of huge ARC preamps with tons of valves and acres of PCB. to get what is today's norm of transparence you'll need to throw out at least 80% of the parts

 

Uncle Ants,
As a fellow NS-1000 owner I'm interested by your comments about their bright character. What settings do you use on speaker L-pads?
Mine are at -3 and about -2.5. I've noticed that mine - which are slightly different from yours - have a definite on-axis sweet spot between the tweeter and the midrange driver. Sit with your ears above that and it does get brighter. That's what L-Pads are for of course.
The tilt control is an idea of simple genius.

 

I'm with anubisgrau here - but re price - hmmm this amp has outperformed several costing a lot more? They've had a price increase incidentally. But open the box and not a lot there - so what i suppose? I think TVC's sound terrific but it is a question of system balance and synergy as I am discovering

I've had several of Bill beards amp - and they do sound good. Infact back in the late 70's I had a triamped Beard system and many thought it was the best sound they had ever heard in the Universe. However in my present kit (and I do emphasis that this experience is in my system) the Audio Research has taken the biscuit - lovely sounding, musical, detailed, spacious - and damn it a remote control so that i dont have to step over the dog!

 

I generally have them flat with the Densen ... which seems fine ... and have tried them on different settings with the different pre amps.

Interesting about the sweet spot, I shall do some headbobbing later Mine are probably a bit low. That said, I'm not one to sit in a sweet spot in general ... sometimes, but not always. Something I'm trying to get my head round with these speakers after having them two years now. They seem to take on a different character depending what you plug into them. I think I'd characterise them as bright, because when the amp setup isn't right that is usually how it manfests itself.

Anubisgrau, Maybe I shouldn't speak for Pete but I think he meant uncomfortably bright ... but he's more sensitive to a bright sound than I am. It wasn't a good match, put it that way. I'm not saying the unit itself is, One would need to hear it in other setups. I did find it interesting that two approaches which ought to major on neutraility and transparency (potted passive and TVC) should sound quite so different.

HiFi enthusiast - that is the beast - Its huge.

More playing with the 77 last night and yes it is a little veiled compared to the Densen, but its actually doing enough other stuff right, that I'm not sure I mind at all. Its less HiFi maybe, but more fun. I think I'll need to live with it a little longer, but its more fun than I've had in a while. It certainly doesn't sound boring, maybe its just a great match with the Yams? Hey even my tired old Led Zep II sounded great and that has pretty much always sucked.

 

Yes, I have my eye on it Anyone have any idea how available the line level modules are? All the other modules on this one bar the line and disc are dins. I'll need the line for Phonostage and I do actually need a CD player .

 

hmmm, not sure if i've heard such a remark on TVCs. could be my limited experience but from what i heard /2 version of promitheus, bent 102H, and 3 really stellar DIY TVCs (one with S&B, another with handwound double-C core transformers worth a lot)/ i've never heard a bright TVC. actually some from the list lacked a bit more bite (at least to my old ears, promitheus for example).

i use ATC speakers that are notoriously sensitive to upstream components, especially to those that compress dynamics so there's nothing easier than to make them sounding shouty and unpleasant - i've even heard a number of valve pre's that sounded harsher than a Krell preamp I once had (my usual benchmark for a bad preamp).

than it's a known fact that TVCs are highly system dependant, especially that the TVC's lack of interference between the source and the amp makes their choice much more crucial than when using an active preamp that can smooth out rough edges on both ends. so - great they are, TVCs are far from being any sort of universal solution.

re beard sounding great back in the days - yes, it would be really fantastic if we could have a time machine to somehow compare glorious systems we've all heard long time ago with what is today being served to us. i also tend to believe that the best sound i've ever heard in my life was from a heavily modded thorens 125 with FR arm and supex head, with hafler pre/power amps and some esoteric DIY speaker design along the lines of spendor BC3 concept - all circa 1980. to be frank i am sure it would be trashed in most of the parameters by any slightly better sub-£3000 system of nowadays. but than memories are not made from the usual audiophile ingredients - and it gets increasingly difficult to get the similar thrill and excitement. too old we are!

good luck with your trail!

 

Yeah, complicated circuits and tone controls just kill the music.