Beautiful looking preamp with a compact form factor. Many British audio companies were quite innovative in terms of design back then. The measured performance is not great though. The output level of -4db before distortion is especially problematic. The noise at higher frequencies is also very odd. There may be some faulty components in there, old capacitors or failing transistors or perhaps even resistors that have drifted LOVE seeing the tone filter response curves…very cool that you measured them. One note: alas yes, while DIN inputs are a pain because they are non standard, in principle, DIN is a better standard electrically for unbalanced line level interconnects than “RCA”. The RCA plug/socket design is inherently non-optimal electrically and mechanically. audio signals are relatively easy to transmit over short lengths so we can get away with RCA unbalanced in most case, but in a better engineered timeline consumer equipment would have standardized around balanced XLR or at least unbalanced DIN. DIN is great for balanced as well, but the XLR standard is a just as good. Strange though that the phono input is RCA…I suppose QUAD did not make turntables and while they expected the preamp to be paired with their own amps, tuner, etc, they had to defer to the RCA standard for the phono.
I am glad you liked the tone response curves. I appreciate you taking the time to leave well thought out comments, and I am not sure if Quad made turntables either. The high end phono noise happens and some of that may be just a part of the problem with measuring phono stages. I will ask my friend to borrow the matching Quad power amp to review it as well- will be curious to see if it has high gain (>29dB or so).
@@gezparks9630 There was another comment that led me to believe they did not make record players, but I know very little about Quad. I will have the matching amp to test at some point- I don't think my friend has the FM4, though- thanks for the comments!
Thanks for this review, I have the (1967-1983) Quad 33 pre-amp, which also has a very unique design, with filters and a slope adjustment for them. It also outputs 500 mv, as the Quad 405 amplifier I have is set to receive that output. It's surprisingly loud, in my opinion. After using it for 9 years it broke, but 14 years later I had it fixed, and it has been great for 3 years now. Looking forward to what I guess will be a review of the 405!
I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I am not sure of the model # of the amp, but I will put in a request to the owner for whatever Quad amp he has for it- I did see them together at his house bought did not pay attention to the model #. Hopefully you will get more years out of it.
@@christopher86043 I have been looking at my friend's 405-2 the past week and it had some issues, even though he did not notice them the way he used the amp in his system. I am waiting for a pair of "clone" boards for them and if all goes well, I will do a video on my experience with the amp- probably several months from now.
@@vintageaudioreview Great! Mine is the first version of the 405, from 1976 (the 33 is also from that year). I bought them both used for $550 in 1997, and after 27 years of almost continuous use (I bought a Nikko pre-amp to replace the 33), a $100 repair which replaced a couple of small capacitors is all it has ever seemed to need. It's the most reliable piece of electronics I've ever owned (unlike the 33, lol). I believe the 405-2 is only slightly different. Looking forward to the review, and thanks for the reply!
I'm a bit puzzled that you say the tilt does very little as the difference in sound is huge on mine. Maybe it's a speaker thing, I use my Quad 34 with a set of JBL 4410 monitors that are quite revealing and the lift and tilt both really changes the sound profile. Unlike regular tone controls and EQ's that I tend to set the way I like it and rarely ever mess with again, I find the lift and tilt way more useful and tend to play around with them every time I change to a different album.
Thanks for the comment/question. I just looked at my graph showing how much the Tilt (treble control) changed the response and it was maybe 3dB at 10khz, which may not be as noticeable. The bass lift did have much more of an impact. Speakers are definitely going to be a part of the equation as to what you ultimately hear.. The Weekend the matching quad amp will be featured.
@@vintageaudioreview Looking forward to the matching amp. I recently changed my desktop setup from a Maverick tube dac and an old NAD power amp to a SMSL dac and class-d amp and it sounded neutral and boring as all hell, so I dug up the Quad preamp to spice things up a bit, and lift and tilt makes all the difference. Some years ago I used a parametric Yamaha YDP 2006 EQ with a set of really great sounding Dali speakers, but no matter what I did to the mid range with the EQ it all sounded the same - unlike the JBL's that reveals almost everything. Anyway I just wanted to say that tilt makes a lot of difference if your speakers are up for the task.. :-)
I guess the 34 is meant to play together with the poweramp 303 or 405. The Quad 44 his big brother has 0,5, 1 and even more watts on output. This is meant as Quad homie.
Thanks for the comment/info. Surprisingly, Quad gear gets a lot of views on my channel. Yes, the 34 was designed to play with the 405 in more than the good looks.
I thank you for the comment and question. There is no difference between them as far as I am concerned from an (audio) engineering point of view. But from my testing interface point of view there is as I do not have any cables or adapters that go from DIN to RCA or BNC which my analyzer uses, and the RCA/DIN cables that have been supplied with the few units I have tested are not great. If I were to test more DIN input devices I would consider making my own- I am not sure if there is a universal standard for the DIN connectors as I have seen some with more pins than others. I hope to test the matching power amp for this preamp at some point, so I will try to explain my comment about the DIN connectors in the video.
@@vintageaudioreview Thank you, seem to be on the same page, I guess. I understand the benefit of standing out from the manufacturing crowd, be it by exterior, or actual (hopefully) superior design, but these sockets are a bit... well, impractical to say the least. Naim is another make, that tried to persuade the market to utilize these, without much success, thankfully. One can argue over the benefit of balanced in domestic environment, but this is a non-starter, I think. Thanks again.
Thanks and I am glad for your comments. I will have to think about British Quirkiness.. My (British) KEF 107's could be a bit quirky of a design I suppose...
@@vintageaudioreviewNaim can be a bit quirky? But cool stuff. Hope you do the Quad amp. McIntosh put a “Tilt” on their latest equalizer… but don’t know if it’s anything like the QUAD implementation.
Now, you should compare this Quad to the "copies" that are coming out of China. They look similar but some of the functions that are on the original aren't on the 'clones'.
I was not aware of the Quad copies that you mention, but nothing surprises me. I would only be able to do that if one of my friends provided me one to test as I am not planning on purchasing one.....and they most likely would not as they have so much gear already...
If its anything like their ls3 5a speaker is a waste of time I had a pair and thought that they were a very poor copy sound wise and sold them on quick contry to the great reviews
@@michaelvincent8306 Thanks for the info. I am not familiar with that model, but you should only base a speaker purchase for more critical listening on your own ears...
