Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Dave xxxxx wrote:
Listen to the Archers the old way ;-)

Through the BBC digital system?

It was digital when the QC24 was still available new...............

Was ? The Quad QC 24 only been on the market about four years
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonde...0Pre%20Amp.htm

Valve complement 1 x 6111 twin triode
Total Harmonic Distortion at 1V RMS 0.2%, 0.02% @ 1W
Frequency Response 5Hz to 50kHz (+0 / -0.5dB)
Hum and Noise better than -80dB
Line Stage Gain 15dB
Recommended minimum load 50k ohms
Inputs 5 x line level
2 x buffered tape loops


Dave

In article ,
Dave xxxxx wrote:
Listen to the Archers the old way ;-)

Through the BBC digital system?

It was digital when the QC24 was still available new...............

Was ? The Quad QC 24 only been on the market about four years
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonde...0Pre%20Amp.htm

Valve complement 1 x 6111 twin triode
Total Harmonic Distortion at 1V RMS 0.2%, 0.02% @ 1W
Frequency Response 5Hz to 50kHz (+0 / -0.5dB)
Hum and Noise better than -80dB
Line Stage Gain 15dB
Recommended minimum load 50k ohms
Inputs 5 x line level
2 x buffered tape loops

What a dreadful spec. What did it cost?

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dave xxxxx wrote:
Listen to the Archers the old way ;-)

Through the BBC digital system?

It was digital when the QC24 was still available new...............

Was ? The Quad QC 24 only been on the market about four years
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonde...0Pre%20Amp.htm

Valve complement 1 x 6111 twin triode
Total Harmonic Distortion at 1V RMS 0.2%, 0.02% @ 1W
Frequency Response 5Hz to 50kHz (+0 / -0.5dB)
Hum and Noise better than -80dB
Line Stage Gain 15dB
Recommended minimum load 50k ohms
Inputs 5 x line level
2 x buffered tape loops

What a dreadful spec. What did it cost?

£750 not too worried about the specs its what it sounds like that matters,
and it sounds very good. Some companies valve specs are worse than Quads
Croft comes to mind but the sound fantastic.

Reason its going is, my health is quiet bad and getting up and down at times
is not that easy so have bought Quad 99 pre amp with remote


Dave

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:47:48 GMT, "Dave xxxxx"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Dave xxxxx wrote:
Listen to the Archers the old way ;-)

Through the BBC digital system?

It was digital when the QC24 was still available new...............

Was ? The Quad QC 24 only been on the market about four years
http://www.davewhitter.pwp.blueyonde...0Pre%20Amp.htm

Valve complement 1 x 6111 twin triode
Total Harmonic Distortion at 1V RMS 0.2%, 0.02% @ 1W
Frequency Response 5Hz to 50kHz (+0 / -0.5dB)
Hum and Noise better than -80dB
Line Stage Gain 15dB
Recommended minimum load 50k ohms
Inputs 5 x line level
2 x buffered tape loops


Whoops, I was thinking of the original Quad valved gear from the early
'60s! :-(

Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century is
beyond reason........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:24:41 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century is
beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

Peter Harris
--
"But we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

In article ,
Peter Harris wrote:
Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century is
beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

So why isn't every recording or broadcast made with valve equipment?

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Harris wrote:
Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century is
beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

So why isn't every recording or broadcast made with valve equipment?


Try 'cheapness', 'expediency', 'easiness', 'laziness' or 'profitability' -
the use of 'non-valve' equipment has certainly got bugger all to do with
'sound quality'......

Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Harris wrote:
Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century
is beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

So why isn't every recording or broadcast made with valve equipment?


Try 'cheapness', 'expediency', 'easiness', 'laziness' or
'profitability' - the use of 'non-valve' equipment has certainly got
bugger all to do with 'sound quality'......


What about the fact that valves add high levels of distortion?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote on umra on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Harris wrote:
Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century
is beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

So why isn't every recording or broadcast made with valve equipment?


Try 'cheapness', 'expediency', 'easiness', 'laziness' or
'profitability' - the use of 'non-valve' equipment has certainly got
bugger all to do with 'sound quality'......


What about the fact that valves add high levels of distortion?


The machine's only going to be used in the Brookfield milking parlour,
so it's not going to be at all apparent against all the background
noise.

[Well, what do you expect as a response if you post this to
uk.media.radio.archers?]
--
Iain Archer

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Harris wrote:
Why the frell anyone would make a valved unit in the 21st century
is beyond reason........................

They tend to sound bloody lovely, isn't that good enough?

So why isn't every recording or broadcast made with valve equipment?


Try 'cheapness', 'expediency', 'easiness', 'laziness' or
'profitability' - the use of 'non-valve' equipment has certainly got
bugger all to do with 'sound quality'......


What about the fact that valves add high levels of distortion?


They do?? How high?