On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:50:41 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Dave xxxxx wrote:
Fleetie wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=5721046616

Yes, this popped up on one my saved Ebay searches.

400 smackers?! And it doesn't even have a phono stage? Good luck.


Got one bid already, expect it will go for about £550

phono stage not made yet, but thats going to be about another £800 when its
ready, Quad got rid of Andy who made the pre amp before he built the
matching phono stage silly buggers

But one to go with it by another company would be EAR 834P £715
http://www.walrus.co.uk/phono/phono.htm

If you want a Andy Grove designed phono stage, why not look at the WAD
Phono-II + PSU-II, IMHO in a different league from the EAR. £315 for the
two kits. If you need MC, then either use the WAD step-ups for some
Lundhall's (thats what I use, about £100 for the pair), or something by
another quality winder.

You beat me to it! Why pay Quad prices when you can have the same (or
better) sound quality *and* the security of knowing that you have used
the best possible components and have assembled them with infinite
care! If you really want to go the valve route, Andy's WAD kits are as
good as you'll find below ARC or C-J prices.
--

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.

"Peter Harris" wrote in message
...
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?



Er, sorry Peter "bloody lovely" isn't good enough and won't cut it, here in
ukra where pseudoscience is king. Try to confine your remarks to meaningful,
scientific terms like 'Rosy Glow' or 'Rose Tinted'.......

"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

"Dave Plowman (News)" said:

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?

You'll be surprised how many of them are.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Keith G wrote:

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?

I'm not sure if that matters in the context of FM reception. :-)

If you look back at the specs that were listed for the QC24 they included:

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

IIRC the limitations of UK FM give a similar level of distortion, and worse
FR and Noise than the above. Hence if your interest is in FM listening, the
QC24 may be fine. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:10:16 +0100, Peter Harris
wrote:

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?

It would seem so, although I prefer to get my lovely sound from the
recording (or not, as the case may be!), and not have it *imposed* by
colouration in the amplifier................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:08:44 +0100, "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?

Because not all performers (or sound engineers) want their sound to be
'warmed up'.

Try 'cheapness', 'expediency', 'easiness', 'laziness' or 'profitability' -

Try 'the highest possible accuracy to what came down the mic cable'.

the use of 'non-valve' equipment has certainly got bugger all to do with
'sound quality'......

I think you have that the wrong way round................. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering